OCT 29, 2019
By Shane Trejo
The event took place at Detroit’s Cass Technical High School and featured Sanders and Tlaib along with local rock star Jack White. The entire event can be seen here:
“We deserve someone who wrote the damn bill,” Tlaib said to the crowd, referring to a popularized debate quote from the Vermont socialist regarding universal healthcare. “We deserve Bernie Sanders.”
“It always seems it is impossible until it is done,” Sanders said at the rally. “Don’t believe anyone that tells you that moving towards a society of justice is impossible.”
Sanders’ social media account also released a video of Tlaib heaping massive praise upon the old, white career politician.
The ladies of the “Squad” are clearly coalescing their rising media star power behind Sanders in the hopes to be power players within his Marxist regime. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) endorsed Sanders’ campaign earlier this month:
Freshman Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will endorse Vermont Senator and Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in a campaign rally in Queens on Saturday, according to reporting Tuesday night from the Washington Post.
The formal endorsement places Ocasio-Cortez firmly in the camp of her fellow democratic socialist. AOC has become a symbol of the left wing of the Democratic Party often represented by Sanders, and it’s probably unsurprising that the rising Democrat star would align with Sanders, who she aligns closely on policy.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), the anti-Semitic and anti-white Somalian refugee turned Congresswoman, quickly followed the lead of Ocasio-Cortez and endorsed Sanders for president as well:
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), the Somalia-born Congresswoman whose offensive remarks against America and Israel have made her a reviled figure nationally, has officially endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) for President in 2020.
“Bernie is leading a working class movement to defeat Donald Trump that transcends generation, ethnicity, and geography,” Omar said in a statement released Tuesday night. “And it’s why I believe Bernie Sanders is the best candidate to take on Donald Trump in 2020.”
However, it does not appear that the endorsements of the “Squad” are having as much of an impact on the presidential race. A state-wide activist group, Michigan Conservative Coalition, staged a protest at the Sanders/Tlaib rally today and noted how dismal the attendance was for the event in an Instagram post.
“We went in repudiation of socialism, and in defense of individual liberty,” said David Dudenhoefer, one of the protest organizers who is running as a Republican to defeat Tlaib in Michigan’s 13th Congressional district next year.
“Socialists can only offer a temporary band-aid in one hand, while they hold a knife in the other. Only through liberty can every individual find the best pathway toward peace and prosperity,” he told Big League Politics.
Following his recent heart attack, Sanders can no longer even run a competitive campaign for the presidency. The hardcore socialist has not been able to recapture his 2016 magic, when he posed a legitimate shot to beat Hillary Clinton. The “Squad” has likely picked a losing candidate.
Instead, they deployed every form of spin and criticism they could muster in attempt to make Trump look bad for vanquishing the world’s most wanted man.
Here are a few examples:
Some pundits lamented that killing ISIS members only reinforces their murderous ideology.
A CNN panel condemned Trump’s “irresponsible” remarks about Baghdadi “dying like a dog.”
Fox News’ Chris Wallace harped on Vice President Mike Pence for not briefing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the special operations raid.
2020 Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders refused to congratulate Trump or the U.S. forces who conducted the raid, instead giving credit to the Kurds in Syria.
“Saturday Night Live” couldn’t even help digging into Trump over his dovish Syria policy, saying he’s “Making ISIS Great Aagain”…the same night al-Baghdadi was killed.
Fortunately, some journalists, like Glenn Greenwald, recognized the media’s shameful behavior and called them out on it.
Three explosions in one night would be front page news in any first-world city. But when Stockholm reverberated to multiple blasts in one night last week, national broadcaster SVT’s nightly broadcast was silent, relegating the news to its web coverage instead. One of the targets, a Syrian Orthodox church, had already been bombed twice in the past year.
But in Sweden, explosions no longer make the news. In 2018 there were 162 bombings reported to police, and 93 reported in the first five months of this year, 30 more than during the same period in 2018. The level of attacks is “extreme in a country that is not at war,” Crime Commissioner Gunnar Appelgren told SVT last year.
The use of hand grenades is a purely Swedish phenomenon too, with no other country in Europe reporting their use on such a level, a police manager told Swedish Radio in 2016, a year after attacks first spiked.
The grenades used almost exclusively originate in the former Yugoslavia, and are sold in Sweden for around $100 per piece. But while only three hand grenades were thrown in Kosovo between 2013 and 2014, more than 20 have been used in Sweden every year since 2015.
More broadly, homicide has risen in Sweden, with more than 300 shootings reported last year, causing 45 deaths. Though homicide rates had been in decline since 2002, they again began trending upwards in 2015, as did rapes and sexual assaults, which more than tripled in the last four years.
Of course, 2015 was also the year in which Sweden flung open its doors to more than 160,000 asylum seekers, more per capita than any other European country. The right have blamed these newcomers for the rising rates of homicide and sexual violence, and Denmark’s former Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told Swedish television last year that he often uses “Sweden as a deterring example” of mass immigration gone wrong.
What would any country in the throes of a crime wave do? In Sweden’s case, the government and media have launched a concerted campaign to downplay the problem.
In February 2017, a month after a hand grenade was lobbed through the window of a police station in Katrineholm and days after another exploded in Södertälje, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs put out a press release debunking “simplistic and occasionally inaccurate information about migration, integration and crime in Sweden.” In it, gun crime was portrayed as a consequence of “criminal conflicts” and rising sexual violence attributed to a change in the definition of “rape” in Swedish law. The grenade attacks weren’t mentioned, and the claim that the government isn’t doing enough to stamp out crime was dismissed.
The publication rubbished the link between immigrants and crime. However, a recent study from the Swedish Defence University has warned that the Swedish justice system is ill-equipped to police the parallel societies developing in immigrant neighborhoods, and newspaper Dagens Nyheter pointed out that 90 percent of shooting perpetrators in Sweden are either first or second generation immigrants.
Swedish police have identified 50 neighborhoods it considers “vulnerable” – a term many have taken as a euphemism for “no-go zones.” In tackling crime within them, the government has come up with some novel solutions, like implementing a ‘grenade amnesty’ last year, and kindly asking residents of violence-plagued Malmo to “stop shooting” each other.
Neither measure seems to have worked.
Still, the government would seemingly rather Sweden be associated with IKEA and social cohesion than immigrant gangs and grenade attacks. After all, admitting to the crime wave would undermine the supposed success of the Nordic model, and suggesting that it may be connected with immigration would call into question Sweden’s self-righteous status as a “humanitarian superpower,” as former Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom described the country in 2015.
To that end, the government has not ordered a police crackdown in crime-stricken neighborhoods or held a national debate on integration. Instead it has launched a PR campaign to fix Sweden’s tarnished image abroad. The Swedish taxpayer funds the operation of the Swedish Institute to the tune of nearly $50 million per year. The institute is a sort of in-house PR agency that “promotes interest in Sweden around the world.”
Among its projects are English-language videos downplaying the country’s newfound reputation for crime, and the @sweden Twitter account, which spends its time literally telling critics “nothing has happened here in Sweden.”
More than 14,000 journalists, authors and politicians have been blocked by @sweden for asking difficult questions, among them Israel’s ambassador to the country. However, the account’s curators reversed course when some online media kicked up a stink.
“The truth is that we are a country that gives the rest of the democratic world hope,” Deputy Prime Minister Isabella Lövin said last January, weeks after grenade attacks in Malmo, Stockholm and Gothenburg. In Stockholm, an elderly man died when he picked up an unexploded grenade near a metro station.
Meanwhile, with paramedics, firefighters and postmen refusing to serve high-crime immigrant neighborhoods, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven publicly denied the existence of ‘no-go zones’. Stockholm Police Chief Erik Åkerlund told Swedish Radio a year earlier that 50 neighborhoods identified by police as “vulnerable areas” were “more like ‘go-go zones.’”
Less than a week after Åkerlund’s interview was aired, a man was hospitalized when a grenade ripped the facade of a house apart in Lindängen, a suburb of Malmo added to the list of “go-go zones” that year.
Call them what you will, but zones characterized by bombings, shootings, and an atmosphere that forbids essential services from entering without police escorts are no-go zones. Endemic bombings are the hallmark of countries at war, not countries that give “the rest of the democratic world hope.” And “humanitarian superpowers” should at bare minimum ensure their own citizens – native and immigrant – are protected against hand grenade attacks.
Sweden does not have an image problem. Sweden has a crime problem.
By Graham Dockery,
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date October 18, 2019
Let me briefly recount what’s happened in the past seven days since the U.S. announced our withdrawal. The Kurds, suffering loss of life and property, have allied with Assad. Russia has assumed control of our previous military positions, and the U.S. has been forced in many cases to bomb some of our own facilities to prevent their appropriation by Russia and Turkey…
The ceasefire does not change the fact that America has abandoned an ally. Adding insult to dishonor, the Administration speaks cavalierly, even flippantly, even as our ally has suffered death and casualty, their homes have been burned, and their families have been torn apart…
What we have done to the Kurds will stand as a blood stain in the annals of American history.
There are broad strategic implications of our decision as well. Iranian and Russian interests in the Middle East have been advanced by our decision. At a time when we are applying maximum pressure on Iran, by giving them a stronger hand in Syria, we have actually weakened that pressure. Russia’s objective to play a greater role in the Middle East has also been greatly enhanced. The Kurds out of desperation have now aligned with Assad. So America is diminished. Russia, Iran, and Assad are strengthened.
And so I ask how and why that decision was made?…
I ask whether it is the position of the Administration that the United States Senate, a body of 100 people representing both political parties, is to be entirely absent from decisions of the magnitude just taken in Syria?
Now some argue that we should not have been in Syria in the first place because there was not a vote taken by the Senate to engage in war there. I disagree. Congress has given the President legal authority and funding to fight against terrorists in Syria…
Others argue that we should just get out of a messy situation like this. The Middle East, they say, has had wars going on forever, just let them have at it. There’s of course a certain logic to this position as well, but again it applies only to the original decision as to whether or not we should have gone into Syria. Once we have engaged, and made the commitments we made, honor as well as self-interest demand that we not abandon our allies.
It has been suggested that Turkey may have called America’s bluff, telling the president that they were coming no matter what we did. If this is so, we should know it, for it would tell us a great deal about how we should deal with Turkey now and in the future.
Some have argued that Syria is a mess, with warring groups and sub groups, friends and allies shifting from one side to another, and thus we had to exit because there was no reasonable path for us to go forward. Are we incapable of understanding and shaping complex situations? Russia seems to have figured it out. Are we less adept than they? And are our principles to be jettisoned when we find things get messy?
The Administration claims that none of these reasons are accurate. Instead, the President has said that we left to fulfill a commitment to stop endless wars, to bring troops home, to get them out of harm’s way, perhaps to save money. I find these reasons hard to square. Why? Well, we withdrew 1,500 troops in Syria but we are adding 2,000 troops in Saudi Arabia. And all totaled, we have 60,000 troops in the Middle East.
Assuming for the sake of understanding that getting out of endless wars was the logic for the decision, why would we take action so precipitously? Why would we not warn our ally, the Kurds of what we were about to do? Why would we not give them time to also withdraw or perhaps to dig in to defend themselves? Clearly, the Turks had a heads up because they were able to start bombing within in mere hours.
I simply do not understand why the Administration did not explain in advance to Erdogan that it was unacceptable for Turkey to attack an American ally. Could we not insist that together we develop a transition plan that protects the Kurds, secures the ISIS prisoners, and meets the legitimate concerns of Turkey as well? Was there no chance for diplomacy? Are we so weak, and so inept diplomatically that Turkey forced the hand of the United States of America? Turkey?
We once abandoned a red line. Now, we have abandoned an ally.
By Danielle Ryan
“Plenty of reason here for the US possibly to become involved,” pleaded a horrified MSNBC correspondent this week, chastising Trump for ignoring “war crimes” and “human rights abuses” by Turkish forces.
Yet, while he and others cloak their demands for continued US military action in humanitarian concern for the Kurds in the face of Ankara’s onslaught, there is a more selfish reason for the media outrage. They are profoundly addicted to the bogus narrative of the US as the world’s savior, and worse, they crave the kind of dramatic TV footage and tales of military heroism that US forever wars offer. If that sounds a bit too cynical, recall MSNBC anchor Brian Williams close to weeping as he shared the “beautiful pictures” of American missiles raining down on Syria two years ago.
The pleas for fresh US intervention also reveal a hyper-focus on Washington’s “image” in the eyes of the world. The media has been bleating for days about how Trump’s actions will be perceived by its allies and enemies, but who is going to break it to them that their “image” is not quite what they think it is?
Successive US administrations have pursued policies of chaos and disarray in Syria for years; first covertly attempting to sow social discontent to spur and exploit a popular uprising, then by funding, training, and backing jihadist militias (Al Qaeda, included) against Bashar Assad’s army, and prioritizing the fall of his secular government over peace for the better part of a decade.
Couple that with Washington’s continued facilitation of slaughter in Yemen, its penchant for economically choking uncooperative nations with punitive and deadly sanctions and its psychological warfare of constant threats of violence against Iran, and one wonders exactly what kind of benevolent do-gooder image there is left to salvage.
This uniquely American obsession with image on the world stage was on display during CNN’s Tuesday night Democratic presidential debate, too. The perpetually grandstanding Cory Booker claimed Trump had turned America’s “moral leadership” into a “dumpster fire,” while Pete Buttigieg lamented the president’s betrayal of American “values” that left the country’s reputation and credibility “in tatters.”
Joe Biden, who as Obama’s former VP, shares plenty of the blame for the state of Syria today, called Trump’s pullout from northern Syria “the most shameful thing that any president has done in modern history” in terms of foreign policy. Iraqis might disagree with that statement, but remember, all pre-Trump foreign policy disasters have been conveniently flushed down the memory hole and their perpetrators rehabilitated for the purposes of comparison with the evil Orange Man.
The hand-wringing over America’s image betrays a deeply delusional but long-ingrained belief that the world at large sees the US military as a force for good. In reality, worldwide polls have shown that the US is actually regarded as the greatest threat to world peace, not — as news anchors and Washington politicians would have you believe — a facilitator of world peace.
Tulsi Gabbard was the only candidate on the Ohio debate stage willing to call a spade a spade, describing the chaos in northeast Syria as “another negative consequence” of US involvement in the region.
“Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hands, but so do many of the politicians in our country, from both parties, who have supported this ongoing regime change war in Syria, along with many in the mainstream media, who have been championing and cheerleading” it, she continued.
She slammed the US’s “draconian sanctions” on Syria, describing them as “a modern-day siege the likes of which we are seeing Saudi Arabia wage against Yemen” and promised that if she was the president, she would end support for Al Qaeda in Syria, which she said had been the US’s “groundforce” in the war.
Cue the gasps all around.
Gabbard’s insistence on forcing a reckoning with the reality of US policy in Syria makes her presence on the debate stage so necessary, but predictably her input, while entirely truthful, was met with spineless attacks in the same vein as those she has been subjected to from mainstream media for months, culminating recently with a McCarthyist hit-piece published by the New York Times implying that she is a Russian asset.
Reaction to Gabbard from journalists watching on social media was just as fierce. MSNBC’s Clint Watts called the notion of US support for Al Qaeda a “falsehood” that needed challenging. Watts, it turns out, part-authored a 2014 piece for Foreign Affairs about Ahrar al-Sham, an Al Qaeda-linked group “worth befriending.” Another reporter called Gabbard’s claims about the US arming Al Qaeda a “Russian talking point.” Investigative journalist Max Blumenthal quickly responded with a photograph of Al Qaeda firing a US-supplied TOW missile in Aleppo.
But to the regime change fanatics and war cheerleaders, these facts don’t seem to carry much weight. Narrative has always been more important.
Bush’s words come days after the political establishment has erupted in rage over President Trump’s decision to remove around 1,000 U.S service members from Syria’s Civil War.
The member of the political dynasty said that “an isolationist United States is destabilizing around the world. We are becoming isolationist and that’s dangerous for the sake of peace.”
For many Americans, it’s frankly rich to hear the widely unpopular and disliked former President attack one of his successors for a foreign policy of restraint. As President, George Bush initiated one of the worst foreign policy disasters in the history of the United States, invading Iraq on the false premise of a nuclear program that the country didn’t actually have.
Millions died as a result of Bush’s colossal blunder, and the Middle East remains destabilized to this day, in part because of the invasion that removed dictator Saddam Hussein from power. Thousands of American military personnel were killed or injured in the war, and countless more continue to suffer from post-traumatic stress. Many Iraq War veterans have committed suicide.
George Bush claimed he was obeying an unwritten rule during the presidency of Barack Obama by declining to criticize him. That rule flew out of the window almost immediately during Trump’s presidency, with the former President tacitly and explicitly criticizing Trump from almost the beginning of his presidency.
It may come as a relief for the family-dynasty former President to see his image rehabilitated by elite liberals with a short memory hoping to align with the well-entrenched neoconservative element in the federal bureaucracy he represents.
By Shane Trejo
Unfortunately, he has emerged as one of President Donald Trump’s biggest intra-party foes in the U.S. House. Crenshaw showed his true colors yet again when he voted in favor of a resolution condemning President Trump’s pullback of troops in Northern Syria on Wednesday.
Crenshaw joined 225 Democrats to approve H.J. Res 77, a measure introduced by Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) in order to rebuke the President’s “America First” foreign policy, which endorses a permanent occupation of the Middle East by U.S. forces.
The resolution reads in part:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress—
(1) opposes the decision to end certain United States efforts to prevent Turkish military operations against Syrian Kurdish forces in Northeast Syria;
(2) calls on Turkish President Erdogan to immediately cease unilateral military action in Northeast Syria and to respect existing agreements relating to Syria;
(3) calls on the United States to continue supporting Syrian Kurdish communities through humanitarian support, including to those displaced or otherwise affected by ongoing violence in Syria;
(4) calls on the United States to work to ensure that the Turkish military acts with restraint and respects existing agreements relating to Syria; and
(5) calls on the White House to present a clear and specific plan for the enduring defeat of ISIS.
Crenshaw has been a frequent critic of President Trump’s foreign policy, so much so that he has been dubbed McCain 2.0 for his incessant warmongering. He has penned several op/eds in the mainstream media endorsing a Bush-era foreign policy.
“These troops are not victims. They are volunteer soldiers, part of America’s warrior class, who believe in what they are fighting for. They have seen the true nature of this enemy and know it cannot be wooed into submission by simply leaving it alone,” Crenshaw wrote in a Wall Street Journal op/ed published in February.
“In truth, mission success in the Middle East means preventing another 9/11. America’s troops risk everything to take the fight to the enemy so that the enemy cannot bring the fight here,” Crenshaw added.
Crenshaw’s words are in direct odds of President Trump and his non-interventionist foreign policy. He campaigned against Bush-era foreign policy, particularly the Iraq War. The President was put into the White House to prevent endless wars.
H.J. Res 77 was ultimately approved in the House by a 354-60 vote, with only President Trump’s most loyal Republican allies in Congress voting against it.