Puppet MastersS

Megaphone

Russia's rivals 'exploiting' damage of Covid-19 by encouraging Navalny protests - Putin

Putin
© Sputnik/Kremlin /Mikhail KlimentyevFILE PHOTO: Russian President Vladimir Putin
Foreign powers are trying to weaponise frustration over falling living standards due to to the Covid-19 pandemic to stir up protests in support of jailed Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny, President Vladimir Putin has said.

With almost every major country in recession, people all over the world have been growing increasingly weary and frustrated with the toll the coronavirus pandemic has taken on living standards, and Russia is no exception, Putin said in an extensive interview with Russian media published on Sunday.

He added that it's only normal to pin the blame on the authorities for all the woes the population might face in times of crisis such as the current one, but Moscow's opponents "try to exploit" this sentiment to spite the Russian government.

Comment: The West's history of using protest movements to sow discord is well documented, and it may be about to get worse: Why Victoria Nuland is dangerous and should not be confirmed as Biden's Under Secretary

See also: Putin tells private meeting France's Macron refused to send Russia Navalny medical analysis - report


Putin

Why Russia is driving the West crazy

Putin
Moscow's pivot to Asia to build Greater Eurasia has an air of historical inevitability that has the US and EU on edge

Future historians may register it as the day when usually unflappable Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov decided he had had enough:
We are getting used to the fact that the European Union is trying to impose unilateral restrictions, illegitimate restrictions and we proceed from the assumption at this stage that the European Union is an unreliable partner.
Josep Borrell, the EU foreign policy chief, on an official visit to Moscow, had to take it on the chin.

Lavrov, always the perfect gentleman, added, "I hope that the strategic review that will take place soon will focus on the key interests of the European Union and that these talks will help to make our contacts more constructive."

He was referring to the EU summit of heads of state and government at the European Council next month, where they will discuss Russia. Lavrov harbors no illusions the "unreliable partners" will behave like adults.

Comment: See also: The EU and Russia: The headless chicken and the bear


People

'Not tough enough'? Le Pen put in surprise position of DEFENDING Islam as Macron's interior minister attacks from the right

Marine LePen
© Reuters / Jean-Paul Pelissier
France's National Rally leader Marine Le Pen, oft-criticized for her party's positions on migration and Islam, was put in the unusual position of all but defending the minority faith amid a debate with Macron's interior minister.

Gerald Darmanin, Minister of the Interior for the ruling Republique En Marche party, slammed Le Pen as having gone "a little soft" on the issue of Islam in France as the pair debated on Thursday on the France 2 channel.

"You're not tough enough here," Darmanin told Le Pen. "If I understand you right, you're prepared to not even legislate on religion, and you say that Islam is not even a problem" but rather "ideology, the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood," and so on, he argued, suggesting the right-wing candidate had gone soft since the last election.

Microscope 2

Best of the Web: WHO: 'All virus origin hypotheses remain open'


Comment: Somebody should inform Facebook, which is actively banning anyone who doubts it didn't come from bats...


WHO logo
All hypotheses are still open in the World Health Organisation's search for the origins of COVID-19, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has told a briefing.

A WHO-led mission in China said this week that it was not looking further into the question of whether the virus escaped from a lab, which it considered highly unlikely.

The United States government has said it will review the mission's findings.

Comment: The WHO is probably unwilling to completely discard the 'lab-escape' hypothesis as it allows them to exert pressure on certain actors as a threat against possible 'findings' in the future. But they're still unlikely to actually take the possibility seriously.

See also:


Attention

Best of the Web: US Senate ACQUITS Trump in second impeachment trial after final 57-43 Senate vote

trump double thumbs up
© Reuters / Carlos BarriaDonald Trump gives two thumbs up to the crowd during a campaign rally in Cleveland, Ohio, November 5, 2018.
The Senate acquitted former President Donald Trump Saturday on a single impeachment article of incitement of insurrection, falling 10 votes short of the two-thirds necessary to convict with 57 voting guilty vs. 43 not guilty.

All Democrats and 7 Republicans voted guilty on Saturday, including Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

House managers and Trump's defense team had agreed Saturday to move to closing arguments for up to 4 hours in the Senate impeachment trial of the former president.

Comment: Surprisingly, McConnell said ahead of time he'd vote to acquit. From The Hill:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Saturday that he will vote to acquit former President Trump, ending weeks of speculation about what he would do.

McConnell's decision, confirmed to The Hill by a GOP senator, comes hours before the Senate is expected to take a final vote on whether to convict Trump of "high crimes and misdemeanors" over an article accusing him of inciting insurrection during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

McConnell has criticized Trump's role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, including saying the former president "provoked" the mob. He disclosed to reporters last month that he hadn't spoken to Trump, with whom he aligned himself closely for years, since Dec. 15.

But he also kept his caucus guessing on how he would ultimately vote, saying that he wanted to listen to the arguments from both House impeachment managers and Trump's legal team.

"Based on his comments over the past two months, I really had no idea what he was going to do," said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of GOP leadership.
And Lindsey Graham says he'll meet with Trump to discuss the future of the GOP. Also from The Hill:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Friday that he'll meet with former President Donald Trump to talk about the future of the Republican party and his role in it.

"I'm going to try and convince him that we can't get there without you, but you can't keep the Trump movement going without the GOP united," Graham said, according to Politico.

"If we come back in 2022, then, it's an affirmation of your policies. But if we lose again in 2022, the narrative is going to continue that not only you lost the White House, but the Republican Party is in a bad spot."

Although the Republicans lost the Senate and White House during the 2020 elections, they gained seats in the House. Trump also received the second most votes in a presidential election in U.S. history, even while he trailed Biden significantly in the popular vote and the Electoral College.

Since then, however, Trump's actions contesting the election, culminating in the ugly and deadly mob attack on the Capitol that led to his second impeachment, has raised new questions in GOP circles about moving on from the former president.

At the same time, Trump retains a high level of support in the GOP grassroots.

RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel has talked before about Trump's future in the party saying that the party will keep a neutral stance on the former president as he has caused strife in the party.

"Trump's got to work with everybody," Graham said. "You got to put your best team on the field. If it's about revenge and going after people you don't like, we're going to have a problem. If this is about putting your best team on the field, we've got a decent chance at coming back."
Meanwhile the New York Times runs its own mock impeachment trial and finds Trump guilty (shocking!). From RT:
In a decision that will shock few and surprise fewer, the New York Times editorial board has declared Donald Trump guilty. No matter the charges or evidence, the Times has been making this case for four years.

"If you fail to hold him accountable, it can happen again," the Times' editorial board wrote on Friday, in a plea to Republican senators to convict the former president.

"To excuse Mr. Trump's attack on American democracy would invite more such attempts, by him and by other aspiring autocrats," they declared. "The stakes could not be higher. A vote for impunity is an act of complicity."

That the New York Times would call for Trump's conviction is unsurprising. This is the same editorial board that described Trump's re-election campaign as "the greatest threat to American democracy since World War II," demanded lawmakers impeach the president back in 2019, then "Impeach Trump Again" after his supporters rioted at the US Capitol last month, and called for the overhaul of the entire political system to prevent someone like Trump ever coming to power again. In fact, the only decision of Trump's the board praised was his use of missile strikes against Syria in 2018, which it called "reassuring."
Trump's attorney Michael Van der Veen has since been 'interviewed' by MSM, at which point he tore them a new one:




Binoculars

Globalists' America-last agenda focused on crushing the middle class

World Economic Forum
Two things occurred this week that should have your attention.

And, no, one of them is not the cartoonish second impeachment trial of a former president. Don't let the media lure you into this drama.

As the first two days of the trial proved, this is nothing more than emotion-driven theatrics.

Democrats are notorious for murdering the facts and appealing to people's base emotions, and this trial is more of the same.

Its purpose has little to do with the former president and everything to do with you, Mr. and Mrs. Conservative American.

If they can criminalize the former president, or at the very least tarnish his reputation beyond repair, they will use that to criminalize and/or tarnish those who supported his America-first policies. That's what they're really after, so don't let them get into your head. Call it what it is, openly and boldly. Dramatic theater meant to sway the ignorant and uninformed.

The ignorant will be ignorant. Let them go.

USA

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

Trump supporters
In order for tyranny to be established, people who love freedom must first be demonized.

It seems like this would be an easy historic fact to accept, however, it's very common for state propagandists and establishment shills in the media to cloud the argument. The conflict between the political left, globalists, conservatives and patriots is awash in misdirection. This article is my appeal to cut through that engineered fog, but before anything else is discussed, we need to recognize a fundamental truth:

If leftists and globalists were not trying to take away our individual and inherent liberties, then we conservatives and moderates would have no reason to fight.

The political left and the globalists are the ONLY people consistently using censorship, mob intimidation, violence, economic ransom, subversion and government oppression to get what they want. And, what they want is control; there is no denying it.

Again, let's think about this for a moment: Who are the real villains in this story? The people who want to be left alone to live their lives in quiet freedom? Or, the people that want to forcefully impose their will on the world by any means necessary?

Dig

Tearing down the edifice of American democracy

U.S. Supreme Court
© Joe LauriaU.S. Supreme Court
The joists & beams that hold U.S. democracy are not as flexible as they appear, writes Scott Ritter. They are the byproduct of societal passion of two political parties and are on the brink of failure.

The fact of the matter is that politics โ€” at least how it is practiced in the United States โ€” is more about perception than reality. The nuance associated with lawmaking, the arcane art of manufacturing the rules and regulations that hold society together, are hidden and therefore unknown to the vast majority of those who participate in the electoral processes that are the hallmark of American democracy.

Most Americans have not taken the time to follow a bill as it makes it way through the legislative process. Instead, they may hear about it at its inception, and then, if the bill is adopted, watch as the Executive signs it into law. They get the headline version โ€” what the brokers of "truth" in the media opt to say about the legislation, and not what it really represents: an amalgam of special interest money sprinkled with a modicum of societal need, want or desire.

Americans get their news like a baby bird gets its meal โ€” waiting for a "mother" figure to digest it and then regurgitate it down their collective throats. They are not informed so much as shaped, the byproduct of a system that is built on manufactured consent derived from half-truths, myths and outright lies.

Snakes in Suits

Shameless grifter Lincoln Project, facing multiple scandals, accused by co-founder of likely criminality

Lincoln Project founders
© 60 Minutes screen captureLincoln Project founders from l to r: Mike Madrid, Rick Wilson, Steve Schmidt, Reed Galen
The group of life-long Republican Party consultants who, under the name "The Lincoln Project," got very rich in 2020 with anti-Trump online messaging has spent weeks responding to numerous scandals on multiple fronts. Despite the gravity of those scandals, its conduct on Thursday night was in a whole new category of sleaze. It not only infuriated their long-time allies, but also constituted the abuse of Twitter's platform to commit likely illegal acts.

That the primary effect of the Lincoln Project was to personally enrich its key operatives by cynically exploiting the fears of U.S. liberals has long been obvious. Reporting throughout 2020 conclusively demonstrated that the vast majority of the tens of millions of dollars raised by the group was going to firms controlled by its founders. One of its most prominent founders โ€” GOP consultant Rick Wilson โ€” personally collected $65,000 from liberals through GoFundMe for an anti-Trump film he kept promising but which never came; to this date, he refuses to explain what he did with that money.

A study conducted after the 2020 election found that the group's effect on the election's outcome was trivial to non-existent โ€” not surprising given its penchant for spending money on ads that aired in electorally irrelevant places such as Washington, D.C. or which circulated almost exclusively in liberal cable news and social media venues, and thus had no purpose other than to enable its consultants to take large commissions from the ad spending. They were producing ads solely for liberals, with the overriding intent not of defeating Trump but inflating their net worth. And it worked: until they were no longer needed.

Heading into the 2020 election, most of the U.S. media was uninterested in, if not outright hostile to, any reporting that might have helped President Trump's re-election bid. As a result, the Lincoln Project continued to enjoy media veneration even as the magnitude of its scam became increasingly obvious. But with Trump now safely vanquished, the Lincoln Project is dispensable, and the protective shield it enjoyed against any real journalistic scrutiny is โ€” like its reputation and prospects for future profiteering โ€” rapidly crumbling.

Better Earth

Great reset? Putin says, 'Not so fast!"

Putin
© UnknownRussian President Vladimir Putin
Did you happen to catch the most important political speech of the last six years? It would have been easy to miss given everything going on. In fact, I almost did, and this speech sits at the intersection of nearly all of my areas of intense study.

The annual World Economic Forum took place last week via teleconference, what I'm calling Virtual Davos, and at this year's event, of course, the signature topic was their project called the Great Reset.

But if the WEF was so intent on presenting the best face for the Great Reset to the world it wouldn't have invited either Chinese Premier Xi Jinping or, more importantly, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

And it was Putin's speech that brought down the house of cards that is the agenda of the WEF.