Like Maria Said Paz: 2022-03-13

Saturday, March 19, 2022

THE VIEW continues to be called out

ABC's hatefest THE VIEW got extra attention this week as it was called out by C.I., Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, Sabby Sabs and others (including me). Here's Jonathan Turley:

Likewise, on The View, the hosts went after Tucker Carlson for defending Gabbard and raising his own criticism of mainstream rationales in favor of Ukraine. Alyssa Farah, a CNN contributor, declared “I think Mitt Romney is absolutely right… this is… the Russians are spreading propaganda . . . it’s helping them get away with acts against Ukrainian civilians.”

That triggered a free-for-fall against free speech. Co-host Ana Navarro called for Carlson to be cancelled because “we cannot be Russian state TV.” She then added “I think DOJ, in the same way that it is setting up a task force to investigate Russian oligarchs, should look into people who are Russian propagandists and shilling for Putin. If you are a foreign asset to a dictator, it should be investigated.”

Moderator Whoopi Goldberg seemed to love the idea of arresting people with dissenting views on war: “They used to arrest people for doing stuff like this,. If they thought you were colluding with a Russian agent or putting out information or taking information and handing it over to Russia, they used to investigate stuff like this.”

It is certainly true that we did “arrest people for doing stuff like this.” They were liberals, socialists, pacifists, and others who spoke out against wars. Indeed, this month, we passed the anniversary of the infamous ruling in Debs v. United States upholding the conviction of Eugene Debs, a socialist who ran for President. He was convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 for opposing World War I.

Then there were the hundreds of actors and writers blacklisted or prosecuted during the Red Scare and the McCarthy period. They included figures like the great singer Paul Robeson found themselves barred from performances due to their refusal to condemn others or Russia.

Now it is the left that is calling for blacklists and arrests over dissenting viewpoints.

When a show exists for no other reason than to spew hatred, it doesn't belong on broadcast TV. It should be sent over to basic cable with the other filth that passes for public affairs programming.

It really is sad that this is what THE VIEW has become. It was never much more gossip and celebrities in it's first decade but it's become so much worse. Joy should have been retired long ago and everyone knows that Whoopi was given way too much power.

Whoopi is another Sara Gilbert -- a woman who makes her career by ripping off the work of another woman (Whoopi ripped off Barbara Walters while Sara ripped off Roseanne).

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Friday, March 18, 2022. The selling of the latest war sure resembles the selling of the Iraq War.

Starting with Jackson Hinkle.

Jackson exposes the lies of THE OLD SQUIRTY DUKES Ana and Cenk. Their audience has gone. Tehir lies continue. Their friends are less and less and some have found out that they can longer propagandize the way they used to -- for example, TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES is not going to put up with you sneaking your propaganda when you're supposed to be discussing movies -- not only that, they made him actually spend a few bucks on suits so he doesn't look like such a slob. But Ana and Cenk continue plowing at the street corner. They're hoping someone's going to come along with a five or a ten who needs a ahlf-and-half or a hand job or something.

And it's good that they can fall back on that because they're lying has been exposed and they have no real power anymore.

They are Joe Biden, in the bathroom, standing at the sink, front of their boxers pulled out as they stare at the withered appendage and cray as they shriek, "Grow! Grow!"

It's just not happening.

And whilt ehy're paid to deliver the vote to the Democratic Party -- that's what the Katenzberg deal was all about, they're not going to be able to do that. First off, their audiences has shrivled -- again, like Joe's member. Secondly, they're not Bette Midler.

She's the idiot who Tweets photos of selective children to try to promote the war. She Tweets that she's willing to pay more for gas, et al, because she cares.

She doesn't give a s**t. This is the woman with ties to Jeffrey Epstein and, sadly, that's the least of her problems when it comes to her personal associates. Hollywood enever embraced Bette because she's gutter trash. The music industry out of New York and New Jersey, a roughter crowd, one with more ties to the mafia, embraced her. The mafia controlled the divers she perfomred in. Those are her roots. Do not mistake her for genteel. She's gutter trash and she always be.

But in the world of reality, people aren't thrilled to be paying for any war. Let alone a war that should not have been started, a war that involved no attack on the US. In the roundtable last night for the gina & krista round-robin, we had a person who can't drive due to vision issues explain how he's now -- this week -- paying two dollars more for each cab ride. Now Bettte may be overjoyed in her mob-palace by the ocean, but those people who worked for their money and didn't consort with organized crime? They don't have all the spare change Bette does.

And people are feeling it -- this war and Joe's impotence -- every where -- at the grocery store, at the gas pump. This is an election year.

The key question is always: ARe you better off now than you were before?

And, no, Americans are not. Fiancnially, they are not better off.

And the Anas and Cenks can lie all they want and try to portray Ukraine as a country populated with faireis and sprites, but the reality is that, in 2014, the US installed neo-nazis. That's who is being backed in this war. Some people have such a problem with the reality that the US government backed and empowered the Talbian.

But they did.

It was 'strategic.'

And it came back to bite the world in the ass after Jimmy Carter was out of office.

For 'stragey' that empowers thugs, you have to have whores who will sell it as 'humanity' and as 'human rights' and as 'a just cause.'

There is no just cause for the US in the issue of Ukraine.

Joe Biden is a failure as a president and Americans feel it every time they go to the gas pump or to the grocery store.

A far-away war is not going to make their lives better. Backing a neo-nzai group in Ukraine is not going to make life better for Ukrainians.

CBS -didn't punish Charlie D'Agata for his racist remarks on air because that was the talking poitn. They were all usupposed to sell the war to the American people and one of the talking points was, "They look just like us." That was supposed to help us identify with Ukraine. Charlie ran a little further with the talking poitn than some but he wasn't suspended or fired -- he should have been suspended -- for his remarks.

And then you get the Twitter brigade led by Bette and other incomptents. Ukraine is not a US issue and certainly not an issue worth pouring millions of US tax dollars into.

They are trying to enforce a lie. So they target others. That's what's going on with the trashing of Tulsi Gabbard and Tucker Carlson.

They are trying to hit the two with a 2 v 4 to intimidate everyone.

Viewers of THE VIEW have to wonder what happened to free speech and The Constitution? I believe Whoopi ate them.

Funding the government of Ukraine and its wars does not beneift Americans. That's reality. And when politicians try to explain it, they fail.

They can't explain.

The selling of this war is not working. Has--beens like Bette Midler are failing at selling it, the media is failing at selling it, censors like Whoopi and Ana can't sell it, politicians can't sell it.

They've dumbe it down, they've shored it up. It won't play. It won't sell.

And as a defense -- the costs of Ukraine -- for Joe's ineptitude won't work as a cover. It has exposed Joe as not up for the job of president. A real president would have been making deals with the oil rich countries by now. Joe has a problem in the Middle East, doesn't he?

The way he betrayed the Kurds non-stop as Vice President may be news to Americans. It's not to the Middle Est. They followed it in real time. They know he betrayed his 'friends.' Why the hell would they trust him if he betrays even his own friends. The State Dept is workign voertime right not trying to cme up with deals and it's so hard for them because Joe is the president. Liar Joe.

Joe's not doing much better with people in the US.

The start of these misguided efforts? It's always their high point. They don't increase in popularity several weeks after. No, they decrease. And there is no strong support for what the US is doing. Poll after poll, if you dig into it, you'll see the support that there is soft support. And it's already waining.

Whoopi wants to inflict fear in people. That's why she invoked the Rosenbergs. That's how trashy and corrupt she is. Julis and Ethel Rosenberg woere executed. That's nothing for America to be proud of. That's a stain ont he country.

If Julius was guilty of passing information to the USSR -- if -- Ethel was not. And we saw an out of control US government charge her and use her to try to intimidate her husband. Railroad her and try to force him to do what they wanted. Mob behavior,

An innocent woman was put to her death because of hysteria, frenzy and a corrupt US government. And Whoopi wants to bring that back.

That is outrageous.

I don't believe Julius was guilty. But we can set that saide for a ,nger discussion. Ethel was not guilty. The US government used her as leverage. And she was assassinated by the US government.

That's nothing to be proud of. That's nothing to cheer for or to desire. But somehow, screwed up, uneducated Whoopi Goldberg went on TV, on the public airwaves, and made a call for that.

It's outrageous.

And it's outrageous to listen to those politicians trying to sell war. Nancy Pelosi wants you to know that Russia invaded Ukraine, that it could use chemical weapons, that . . .

The US invaded Iraq. Nancy damn well knows that. The US used chemical weapons on Iraq.

We could go on and on.

But Nancy Pelosi thinks she has some ethical ground to stand on. Every reason she cites -- true or false -- for the US being in this war only serves to remind Americans of what our governent did, a government Nancy is a part of. There is no push for helping the Iraqi children.

A burn pit may have caused Beau Biden's death. So Joe cares -- a little -- about burn pits. At least what they did to his son. Most of Joe's stands can be traced to Beau. Again, as I've said repeatedly here, I'm so shocked that Hunter hasn't used the truth to defend himself on personal issues. There is no defense for his corruption and unethical business dealings. However, I am surprised that a defense was not made regarding a personal issud. Some day someone's going to say it, going to out it. Won't be me today but Joe doesn't do anything, doesn't alter a previous opinion, unless it has to do with Beau.

Maybe if Beau could have fathered -- or maybe, later on, adopted -- an Iraqi child, Joe would care about the Iraqi children?

At any rate, the US government is no tnoble. It's deeply corrupt and it's become a threat to people around the world. Stealing Americans money to fund wars won't whitewash reality about that.

The US destroyed Iraq. It's in no position to lecture or finger point.

Today in Iraq, the violence continues. CGTN notes:

Four Katyusha rockets on Thursday struck the Balad Air Base, Iraq's largest military air base north of the capital Baghdad, a local security source has said.

The rockets landed at the Balad Air Base in Salahudin Province, some 90 kilometers north of Baghdad, causing no casualties, Xinhua reported citing the provincial police Colonel Mohammed al-Bazi.

Three of the rockets hit a building inside the base, causing minor damage, while the fourth landed in an empty area, al-Bazi said, adding that the rockets were fired from the neighboring province of Diyala.

As we wind down, an ethical note on Joe Biden.

That's Kit on HARD LENS MEDIA discussing Glenn Greenwald's latest report. Here's an excerpt:

This disinformation campaign about the Biden emails was then used by Big Tech to justify brute censorship of any reporting on or discussion of this story: easily the most severe case of pre-election censorship in modern American political history. Twitter locked The New York Post's Twitter account for close to two weeks due to its refusal to obey Twitter's orders to delete any reference to its reporting. The social media site also blocked any and all references to the reporting by all users; Twitter users were barred even from linking to the story in private chats with one another. Facebook, through its spokesman, the life-long DNC operative Andy Stone, announced that they would algorithmically suppress discussion of the reporting to ensure it did not spread, pending a “fact check[] by Facebook's third-party fact checking partners” which, needless to say, never came — precisely because the archive was indisputably authentic.

The archive's authenticity, as I documented in a video report from September, was clear from the start. Indeed, as I described in that report, I staked my career on its authenticity when I demanded that The Intercept publish my analysis of these revelations, and then resigned when its vehemently anti-Trump editors censored any discussion of those emails precisely because it was indisputable that the archive was authentic (The Intercept's former New York Times reporter James Risen was given the green light by these same editors to spread and endorse the CIA's lie, as he insisted that laptop should be ignored because “a group of former intelligence officials issued a letter saying that the Giuliani laptop story has the classic trademarks of Russian disinformation.") I knew the archive was real because all the relevant journalistic metrics that one evaluates to verify large archives of this type — including the Snowden archive and the Brazil archive which I used to report a series of investigative exposés — left no doubt that it was genuine (that includes documented verification from third parties who were included in the email chains and who showed that the emails they had in their possession matched the ones in the archive word-for-word).

Any residual doubts that the Biden archive was genuine — and there should have been none — were shattered when a reporter from Politico, Ben Schreckinger, published a book last September, entitled "The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power," in which his new reporting proved that the key emails on which The New York Post relied were entirely authentic. Among other things, Schreckinger interviewed several people included in the email chains who provided confirmation that the emails in their possession matched the ones in the Post's archive word for word. He also obtained documents from the Swedish government that were identical to key documents in the archive. His own outlet, Politico, was one of the few to even acknowledge his book. While ignoring the fact that they were the first to spread the lie that the emails were "Russian disinformation,” Politico editors — under the headline “Double Trouble for Biden”— admitted that the book “finds evidence that some of the purported Hunter Biden laptop material is genuine, including two emails at the center of last October’s controversy.”

The vital revelations in Schreckinger's book were almost completely ignored by the very same corporate media outlets that published the CIA's now-debunked lies. They just pretended it never happened. Grappling with it would have forced them to acknowledge a fact quite devastating to whatever remaining credibility they have: namely, that they all ratified and spread a coordinated disinformation campaign in order to elect Joe Biden and defeat Donald Trump. With strength in numbers, and knowing that they speak only to and for liberals who are happy if they lie to help Democrats, they all joined hands in an implicit vow of silence and simply ignored the new proof in Schreckinger's book that, in the days leading up to the 2020 election, they all endorsed a disinformation campaign.

It will now be much harder to avoid confronting the reality of what they did, though it is highly likely that they will continue to do so. This morning, The New York Times published an article about the broad, ongoing FBI criminal investigation into Hunter Biden's international business and tax activities. Prior to the election, the Times, to their credit, was one of the few to apply skepticism to the CIA's pre-election lie, noting on October 22 that “no concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation.” Because the activities of Hunter Biden now under FBI investigation directly pertain to the emails first revealed by The Post, the reporters needed to rely upon the laptop's archive to amplify and inform their reporting. That, in turn, required The New York Times to verify the authenticity of this laptop and its origins — exactly what, according to their reporters, they successfully did:

People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.

That this cache of emails was authentic was clear from the start. Any doubts were obliterated by publication of Schreckinger's book six months ago. Now the Paper of Record itself explicitly states not only that the emails “were authenticated” but also that the original story from The Post about how they obtained these materials — they “come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop” — “appears” to be true.

What this means is that, in the crucial days leading up to the 2020 presidential election, most of the corporate media spread an absolute lie about The New York Post's reporting in order to mislead and manipulate the American electorate. It means that Big Tech monopolies, along with Twitter, censored this story based on a lie from “the intelligence community.” It means that Facebook's promise from its DNC operative that it would suppress discussion of the reporting in order to conduct a "fact-check” of these documents was a fraud because if an honest one had been conducted, it would have proven that Facebook’s censorship decree was based on a lie. It means that millions of Americans were denied the ability to hear about reporting on the candidate leading all polls to become the next president, and instead were subjected to a barrage of lies about the provenance (Russia did it) and authenticity (disinformation!) of these documents.

The objections to noting all of this today are drearily predictable. Reporting on Hunter Biden is irrelevant since he was not himself a candidate (what made the reporting relevant was what it revealed about the involvement of Joe Biden in these deals). Given the war in Ukraine, now is not the time to discuss all of this (despite the fact that they are usually ignored, there are always horrific wars being waged even if the victims are not as sympathetic as European Ukrainians and the perpetrators are the film's Good Guys and not the Bad Guys). The real reason most liberals and their media allies do not want to hear about any of this is because they believe that the means they used (deliberately lying to the public with CIA disinformation) are justified by their noble ends (defeating Trump).

Whatever else is true, both the CIA/media disinformation campaign in the weeks before the 2020 election and the resulting regime of brute censorship imposed by Big Tech are of historic significance. Democrats and their new allies in the establishment wing of the Republican Party may be more excited by war in Ukraine than the subversion of their own election by the unholy trinity of the intelligence community, the corporate press, and Big Tech. But today's admission by The New York Times that this archive and the emails in it were real all along proves that a gigantic fraud was perpetrated by the country's most powerful institutions. What matters far more than the interest level of various partisan factions is the core truths about U.S. democracy revealed by this tawdry spectacle.

The following sites updated:

Friday, March 18, 2022

That disgusting VIEW

Yesterday, C.i. noted in the "Iraq snapshot:"

Richard Medhurst attempts to accomplish something. I have no idea what THE VIW attemtps to do thse days but broadcast an hour of hate speech with a bunch of overweight and under educated women braying incessently.

Ana Navarro came to this country as a young child but apparently never bothered to learn the Constitution -- she was apparently using her entire school day to go through the lunch line repeatedly which would explain the gifth. The right-wing zealot loves US empire because her disgusting father wouldn't have had wealth without the US empire and she loathed those who argued for equality. That's how she ended up in the US. How she ended up on TV is another issue. She's unattractive and her voice annoys. She shouldn't be on TV or radi o for those reasons alone. But there she is as Whoopi Goldberg's wingman. You now Whoopi, the failed actress. Won an Academy Award and couldn't doa d amn thing with it because she never had the taste or sense to tell what qualified as drama resulting in one bad film after another.

She's undereducated, obviously. You can tell that when she speaks, you can tell that when she 'writes' (that laughable ghost0written bio). She's not informed and she's not a thinker despite all the gas baggery she puts over the airwaves.

She's an ugly person with an even uglier soul and in the '00s we called her out at THIRD for her embrace of torture -- no one else seemed too concerned about that. Maybe they're still not concerned about what she's doing?

Here's RISING.

i really wish that RISING was a left show. It's not.

A left show might be calling out Whoopi for her comments -- especially when she starts with, "They used to arrest people for doing stuff like this. . . .'' She's speaking of journalist Tucker Carlson and former Congress member Tulsi Gabbard. But she's speaking of two other people as well.

Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg.

They were executed.

Why is she speaking of them? She didn't get enough of a backlash for antisemitism last month?

Because she's a blood thristy whore who uses the public airwaves to celebrate witch hutns and executions?

Her remarks are appalling. You'd expect that sort of crap fro m the ghost of William F. Buckley but not from a so-called fun show broadcast by DISNEY. It's outrageous. It's offensive.

She's lamenting the end of the Red Scare and she's calling for a new one while explaining that nothing cheers her on like the execution of Ethel and Julius?

Unifnormed and uneducated minds do not belong on the ariwaves as hosts for political discussions. Anything beyond food and bitchy is clearly beyond the hosts.

Barbara Walters had a vision. She deserves credit for that. But what THE VIEW is today is not what she envisioned and it's appalling to watch this garbage. (I don't. I've included RISIN because that's where I saw Whoopi and Ana frothing at the mouth.)

It's outrageous and its shameful and it's so far beyond celebrating humanity that we really ned to rethink Whoopi Goldberg. She's no longer just an idiot who manages to pull off a comedy line somebody else wrote, she's not a rabid person addicted to hate who wants to invoke the executions of the Rosenbergs as a good thing and something that our country is missing.

I find Whoopi's remarks outrageous. I find it even more outrageous that C.I.'s the only one bothering to note that she's going after the Rosenbergs. She's calling for a very shameful episode of American history to be reinstated.

That is outrageous. I'm sorry, her being an idiot does not make what she did and what she said any less disgusting.

She really is not someone fit for polite society. It's past time she was downgraded from host and chief host at that. SHe's not smart enough, she's not kind enough. THE IEW was never much more than light entertainment but she has made it so awful. When Rosie O'Donnell was yelling -- and, yes, she yelled -- she was doing so on behalf of important ideas, on core beliefs. THE VIEW today is a bunch of political idiots thinking that being partisan makes them political and, no, it does not. It does not.

We need peace in this world but the likes of Goldberg and Navarro are just pushing for more war, pushing more hate. They are disgusting.

This was a shameful period in American history and you are either brain dead or consumed by a lust for violence to want to return to it.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Thursday, March 17, 2022.. The rabid hate-fest that passes for public affairs programming in the US is something to ponder.

Starting with Sabby Sabs.

Whoopi can't get next to the table. Note that. It's not the double chins, it's the extreme girth that should alarm everyone. She's so fat she has to scoot her chair way, way back because her belly is too big for her to be close to the table.

She's ugly, yes. But she can be as ugly as she wants. She's been ugly for years. But she can't be that fat. Not when she's diabetic. She wants to talk about examples being set by others? Fatty is out of control with her diabetes. She's way too fat. If anyone really loved her in her life (no one does), they'd sit her down and say "Whoopi, you're going to lose a foot. You've got to get your weight under control."

Sabby is shocked that Joy said that Tucker wouldn't "be welcoed here for much longer" and she can't believe that she used to watch the show. Apparently not for that long. When Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House, when Joy was on the panel, THE VIEW did what it's doing now -- for the right wing. It's really easy for those losers to pretend otherwise but they condmened people left and right and that includes Joy. In fact, Joy was part of the 'hot topic' that went way off the rails one day. Barbara Walters was not on that show but had to come on the next day to straighten things up.

Joy and the other ladies (exepting Lisa Ling) trashed Jane Fonda who wasn't even part of the news cycle. They just started trashing her. They just started trashing her, ssaying she belonged behind bars, saying this and saying that. A FOX NEWS talk show could not have been as hateful to Jane as THE VIEW was. And Joy laughed with the hideous Meredith, at the end of the segment, about how Jane would never ask to come ont he show again.

Jane ask?

No, bitches, Jane doesn't ask to be on a show. A show asks her to be on.

Barbara Walters had to come on the next day and note that the conversation had gone too far and that what was said was wrong.

Barbara is not part of the show now (due to health) and there's n one who can come on and tell these out of control lunatics to STFU.

They're not qualified for anything but they speak on everything. And they are never wrong in their mind.

I decline to comment on everything because I can't know everything. But the less educated women of THE VIEW think they know everything -- which is why you'll notice the idiot Sunny is always reading off remarks. Love that unscripted but really scripted quality Sunny has because it's lets us know she's an idiot. She can't even formulate the froth she's spewing on her own.

It's really time for THE VIEW to end. And thta's going to depend upon the viewers saying enough. There are toher programs you can watch which don't have lunatics in front of the cameras screaming for this person to be arrested, this tried on treason, this kicked out of the country, this . . .

In other words, the women on other morning shows aren't as rabid 00 or, let's be honest, as ugly. More and more to be a member of THE VIEW, you really do have to be ugly.

So just say no to ugly, rabid people.

That's the only way that you're going to end this garbage. And it is garbage.

This is not it did have rules and follow them. That's not the case anymore. It's time for the show to go. The women who have inheretied it will just continue ta daytime talk show. Not one to be on a genearl entertainment network. The hosts are ignorant of events and even of basic necessities.

To note another incident, the ladies walked off during an interview because they didn't like what was being said. That was Whoopi, that was Joy. They walked out. They were sent back on stage because whore's don't want to lose money but, again, the next day Barbara had to show up to fix everyting. She had to explain the idea was that THE VIEW would engage, not that it would do that nonsense.

More to the point, hosts -- paid hosts -- do not have the right to walk out in the middle of an interview.

They know nothing about anything. They don't know the basics of hosting a talk show. They don't know the basics of what they're discussing.

This is not a show worth embracing and to keep watching these War Harpies is to embrace war. It's to embrace hate. Last month, Whoopi was distorting the Holocaust. She lied and she faux apologized and some of the left defended her. She lies all the time. She shouldn't be on air

She should be at a fat farm working every day to reduce her girth to a point where it is not endangering her health. She's not ten or thirty pounds overweight. She is grossly overweight. And she is diabetic.

When the health problems come along, no one should feel sorry for her. She's in con-compliance.

And maybe that's where the hate she's spewing comes from. And maybe she's poisoning her body intentionally. But I'm not going to feel sorry for her when she's the one destroying herself.

I also don't think we need to hear from anyone whose life is out of that control. She's like an addict who is active in her addiction. She's not someone to be a moderator as a result of that.

And before she worries next about what message Tucker or Tulsi is sending, she might want to grasp that she -- tugboat Whoopi -- is sending a message as well and it's that daibetics can be diagnosed and then get grossly overweight and it's nothing to worry about or be concerned about.

She wants to sti in judgment on everyone else in the world on every thing they do. But she doesn't want to apply the same eyes on and commentary about her own health.

Caitlin Johnstone (ICH) observes:

The only real anti-war position on the Ukraine conflict is support for de-escalation, diplomacy, and detente. Yelling “PUTIN BAD” and calling for escalations that could lead to a very fast, very radioactive WWIII are not anti-war, and indeed such sentiments are being exploited to prolong this war.

No efforts are being made toward diplomacy and peace, only toward escalations like building an insurgency and unprecedented economic warfare which fit perfectly into pre-existing US agendas against Russia. This is in the exact opposite direction of peace.

De-escalation is a skill we’re meant to start learning in kindergarten. These people act like they learned their de-escalation skills in the Minneapolis Police Department.

If you want to keep screaming that Putin is Adolf Hitler and even insignificant concessions like promising not to add Ukraine to NATO would be Chamberlainesque “appeasement” then go ahead, but don’t pretend you’re anti-war or pro-peace, because you’re not.

Wars end in one of two ways: with diplomacy and negotiation, or with mountains of corpses. If you’re opposed to any kind of negotiation with Moscow to bring about peace, then you want the latter. And if you do, you should get your bitch ass on a plane and join the front lines.

So let's tart a GoFundMe for the ladies of THE VIEW so they can put their tough girl asses on the line and use something more than their useless mouths as the crow and bray for more war.

Quick sidenote, THE VIEW is not the only embarrassment appearing on so called public affairs programs. A CNN friend called and played me a clip of US House Rep Maria Salazar revealing herself to be an idiot and an insulting one on Tucker Carlson's program. Tucker said "our boys" and I don't expect anything more from him. I don't consider him to be high at the top of the food chain or even the least bit aware of the world he lives in. But the elected US official began repeating it and running with it "our boys." SHe doesn't want to send "our boys" to Ukraine. Over and over.

The place of a woman like that is not in the House or the Senate. If she's not aware that women are part of the US military, that women are in combat, that women serve, she's too dumb to serve in Congress, hell, she's too dumb to greet you at the door of Sam's. Maybe she should meet with some US senators? She could speak with Tammi Duckworth, for example, who could speak about serving in Iraq, she could speak with Joni Ernst. She could speak with any number of women. By 2012 alone, 283,000 American women had deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan (or, in some cases, to both).

That an elected member of Congress could be so stupid is appalling. That the member is also a woman just adds further insult when she's erasing the service of other women.,

Turning to the ongoing persecution of Julian Assange, Marjorie Cohn (TRUTH OUT) notes:

The British judicial system has erected still another barrier to Julian Assange’s freedom. On March 14, the U.K. Supreme Court refused to hear Assange’s appeal of the U.K. High Court’s ruling ordering his extradition to the United States. If extradited to the U.S. for trial, Assange will face 17 charges under the Espionage Act and up to 175 years in prison for revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes.

With no explanation of its reasoning, the Supreme Court denied Assange “permission to appeal” the High Court’s decision, saying that Assange’s appeal did not “raise an arguable point of law.” The court remanded the case back to the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which is the same court that denied the U.S. extradition request on January 4, 2021.

In all likelihood, the magistrates’ court will refer the case to the British Home Office where Home Secretary Priti Patel will review it. Assange’s lawyers then have four weeks to submit materials for Patel’s consideration. If she orders Assange’s extradition — which is highly likely — his lawyers will file a cross-appeal in the High Court asking it to review the issues Assange lost in the magistrates’ court.

If the High Court refuses to review those additional issues, Assange can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. That could take years. Meanwhile, he languishes in London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison, in fragile mental and physical health. He suffered a mini-stroke as his extradition hearing began. United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer wrote in a Twitter post that the “U.K. is literally torturing him to death.”

US President Joe Biden could end this nonsense at any time. He could drop the pursuit of Julian. He might if pressure were brought to bear. Julian's crime was journalism. Joe loathes him because Julian exposed US War Crimes. And if Joe gets away with it, the US government will begin punishing other foreign journalists operating outside of the US. It will demand that they be turned over to the US because their truthful reporting embarrassed the US government. Oscar Grenfell (WSWS) points out, "The British and US authorities are seeking to make an example of Assange, to intimidate widespread anti-war sentiment, and to create a precedent for further political persecutions targeting opposition to war and militarism. At the same time, the incessant media propaganda over Ukraine is being seized upon, to drown out other crucial issues, including Assange’s plight."

Craig Murray (ICH) notes:

With Julian still, for no rational reason, held in maximum security, the legal process around his extradition continues to meander its way through the overgrown bridlepaths of the UK’s legal system. Today the Supreme Court refused to hear Julian’s appeal, which was based on the grounds of his health and the effect upon it of incarceration in the conditions of the United States prison service. It stated his appeal had “no arguable legal grounds.”

This is a setback which is, most likely, going to keep Julian in jail for at least another year.

The legal grounds which the High Court had previously ruled to be arguable, were that the USA government should not have been permitted to give at appeal new (and highly conditional) diplomatic assurances about Assange’s treatment, which had not been offered at the court of first instance to be considered in the initial decision. One important argument that this should not be allowed, is that if given to the original court, the defence could argue about the value and conditionality of such assurances; evidence could be called and the matter weighed by the court.

By introducing the assurances only at the appeal stage – which is only on points of law and had no fact-finding remit – the USA had avoided any scrutiny of their validity. The Home Office have always argued that diplomatic assurances must simply be accepted without question. The Home Office is keen on this stance because it makes extradition to countries with appalling human rights records much easier.

In saying there is no arguable point of law, the Supreme Court is accepting that diplomatic assurances are not tested and are to be taken at face value – which has been a major point of controversy in recent jurisprudence. It is now settled that we will send someone back to Saudi Arabia if the Saudis give us a piece of paper promising not to chop their head off.

It interested me in particular that the Supreme Court refused to hear Julian’s appeal on the basis there was “no arguable point of law”. When the Supreme Court refused to hear my own appeal against imprisonment, they rather stated their alternative formulation, there was “no arguable point of law of general public interest”. Meaning there was an arguable point of law, but it was merely an individual injustice, that did not matter to anybody except Craig Murray.

My own view is that, with the Tory government very open about their desire to clip the wings of judges and reduce the reach of the Supreme Court in particular, the Court is simply avoiding hot potatoes at present.

So the extradition now goes to Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, to decide whether to extradite. The defence has four weeks to make representations to Patel, which she must hear. There are those on the libertarian right of the Tory party who oppose the extradition on freedom of speech grounds, but Patel has not a libertarian thought in her head and appears to revel in deportation, so personally I hold out no particular hope for this stage.

We'll wind down with this from Black Allaince for Peace:

For Immediate Release

Media Contact

press@blackallianceforpeace.com

202 643 1136

MARCH 15, 2022—The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) declares its support for garment workers in Haiti and stands with the Haitian people who, migrating from the country for economic or political reasons, have faced racism, hostility, and terror abroad. We also condemn the neo-colonial political economic policies of the U.S. government, its international allies, and the multinational corporations who have created Haiti’s imperial crisis by continuing to undermine the sovereignty and independence of the Haitian people.

Early in the year, garment workers launched protests at the Caracol Industrial Park in Haiti’s northeast region. These protests have since spread to Port-au-Prince. The workers—mostly women—have demanded wage increases and decried the dehumanizing and demeaning sweatshops in which they are employed. Their demands have been blocked by the U.S. government and by those foreign corporations, including Hanes, New Balance, Champion, Gilden Activewear, Gap, and Walmart, which have profited from a decades-long history of Haitian labor exploitation and wage suppression. With wages at a criminally-low figure of under $5 per day, the workers are demanding an increase to $15 per day.

At the same time, thousands of Haitian people continue to abandon their homes and flee their country for economic and political reasons. Their journeys abroad are uncertain and perilous and their encounters with foreign governments have been punitive and hostile. Only last week, a boat carrying more than 300 Haitians capsized off the coast of Florida. In Mexico, Haitian migrants confront daily the racism of immigration agents and the National Guard and thousands of Haitians have been illegally incarcerated in Tapachula in what some have described as concentration camps. The Dominican Republic, with help from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is militarizing its border with Haiti, beginning construction on a planned 164-kilometer long wall with 70 watchtowers and 41 access points. Dominican President Luis Abinader has called it an “intelligent fence”: It will use radars, drones, movement sensors, cameras and, of course, well-armed border patrol agents to prevent Haitian migration.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration deports Haitian asylum seekers at a record pace. Biden has continued the use of Trump-era policies including “Remain in Mexico” and “Title 42” to deny asylum seekers the right to due process and safety. More than 20,000 Haitians have been deported within Biden’s first year in office, a number greater than the record of the previous three presidents combined.

It goes without saying that the treatment of Haitian people provides a stark, racial contrast with that of Ukrainian refugees. While Biden has told Haitians, “Don't come over,” he has welcomed Ukrainians “with open arms.”

For the Black Alliance for Peace, imperialism is the root cause of both the protests of Haiti’s garment workers and the experiences of Haitian migrants. While multinational corporations have undermined Haiti’s workers, the U.S. government, alongside U.S.-led bodies like the Organization of American States (OAS) and the CORE Group, have decapitated the Haitian state. As Haitain wages have been suppressed, Haitian democracy has been throttled. And as Haitian immigrants are abused in and deported from foreign countries, it is foreign meddling that has created the conditions forcing Haitians to migrate.

Thus, as Jemima Pierre, BAP’s Haiti/Americas Committee Coordinator, reminds us, “Haiti’s domestic crises are crises of imperialism, generated by the policies of the United States and its allies.”

The Black Alliance for Peace reaffirms its solidarity with the Haitian people in their unremitting struggles for peace, independence, and self-determination against U.S./UN imperialism. We salute our sisters and brothers fighting for higher wages and better working conditions at home, and in their quest for a better life abroad.

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) calls on all organized labor to organize boycotts of Hanes, Levis, Fruit of the Loom and H&M in solidarity with Haitian workers.
BAP demands that the Biden regime stop its racist hypocrisy and end deportations of Haitian asylum seekers.
BAP demands that Haitian refugees and asylum seekers in the United States, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and elsewhere be treated with dignity and be afforded their legal rights under international law.
BAP calls on all organizations in the Caribbean and Latin America to issue denunciations of the OAS and United States and organize regular pickets outside of their headquarters and embassies.
BAP calls on all human rights organizations and members of the Black liberation movements to organize long term strategic solidarity campaigns to support self-determination for the Haitian people.

No Compromise, No Retreat!

###

The following sites updated:

Wednesday, March 16, 2022

Jonathan Turley and Chase Rice

Jonathan Turley:

We have regularly discussed the rising attacks on free speech on college campuses, including Northwestern University. Protesters at Northwestern have blocked speakers while maintaining that there is “no free speech for overtly racist white dudes.” They have stopped classes from discussing ICE policies. However, the student government has now added an attack on the free press by voting to block media from meetings to protect students from criticism over their advocacy. Even the dean of the school’s prestigious journalism school called out the action as inimical to the free press.

The Daily Northwestern reported that the vote of the student government was unanimous in barring media from some meetings. It only pledged to supply “minutes to journalists for closed meetings, withholding the personal information of speakers.”

Student government member Assem Belhadj explained:

“This is about how to make sure student activism within ASG can be protected in a way that students can speak and have the freedom to dissent on issues without having this fear that what they say will be blown out of proportion and they will be publicly criticized.”

So these are government meetings but students do not want to be held accountable for what they may say or demand. What is striking is that Northwestern has been regularly criticized for its cancel culture where students seek to silence opposing views. Yet, in seeking government action, students do not want to be identified in seeking controversial measures.

That is really sad and, again, we're not imparting knowledge for the future generations when we act as though censorship is something we should embrace.

In other news, Chase Rice is on tour currently.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Tuesday, March 15, 2022. As the war goes on, the persecution of Julian Asange continues with a new ruling from a Biritsh court, the fable of the 'good nazis' begins to unravel, and so much more.

Starting with the Ausrlaian journalist that US President Joe Biden continues to persecute. Juilian Assange committed the 'crime' of exposing US War Crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Joe Biden wants him to stand trial in the US for practicing journalism. Blustering, bigoted Biden wants Julian to pay for telling the world the truth. Joe most recently -- his State of the Union address -- was caught lying again about how many times he himself had visited Iraq and Afghanistan (doubling the total) so, you understand, Joe will always be on the side of liars and always want to punish those who tell the truth.

He is demanding that the United Kingdom turn over Julian who remains in a British prison because, well, they have no reason to hold him in the UK but like good little serfs, they do what the US government tells them.

Victoria Lindrea (BBC NEWS) reports:

The Supreme Court has refused to allow Julian Assange his latest appeal against extradition to the US.

A court spokesman said Mr Assange's application did not raise "an arguable point of law". The decision is a major blow to his hopes to avoid extradition.

The Wikileaks founder, 50, is wanted in the US over the publication of thousands of classified documents in 2010 and 2011.

His lawyers said he had not ruled out launching a final appeal.

The case will now go back down to District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, the original judge who assessed the US's extradition request.

Haroon Siddique and Ben Quinn (GUARDIAN) add:

Assange’s lawyers will have four weeks to make submissions to the home secretary before her decision. There also remain other routes to fight his extradition, for instance by mounting a challenge on other issues of law raised at first instance that he lost on and have not yet been subject to appeal.

The attempted appeal to the supreme court was specifically on the issue of the US assurances.

In January last year, district judge Vanessa Baraitser blocked extradition on the basis that procedures in prisons in the US would not prevent Assange from potentially taking his own life.

But that decision was overturned by two senior judges, Lord Burnett of Maldon, the lord chief justice, and Lord Justice Holroyde, at the high court. Burnett said the risk of Assange being held in highly restrictive US prison conditions was “excluded by the assurances which are offered. It follows that we are satisfied that, if the assurances had been before the judge, she would have answered the relevant question differently.”

Responding to the supreme court’s decision, a spokesperson for Assange’s solicitors, Birnberg Peirce, said: “We regret that the opportunity has not been taken to consider the troubling circumstances in which requesting states can provide caveated guarantees after the conclusion of a full evidential hearing. In Mr Assange’s case, the court had found that there was a real risk of prohibited treatment in the event of his onward extradition.”

Thomas Scripps (WSWS) observes:

Assange’s life is in grave danger. Neither appeal is likely to be granted and not even such formal legal rights and processes to proceed should be considered a certainty.Assange’s prosecution has always been the “legal” continuation of a lawless assassination-cum-rendition operation organised by the CIA, seeking to silence Assange for good, one way or another.

The timeline has now been dramatically accelerated. The Supreme Court’s decision came suddenly, without any prior announcement. That it refused even to hear Assange’s case is highly unusual. The lower High Court certified on January 24 that a “point of law of public importance” had been raised by Assange, normally prompting the Supreme Court to consider the appeal.

The point of law in question was, “In what circumstances can an appellate court receive assurances from a requesting state which were not before the court of first instance.” Even on these limited grounds, the case was considered worth examining by the High Court and legal experts in the field.

Last month, WikiLeaks cited a report of the case by the highly regarded London law firm Bindmans which noted, “Extradition practitioners largely welcome Supreme Court guidance on this point as late assurances designed to alleviate the court’s concerns about human rights violations following extradition have become a highly contentious issue, especially when provided by States with a poor record in human rights themselves.”

However, having been given the option to go through the motions and apply the Supreme Court’s legal imprimatur to Assange’s effective rendition, the justices instead delivered a one-line rejection: “The court ordered that permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law.”

The meaning is clear: the time for charades is over, Assange must be dealt with quickly.

This was a decision reached at the highest levels of the British state, delivered by the President of the Supreme Court Lord Reed and the Deputy President Lord Hodge, alongside Lord Briggs. The NATO-Russia war being waged through the proxy conflict in Ukraine, moving ever closer to a direct military confrontation between nuclear armed powers, has doubtless come as a powerful spur to action, underscoring for the ruling class why Assange must be silenced.

Binoy Kampmark (DISSIDENT VOICE) observes:

Dismay at the decision was expressed by Amnesty International’s Deputy Research Director for Europe, Julia Hall. “The Supreme Court has missed an opportunity to clarify the UK’s acceptance of deeply flawed diplomatic assurances against torture. Such assurances are inherently unreliable and leave people at risk of severe abuse upon extradition or other transfer.”

The next stage in this diabolical torment of the WikiLeaks founder involves remitting the case to Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which will only serve a ceremonial role in referring the decision to the Home Secretary, Priti Patel. Only the most starry-eyed optimists will expect extradition to be barred. (Patel is fixated with proposed changes to the UK Official Secrets Act that will expansively criminalise journalists and whistleblowers who publish classified information.) The defence will do their best in submissions to Patel ahead of the decision, but it is likely that they will have to seek judicial review.

In the likely event of Patel’s approval, the defence may make a freedom of press argument, though this is by no means a clear run thing. It will still be up to the higher courts as to whether they would be willing to grant leave to hear further arguments. Whichever way the cards fall, this momentous, torturous journey of paperwork, briefs, lawyers, and prison will continue to sap life and cause grief.

The persecution of Julian is a threat to the press and not just members of the US press. Julian is not an American citien. He cannot be guilty of treason. No foreigner can be. His actions did not take place on US soil. He published the truth and that, according to Joe Biden, is not a defense. A foreign journalist published the truth and now the US government attempts to destroy the journalist. It sends a dark and disturbing message to journalists around the world. And the US makes clear that for all its pretense about caring for a free press and being appalled by the way other governments attempt to supress journalists is just a pretense. I wonder what 'high tonal' remarks Harvey Weinstein's whore Meryl STreep will have to make about the press now? While she had that bad film to promote she pretended to care about journalism and support a free press. But note that the whore hasn't said a word about Julian. Not surprising when we know her response to the truth about Harvey coming out was to insist to Ronana Farrow that he msut not expose Harvey because Harvey donates to Democratic Party causes.

Whore.

Rose McGowan called it and Rose was right.

Julian's life is in danger. Joe Biden is using the full weight of the US government -- and our tax dollars -- to persecute Julian. It's interesting to note who can speak out and who has made the decision to be silent.

Journalist John Pilger Tweets:

The UK Supreme Court says the case of Julian #Assange fails to raise "an arguable point of law" and he can be extradited. This insults our intelligence and tells us there is no credible justice system. Julian Assange has committed no crime. Period.

bbc.com

Julian Assange denied permission to challenge extradition

A Supreme Court spokesman says the Wikileaks founder failed to raise "an arguable point of law".

6:35 PM · Mar 14, 2022

We'll note this Tweet:

If wars can be started by lies, peace can be started by truth.
                  ~Julian Assange

6:51 AM · Mar 15, 2022

That must have always scared Joe Biden and it must scare him especially now as his victory lap war is falling apart and the American people are beginning to question many of the lies he and his surrogates have pimped to turn a neo nazi government into the best friends the US could ever have and as cute and cuddly as a newborn puppy.

The US government getting into bed with nazis is notthing new as Mickey Z reminds at DISSIDENT VOICE:

Reminder: When attempting to unravel the behaviors of today’s ruling class, it helps to educate yourself about their actions in the past. For example, the U.S. and the CIA rescued and recruited Nazi war criminals after World War II to bolster their intelligence, military, and space program efforts.

The most well-known of these men was Wernher von Braun — a man described as the “leading figure in the development of rocket technology in Nazi Germany and a pioneer of rocket and space technology in the United States.” His career — from exploiting Jewish slave labor to becoming a decorated NASA architect — is well-documented here. For the purposes of this article, I’ll focus on some of the other, lesser-known Nazis who were assimilated into America’s “Greatest Generation.”

“I am a general and chief of the intelligence department of the High Command of the German Army. I have information of the highest importance for your Supreme Commander and the American government, and I must be taken immediately to your senior commander.”

It was with these words that General Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s notorious eastern front espionage chief, began his relationship with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the budding U.S. intelligence community. As the OSS was transformed into the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), yet another of many dark alliances emerged.

After surrendering on May 22, 1945, Gehlen, or “Reinhard the Fox,” was eventually interviewed by OSS founders “Wild” Bill Donovan and Allen Dulles after flying to Washington — in the uniform of a U.S. general. According to his biographer, Leonard Mosley, Dulles recommended that the Nazi super-spy be given a budget of $3,500,000 and “set up in business as the supplier of Russian and East European intelligence.”

But the shrewd Gehlen had some conditions:

His organization would not be regarded as part of the American intelligence services but as an autonomous apparatus under his exclusive management. Liaison with American intelligence would be maintained by a U.S. officer whose selection Gehlen would approve.
The Gehlen Organization would be used solely to procure intelligence on the Soviet Union and the satellite countries of the communist bloc.
Upon the establishment of a German government, the organization would be transferred to it and all previous agreements and arrangements canceled, subject to discussions between the new sovereign authority and the United States.
Nothing detrimental or contrary to German interests must be required or expected from the organization, nor must it be called upon for security activities against Germans in West Germany.

Considering that Gehlen was essentially a prisoner of war who could have been brought up on charges of war crimes, these demands were remarkable. Even more remarkable, at first blush, is the fact that the U.S. complied. However, when viewed through the prism of the rapidly escalating Cold War, a Nazi-CIA alliance becomes rather predictable.

With German defeat imminent, Gehlen instructed several members of his staff to begin microfilming intelligence on the USSR beginning in March 1945. After secretly burying this material throughout the Austrian Alps, Gehlen and his men sought a deal.

At INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE, Mike Whitney reports on the naxis in the government of Ukraine:

The United States has been arming and training far-right militants that are the ideological descendants of Nazi war criminals that were directly involved in the mass-extermination of Jews, Slavs and Gypsies during the Second World War. These Ukrainian storm troopers are among the most vicious and malignant combatants Washington has ever employed to implement its foreign policy agenda. Naturally, Washington sees these fascist-zealots as mere pawns in its proxy war on Russia. Even so, the ‘alliance of convenience’ does not diminish the fact that Uncle Sam is now in bed with right-wing militants whose spiritual leader, Adolph Hitler, was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people as well as the destruction of large parts of Europe and Russia. Check out this clip from an article titled “Can Ukraine have a ‘Nazi problem’ with a Jewish president?:

“Ukraine really does have a far-right problem, and it’s not a fiction of Kremlin propaganda. And it’s well past time to talk about it,” explained journalist and expert on the Ukrainian far right, Michael Colborne.

The most known neo-Nazi group on Ukraine’s far right is the Azov movement. The movement grew out of the Azov Regiment (originally a Battalion), formed in the chaos of war in early 2014.

It was formed by a “ragtag group of far-right thugs, football hooligans and international hangers-on, including dozens of Russian citizens,” said Colborne, who wrote a book on the movement.”(“Can Ukraine have a ‘Nazi problem’ with a Jewish president?”, Jewish Unpacked)

Chris Hedges (SCHEER POST) observes:

The Ukrainian war has silenced the last vestiges of the Left. Nearly everyone has giddily signed on for the great crusade against the latest embodiment of evil, Vladimir Putin, who, like all our enemies, has become the new Hitler. The United States will give $13.6 billion in military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, with the Biden administration authorizing on Saturday an additional $200 million in military assistance. The 5,000-strong EU rapid deployment force, the recruitment of all Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, into NATO, the reconfiguration of former Soviet Bloc militaries to NATO weapons and technology have all been fast tracked. Germany, for the first time since World War II, is massively rearming. It has lifted its ban on exporting weapons. Its new military budget is twice the amount of the old budget, with promises to raise the budget to more than 2 percent of GDP, which would move its military from the seventh largest in the world to the third-, behind China and the United States. NATO battlegroups are being doubled in size in the Baltic states to more than 6,000 troops. Battlegroups will be sent to Romania and Slovakia. Washington will double the number of U.S. troops stationed in Poland to 9,000. Sweden and Finland are considering dropping their neutral status to integrate with NATO.

This is a recipe for global war. History, as well as all the conflicts I covered as a war correspondent, have demonstrated that when military posturing begins, it often takes little to set the funeral pyre alight. One mistake. One overreach. One military gamble too many. One too many provocations. One act of desperation.

For a very brief time, Joe and his angry surrogates had control of the narrative and pimped their propaganda. People have woken up and trush have been revealed. Patrick Martin (WSWS) observes:

There is an obvious element of racism in the selective outrage of imperialist governments and the corporate media, expressed in saturation coverage of the suffering of the Ukrainian people, accompanied by virtual silence over the equally terrible suffering of the population of Yemen.

This was summed up in the comment by CBS correspondent Charlie D’Agata, who blurted out that victims who “look like us” are more likely to evoke a sympathetic response. He was only one of many. Daniel Hannan of Britain’s Daily Telegraph remarked, “They seem so like us. That’s it. That is what makes it so shocking. Ukraine is a European country. Its people watch Netflix and have Instagram accounts, vote in free elections and read uncensored newspapers. War is no longer something visited upon impoverished and remote populations.”

Government officials followed suit. Ukraine’s chief prosecutor, David Sakvarelidze, told the BBC, “It’s really emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blonde hair being killed, children being killed every day with Putin’s missiles.” Kiril Petkov, prime minister of Bulgaria said, “These are not the refugees we are used to. They are Europeans, intelligent, educated people, some are IT programmers ... this is not the usual refugee wave of people with an unknown past. No European country is afraid of them.” Retired British general Richard Barrons, former assistant chief of the general staff, said, “I think one of the issues … is how does public opinion in the UK and other countries react to seeing people who look and live like us being slaughtered.”

The Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association (AMEJA) issued a statement condemning this racist double standard. “AMEJA stands in full solidarity with all civilians under military assault in any part of the world, and we deplore the difference in news coverage of people in one country versus another,” the organization said. “This type of commentary reflects the pervasive mentality in Western journalism of normalizing tragedy in parts of the world such as the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, and Latin America. It dehumanizes and renders their experience with war as somehow normal and expected ... “

Race is, of course, not the determining factor. There were tears aplenty in the imperialist media for Syrian victims of repression by the Assad regime. The decisive issue is whether the government carrying out the slaughter is allied with American imperialism. Hence the silence over atrocities in Saudi Arabia, Colombia, India and the Philippines—to say nothing of the millions of victims of the Pentagon and CIA in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and across North Africa—in sharp contrast to the screaming headlines and nonstop coverage of the victims of Putin’s reactionary invasion of Ukraine.

The working class should not be swayed by any of the campaigns in the capitalist media, aimed at mobilizing public opinion in support of the foreign policy of American imperialism and its European allies.

In other news, yesterday RUDAW reported:

Rival Shiite leaders are expected to meet on Monday to discuss the formation of a new government, following months of political deadlock, though they are unlikely to decide on the nominee for prime minister, an Iraqi MP told Rudaw on Monday.

The meeting is set to take place between the leader of the Sadrist Movement Muqtada al-Sadr and State of Law Coalition leader Nouri al-Maliki, according to the Iraqi MP, though the exact time was not mentioned.

“The nominee for prime minister will not be decided on during this meeting,” State of Law Coalition MP Faisal al-Naili told Rudaw on Monday.

“Even if the two sides agree on a nominee, they still need to consult with their allies,” Naili added.

A phone call between the two political rivals was held earlier this week, sparking speculation that the topic of discussion was Sadr’s intention to nominate his cousin, Iraq's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Mohammad Jaafar al-Sadr, as the next prime minister.

There has been no official confirmation of these rumors surrounding Jaafar.

The political stalemate continues.