Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Hebrew lessons

The Clarification:  "As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicans" (Greenwald).  Worth reading at the same time:  "Curious Bedfellows: The Neocon and Progressive Alliance to Destroy Donald Trump" (Giraldi):  "the Omidyar-Kristol connection".

I was going to link to an essential Daily Stormer meme on this very issue, only to find it is down again. Perhaps about this? (you'll have to use Tor to see it):  "A Very Jewish Coup: The Plot to Stop Brexit" (Diversity Macht Frei).

"Where is Jeffrey Goldberg?" (Hirsch). Here:  "50 Moments That Define an Improbable Presidency".  With the withdrawal from Syria, he's simply gone full Never Trumper.

"The War on Terror's Total Cost: $5,900,000,000,000" (DePetris).  Worth it for a Zionist Empire across the Middle East!  I'm always amazed that Assholians amassed the largest pile of wealth in human history and managed to squander themselves into a third world country with a few years of beshekeling.  Commenter wildjew righteously asks:  "Is this a Charles Lindbergh, America First website or is it just the author of this piece?"

Anti-war, wait, I've got some identity politics crap to distract you!:  "Tulsi Gabbard once touted working for anti-gay group that backed conversion therapy".  Note that these are positions she took as a teenager (!), she's since changed her position and apologized for things she said, and the real complaint is with her father.  Any port in a storm when you are warmongering.

You have to love Hopsicker's old-school conspiracy swagger:  "Governments, Gangsters, & the Trial of El Chapo Guzman".  I could quote from it, but read the whole thing! Mexican drug cartels, the Mossad, the NSA, Cartel ownership of the NYT, you know, the usual.

"'Serial predator': L.A. writer has been sounding alarm on Ed Buck for over a year" (Fitzsimons).

Tweets (Realistic Democrat):
"Who would ideally paint “The Conversion of Max Boot” on the ceiling of the National Cathedral?"

Sunday, January 13, 2019

A drunken woman in a frat house on some US campus

"The Sexual Subversion of Ukraine" (Jatras).  It's curious they added the social engineering identity politics to the mix, an unnecessary addition which might cause the whole project to fail with conservative church-going Ukrainians.

"Crisis in the Russian Orthodox Church: Who Will Take Over the Former Western European Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?" (Iliadi).  This is a separate attack on the Orthodox Church, different than the one being engineered in Ukraine.

"Meet Godfathers of Ukraine’s New Church: CIA, Neo-Nazis and Mafia" (arras).

"Ho Ho No?! Washington Bears Gifts For Kiev's Neo-Nazi Warmongering Regime" (Cunningham). The 'gift' is providing the mechanism for accelerated asset stripping from Ukraine.

These Nazi patches keep coming up in official Ukrainian government photos of politicians and 'militias':  "Familiar symbols? Ukraine's president poses with ‘elite’ paratrooper sporting…SS insignia (PHOTOS)".

"Slovakia: Locked and Loaded for the Putin Invasion" (Butler).  Mocking the US-bargain-basement-clear-out F-16s (though they are still far superior to the F-35s which the cool kids are flaunting!).  Life in Freedonia.

"Perfect Storm is Brewing in Georgia" (Kamens):
"Georgia is not better off as a result of this US “friendship”. It has been handed around like a drunken woman in a frat house on some US campus, from “advisor” to advisor, exploter to exploiter and scheme to scheme, none of which have any relation to what the local population, in this so-called democracy, regards as it welfare."
As far as I can tell,  Saakashvili-lover Brink hasn't yet been named ambassador.

"Israeli Supreme Court Refuses to Allow Discussion of Full Equal Rights & ‘State of All Its Citizens’ Bill in Knesset" (Adalah).  Legislative discussion of Jewish (actually Khazar) supremacism in Israel is, naturally, forbidden, along with the 'anti-Semitic' concept of human rights.

"In 2018, Israel’s mask finally came off" (Levy).  A noticeable legislative push to finalize the eliminationism (I assume in parallel with President Jared's plans).

"School Employee Sues District for Israel Loyalty Oath in Contract" (Cohn).  "When Jewish Leaders Decide To Harass College Kids — To ‘Support’ Israel" (Nathan-Kazis):
"In June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.

It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.

The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.

In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”

Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.

Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.

In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive tactics against their targets."

n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.

“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.


“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.


“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.


“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.



“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.



“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.



“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.



“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.



“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.



“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.



“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
In 2015, the Jewish community’s strategy shifted. Leaders who favored aggressive confrontation with perceived enemies, particularly critics of Israel, won out. Jewish and pro-Israel groups both in the U.S. and Israel used significant resources to direct hard-line, often secretive tactics against their targets.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.



“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.



“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.



“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
n June of 2015, one of the leading intellectuals of the Jewish establishment stood on stage in front of hundreds of American Jewish leaders and called for the community to picket outside the home of a college junior.
It was the keynote speech at the American Jewish Committee’s annual conference in a year when the American Jewish establishment was in the midst of what felt like a nervous breakdown.
The United States was on the brink of signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite the universal opposition of the Jewish establishment. The Israeli prime minister had traveled to Washington, D.C. to attack the U.S. president from the floor of the House of Representatives. And on the sidelines, restive mega-donors were maneuvering for control over the institutions of the establishment itself.
In the midst of all of this, the American-born Israeli rabbi Daniel Gordis mounted the podium at the AJC conference, his conservative grey suit and tie and small dark kippah the very uniform of the moderate establishment.



“Fabienne Roth lives someplace,” Gordis said in front of the crowd, referring to a blonde-haired college junior at UCLA who had asked, and then apologized for asking, an allegedly anti-Semitic question at a student government meeting months earlier. “We can find out where that place is, and she should not be able to come in or out of her house, in or out of her apartment, without being reminded, peacefully, morally, legally, that we know who you are.”
Gordis said that Roth’s future employers should be protested and boycotted. Days later, he used his Jerusalem Post column to make the suggestion that the Roth’s future children should also be punished for what she had done.
Gordis’ words constituted an open endorsement in the heart of the Jewish establishment of the sorts of aggressive tactics that had been whispered about on the edges of the Jewish communal landscape for years.
Read more: https://forward.com/news/416569/why-did-jewish-leaders-think-they-should-target-college-kids-to-help/
Also:  "Source of Pro-Israel Guerrilla Warriors on Social Media Exposed" (Ahmed).

"Israel Is Bad for America" (Giraldi):
"That bogus but nevertheless seemingly eternal bond is essentially the point from which a December 26th op-ed in The New York Times departs. The piece is by one of the Times’ resident opinion writers Bret Stephens and is entitled Donald Trump is Bad for Israel.
Stephens gets to the point rather quickly, claiming that “The president has abruptly undermined Israel’s security following a phone call with an Islamist strongman in Turkey. So much for the idea, common on the right, that this is the most pro-Israel administration ever. I write this as someone who supported Trump moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and who praised his decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal as courageous and correct. I also would have opposed the president’s decision to remove U.S. forces from Syria under nearly any circumstances. Contrary to the invidious myth that neoconservatives always put Israel first, the reasons for staying in Syria have everything to do with core U.S. interests. Among them: Keeping ISIS beaten, keeping faith with the Kurds, maintaining leverage in Syria and preventing Russia and Iran from consolidating their grip on the Levant.”
The beauty of Stephens overwrought prose is that the careful reader might realize from the git-go that the argument being promoted makes no sense. Bret has a big heart for the Kurds but the Palestinians are invisible in his piece while his knowledge of other developments in the Middle East is superficial. First of all, the phone call with Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had nothing to do with “undermining Israel’s security.” It concerned the northern border of Syria, which Turkey shares, and arrangements for working with the Kurds, which is a vital interest for both Ankara and Washington. And it might be added that from a U.S. national security point of view Turkey is an essential partner for the United States in the region while Israel is not, no matter what it pretends to be.
Stephens then goes on to demonstrate what he claims to be a libel, that for him and other neocons Israel always comes first, an odd assertion given the fact that he spends 80% of his article discussing what is or isn’t good for Israel. He supports the U.S. Embassy move to Jerusalem, the end of the nuclear agreement with Iran, both of which were applauded in Israel but which are extremely damaging to American interests. He attacks the planned withdrawal from Syria because it is a “core interest” for the U.S., which is complete nonsense.
Contrary to Stephens’ no evidence assertion, Russia and Iran have neither the resources nor the desire to “consolidate[e] their grip on the Levant” while it is the United States has no right and no real interest to “maintain leverage” on Syria by invading and occupying the country. But, of course, invading and occupying are practices that Israel is good at, so Stephens’ brain fart on the issue can perhaps be attributed to confusion over whose bad policies he was defending. Stephens also demonstrate confusion over his insistence that the U.S. must “resist foreign aggressors…the Russians and Iranians in Syria in this decade,” suggesting that he is unaware that both nations are providing assistance at the request of the legitimate government in Damascus. It is the U.S. and Israel that are the aggressors in Syria.
Stephens then looks at the situation from the “Israeli standpoint,” which is presumably is easy for him to do as that is how he looks at everything given the fact that he is far more concerned about Israel’s interests than those of the United States. Indeed, all of his opinions are based on the assumption that U.S. policy should be supportive of a rightwing Israeli government, that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has recently been indicted for corruption and has called for an early election to subvert the process.
Bret finally comes to the point, writing that “What Israel most needs from the U.S. today is what it needed at its birth in 1948: an America committed to defending the liberal-international order against totalitarian enemies, as opposed to one that conducts a purely transactional foreign policy based on the needs of the moment or the whims of a president.”
Stephens then expands on what it means to be liberal-international: “It means we should oppose militant religious fundamentalism, whether it is Wahhabis in Riyadh or Khomeinists in Tehran or Muslim Brothers in Cairo and Ankara. It means we should advocate human rights, civil liberties, and democratic institutions, in that order.”
Bret also throws America’s two most recent presidents under the bus in his jeremiad, saying “During the eight years of the Obama presidency, I thought U.S. policy toward Israel — the hectoring, the incompetent diplomatic interventions, the moral equivocations, the Iran deal, the backstabbing at the U.N. — couldn’t get worse. As with so much else, Donald Trump succeeds in making his predecessors look good.” He then asks “Is any of this good for Israel?” and he answers “no.”
Bret Stephens in his complaining reveals himself to be undeniably all about Israel, but consider what he is actually saying. He claims to be against “militant religious fundamentalism,” but isn’t that what Israeli Zionism is all about, with more than a dash of racism and fanaticism thrown in for good measure? One Israeli Chief Rabbi has called black people “monkeys” while another has declared that gentiles cannot live in Israel. Right-wing religious fundamentalist parties currently are in power with Netanyahu and are policy making for the Israeli Government: Shas, Jewish Home, and United Torah Judaism. None of them could be regarded as a moderating influence on their thuggish serial financial lawbreaker Prime Minister."
"House passes bill to force Trump to nominate “anti-semitism” head who would monitor criticism of Israel" (Weir). Shekeling remains the key feature of the current American system of government.  The result is some bizarre legislative decisions.  The (((media's))) job is to hide this shit from the American people as much as possible.

One of the amusing things about the Khazars is how primitive they are.  I see many examples where they sabotage their own conspiracies through their inability to shake their irrational thoughts.  One of the most striking is their deep and abiding hatred of schvartzes:
  1. "On Alice Walker, Judaism, and Palestine" (Schulman) (note how the crazy hatred is covered with baseless assertions of 'anti-Semitism');
  2. "Exclusive: Angela Davis Speaks Out on Palestine, BDS & More After Civil Rights Award Is Revoked";
  3. "Angela Davis is latest Black target of Israel lobby" (Abunimah) (note the multiple layers of Khazar fingerprints all over this one);
  4. "Birmingham civil rights group criticized for pulling award for Angela Davis" (Deger);
  5.  "‘An attack against the spirit of the indivisibility of justice’: Angela Y. Davis statement on the cancellation of Birmingham Civil Rights Institute award" (Davis);
  6. "Birmingham Institute’s recission of Angela Davis award over BDS becomes an embarrassment to pro-Israel groups that applied pressure" (Weiss).
The Khazars must always win:  "Quantifying the Holocaust: Measuring murder rates during the Nazi genocide" (Stone):
 "Genocide scholars often compare rates of recent genocides to the rate at which the Nazi Holocaust occurred, treating the latter as a kind of benchmark for genocide severity. As such, currently many social scientists maintain that the Rwandan genocide was the most “intense genocide” of the 20th century, with a sustained period of murders occurring at a rate three to five times more rapid than the Holocaust.
However, my work shows that while the Rwanda massacre killings were 8,000 victims per day for a 100-day period, the Holocaust was nearly double this rate during a similar 100-day period in Operation Reinhard.
That suggests that Holocaust kill rate has been underestimated on an order of six to 10 times. In my view, these sorts of comparisons have limited usefulness, and clearly diminish the Holocaust’s historical standing.
The Holocaust stands out as a demonstration of how the efficient machinery of government was turned on people in an unparalleled way. It transcended in its ruthlessness and systemic efficiency. This is the key lesson of the Holocaust that I believe must not be forgotten."
"Jewish Involvement in Contemporary Refugee and Migrant Organizations — Part Two" (Joyce). Note the comments - here and following - on the conspiratorial history of Intel.  For example:
"Strictly speaking, Intel was founded by two white gentiles: Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, with Grove being the third employee(he knew both from his time at Fairchild Semiconductor). Their fourth employee was the aforementioned Vadasz. In no interview I’ve read about the founding of Intel is it ever brought up that the first two employees hired just happened to be born in the same foreign country, in the same year, in the same city, were both part of the same minority, and each improbably escaped to the west and attained educations there, only to find themselves working for Intel years later. According to Wikipedia, Intel’s original funding was largely secured with the help of two Jewish investors who sat on their board: Arthur Rock and Max Palevsky. Rock’s involvement came through personal connections. Moore and Noyce had previously founded Fairchild Semiconductor with eight others, including a Jewish engineer named Eugene Kleiner. Rock was Kleiner’s father’s stockbroker and had helped them secure funding for that venture.

The Israeli connection to Intel probably merits further research. Intel’s Israeli operations are second in size only to its American ones. Unlike every other foreign country in which it has operations, Intel maintains a hiring site in Hebrew. In a related area, an Israeli company you’ve probably never heard of, called CEVA, designs digital signals processing components that are part of wireless infrastructure and dominates some market segments. The Israeli government also subsidizes basic research in cryptography and computational complexity on a scale unequaled in the world. Unlike every other country on Earth, a massive percentage(maybe as high as 50%) of their top math students are funneled into these fields."
Also references the mysterious death of Gary Kildall, the victim of theft by Bill Gates:
"An uncomfortable thought that arises is this: How did Andrew Grove succeeded to get to found Intel? That takes money, lots of it, as we know from the DOS-to-MS DOS experience: Gary Kildall invented DOS and made it operational. But, in the absence in this area of technology of copyright protection, Gates got control of it before it became a commercial proposition. And Kildall died under still-mysterious circumstances. One has to wonder whether someone was to Grove’s Intel as Gary Kildall was to Bill Gates."
"Failed Regime Change in Nicaragua. OAS and Amnesty International: Killing, Torturing Sandinistas Is OK" (Sefton).  Perhaps one day there will be a human rights organization that isn't a cesspool of lies.

"Is The End Of The Brutal War In Yemen Finally At Hand?" (Porter).  Congress is starting the extraction process for MbS/MbZ, who are stalled, and embarrassed, by the Houthis, and need a face-saving way to get out.  It's tough to explain when you've spent billions of dollars on what was supposed to be a cake-walk of a war, and you end up losing (bonus, your countries are actually now less secure than they were before).

A powerful new option for the asymmetrical warriors (who, btw, were supposed to have been wiped out, with ease, months ago by the dynamic duo of MbZ/MbS and their crack fighting team): "Explained: How Yemen's rebels increasingly deploy drones".

Ha!:  "Whatever Happened to Peak Oil?" (Engdahl):
"Peak Oil was and is an invention of certain financial circles along with Big Oil to justify among other things ultra-high prices for their oil. The peak oil theory they promoted to justify the high prices, hearkened back to the 1950’s and an eccentric oil geologist with Shell Oil in Houston named King Hubbard.

While working for Shell Oil in Texas, Marion King Hubbert, or King, as he preferred to be known, was asked to deliver a paper to the annual meeting of the American Petroleum Institute in 1956, an event that would become one of the most fateful examples of scientific fabrication in the modern era.

Hubbert posited all of his 1956 conclusions, including that the US would reach oil peak in 1970, on the unproven assumption that oil was a fossil fuel, a biological compound produced from dead dinosaur detritus, algae or other life forms originating some 500 million years back. Hubbert accepted the fossil theory without question, and made no evident attempts to scientifically validate such an essential and fundamental part of his argument. He merely asserted ‘fossil origins of oil’ as Gospel Truth and began to build a new ideology around it, a neo-Malthusian ideology of austerity in the face of looming oil scarcity. He claimed oil fields obeyed the Gaussian bell curve, itself an arbitrary heurism.

For the giant British and American oil companies and the major banks backing them, the myth of scarcity was necessary if they were to be able to control the availability and price of petroleum as the lifeline of the world economy. The scarcity myth was to be a key element of Anglo-American geopolitical power for more than a century.
. . .
Even before this major new discovery of shale oil and gas in the Texas-Arizona region around the Permian Basin, the US, including estimated shale oil, was estimated the world’s largest oil reserve. According to a July 2018 study by Rystad Energy, a Norwegian consultancy, the U.S. holds 264 billion barrels of oil, more than half of which is located in shale. That total exceeds the 256 billion barrels found in Russia, and the 212 billion barrels located in Saudi Arabia.

If the new USGS estimates are included, the US total oil reserves would be well over 310 billion barrels. King Hubbert’s prediction of USA peak oil in 1970 turns out to have been nonsense. What happened in 1970 was that Big Oil manipulated a shift to the ultra-cheap oil of the Middle East and away from domestic USA oil drilling. For them the peak oil argument was a useful political foil that had huge geopolitical consequences for US Middle East policies after 1970. The new discoveries in Texas and Arizona insure that the more rapid depletion of shale oil deposits compared with conventional ones will not spell an early exhaustion of US oil production.

This all has significant geopolitical implications as the US today has emerged in recent years to become the world’s largest producer of oil, ahead of both Russia and Saudi Arabia. This could also explain why the US President recently felt able to order a US troop withdrawal from Syria. There is a vast geopolitical shift underway in the last few years."

"World Food Program, Bribed By Saudis, Threatens Yemenis With More Famine" (Moon):
"I find it inconceivable the that UN or its sub-organizations take large amounts of Saudi money to prevent a famine that the Saudis willingly cause in the first place. The UN should reject such bribery. To then threaten the starving side of the conflict to withhold aid over distribution problems is reckless.

WFP Director David Beasley, a former governor of South Carolina nominated for the WFP job by U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, should be suspended from his job. His partisan behavior is exactly the reason why the Houthi can not and will not give the UN or any of its organizations full control over Hodeidah. It is the only port through which they can receive food supplies for the people living in their area. If UN organizations that are obviously influenced by Saudi money and issues partisan threats get control over the port, the siege on the Houthi areas would be complete.

Sooner or later they would have to concede their defeat. By then millions more would have died."
Another predictable (and predicted) disaster:  "GM Cotton – Reckless Gamble" (Todhunter). Note the link in the comments.

"The Mediterranean Pipeline Wars Are Heating Up" (Katona).  Turkey is throwing a spanner into a lot of plans, in this case all connected to Khazar plans to move stolen gas to Europe.

"Birthers Are Back And Taking Aim At Kamala Harris" (Steve M.).  The whole birther thing started with supporters of Killary (various 'rebuttals' are surprisingly weak, and involve strenuous use of straw men, as they gather significant evidence and then just outright deny it proves anything).

Calm, rational analysis of whether the facts back up the 'collusion' story (in striking contrast to the daily hysteria by 'journalists' like Chait and Marshall):  "Someone Finally Connected the Dots: Russiagate is Helping Trump" and "The Manafort Revelation Is Not a Smoking Gun" (Maté):
"That same creative license that makes Kilimnik part of the Russian-intelligence apparatus is now being applied to the claim that Manafort shared polling data with Kilimnik. The New York Times initially reportedthat Manafort instructed Kilimnik in the spring of 2016 to forward the polling data to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian tycoon to whom Manafort owed a reported $20 million. The Times also reported that “[m]ost of the data was public,” but that didn’t stop pundits from letting their imaginations run wild.

“Deripaska is close to Putin, and he has zero use for campaign data about a US election, other than to use it for the then on-going Russian campaign to elect Donald Trump,” wrote TPM’s Josh Marshall. “There is only on reason I can think of: to help direct the covert social-media propaganda campaign that Russian intelligence was running on Trump’s behalf,” declared The Washington Post’s Max Boot.

The fervent speculation suffered a setback when it was revealed that the polling data was not intended to be passed to Deripaska or any other wealthy Russian. The New York Times corrected its story to inform us that Manafort actually wanted the polling data sent to two Ukrainian tycoons, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov. That correction came long after viral tweets and articles from liberal outlets amplified the Times’ initial false claim about Deripaska. Most egregiously, New York magazine’s Chait doubled down on the initial error by incorrectly claiming that the Times was now reporting that Manafort’s intended recipient was “different Russian oligarchs.” For his part, Akhmetov says he “never requested nor received any polling data or any other information about the 2016 US elections” from Manafort or Kilimnik.

That two Ukrainian tycoons were confused with a Russian one reflects a broader error that has transmuted Manafort’s business dealings in Ukraine into grounds for a Trump-Russia conspiracy. Because Manafort worked for Ukraine’s Russia-aligned Party of Regions, it is widely presumed that he was doing the Kremlin’s bidding. But internal documents and court testimony underscore that Manafort tried to push his client, then–Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, to enter the European Union and turn away from Russia. As Manafort’s former partner and current special-counsel witness Rick Gates testified in August, Manafort crafted “the strategy for helping Ukraine enter the European Union,” in the lead-up to the 2013-2014 Euromaidan crisis. The aims, Manafort explained in several memos, were to “[encourage] EU integration with Ukraine” so that the latter does not “fall to Russia,” and “reinforce the key geopolitical messaging of how ‘Europe and the U.S. should not risk losing Ukraine to Russia.’” As his strategy got underway, Manafort stressed to colleagues—including Kilimnik—the importance of promoting the “constant actions taken by the Govt of Ukraine to comply with Western demands” and “the changes made to comply with the EU Association Agreement,” the very agreement that Russia opposed.

Rather than imagining it as part of some grand Trump-Russia conspiracy, there’s a more plausible explanation for why Manafort wanted public polling data to be forwarded to Ukrainian oligarchs. Manafort was heavily in debt when he joined Trump’s team. Being able to show former Ukrainian clients “that he was managing a winning candidate,” the Times noted, “would help [Manafort] collect money he claimed to be owed for his work on behalf of the Ukrainian parties.”

All of this highlights another inconvenient fact about Mueller’s case against Manafort: It is not about Russia, but about tax, bank, and lobbying violations stemming from his time in Ukraine. The Virginia judge who presided over Manafort’s first trial said the charges against him “manifestly don’t have anything to do with the [2016] campaign or with Russian collusion.” The collusion probe, the DC judge in Manafort’s second trial concurred, was “wholly irrelevant” to these charges.

The same could be argued about the entirety of Mueller’s indictments to date. Not a single Trump official has been accused of colluding with the Russian government or even of committing any crimes during the 2016 campaign. As The New York Times recently noted, “no public evidence has emerged showing that [Trump’s] campaign conspired with Russia.” The latest error-ridden hoopla generated by an inadvertent disclosure from Manafort’s attorneys does nothing to change that picture. If anything, it underscores that after two years there is still no strong case for Trump-Russia collusion—and that only shoddy evidentiary standards have misled its proponents into believing otherwise.
"
See also, the biggest elephant in the room:  "The Myth of the Russian Crime Boss, Semion Mogilevich, He's Israeli by Larry Johnson".  The sheer mendacity of the ((('journalists'))) writing about the 'collusion' is nothing short of amazing, the purest distillation of chutzpah:
"So why is a Ukrainian born Jew who holds Israeli citizenship described as a "Russian mobster?" It is a deliberate fabrication to classify him as a "Russian." He is an Israeli and a Ukrainian. He is not a Russian by birth nor ethnicity."
Note the comments, including one by Lang (I think that is bang on with respect to Trump's real corruption problems, but one which neither the (((media))) or US law enforcement would touch with a million-foot pole):
 "A possible implication of LJ's piece is that while Trump's "collusion" with the Russian government is as yet unproven, the possibility exists that he is compromised by past dealings with criminals connected to Israel."
What you have to expect from Counterpunch these days, a call to ruin the French protests by pigeonholing the protesters into one of the official political slots, so they can be comfortably neutralized:  "Yellow Vests, Modern Junk Politics and Robespierre" (Warner).

"Gilets Jaunes SITREP" (Buzzanca).  Note the comment by TMWNS on the predictable - it's Conspiracy 101! - insertion of a ((())) ringer into the 'discussion', with the archetypal distinction between the good, honest protesters, and the 'hooligans' (i.e., those who really threaten Macron/Rothschild power), who will be beaten, killed, and arrested:
". . . this police union member Michel Thooris (Cf. extract infra) appears conciliatory and very plausible. (Cf. On the right in this UFPJ (Union Française Juive pour la Paix video : https://youtu.be/jjkxTZNVrng). In fact he’s a shill for the Jewish Zionist lobby and Political Advisor – on Security – for Marine Le Pen and the Rassemblement national (ex Front National party),

Her performance during the 2017 presidential election debate was crucial in getting Emmanuel Macron elected. Police in Paris lend their premises to French Jewish terrorist organisations BETAR and Ligue de Défense Juive for paramilitary training purposes.

«For Michel Thooris, general secretary of the France Police – Policiers en colère union, who is also upwind against the measure, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between the hooligans and the Yellow Vests. He denounces a certain confusion purposely made by the government: “These types of individuals, who will break down a government building’s door, are professional hooligans and not Yellow Vests. It’s easy to wear a yellow vest for a hooligan. I think it is a manipulation of the government to make the French public think that these actions are the result of the Yellow Vests. I dispute this version of the facts. I am a professional used to policing and I know very well that it was not ordinary Yellow Vests that did this and set up an operation of this magnitude. These hooligans are used to infiltrate demonstrations to engage in violence that we condemn. They take advantage of the Yellow Vest movement as they take advantage of social movements in general, May 1st or sporting events. They are detrimental to the movement, but they are not Yellow Vests at all” …»."
"Surprise Ruling Opens New Avenue for Mumia to Win New Trial on his Murder Conviction" (Lindorff). Note how somebody in the DA's office sanitized the record by removing Castille's memos from the file!  "Evidence of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s Innocence: Six “Lost” Mumia Case Boxes Found in District Attorney Abandoned Furniture Closet".

"Tulsi Gabbard's running in 2020 - TTG".  "Yids Flip Lids Over Tulsi Gabbard Presidential Run" (Anglin).  Clarifying Twitter response.  (((They))) will crucify her, but it is good that she will be running on what is essentially an anti-war platform.

"Russia tamps down the Kuril hype" (Bhadrakumar).  If the Russians give anything to the Japanese the Americans will build a base on it!

"Social Media Might Ban the Pakistani Map at India’s Behest" (Korybko).  We see this all the time with the Israelis insisting on their imperial mappings.

"India sequesters Iran ties from US predatory strike" (Bhadrakumar).  India has already done what the Euro-trash have mumbled about doing.

"You can have sex with your sources, get thrown out of one job, and rise again in the Age of Trump. Journalism is great!" (Van Buren).

"Judge Richard Goldstone Suffered for Turning His Back on Gaza, But Not as Much as the Palestinians He Betrayed" (Fisk).  The murdering and land theft is just the "complex circumstances of asymmetric warfare", goyim!

"Who or What Brought Down Dag Hammarskjöld?" (Stevenson/Majerle).  "Man accused of shooting down UN chief: ‘Sometimes you have to do things you don’t want to…’".