Tuesday, October 11, 2016

On What Grounds Is Trump Wrong?

It is hard to find defenders of Donald Trump after recent revelations of lewd remarks he made some years back have been revealed, not realising they were being recorded, lewd remarks, by the way, which go well beyond the "locker room" talk guys do engage in, especially when aged about 15 and a 1/2, not 59! One of those few defenders is Nigel Farage. No wonder others are hard to find!

The revelations are so bad even Trump himself has apologised. Also he has quickly resorted to a playground tactic of saying Bill Clinton was worse. His defensiveness belies his guilt.

Whether Clinton was worse or not has nothing to do with Trump's disgraceful behaviour and the need to judge it clearly as making him unfit for an office he is unfit to hold on many other grounds as well. (Again, Hilary Clinton has grounds for not being considered fit for president, but those grounds don't make Trump a better candidate).

But here's the thing from a Christian point of view, neatly raised on PJ Media by D.C. McAllister (my bold):

"From the moment the tapes were made public, the drumbeat to Trump's personal walk of shame began. Politicians who formerly endorsed him fled in terror, not wanting the soiled stain of sexual stigma attached to them. NeverTrumpers descended in holier-than-thou glee as they declared how noble and right they've always been not to support such a despicable man. And the left has been howling like puritanical wolves, condemning him for his immorality and sexist treatment of women. 
I find this reaction to Trump's private conversation rather ironic. It's ironic coming from a secular culture that long ago declared objective morality dead. It's ironic coming from politicos and media bottom-feeders who defended the abusive and disgusting behavior of Bill Clinton, not when he was a private citizen but when he was a sitting president."

In other words, picking up my headline to this post, the easy thing here to do is to howl in outrage, to bask in reflected glory of never having endorsed Trump but the hard thing to do - by today's subjectivity re sexuality - is to define the grounds on which Trump is actually morally wrong (and not simply offensive to 21st century notions of decency).

McAllister continues, with a well made point about the way Christians are treated today when they attempt to advance objective morality:

"The creep of moral relativism in America has been steady for many decades, increasing in speed to the point that the "slouching toward Gomorrah" has become a sprint. The notion that there is objective truth or absolute morality has been universally panned to the point that everything is tolerated except standards of right and wrong. "Everyone decides for himself what is right, especially when it comes to sex" is the mantra of today's culture.
For years, Christians in particular have been attacked and silenced as they've tried to challenge the immorality that is pervasive in today's society. When they tell people casual sex is wrong, they get the inevitable, "You have no right to tell me what I can or can't do." If they oppose sexual immorality in any form, including adultery, they’re maligned as sanctimonious puritans by lovers of libertinism."
The punch is here:
"How ironic, then, that a culture which rejects moral standards has suddenly become so pure and pristine, sitting in judgment of someone they deem too immoral to become president because of something he said in private. As a logical person, I have to ask these paragons of newly found virtue where this standard by which they've judged Trump is found.If morality is relative to each individual—a purely subjective experience—by what standard are they judging Trump? Obviously, in such a secular climate, there can’t even be a “standard.”Why should anyone listen to people who out of one side of their mouths declare the death of objective moral standards yet out of the other condemn someone for violating objective moral standards?Those who are complaining about Trump today have no basis for their moral outrage. That's because their secular amoral worldview rejects any basis for that moral judgment. Any argument they make against the "immorality" of Trump is stolen, or at least borrowed for expediency, from a religious worldview they have soundly rejected."

Precisely!

The Western world reaps what it sows. Perhaps American voters are supporting Trump, even after this past weekend, because they do not buy into moral outrage anymore? Perhaps they support Trump because in a world of casualised sex without moral stigma (Yes, I'm looking at you Bill Clinton, the sitcom Friends, and many Hollywood films) any "preaching" about anything to do with sexual behaviour is now powerless to convict of wrongdoing.

Even here Down Under, this past week we have had our very own casual sex scandal involving a rugby god-and-apparently-a-role-model-also. Cue about two million opinions on radio talkback, social media and around water coolers. How many of those opinions involve objective assessment of the immorality of the deed? And has anyone other than a Christian or Muslim advanced such assessment? It is unlikely that any of the high priests of NZ culture will reflect on the irony of finding 100 ways to judge the scandalous action other than the immorality of fornication. McAllister is whistling in the wind as far as those high priests and their American counterparts are concerned. 

Trump is a deeply flawed candidate for President of the United States of America but it is not because he offends movers and shakers in the post-Christian, liberal, political elite which control American and hence most of Western culture.

63 comments:

Andrei said...

Who actually believes the USA is a democracy?

This has to be one of the sickest jokes of all time, particularly for those in the devastated lands that the USA has meddled with and bombed into chaos

And while we are being "entertained" by these Godless buffoons the world is headed for an apocalyptic war

At the very minimum we are witnessing the end of the West

MichaelA said...

"It's ironic coming from politicos and media bottom-feeders who defended the abusive and disgusting behavior of Bill Clinton, not when he was a private citizen but when he was a sitting president."

Perhaps even more ironic that Trump was one of those who publicly defended Clinton's abusive and disgusting behaviour back when he was President, and now takes a rather different view of it!

Your article makes a very good point.

Father Ron said...

Are there any moral relativities between the problems of Trump in America and the declaration of the 6the Trumpet in Cairo, one might well wonder.

After all, moral conservatism is a feature in both camps.

With The Donald, his problem is seen to be his rampant heterosexuality; while with theRepublican Party, G.S. and Gafcon, the problem would seem to be what they diagnose as rampant homosexuality.

Some might say that heterosexual activity is at least 'natural' in synch with God's plan for the complementarity of male and female and therefore, forgivable.

However, the perceived reality for Gafconites, Republicans, and many conservative Christians seems to be that merely being homosexual (regardless of activity) is a far greater sin; 'un-natural', and therefore outside of God's provision and forgiveness.

The big questions now are; will Donald win? And will the Gafconites rule?

Glen Young said...


Hi Peter,

I guess when Prince Charles becomes King and hence leader of the Anglican Communion you will leave the Anglican Church;from recollection,he made some pretty "OFF" remarks to Carmilla.

So,lets have a President who pays no heed to or appears to place no value on MARRIAGE or fidelity like madame Clinton! I certainly would not trust anyone who does not place value on and demand fidelity from their spouse;with running my affairs of state. How can she claim to champion woman's issues when by her own actions,she is saying,"THIS IS HOW IT IS ALRIGHT FOR MEN TO BEHAVE". Her choices of Supreme Court Judges alone will destroy their Constitution.

I am not excusing Trump;but lets remember we are dealing with the mad world of secular politics.
"And the Lord said unto Samuel,Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee:for they have not rejected thee,but they have rejected me,that I should not reign over them." 1 Sam.8.

Andrei said...

Dear Fr Ron;

There is a lot more to this world than homosexuality, that is just an obsession of this sad time in human history among the over privileged middle classes of Post Christian North West Europe and North America along with their Anglo Saxon colonies

Self absorbed, self indulgent, people who have had everything handed to them on a plate for whom how they make their genitals feel nice is their be all and end all and something that defines them

It is called idolatry Fr Ron

I watched that debate yesterday and it was grotesque, sickening in a world where cities are being destroyed, churches leveled to the ground and the four horsemen are unleashed - trivial entertainment for well fed cretins brought up on reality TV

In your comfortable Christchurch bubble, where the electricity works clean, fresh water is piped to your home and an abundance of good quality food is available from the local supermarket you have the time and luxury to fritter your life away pontificating endlessly on this nonsense

Meanwhile the corpses pile up in North Africa, East Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia and the Donbass of course as unadulterated Satanic evil stalks this planet

MichaelA said...

"After all, moral conservatism is a feature in both camps."

It is? You could just as easily say that moral conservatism is a feature of every camp (including your own) so long as you can change the content of "conservatism" to mean whatever you please!

MichaelA said...

Andrei, most people in the world believe that the USA is a democracy. I appreciate from previous posts that you have a very different view which is typical of so much emanating from Russia.

The USA and other western nations have been quite moderate in their use of force. They have not "bombed other countries into chaos", nor caused them to be "devastated". There are certainly big problems in Iraq and Syria, for which Iran (in both cases) and Russia (in the latter) also share significant responsibility, as do many other nations.

And no, the world is not "headed for an apocalyptic war". Russia is not going to use nuclear weapons unless its own territory is invaded (which nobody is interested in doing) and neither is the west. Russia's military is nowhere near as powerful as that of the USSR and its not going to start major confrontations which its not capable of following through on.

Brendan McNeill said...

Peter

I wrote the following after Arron Smith's 'indiscretion' but it applies equally to to Trump, and dare I say Clinton for different reasons:

We have long since lost any commonly agreed framework in our culture that would allow a discussion on public morality to take place. We are left only with emotions. We may still be able to intuit something was wrong with Aaron Smith’s actions, but who was wronged? Was it his partner, his fans, his employer, the Prime Minister, the young woman who was willing to participate, or did he simply injure himself?

Was anyone wronged in a consensual adult sexual relationship? Why shouldn’t we indulge our desires when given the opportunity? It was only casual sex after all. In a world of moral relativism and idealised individualism, who is left to say what is right or wrong?

“Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

- - WB Yeats.

Shawn Herles said...

Hi Peter,

"It is hard to find defenders of Donald Trump after recent revelations of lewd remarks he made some years back have been revealed"

Perhaps we move, in internet terms, in different political circles, but I have found a lot of other people willing to defend him, myself included.

"the need to judge it clearly as making him unfit for an office he is unfit to hold on many other grounds as well."

They make him a flawed human being. They don't make him unfit for office. I'm not sure what your other reasons are, but I doubt we would agree.

"Again, Hilary Clinton has grounds for not being considered fit for president, but those grounds don't make Trump a better candidate"

Yes, they really do, by a wide margin. Trump is flawed. Hillary is seriously, deeply corrupt. Were it not for her political power and connections, she would quite literally be in prison now.

Politics is about personalities and a candidates personal virtue, but they are also about policy, and the effect those policies will have both on the citizens of a country, and on the international stage.

On that score Trump is vastly better than Clinton. Hillary wants to import tens of thousands of potential Islamic terrorists and Muslim rape gangs. She supports Obama's policy of Muslim immigration, which has led to US citizens being killed by the dozens. Her economic policies will continue the gutting of the working class and the poor by exporting their jobs to Mexico and China. She is radically pro-abortion, and intends to gut existing restrictions, even on partial-birth abortions. She supports Obama's persecution of US Christians in the US on "human rights grounds" which have seen dozens of Christians and Christian organization hauled before the courts. The Catholic church has been effectively disbarred from offering adoption services because of their moral stand, and if you do the research, this is all just the tip of the iceberg. She is itching to start a war with Russia, and her actions with regards to Syria and Libya were a monumental disaster that has resulted in ISIS expanding all over the Middle East. So on policy, and on her appalling track record as Secretary of State, she is vastly more unfit than Trump. On policy, Trump is the only moral candidate.

Here is another PJ Media article which makes the case for Trump.

https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2016/10/09/trump-will-win-the-national-battle-for-legitimacy/

Andrei said...

"The USA and other western nations have been quite moderate in their use of force. They have not "bombed other countries into chaos", nor caused them to be "devastated".

You obviously know nothing of Libya, South Sudan, Somalia and Yemen among others - hardly surprising because the atrocities in those places rarely get reported - occasionally perhaps Barack Obama will gleefully announce the killing of an "Al Qaeda" by a drone strike but cruise missile attacks on Yemen and there consequences say are simply not reported

Libya of course is a catastrophe and one that Hillary Clinton is deeply implicated in, how can you kid yourself otherwise?

This is Kobani in Syria, where that little boy who drowned in the Mediterranean originated - Russia was nowhere near, had not even entered the conflict when this city was destroyed - destroyed by American airstrikes. You would not see this on the news

Hypocrisy rules

I'll leave you with Maria Zakharova responding to a question from an American journalist a couple of days ago

Father Ron said...

"So,lets have a President who pays no heed to or appears to place no value on MARRIAGE or fidelity like madame Clinton! I certainly would not trust anyone who does not place value on and demand fidelity from their spouse;with running my affairs of state." - Glen Young -

Glen, aren't you arguing against your own Party Line in this statement? At the very least, Hilary is sticking with the indissolubility of Marrage. with the Christina Virtue of unconditional forgiveness. Isn't that your Party Plan?

Is not Hilary's fidelity to her Marriage Vows more important for you that the infidelity of her husband? That's where you and I normally differ!

Shawn Herles said...

Let's put this "moral outrage" of Peter and others under the microscope.

Bill Clinton is accused, by numerous women, of rape and sexual assault. And Hillary is accused, by those same women, of using her political power to shame, discredit, and destroy them to defend her rapist husband.

It gets worse. When she was a lawyer Hillary defended a man accused of raping a 12 year old girl. She attacked and shamed the girl on the stand, and later boasted and laughed that she got the accused off by having evidence against him disbarred.

Let's repeat that. She laughed and boasted at having evidence against a man accused of raping a 12 YEAR OLD GIRL barred from being heard in court.

"Perhaps American voters are supporting Trump, even after this past weekend, because they do not buy into moral outrage anymore?"

No, we just don't take the "moral outrage" of Hillary supporters, or those that oppose Trump, seriously, and we are morally attuned enough to discern that this is a competition between a merely flawed man and a women so utterly evil that she takes glee in getting child rapists off the hook.

Glen Young said...


Ron,

Yes ,I argue for lifelong marriage and would encourage a partner not to throw away a marriage over a indiscretion by the other party;but hang on,the fifth,sixth and seventh "I did not really have sex"!!!!She obviously does not value or have pride in her own "womanhood and femininity"; so how can she stand there as the great champion of woman????? She has no marriage worth speaking of,she just a political association with a man who can help her achieve her own evil ends.

Andrei said...

Rosemary West was faithfully married to Fred West Fr Ron - this did not make either of them admirable people

The Clintons are sociopaths who get what they want regardless of how it affects other people

Trump is a terrible candidate - Hillary Clinton is far far worse

I expect she will get her heart's desire and we will get WW3.

But perhaps the American people's disgust with their ruling elite will prevail and that bullet will be dodged -

We know we cannot trust anything we read in the American media so who knows what the people of Topeka Kansas or Allentown, Pennsylvania really are thinking as this debacle unfolds.

What will be will be

Shawn Herles said...

On the main issue that has been raised here, on what grounds, I agree that liberal society has no grounds on which to judge Trump, or any other issue. But it is a useful revelation of the underlying flaw in the claim that there is no objective morality. In countless debates on other blogs with secular liberals I have seen people make the claim that there is no objective moral standard, and then base a claim on a presumed objective moral standard, sometimes in the very same sentence.

A good example of this is homosexual rights. I have lost count of the number of times I have been told that I have no right to judge, that what consenting adults choose to do is their own business, and that my claim to an objective moral standard is wrong. See the flaw? That I have no right to judge, and that what consenting adults choose to do, so long as they are harming nobody else, is their own business, are both moral claims based on a presumed objective standard of right and wrong. Objective morality and moral claims are impossible to get away from.

The problem though is that secularism cannot back it's claims to it's own objective morality with anything other than subjective opinion, because all objective moral claims must assume some transcendent standard that everyone is obliged to abide by, and a transcendent standard means God in some form. Secularism is self-refuting.

Anonymous said...

My impression is that the discussion among the high priests (including anglican ones) concerning the illegitimacy of sexual acts would be much more around inequalities of power than around anything as old fashioned as immorality. Rhys

Glen Young said...


The only foundation,that neo-Darwinist/cultural Marxist secularism has, for making any so called moral claims is"MIGHT IS RIGHT".That is what makes Clinton such a dangerous candidate for Presidency.It would be four years of Humpty/Dumpty "a word means what I say it means,nothing more and nothing less".

Anonymous said...

Apart from a truly extraordinary act of God, Peter, it's over.

In 16 states that allow early voting-- there are 50 states in all-- ballots are already being cast.

In December 2015, polls already showed that there were very few likely voters who had not decided for either Clinton or Trump in any match of the two, and even then Clinton had a statistically significant lead. She has retained that lead in aggregated polls throughout this entire year, hence the odds strongly favouring her electoral success, and there are too few undecided voters to change the outcome--

http://tinyurl.com/z92nxkj

The only question of interest now is: will Clinton's margin of victory be wide enough to give Democrats firm control of the Senate and House? If the Senate is divided 49-1-50 (Democrats-Socialist-Republicans), as expected, then Vice-President Kaine will complete a 51-50 Democratic majority. Hilary's stable margin in national polls of around 5% would probably not overcome the effects of GOP gerrymandering to give Democrats control of the House. But a margin of victory for Clinton greater than 7% may suffice, and this week's polls show a margin widened to about 10%.

Because nearly all likely voters decided early, and have not reconsidered, this has been the most uneventful presidential campaign season since Eisenhower v Stevenson in 1952. But nature abhors a vacuum. The media have strong financial incentives not to dispel the illusion that the sun may not rise on the morrow. The excitable demand their excitement. And especially when they know nothing worth mentioning, wingnuts will talk trash about just about anything.

Bowman Walton

Andrei said...

Rhys has nailed it - its all in the narrative and he or she who controls the narrative controls the world

Anyone whose brain is functioning knows that someone has been sitting on that conversation, surreptitiously recorded over a decade ago, for a long time waiting for the time to release it when it could do the most damage

And that with its release there would be a co-ordinated campaign of selective outrage

We live in a world ruled by lies and deceit

We know where to put our trust and hope though and it is not in any politician or pundit

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Jean said...

Gosh is it too late for either party to find a new candidate : ) ...

It might just be one of the few elections where it is more ethical not too vote!!

What Hilary did using her personal email was not smart but not illegal at the time; and her support for 'equality and tolerance' is rather extreme to the point of ruling out any special dispensations for (what we might call special character) business or institutions who come from a particular moral stance.

Donald has won a lot of support with voicing his opinion of bringing American jobs home and put down a lot of people who have stolen said jobs. However, he has also made a million or two or three by choosing to outsource his own apparel making to said global trade organisations. So one could wonder if talk for Donald is cheap. Maybe not wonder too long given his attack on Bill Clinton before his own little indescretions were revealed.

At lest for us kiwi's in all puts John Keys hairpulling into context : )

The post was an interesting read Peter. I would agree in the main the lines between right and wrong are all but blurred when it comes to certain aspects of morality today. One thing though that still seems to frowned upon by the secular and religious alike is the use of force.

Praying will actually be easier than voting in this instance. God save America!

Glen Young said...


The Oh!!!Bamas and the Clintons are puddle-walkers.They walk into puddles which are over their heads and then think that everybody else has gotten as wet behind the ears as they are.

With 60% of her campaign money, allegedly coming into the Clinton Foundation,from Saudi Arabia and Qatar; don't her supporters think that there will be any expectation of payback?? Why are these barbaric autocrats so interested in her being elected??? She says America is already GREAT.Does she mean a great outpost of the Islam Empire.

What mighty projects could have been initiated in the Southern States to relieve poverty with the 130 billion Oh!!Bama and Clinton gave to Iran.

Peter Carrell said...

No, Ron.
You must find a way to comment on the issue at hand and not, along the way, make comment about the commenter.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron
I am prepared to publish the following comment after a small amount of redaction.

""With 60% of her campaign money, allegedly coming into the Clinton Foundation,from Saudi Arabia and Qatar; don't her supporters think that there will be any expectation of payback?? Why are these barbaric autocrats so interested in her being elected??? She says America is already GREAT.Does she mean a great outpost of the Islam Empire." - Glen Young -

Is this just one more scary anti-Islamic rumour, or does it have a verifiable basis? So much in political campaigns depends on lies and secrets and lies. []
"

Anonymous said...

But avoid irreverent and empty chatter, which will only lead to more ungodliness… 2 Timothy 2:16

But reject foolish and ignorant speculation, for you know that it breeds quarreling. 2 Timothy 2:23

What causes conflicts and quarrels among you? Don't they come from the passions at war within you? James 4:1

God

Shawn Herles said...

Geller: Liberals suddenly discover morality.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/11/pamela-geller-trump-video-liberals-suddenly-discover-morality/

Back to packing!

Andrei said...

The really scary thing about this is that things like this tape are dominate features of this election while the real issues are ignored

And the major issue that affects us all is how dangerous the situation in the Middle East and East Europe really is...

We are being led into a catastrophic war which will kill millions if not billions by people who are psychopaths and dishonest to the core

Is it just me or do you find it bizarre that while the world is going up in flames the issue de jour is an old tape of a man expressing interest in a member of the opposite sex, all be it in crass terms?

Andrei said...

Britain joins France in Russian 'war crimes' talk

After what happened to Libya we should be rolling on the floor laughing at this posturing

BTW with all these crocodile tears over East Aleppo has anyone taken a look at Fallujah which has suffered three battles since 2003, the latest earlier this year

BTW that picture was taken after the second battle of Fallujah and those are American Soldiers wandering through the devastation

Excuse my cynicism

Bryden Black said...

Did anyone else notice the absolute glee with which Clinton suddenly lit up when she mentioned exercising a presidential veto. Mmmm... the lust for power ... (BTW: this is NOT therefore to side with that other fellah)

Glen Young said...


But I bet she does not veto the Bill on Sharia Law when the Democrats introduce it next year.Part of the pay back I guess!!!

Father Ron said...

Speaking of the 'Lust for Power'. Has anyhone noted this potentiality in the G.S,/Gafcon Takover bid for the soul of the Anglican Communion?

n.b. Peter, if you redact or withdraw this one, I shall take it as sign you really don't want my oppositional views on ADU.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron
I have no idea what your 2.23 pm comment has to do with the subject of this post ...

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Michael A
I think we will excise some of your comment below as the less ad hominem the less chance of WW# breaking out on this thread ...

"Andrei wrote:

"You obviously know nothing of Libya, South Sudan, Somalia and Yemen among others - hardly surprising because the atrocities in those places rarely get reported ..."

Incorrect on all counts - what goes on there does get widely reported, and I am well-informed. Hence why I wrote ""The USA and other western nations have been quite moderate in their use of force. They have not "bombed other countries into chaos", nor caused them to be "devastated"."

"Libya of course is a catastrophe and one that Hillary Clinton is deeply implicated in, how can you kid yourself otherwise?"

Indeed, I do wonder how you can kid yourself by writing things like this. Libya is not a catastrophe at all - what we see is simply the result of an oppressive dictator finally being overthrown. And no, Clinton was not remotely the only western leader who supported western action in Libya - everyone ios "deeply implicated" - and a good thing too. The terrorist supporter and oppressor Gaddafi is gone. The people of Libya are already better off, despite the troubles that continue in Libya (and some of them stimulated by Moscow).

"Hypocrisy rules"

Indeed it does. There is no reason for Russia to be involved in Syria at all, and the main contribution it has made has been indiscriminate terror bombing of civilians, with destruction of many schools and hospitals. In a short space of time, its bombing campaign has been far worse than anything unleashed by the West. It has no right to cast stones.

"We know we cannot trust anything we read in the American media"

[]
"

Bryden Black said...

I think Peter Ron was commenting upon my take on Clinton's gleeful 'start' ...! See October 12, 2016 at 12:56 PM. But then perhaps off topic ...

Shawn Herles said...

"Speaking of the 'Lust for Power'. Has anyhone noted this potentiality in the G.S,/Gafcon Takover bid for the soul of the Anglican Communion?"

No, not at all. I see a humble desire to put God before the fashionable idols of liberal modernity, and a mission to bring the Anglican Communion back into conformity to the mind of Christ that is expressed in His written Word.

Shawn Herles said...

Back to the issues raised by Peter in this post, I found this article to be a good examination of the problems of liberal moral claims in our current society.

'Liberalism in a post-modern age'

https://ccrl.ca/2009/12/liberalism-in-a-post-modern-age/

Brendan McNeill said...

Hi Michael

It’s somewhat off topic but your post deserves a reply.

You wrote:

“The people of Libya are already better off, despite the troubles that continue in Libya”

I recall watching documentary on Libya a few years ago while Gaddafi was still in power, where a former TV personality wandered through busy markets with a goat he had purchased, and enjoyed hospitality with the locals. Do you think with the people of Libya ‘better off’ as you suggest that any TV executive would consider for one moment making such a documentary today, or any popular TV personality agreeing to front it?

Libya has descended into a factional Islamic hell hole with Western Governments once again choosing sides amongst waring tribal factions in order to establish ‘peace’ and to begin the restoration of civil society. Earlier this year the British supplied both their SAS and 1,000 troops on the ground in Libya to help wrestle back a dozen oil fields from ISIS.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3383459/SAS-spearhead-operation-involving-1-000-British-troops-wrest-control-dozen-oil-fields-seized-ISIS-Libya.html

As for Syria, it would be considerably better off with an Assad Government backed by Iran and the Russians, as opposed to being governed by a motley collection of American backed ‘Islamist rebels’ who would proceed with the systematic slaughter of those who opposed them the moment they took power.

US propaganda notwithstanding, Assad’s success is perhaps the only hope for peace in the region.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Bryden/Ron
Unlike a Trump/Clinton debate, we could stay on topic :)

Andrei said...

Michael A - you are suffering from cognitive disconnect

If Libya post Muammar Gaddafi is so wonderful why are we seeing thousands drowning in the Mediterranean trying to escape it?

The refugee crisis now overwhelming Southern Europe pre-dates any Russian involvement in Syria

In any case the USA is currently bombing Libya and I have not seen a mention of this on the News though we are nightly bombarded with images from Al Nusra held East Aleppo - this is called Operation Odyssey Lightning btw and is being carried out in complete violation of international law and the UN Charter

Also Sanaa in Yemen is currently under aerial bombardment by the Saudis - again in complete violation of international law and again we hear little to nothing of this. I don't think the USA is currently bombing in Yemen though they have during Obama's tenure and this occurred while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

Whether you like it or not the Government in Damascus is the lawfully recognized legal authority in Syria and it is their duty under international law to maintain law and order there and that is what they are trying to re establish.

You are guilty of Western hubris and it will be the downfall of all of us.

This is why this election is so alarming to the few of us who have retained our sanity in a mad world and why this outrage over of a decade old conversation surruptiously recorded seems so banal

Andrei said...

And by the Way Michael A

Russia's involvement in Syria is at the request of the lawfully recognized authorities in Syria and is perfectly legal under international law unlike the USA's involvement in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan and Libya - Vladimir Putin has a higher degree in international law and is scrupulous about dotting the is and crossing the ts though you will never believe this being fed Western propaganda

And why Russians can described as engaging in terror bombing when the Americans et al and the Saudis are not is as mysterious to me as quantum physics would be to a dead mouse

Glen Young said...


My only support of Trump rests on the hope that there will be an America, where the ACNA might flourish and be allowed to resurrect the foundation of a society, where OBJECTIVE MORALITY is the norm.It certainly won't and cannot happen under Clinton, with her agenda of anything other than orthodox Christianity. It cannot happen under Clinton with her appointing Supreme Court Judges who will interpret the Constitution, so that ORTHODOX CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS cannot live and earn their livings,while abiding by their God Inspired Consciences.A vote for Clinton, is a vote against the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM GUARANTEED by the Constitution.A healthy vibrant society cannot be founded on neo-Darwinistic/cultural Marxist secularism.

Shawn Herles said...

Well, I'm inclined to the view that both Michael A and Andrei are wrong. Michael is overestimating the degree of success in Libya, and wrong that deposing Assad in Syria is the answer to the Syrian civil war. And Andrei's opinions regarding the USA as the source and perpetrator of all evil that can never do any right, even accusing the US of being the anti-Christ that is leading us to the Apocalypse, is far from a realistic and balanced assessment.

Both the USA and Russia are imperfect nations, filled with fallen and imperfect people, as all nations are. The current US admin is persecuting Christians in the name of gay rights and abortion rights, and the Russian admin under Putin has banned the preaching of the Gospel on Russian streets.

But more importantly, what does this, or for that matter Ron bringing up GAFCON and the GS, have to do with the issues Peter has raised in this post?

Glen Young said...


Does all this, not show the futility and insanity of man raising himself up against the Word of God. For those who deny the relevance of God's revelation to Moses; just look back on his WISDOM to God's chosen people: Deut.8:1 on and concluding with verse 17;" "And thou shall say in thine heart,My power and the might of mine hand has gotten me this wealth.v.18 But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God for it is He that giveth thee power to get wealth,that He may establish His covenant which He sware unto thy fathers,as it is this day.v.19 And it shall be,if thou do at all forget the Lord thy God and walk after other gods,and serve them,and worship them,I testify against you this day that ye shall perish.v.20 As the nations which the Lord destroyeth before thy face,so shall ye perish; becauce ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the Lord thy God"

Very pertinent words for every American voting in this election.As Joshua said: Choose this day whom ye shall serve.

Bryden Black said...

What topic was that Peter?! That BOTH Clinton and Trump are perfect representations of the vagaries of secular 21st C western politics??
Seriously: Kyrie eleison ...

Andrei said...

Shawn asks "But more importantly, what does this..." referring to the chaos in Africa and the Middle East

It has everything to do with the subject of this post which on a superficial level asks about selective moral outrage regarding an unseemly conversation surreptitiously recorded and then strategically released to sabotage a political campaign - a political dirty trick coupled with spin

And again there is selective moral outrage over the Syrian Government's endeavors to secure East Aleppo from the hands of Al Nusra

It is the same thing except the Syrian question is far far more important than "locker room banter" and perceived "sexism"

And in a rational Presidential campaign it is the former that we would be debating not the later

Is there anyone reading here, regardless of position on the Middle East and Russia, who thinks otherwise?

And the fact we have been drawn into the former, a distraction, at the expense of the later should scare the pants off you or it would if you were aware of the troop movements and fleets building up in strategic regions of the globe as we speak

But carry on...

Shawn Herles said...

"in a rational Presidential campaign"

Political campaigns in a democracy, any democracy, are never rational, and never will be. When a politician has to appeal to millions of people in a fairly short amount of time, reason is useless. Hence the circus. But, for now, it's what we're stuck with.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Unknown

Peter Carrell said...

Apropos of the debate in comments above, this Morning Star editorial may be of interest: https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-5ee4-Flirting-with-World-War-III

Bryden Black said...

Apropos The Morning Star: Not exactly "As I walked out one midsummer morning". Unless his violin echoes the strains of that quartet on the deck of the Titanic ...

Andrei said...

Interesting that an English Socialist paper takes more or less the same position as Ron Paul :)

" When a politician has to appeal to millions of people in a fairly short amount of time, reason is useless." - Shawn Herles

And they do this by pushing peoples buttons - in this case using the feminist narrative of accusing DC of misogyny and showing him to be a pig - and those remarks were those of a crass individual and that's a fact

We all have our buttons and when I become intemperate it is because mine have been pushed

When HC diverts from the damaging (to her) release of the DNC Emails by blaming Russian intelligence for the leaks she is exploiting American cultural memes that have cast Russians as the bad guys for generations - Shawn and I have sparred for some time :) and our differences lie in history and culture even though our world view in the important things is the same more or less

I have teased Peter over a movie review he did on some occasions because the movie Citizen 41 was in fact highly offensive to me

And politicians exploit our buttons to advance their agendas - sociopaths are skilled at identifying which buttons to push to get people to comply to their will

Shawn wrote this of me " And Andrei's opinions regarding the USA as the source and perpetrator of all evil that can never do any right, even accusing the US of being the anti-Christ that is leading us to the Apocalypse" - I'm not sure that is my opinion but in my rhetoric it may come across because of my buttons and linguistic style

I believe in Christian unity but politicians can drive wedges between Christians then that is something clearly not from God and is anti Christ if not the literal anti-Christ

This is too big for a blog comment to elucidate fully but it goes to the heart of this post and to the issues facing us in the wider world

Shawn Herles said...

"I'm not sure that is my opinion but in my rhetoric it may come across because of my buttons and linguistic style"

Yeah, that's what I suspected. I have a rhetorical style that is sometimes easily misunderstood as well, as I'm sure you have noticed on another blog! That's partly why I gave up on it. The moderation here at ADU facilitates much better debate and discussion.

In terms of Russia and the USA, my desire is for much closer and friendlier relations, and hopefully one day an alliance.

All the more reason to hope for a Trump victory! :)

MichaelA said...

Hi Brendan,

Libya is not nearly as bad as you make out. Yes, there is fighting there, but the majority of people actually lead normal lives and never hear any shooting. It’s easy for people in their arm chairs to hear about some fighting and imagine that its all over the country, but they need to travel a bit and calm down. Your point about “1,000 troops” only reinforces my point – you do realise that is just a battalion group?

“As for Syria, it would be considerably better off with an Assad Government backed by Iran and the Russians”

There is not the slightest evidence for that, and in any case it is a fantasy: Assad has long ago lost control in Syria, along with much of his power base. Whoever is able to impose a unified government in Syria, it won’t be Assad. He can be propped up by outside forces, but that’s all. And without Russia and the Iranians, he would quickly be gone, as you rightly acknowledge.

“who would proceed with the systematic slaughter of those who opposed them the moment they took power.”

Again, there is not the slightest evidence for that in the case of the moderate Syrian opposition. Certainly some groups would, notably ISIS, and ironically both Assad and the Russians avoid fighting ISIS when they can!

Assad’s survival is a guarantee of continuing strife in the region, and he will never be able to control Syria again, as even his backers implicitly acknowledge.

MichaelA said...

Hi Andrei,

“If Libya post Muammar Gaddafi is so wonderful why are we seeing thousands drowning in the Mediterranean trying to escape it?”

We aren’t – but thank you for the opportunity to correct a common misunderstanding on this point. Very few Libyans are fleeing from Libya. As the UN points out: “The principal nationalities on the Libya to Italy route so far this year have been Nigerians and Gambians, although among countries more commonly associated with refugee movements 9 per cent have been Somalis and 8 per cent Eritreans.”

As for your attempt to justify the government in Damascus, it has long ago lost legitimacy, and it is clearly not trying to “maintain law and order”. Both it and its Russian allies are trying to re-establish control over people who have made it quite clear they do not wish to be ruled by it, and they are employing indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas to do so. That is not “trying to establish law and order” but trying to reconquer.

“You are guilty of Western hubris and it will be the downfall of all of us.”

A pity – most of your posts eschew personal comment and deal with the issues. The obvious response to this is that I consider that you are guilty of Russian hubris and it will be the downfall of all of us. ;o) Now, back to the issues:

“And why Russians can described as engaging in terror bombing when the Americans et al and the Saudis are not is as mysterious to me as quantum physics would be to a dead mouse”

For the simple reason that it is true. It has been amply attested in many news reports. I cannot comment on the Saudis, but the US and its western allies certainly are not doing so. And there is no point in pretending that this is just my opinion – it is precisely for this reason that the EU, led by Germany, is now considering additional sanctions against Russia, i.e. because of its indiscriminate bombing against civilian areas in Syria.

Incidentally, I agree with your point above as to why this issue is relevant to the thread – it is part of the context of the contest between two US presidential candidates, a contest in which Russia often expresses interest. I disagree with your arguments, but not their relevance.

MichaelA said...

"It is the same thing except the Syrian question is far far more important than "locker room banter" and perceived "sexism". And in a rational Presidential campaign it is the former that we would be debating not the later. Is there anyone reading here, regardless of position on the Middle East and Russia, who thinks otherwise?"

Definitely.

Firstly, its not just "locker room banter" or "sexism". Its sexual assault. I hope you understand the difference.

Other revelations are almost as serious (e.g. Trump's admissions that he regularly walked in on the women's dressing room at his pageants while women were naked, including on at least one occasion underage girls).

Secondly, these things are relevant (and much else besides) because they go to character. We don't just allow anyone to be leaders of our nations, and that is precisely because they have to make decisions about war and other important issues that you refer to.

That is also why Hillary has justly come under fire, not for her husband's past behaviour which lies on him alone, but on her tactics in defending it in the past. It’s a legitimate question to ask. Mind you, it’s not one that Trump himself can ask, since he used to defend both Bill Clinton's actions and agree with Hillary's attitudes to it. But then, it does appear that Trump changes his views entirely as it suits his personal needs. Which again comes back to why he should be trusted as US Commander-in-Chief.

Brendan McNeill said...

Hi Michael

Well, I suspect none of the key players in Syria are reading this blog, so our personal reflections are just that.

It is clear however that the present US Administration has no strategy for 'victory' in Syria. It can never be obtained by CIA funding for disparate 'rebel' groups, and pretending to ignore the presence of the Al Nusra Front, an al-Qa'ida-affiliate and every bit as ruthless in their interpretation of Islam as ISIS and the Saudi's.

There would never be a 'rebel' Government in Syria without them, should they remain undefeated, and yes they would slaughter those who opposed them given the opportunity.

https://sputniknews.com/world/201610101046197600-mistura-nusra-aleppo-civilians-hostage/

Syria is shaping up to be like the US Elections - there are just bad options either way, with Putin's support of the Assad Government being the least worst. Perhaps he is the Hillary Clinton of Syria, or maybe the Donald Trump, take your pick.

It is equally conceivable that Iraq and Syria become the battleground for Islam's 30 year sectarian 'war to exhaustion', but then perhaps that's too much to hope for? Peace being our first preference of course, but absent peace?


Andrei said...

Michael A

"There is not the slightest evidence for that, and in any case it is a fantasy: Assad has long ago lost control in Syria, along with much of his power base."

Assad controls most of the populated areas of Syria including most of Aleppo - there are 7 million internally displaced persons within Syria according to the UN and they are all in areas controlled by Bashar al Assad's Government.

Do you know what that means Michael A?

It means that they have fled from "rebel" held areas to Government held ones - i,e, They are looking to the Government in Damascus for safety Michael A! In Aleppo itself there are 1.5 million people in Government held territory and a mere 250,000 or less in "rebel" territory. This should tell you everything. Bashar al Assad has the support of his people, maybe grudgingly in some cases but they know he is a far better proposition than the Terrorists the Americans, Saudis and Qataris have unleashed upon them and their nation in an act of undeclared war

"'And why Russians can described as engaging in terror bombing when the Americans et al and the Saudis are not is as mysterious to me as quantum physics would be to a dead mouse'

For the simple reason that it is true. It has been amply attested in many news reports. I cannot comment on the Saudis, but the US and its western allies certainly are not doing so."


How do you know this? You have never seen any News reports from the ground in Sirte, Libya for example. The fact the US are bombing Libya is barely reported and then only in a sanitized way - this is deliberate, they make it seem as though what they are doing is just and humane while what their enemies are doing is cruel and barbaric -its called propaganda Micheal A

The American Government makes sure you don't see the results of their crimes and pretend they are acting for "humanitarian" reasons - a deceit invented during the Yugoslav wars and one of the greatest lies of all times!

You probably don't even know there are American troops operating in Syria and also in Ukraine involved killing Syrians and Christian Ukrainians. You will tell yourself this isn't so but it is

When they were bombing Yemen it wasn't reported by the American media at all and what little did get through implied the targets were Al Qaeda even though the dead were Shiite tribesmen and ergo not Al Qaeda

Just like you don't know there were Americans at Tskhinvali supervising the killing of Ossetians and Russians back in 2008 because the American Government lies to the American people and misleads them all the time.

You only get part of the story Michael A, the part that the American Government wants you to hear and even then it isn't accurate but a distortion created for their own self justification

I will tell you a funny story about Tskhinvali Michael A - a Russian News cameraman filmed the bombardment of that city by the Georgians and his film was shown on American News Networks except they reported it as showing Gori being bombarded by Russians - this is 100% true Michael A it happened. And because not one American in a million could find either place on a map they would have got away with it unscathed if the cameraman in question hadn't seen it and if there were no Ossetians living in America who know their own city to tell of it

" Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect" - Jonathon Swift

Glen Young said...


When the American Supreme Court has the fortitude to admit that neo-Darwinism is a religion and that it should be barred from being taught in schools;young people leaving school,might not be indoctrinated that there is no purpose or plan to life.While they remain entrenched in this soul destroying religion,there can be no sane appraisal of what is right or wrong. There is only ME and MY FEELINGS.

These liberal Judges have sailed into the SEA OF MADNESS and left the people without a compass or sextant to navigate their way out of this insanity. TEC has thrown its spiritual endorsement behind this denial of a "God Given Natural Order" manifest in the Creation around us, so that we are without EXCUSE; as well as the AUTHORITY of His Revelation ONCE GIVEN.

But God has risen up a CHURCH (ACNA), to boldly speak about His Power and Might; and the LOVE He has shown the world,in the LIFE,DEATH and RESURRECTION of HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON,that whosoever believes on Him should not perish but have everlasting life.This is the GLORIOUS GOSPEL which the Church was given to proclaim.

But,how dare any any sane parent think that this life preserving and rational ORIGIN OF LIFE AND THE WORLD AROUND US SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS!!! NEVER IN YOUR NELLY---ITS CREATIONALISM AND WE HAVE BARRED IT.

Andrei said...

Syria is shaping up to be like the US Elections - there are just bad options either way, with Putin's support of the Assad Government being the least worst. Perhaps he is the Hillary Clinton of Syria, or maybe the Donald Trump, take your pick.

He might even be the George Washington of Syria Brendon.

I'm not saying he is - understand that, but I wouldn't preclude that possibility

He is definitely a man of substance - as the Nation he was responsible for fell into chaos through outside malignant influences he could have fled like lesser leaders have leaving his people to be picked over by the vultures who created this havoc

But he didn't - he is still in Damascus leading the resistance to the forces of darkness that assail his homeland rather than living out his life in luxury in Sochi or Moscow which was always an option for him, still is I suppose

Whether or not he can rebuild Syria remains to be seen - I hope he does because that will be a victory for National Sovereignty and self determination

Andrei said...

Labour MP Mike Gapes says: 'If Putin does to Aleppo what he did to Grozny, then they are going to flatten it'

What Putin has done to Grozny :)

It remains a land where men are men and women are women and men marry women not each another though - an anathema to the modern Godless Western mind which revels in blasphemies and general squalor

MichaelA said...

Michael A

"There is not the slightest evidence for that, and in any case it is a fantasy: Assad has long ago lost control in Syria, along with much of his power base."

Assad controls most of the populated areas of Syria including most of Aleppo - there are 7 million internally displaced persons within Syria according to the UN and they are all in areas controlled by Bashar al Assad's Government.


Hi Andrei,

No, Assad doesn’t control “most of the populated areas of Syria, nor are “all” internally displaced persons in Syria in areas controlled by Assad, plus of course there are many others that have fled to other countries who are just as displaced. Again, the primary reason for this is the indiscriminate terror bombing campaign by the Russian and Syrian air forces. Hence why a number of otherwise non-involved nations are seeking sanctions against Russia.

That is also why Trump aligning himself with the worldview put forward by Kremlin media like Sputnik and Pravda is not doing him any favours with US voters.

Your figures for Aleppo are also simply wrong. They are a cut-and-paste of things shown in Kremlin media, but not reflected by independent reports.

And no, Assad does not remotely “have the support of his people”. He is having trouble holding onto the support of his own Alawite fraternity. Hence why I wrote above that Assad will never be the one to bring peace in Syria. That train has left the station.

“How do you know this? You have never seen any News reports from the ground in Sirte, Libya for example.”

Andrei, kindly do me the courtesy of NOT jumping to totally unjustified conclusions about what reports other people have or have not seen – unless you live in my house, you have no idea what I have seen.

“The fact the US are bombing Libya is barely reported and then only in a sanitized way”

Why the change of subject? You wrote this in response to my comments about Syria. Assuming it is a typo and you meant to write Syria, the difference between US and Western (including my own country) bombing in Syria is major. The west uses focussed hi-tech bombing which is directed at the enemy forces. Russia by contrast is openly using mass bombing directed at the civilian population (and against many respected independent organisations assisting them, such as medecins sans frontiers, who have testified to this).

“You probably don't even know there are American troops operating in Syria and also in Ukraine involved killing Syrians and Christian Ukrainians. You will tell yourself this isn't so but it is”

I am not telling myself, I am telling you and everyone: The part about Ukraine is rubbish. I follow events there quite closely, and the idea that US or any western troops are involved in the fighting is absurd. Apart from anything else, they have no need to be. They train Ukrainian troops, but that is a different matter. And since you bring up Christianity, the Ukrainian defendings against Russian aggression are almost entirely Christian.

As for Syria, everyone knows that there have been some western special forces involved. So what?

“Just like you don't know there were Americans at Tskhinvali supervising the killing of Ossetians and Russians back in 2008 because the American Government lies to the American people and misleads them all the time.”

Oh please, there is no basis to this at all. There have been individual Americans and other westerners on BOTH sides of Russia’s recent wars, but no US troops in Georgia.

I will follow with a quotation which you should take to heart:

" Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect" - Jonathon Swift

MichaelA said...

Hi Brendan,

“It is clear however that the present US Administration has no strategy for 'victory' in Syria.”

I don’t know that that is true, but I agree that it makes far more sense for the west to openly support the moderate opposition and send in troops.

“There would never be a 'rebel' Government in Syria without them, should they remain undefeated, and yes they would slaughter those who opposed them given the opportunity.”

The extremist Islamist groups will certainly not be defeated by Assad – he and his Russian and Iranian backers would rather do deals with them. And no, they won’t simply “slaughter those opposed to them” – like any extremists, they use terror as a weapon to get what they want, and once opposition is muted the killing tends to subside. But that is hardly a reason for not opposing them, rather the opposite.

As for least worst in the US elections, I think that raises a different issue for Republicans – why did they choose Trump as their candidate in the first place? Hillary Clinton was deeply unpopular; this election was the Republicans to lose. Yet they chose a polarising candidate who cannot handle political pressure, and who at most can carry only the Republican base.

By contrast, Ronald Reagan in each of two elections gained the votes of a quarter of registered Democrats and over half of independent voters. Yet this year, of all the possible candidates Trump probably looked the least like achieving such cross-party appeal, so why choose him to oppose Hillary?

Shawn Herles said...

Hi Michael,

" I think that raises a different issue for Republicans – why did they choose Trump as their candidate in the first place?"

He's a genuine nationalist, on foreign policy, on border control, on immigration, and on economic policy. None of the other candidates were. And, with the possible exception of Cruz, the rest were just door class neocon puppets doing the bidding of their corporate masters. Or Israel's bidding. Or both. As far as Rubio or Jeb go, on issues like the economy, jobs and immigration, I can't see any difference between them and Hillary.

"By contrast, Ronald Reagan in each of two elections gained the votes of a quarter of registered Democrats and over half of independent voters. Yet this year, of all the possible candidates Trump probably looked the least like achieving such cross-party appeal, so why choose him to oppose Hillary?"

Wrong on both counts. Polls show Trump is getting most of the independent vote, and take a look at this:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/10/13/tens-of-thousands-of-dems-leave-party-in-pa-switch-to-republican-n2231663

I doubt that is the only rust belt state where that is happening.

Heartland Americans are fed up with the corporate controlled mainstream in both parties. Fed up with their sons and daughters being slaughtered in foreign wars against countries that are no threat to the US, while their jobs are shipped to Mexico and China.

I am all for boots on the ground to defeat ISIS, but the only reason we have to is because of Bush 2 and Obama. But Syria? What the hell does that have to do with the US? If they want to have a civil war, let them. The US should not support either side.

Andrei said...

"That is also why Trump aligning himself with the worldview put forward by Kremlin media like Sputnik and Pravda is not doing him any favours with US voters."

That's irrational Michael A - what media do you align yourself with?

The American yellow press?

Reality Bashar al Assad is the lawful authority in Syria, whether you like it or not

And he is with Russian and Iranian help securing the last part of Aleppo in terrorist hands - God willing this will be achieved sooner rather than later

The USA and its allies, who have no business in Syria are upset about this which is why we are getting all the posturing

But international law is designed to prevent conflict and it is the USA, Saudi Arabia and Qatar etc who are violating it, not Syria or Russia or Iran.

And while you are bombarded with images from East Aleppo, images sourced from the terrorist scum who have infested it you completely ignore the other cities under trial such as Sirte and Sanaa because it is politically inconvenient for the USA for these things to be acknowledged.

Do you know over 2 million Iraqi citizens have died since the illegal 2003 invasion? - do you care?

We are living in an incredibly dangerous time

5 Billion dollars was invested in "promoting democracy" in Ukraine, an endeavour that saw an elected Government toppled by violence and replaced by a junta that has led to civil war.

Do you know that it was known who the Americans wanted to lead the junta before the Government fell - A uniate for Prime Minister and a Baptist for President - Yatsenyuk (uniate) and Turchynov (Baptist) guaranteed to incite a civil war. Do you know the history of Ukraine from the 15th century to the end of WW2? I doubt it

And all the while while the USA is destroying other peoples countries to benefit Wall Street American cities like Detroit are falling into decay - there have been over 3000 shootings in Chicago this year - its a war zone. And there is no money to fix this up

An infantryman in Afghanistan is less likely to be shot than a young black man in Chicago

This is the appeal of Donald Trump -- he speaks to this

Shawn Herles said...

"That is also why Trump aligning himself with the worldview put forward by Kremlin media like Sputnik and Pravda is not doing him any favours with US voters."

It's doing him no favors with neocons and the Washington elite. I suspect that it does him a lot of favors with Americans more concerned with finding a job than going to war with Russia.

Glen Young said...

What about the alleged sixty million that STALIN disposed of;has anybody from the COMMUNIST PARTY repented of that, apologized to the people and sought their forgiveness.