The Democratic Party’s thirst for war and unbridled capitalism is set to worsen in 2020 and there exists no better measure of this than the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Fifty-five CBC officials were sworn in earlier this January, which The Root called “the tip of the spear in the resistance against Trump.” Maxine Waters greeted her fellow CBC members with the “Wakanda” salute. It is fitting that Waters would reference a Hollywood film that promoted “diversity” as the equivalent of Black uplift. The truth is that the CBC has used diversity to actively collaborate with the U.S. imperial state in the destruction of the lives of Black Americans and their allies for decades. The CBC has sided with the forces of imperialism when it comes to war, surveillance, and the police, with 29 CBC members having voted in favor of a law last year that made the police a protected class in America. CBC members can be depended upon to put on a show of “diversity” while working hand over foot to show their loyalty to the monopolists and militarists in control of U.S. imperialism.
Diversity is a cruel con game employed by the Democratic Party to delineate who is and isn’t “fit” to rule the system of imperialism. The white racist ogre Donald Trump is unfit to be president by the calculations of Democrats, yet these same Democrats refuse to admit that it was their party that placed him into office. Instead, so-called evil Russiahas been blamed in the never-ending Russiagate saga for the Donald’s rise to political stardom even though Russian history and its current political trajectory is categorically different from that of the United States. The United States is the birthplace of whiteness and its “purebred” capitalist system has only itself to blame for the current political and economic crisis embodied by Trump. However, there is no room for investigation when the political discourse in the United States has been reduced to what typeof individual should hold political office and whether Washington is under constant electoral attack by the Russians.
Oh, Maxine.
I am Diane Keaton in Love & Death. She tells the old man she trusted him. And he replies, "I forgive you, child."
So when I say, "Oh, Maxine," in my head, I can hear her replying, "I forgive you, child."
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, January 16, 2019. In Iraq, the war continues -- maybe even
heats up -- but in the US the media is as useless as it was in the lead
up to 9/11 attacks. It can offer useless gossip, it just can't cover
the most basic events of the day.
Patrick Martin (WSWS) observes:
When President Trump made a prearranged call in to Jeannine Pirro of Fox News during her Saturday night program, she asked him, in a joking tone, “Are you now or have you ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?” Pirro was clearly phrasing the question as a way to mock the media assault spearheaded by the Times, and Trump responded in kind, denouncing the question as “the most insulting thing I’ve ever been asked.”
The Times and its media chorus responded, however, as Senator McCarthy would have. “Aha,” they declared, “Trump didn’t answer the question directly. He’s hiding something!” The newspaper’s web site noted the exchange with Pirro on Sunday, writing, “Mr. Trump did not directly answer the question.”
This became the media mantra over the next 24 hours.
The Associated Press: “[T]he president avoided directly answering when Pirro asked whether he currently is or has ever worked for Russia.”
The Hill: “President Trump late Saturday declined to directly answer a question from Fox News host Jeanine Pirro about whether he had ever ‘worked for Russia,’ calling it ‘insulting.’”
The Washington Post’s opinion editor, James Downie: Pirro’s question “triggered a two-minute rant, none of which included the word ‘no.’”
Similarly questions were raised on the Sunday television interview programs, with CNN’s Jake Tapper, host of “State of the Union,” playing a tape of the Pirro-Trump exchange and declaring, “The president did not directly answer the question.”
The media commentary came full circle with a front page report by Peter Baker of the New York Times, published Monday, which began: “So it has come to this: The president of the United States was asked over the weekend whether he is a Russian agent. And he refused to directly answer.”
Baker’s “news analysis,” an editorial in all but name, declared that this question—in effect, whether Trump is guilty of treason, a capital offense—“has hung over his presidency now for two years.”
What a load of nonsense from our idiotic and wasteful media. All it's going to take is one 9/11 to send them all scattering yet again from the lawn of Senator Gary Condit and have them insisting that they've learned their lesson. Remember that? Does anyone? They were going to be real and serious and stop the endless chatter by actually focusing on real news.
ADDED 12:48 pm EST 1/16/19, NPR reports, "American troops were killed in an explosion in northern Syria, the spokesperson for the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State says. The ISIS extremist group has claimed responsibility." This is real news, the endless chatter of basic cable 'news' is garbage.
They don't know real news, they know cheap coverage of gossip and that's all they've got, that's all they'll ever have. They are useless and they waste our time with their drivel.
In the real world, wars take place, wars continue and they don't have time to cover those, they lost interest long ago. Better to be the global Ethel Mertz than to ever actually provide any coverage that actually matters.
Another 9/11 and they'll be revealed as the useless gossips they are.
Don't think another one could happen? The Council on Foreign Relations begs to differ. On their "Top Conflicts to Watch in 2019" is a terrorist attack:
Of the thirty contingencies included in this year’s Preventive Priorities Survey, a mass casualty terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland—or a treaty ally—by a domestic or foreign terrorist was assessed as a top tier priority for the United States in 2019. The contingency was deemed moderately likely to occur and, if it does, of having a high impact on U.S. interests.
Repeating: "This year, a mass casualty terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland or treaty ally was included as a top tier priority in the Center for Preventive Action’s annual Preventive Priorities Survey."
And still the media wastes all of our time with nonsense.
"The most trusted name in news"? Did I just hear people chuckle? Yeah, I think I did.
Remember the Iraq War?
Patrick Martin (WSWS) observes:
When President Trump made a prearranged call in to Jeannine Pirro of Fox News during her Saturday night program, she asked him, in a joking tone, “Are you now or have you ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?” Pirro was clearly phrasing the question as a way to mock the media assault spearheaded by the Times, and Trump responded in kind, denouncing the question as “the most insulting thing I’ve ever been asked.”
The Times and its media chorus responded, however, as Senator McCarthy would have. “Aha,” they declared, “Trump didn’t answer the question directly. He’s hiding something!” The newspaper’s web site noted the exchange with Pirro on Sunday, writing, “Mr. Trump did not directly answer the question.”
This became the media mantra over the next 24 hours.
The Associated Press: “[T]he president avoided directly answering when Pirro asked whether he currently is or has ever worked for Russia.”
The Hill: “President Trump late Saturday declined to directly answer a question from Fox News host Jeanine Pirro about whether he had ever ‘worked for Russia,’ calling it ‘insulting.’”
The Washington Post’s opinion editor, James Downie: Pirro’s question “triggered a two-minute rant, none of which included the word ‘no.’”
Similarly questions were raised on the Sunday television interview programs, with CNN’s Jake Tapper, host of “State of the Union,” playing a tape of the Pirro-Trump exchange and declaring, “The president did not directly answer the question.”
The media commentary came full circle with a front page report by Peter Baker of the New York Times, published Monday, which began: “So it has come to this: The president of the United States was asked over the weekend whether he is a Russian agent. And he refused to directly answer.”
Baker’s “news analysis,” an editorial in all but name, declared that this question—in effect, whether Trump is guilty of treason, a capital offense—“has hung over his presidency now for two years.”
What a load of nonsense from our idiotic and wasteful media. All it's going to take is one 9/11 to send them all scattering yet again from the lawn of Senator Gary Condit and have them insisting that they've learned their lesson. Remember that? Does anyone? They were going to be real and serious and stop the endless chatter by actually focusing on real news.
ADDED 12:48 pm EST 1/16/19, NPR reports, "American troops were killed in an explosion in northern Syria, the spokesperson for the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State says. The ISIS extremist group has claimed responsibility." This is real news, the endless chatter of basic cable 'news' is garbage.
They don't know real news, they know cheap coverage of gossip and that's all they've got, that's all they'll ever have. They are useless and they waste our time with their drivel.
In the real world, wars take place, wars continue and they don't have time to cover those, they lost interest long ago. Better to be the global Ethel Mertz than to ever actually provide any coverage that actually matters.
Another 9/11 and they'll be revealed as the useless gossips they are.
Don't think another one could happen? The Council on Foreign Relations begs to differ. On their "Top Conflicts to Watch in 2019" is a terrorist attack:
Of the thirty contingencies included in this year’s Preventive Priorities Survey, a mass casualty terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland—or a treaty ally—by a domestic or foreign terrorist was assessed as a top tier priority for the United States in 2019. The contingency was deemed moderately likely to occur and, if it does, of having a high impact on U.S. interests.
Repeating: "This year, a mass casualty terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland or treaty ally was included as a top tier priority in the Center for Preventive Action’s annual Preventive Priorities Survey."
And still the media wastes all of our time with nonsense.
"The most trusted name in news"? Did I just hear people chuckle? Yeah, I think I did.
Remember the Iraq War?
MOOSE81 100214 #USAF C17A tracking south over #Iraq, east of Baghdad. Operation #InherentResolve. 1232z
The American media doesn't appear to. How strange when you remember how many lies that they repeated and concocted to start that illegal war.
US military officers in Anbar province in #Iraq
, who occupy Iraq against the wishes of the Iraqi parliament...
demanded to inspect Hashd Al-Shaabi units (Popular Mobilization Forces), which Hashd immediately rejected.
Why does the US
continue to treat Iraq like a US colony?
, who occupy Iraq against the wishes of the Iraqi parliament...
demanded to inspect Hashd Al-Shaabi units (Popular Mobilization Forces), which Hashd immediately rejected.
Why does the US continue to treat Iraq like a US colony? 
Jane Arraf shows up on NPR's MORNING EDITION today to offer, "There's an ongoing push here among some political parties to get rid of the US troops in Iraq. The prime minister, yesterday, here said there were 6,000 of them still here."
"Among some"? It's the Parliament, Jane.
After Trump's Visit Iraq Wants All US Troops Out. #Iraq wants us out of their country, I don't blame them: #Iraqi parliament demands timeline for foreign troop withdrawal via aaboulenein, Ahmed_Rasheed_R reuters.com/article/us-mid… …
But she learned to spin at CNN, after all. Another issue? If the prime minister is stating 6,000, that's a higher number than the US government has told the American people. Somehow Jane missed that, didn't she?
Strange she can remember it for Twitter:
And despite the prime minister's claims, others insist the number of US troops in Iraq is unknown.
#Iraqi politician, Nayef al Shamari, says that the @IraqiGovt does not know the exact number of #US #troops or #bases in #Iraq #failedstate
THE NATIONAL notes MP Wajih Abbas:
"The actual number of US forces in Iraq is 9,000, we do not have accurate information on their whereabouts or what their role is," Mr Abbas said, adding that it is vital for parliament to intervene to reduce their presence on Iraqi land.
Jane Arraf misses so much in her little over three minute NPR segment.
For example, she speaks to and quotes the president of Iraq's spokesperson Lukman Faily. She doesn't note who he is other than the spokesperson. Starting in 2013, for example, he was the Iraqi ambassador to the US. Today, he's just a spokesperson. Talk about a public demotion. And, though you'd never know it to look at him, he was only born in 1966. Apparently, being a coward ages you -- yes, he's yet another person the US put in charge -- another coward who fled Iraq and lived abroad for decades until the US-invaded Iraq.
Meanwhile, MIDDLE EAST MONITOR reports:
US
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has called on the Iraqi government to
disarm 67 Shia militias and freeze their activities in preparation to
them being disbanded. In response to the US request, Iraqi Prime
Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has asked Washington to give him some time to
act.
Why the sudden interest? Hmmm.
Commander: Hashd al-Sha'abi Preventing US Troops' Spying along Iraq-Syria Border
fna.ir/bqv50s
#Iraq's Hashd Al-Shaabi forces block US troops from conducting survey along Syrian border: report
Does that explain it?
New content at THIRD:
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: Where's the press?
- TV: Funny or not: SCHOOLED, Jesse Watters and Greg...
- The conspiracy to overthrow Donald Trump
- Anoa J. Changa refuses to let Tom Watson bully or ...
- THE UPSIDE is a disaster
- Video of the Week
- The worst film acting of the 20th century
- Iraq?
- Stan addresses FAMILY GUY
- This edition's playlist
The following community sites updated:
No comments:
Post a Comment