Thursday 23rd of January 2020

biden's bid...


WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Former Vice President Joe Biden would beat sitting President Donald Trump by seven points if he were to run for president in 2020, a new poll by Politico/ Morning Consult suggested on Tuesday.

A majority of US voters, 44 percent, said they would support Biden in the 2020 presidential election, while 37 percent of respondents said they would vote for Trump, the poll by Politico/ Morning Consult revealed.

Biden has not confirmed his intention to run for US presidency, but he has frequently hinted in interviews that he could throw his hat into the ring.

READ MORE: Trump Reveals Name of 'Dream' Opponent for 2020 Election (VIDEO)

The former vice president has the overwhelming support of Democrats, with 80 percent of Democratic voters saying they would be willing to back him in the next election, according to the poll.


READ MORE: Biden: Politicians Use Immigrants as "Scapegoats," Utilize Citizens' Fears

The survey was conducted from July 26 to July 30 among 1,993 registered voters.

READ MORE: US Senator Bernie Sanders Mixes Up Trump and Obama Over Immigration

Trump's Approval Rating

Meanwhile, a report, recently presented by the Pew Research Center, says that President Donald Trump’s approval rating has not only remained stable during the first 18 months of his presidency, but surveys also reflect the biggest partisan gap in the history of modern polling.

Trump’s approval ratings have hardly moved in surveys conducted by Pew, and his June rating of 40 percent is nearly identical to the 39 percent who said they approved of his performance in February 2017, shortly after his inauguration, the report explained.

"There has also been a wider gap between Republicans’ and Democrats’ views of Trump than for any other US president in the modern era of polling," the report said.

The share of the public approving of Trump’s job performance is similar to the approval of Clinton (42 percent) or Reagan (44 percent) 18 months into their administrations, the report noted.

However, the 7 percent of Democrats who approve of Trump is lower than the 14 percent of Republicans who approved of O(bama)...


Read more:

"washington survivor"

Ever since Donald Trump’s presidency hit the 500-day mark, the media have been speculating daily about the next presidential election. As we watch the ongoing reality show, Nov. 3, 2020 seems like it will be the final episode of a multi-year season of “Washington Survivor.”

Which Democrat will rise above the pack? A few weeks ago, CNN published its ranking of the Democrats most likely to be the nominee, based on polling and lessons from history. In reverse order of likelihood, as of the end of July, they are:

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio;

Former New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu;

Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey;

Governor Steve Bullock of Montana;

Former attorney general Eric Holder;

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont;

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York;

Senator Kamala Harris of California;

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts;

Former vice president Joe Biden.


Read more:


did not trash trump soon enough...

Former Vice President Joe Biden Saturday night told the audience at the Human Rights Campaign’s National Dinner that he wished he trashed President Trump sooner.

“Barack and I agreed we would be quiet for the first year to let the new administration get up and running,” Biden said. “God forgive me,” he said, making the sign of the cross over his chest.

He also said he wished he had shown support for gay marriage earlier in his political career.

“It was very late. It was very late,” Biden said.

Biden, 75, said that when he sat down with “the team” for then Sen. Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign to discuss joining the ticket he agreed. “I would not affirmatively make the case [for gay marriage], but if I was asked, I would not remain silent,” he said.

In May 2012, Biden appeared on “Meet the Press” and signaled support for marriage equality, prompting Obama to do the same.


Read more:


"God forgive me,” he said, making the sign of the cross over his chest??? Is this the moronic gesture of a spent cartridge?

we're all indians...

As they say, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does indeed rhyme. And so “Elizabeth Warren” rhymes with “Hillary Clinton”—at least in terms of the way they run presidential campaigns. That is, they both go heavy on data and metrics, and light on common sense.

Only a nerdy, screens-before-people mindset could have yielded Warren’s tone-deaf attempt to use DNA data to “prove” that she is a Native American. And then that same mindset manifested itself in an elaborate rollout plan: puffy kickoff article in her hometown newspaper, The Boston Globe? Check. Slick accompanying campaign video? Check. Copious supporting details on her website? Check.

Yet despite—or perhaps because of—all that planning, the whole thing blew up like the Hindenburg. Even friendly observers laughed at the argument that her being .09 percent Native American amounted to anything compelling. After all, according to a 2014 report in The New York Times, the average “European-American” is .18 percent Native American—that is, double Warren’s share—while African Americans and Hispanics have significantly more Native American ancestry. (As an aside, the average white American is .19 percent black, which is to say, if Warren can claim Native American status—a claim that undoubtedly spurred her academic career, no matter how many fawning Globe articles say otherwise—then most Americans could make the claim, too; indeed, they could also claim African-American status.)

The blowback against Warren’s genetics gambit was instantaneous—and ferocious. Most spectacularly, Cherokee Nation official Chuck Hoskin told CNN, “It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”


Read more:


Read from top.

US media meddlings in US elections...

CNN & MSNBC Caught Meddling in US Democracy

Both Channels put out fraudulent claims about Presidential polls.

Joe Giambrone

CNN rigged a poll to censor out nearly everyone under 45 years of age. Based on this nonsensical false sampling they claim Biden is now in the lead.


Read more:



Read from top

machinery of empire...

Bread and circuses pacified the Roman masses while the emperors with their legions patrolled far borders to pacify barbarians who resisted joining the empire. Joe Biden updated this governing method at his presidential campaign launch rally in Philadelphia.

He offered a buffet of appetizing items to improve America’s education, infrastructure, health care and climate policies. He pledged to unite the nation and restore its soul and backbone. And he said not a word about the country’s ongoing and looming wars.

He looked abroad only to lament that Trump’s antics and his affections for “dictators and tyrants” like Putin and Kim “undermine our standing around the world.”

Silence about the wars allowed him to pretend their cost would never shrink or spoil the buffet selections he was dangling before the masses. But that’s a mirage.

Conjuring money (debt and “quantitative easing”) might pay for these wars and the huge military apparatus that backs them, at the risk of turning inflation into an enemy more menacing than the restive natives out on the imperial frontier. But what would it cost to pay with real money?

Machinery of Empire

If Google is truthful, the US has nearly 800 military bases abroad (UK, France, Russia combined have 30, China has 2). These range from isolated radar stations to Little Americas with shopping centers, bowling alleys, fast fooderies, beauty parlors, basketball and tennis courts, golf courses etc, besides the attached military operations. The uniformed personnel on all these bases and ships, plus inside the US, total about one and a quarter million, the reserves another eight hundred thousand. At sea or docked the Navy has almost 500 ships, including 11 aircraft carriers and 72 submarines. The Air Force wields over 5,000 military aircraft, over 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and 170 military satellites. The Army has about 6,000 Abrams Main Battle Tanks in service or storage, 6,700 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, many thousands of armored personnel carriers, countless (literally) tens of thousands of other vehicles, about 3,400 helicopters and 10,000 drones. The Marines field about 400 tanks, several thousand other fighting vehicles and 1,300 manned aircraft.

The Pentagon budget for these “defense” activities is running a bit over $700 billion a year. That doesn’t include the costs lodged in the Energy department for designing and building nuclear weapons and warship power reactors. Nor the Coast Guard’s 1,900 ships and boats, plus 200 aircraft, with 56,000 personnel. Nor the NSA’s cyber warfare skulduggery. Nor the CIA’s snoopery and secret war exploits. Add these expenses to the Pentagon’s and the true cost of policing and servicing the Empire probably totals about a trillion dollars per year.

Financing this with debt and sleight-of-hand money is as unsustainable as industrial society’s ecological practices. Trump has continued the long habit of ignoring all that. Under his rule the annual federal deficits are approaching a trillion dollars, and the accumulated total debt continues its dizzying ascent—now beyond twenty two trillion.

Caesar Hillary and Warrior Pete

Biden does the same as Trump. So do nearly all the announced Democratic presidential contestants. They close their eyes, jam their fingers in their ears and pretend not to notice that their devotion to waging the Empire’s wars also wages war upon their lavish promises about all the wondrous things they will do for the voters in the homeland.

This one mega lie of theirs makes Mr MAGA’s lesser lies by the thousands trivial in comparison. It is Trump University vastly expanded to the size of the federal budget.

They do this because they know that serving the Empire is part of the job description for president. Hillary made this explicit during an interview while waiting in the wings to take her turn on stage as Madam Commander in Chief.

She paraphrased Caesar’s famous summary of his attack on the Gauls: We came, we saw, we conquered.In response to a question about the sadistic death of Libyan president Gaddafi, a captured prisoner of US sponsored rebels during her tenure as secretary of state, she said: We came, we saw, he died—ha ha ha. Viewers of the YouTube video might differ about whether that ha ha ha was a hearty laugh or a fiendish cackle.

Unlike her, some of the Democratic presidential yearners now are actual war veterans, which will be one of their prime claims to White House worthiness. Among them Pete Buttigieg has, so far, made the most of this status.

He entered the race as Mayor Pete but is gradually transitioning toward Warrior Pete in his campaign rhetoric and imaging. A recent news report about Buttigieg in Iowa said he “talked up his service when calling for gun control. ‘I trained on these things,’ he said of assault-style weapons. ‘I know what they can do.’”  Photos circulate on the web of him posing in camo brandishing a big rifle with a gritty Afghan landscape behind. Expect them to eventually appear on billboards and in TV ads, perhaps with snarky commentary contrasting Warrior Pete and Draft Dodging Commander Bone Spur.

Many Trump Circuses, Scant Bread

Apart from military service, many of the Democratic questers could at least portray themselves as competent managers of the Empire, like Caesar. Buttigieg might add to that a cultured, literate Marcus Aurelius style. Trump seems to enjoy mimicking the pathological psycho bonkers manner of a Nero or Commodus.

This scarcely fazes his base, since they mostly remain steadfastly delighted with him acting as the avatar of their ire and grievance, without doing much else for them. That gives Trump an advantage over all his Democratic rivals.


Read more:


Read from top.

fondly reminiscing about segregationist senators...

Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden is under fire for fondly reminiscing about his “civil” relationship with segregationist senators in the 1970s and 1980s. Speaking at a fundraiser at the Carlyle Hotel in New York City on Tuesday night, Biden expressed nostalgia for his relationship with the late Democratic pro- segregation Senators James Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia. Biden reportedly said, “I was in a caucus with James O. Eastland. … He never called me 'boy'; he called me 'son.'” Biden went on to say, “A guy like Herman Talmadge, one of the meanest guys I ever knew, you go down the list of all these guys. Well, guess what. At least there was some civility. We got things done.” Biden was widely criticized by other Democratic presidential contenders, including Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Bill de Blasio. We speak with acclaimed writer Ta-Nehisi Coates about Joe Biden’s long record on the wrong side of civil rights legislation, from opposing busing in the 1970s to helping to fuel mass incarceration in 1990s. Coates says, “Joe Biden shouldn’t be president.”



Read more:


Read from top.


See also: pete...

Note: knowing that Pete Buttilieg is a serious contender despite being described as "lightweight", the DNC and the other Democrat candidates will do all they can to belittle him... 

cool about drugs...

Does Hunter Biden’s crack use humanize his father, or serve as another black mark in the ledger against the Democratic frontrunner? Mainstream media has put the spin machine into top gear as Joe Biden sinks in the polls.

Hunter, the youngest son of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, has spilled his guts to the New Yorker, weaving a sordid tale of addiction, affairs, and alcoholism that the outlet has heroically tried to spin as a positive. After Joe Biden’s abysmal debate performance, the alleged frontrunner – whom even the New York Times has admitted has all the flaws of Hillary Clinton in 2016, plus the deadly “white male” factor – needs all the help he can get.

And the New Yorker has gamely tried to frame the younger Biden’s troubles as a plus for dad. It noted that most candidates are “relentlessly bland” but the former VP – whom mainstream media has been consistently calling the 2020 Democratic frontrunner since his campaign launch, despite a scandal-studded history that would sink multiple less-well-heeled candidates – has “responded to tragedy” and “learned from it.”


Read more:



This Ted Rall cartoon is cutting to the bone ... (from Sputnik)



Read from top.

biden lies...


Former Vice President Biden has foolishly tried to claim that he immediately turned against the Iraq war after it started...

"Immediately, that moment it started, I came out against the war at that moment," Biden told NPR about the Iraq war.

As you can see, the problem with Biden’s claim is that it is clearly a false bit of revisionism on his part to minimize the damage that his vote for the 2002 AUMF is doing to his candidacy. His record shows that he repeatedly, publicly endorsed the invasion after it happened:

Months after the invasion began in 2003, Biden removed any doubt about his support for the effort, telling CNN: “I, for one, thought we should have gone in Iraq.”

At a hearing that July, he once more proclaimed his support, saying “I voted to go into Iraq, and I’d vote to do it again.”

And in a speech later than month, Biden acknowledged what “we have always known” about the war in Iraq, namely that troops “would have to stay there in large numbers for a long period of time.”

“Contrary to what some in my party might think, Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with sooner rather than later,” he said. “So I commend the president. He was right to enforce the solemn commitments made by Saddam. If they were not enforced, what good would they be?”[bold mine-DL]

Biden’s vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq was very wrong, but it might be possible for a former war supporter to acknowledge error and explain what he learned from that terrible decision. Biden had the opportunity to say something like that in the first Democratic presidential debate earlier this year, but he blew it. The former vice president’s new claim that he turned into a war opponent overnight as soon as the war began is a self-serving lie, and it is all the more ridiculous because it is so easily exposed as false. The NPR report includes a damning quote from him in 2003:

“Nine months ago, I voted with my colleagues to give the president of the United States of America the authority to use force, and I would vote that way again today,” Biden said in a speech at the Brookings Institution on July 31, 2003. “It was a right vote then, and it’ll be a correct vote today.” 

Before the war started, Biden thought that backing the invasion of Iraq would help him in his future presidential ambitions, and decades later he finds it expedient to pretend to have been against the war he voted for. Both the original vote and the recent lie about his position on the war reflect very poorly on Biden, and he has damaged himself more with his clumsy and inept attempt at damage control than he would have suffered if he had said nothing more about the war.


Read more:


Read from top.

the fossil biden...

THE DAY AFTER Joe Biden participates in CNN’s climate forum in New York, the former vice president will head to a high-dollar fundraiser co-hosted by a founder of a fossil fuel company.

Andrew Goldman, a co-founder of Western LNG, a natural gas production company based in Houston, Texas, is co-hosting one of two high-dollar fundraisers Biden will attend in New York on Thursday. Western’s major project is a floating production facilityoff the northern coast of British Columbia designed to provide Canadian gas to markets in northeast Asia.  

Goldman and Biden have deep ties: Goldman served as an adviser to Biden while he was in the Senate and was the northeast director of finance for Biden’s 2008 campaign. He’s also an executive at the investment banking firm Hildred Capital Partners. He and his partner at the firm, David Solomon, along with their wives Renee and Sarah, will host a private fundraiser for Biden at the Solomon house, CNBC reported. Goldman also co-founded De Cordova Goldman Capital Management, which invested in “natural resources and energy.”

According to the company’s website, Western deploys “innovative floating liquefaction technology at inland locations, specifically those that have existing pipeline access to natural gas basins.” The group says it’s “opening up markets for these resources, which are stranded behind burgeoning shale production.” 

Biden’s climate plan sets a goal of getting the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. The plan cites human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels — like natural gas — as contributing to the greenhouse gas effect, exacerbating climate events, and playing a part in an overall increase in global temperature. Biden initially had proposed a “middle ground” on climate policy. His climate policy adviser, Heather Zichal, meanwhile, made more than a million dollars from a natural gas firm after leaving the Obama administration.

Neither Biden nor Western immediately responded to a request for comment.



Read more:



Read from top.

time for biden to give up his presidential bid...

With the revelation by an intel community “whistleblower” that President Donald Trump, in a congratulatory call to the new president of Ukraine, pushed him repeatedly to investigate the Joe Biden family connection to Ukrainian corruption, the cry “Impeach!” is being heard anew in the land.

But revisiting how this latest scandal came about, and how it has begun to unfold, it is a good bet that the principal casualty could be the former vice president. Consider.

In May 2016, Joe Biden, as Barack Obama’s designated point man on Ukraine, flew to Kiev to inform President Petro Poroshenko that a billion-dollar U.S. loan guarantee had been approved to enable Kiev to continue to service its mammoth debt.

But, said Biden, the aid was conditional. There was a quid pro quo.

If Poroshenko’s regime did not fire its chief prosecutor in six hours, Biden would fly home and Ukraine would get no loan guarantee. Ukraine capitulated instantly, said Joe, reveling in his pro-consul role.

Yet left out of Biden’s drama about how he dropped the hammer on a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor was this detail.

The prosecutor had been investigating Burisma Holdings, the biggest gas company in Ukraine. And right after the U.S.-backed coup that ousted the pro-Russian government in Kiev, and after Joe Biden had been given the lead on foreign aid for Ukraine, Burisma had installed on its board, at $50,000 a month, Hunter Biden, the son of the vice president.

Joe Biden claims that, though he was point man in the battle on corruption in Ukraine, he was unaware his son was raking in hundreds of thousands from one of the companies being investigated.

Said Joe on Saturday, “I have never spoken to my son about his various business dealings.”

Is this credible?

Trump and Rudy Giuliani suspect not, and in that July 25 phone call, Trump urged President Volodymyr Zelensky to reopen the investigation of Hunter Biden and Burisma.

The media insist there is no story here and the real scandal is that Trump pressed Zelensky to target his strongest 2020 rival. Worse, say Trump’s accusers, would be if the president conditioned the transfer of $250 million in approved military aid to Kiev on the new regime’s acceding to his demands.

The questions raised are several.

Is it wrong to make military aid to a friendly nation conditional on that country’s compliance with legitimate requests or demands of the United States? Is it illegitimate to ask a friendly government to look into what may be corrupt conduct by the son of a U.S. vice president?

Joe Biden has an even bigger problem: this issue has begun to dominate the news at an especially vulnerable moment for his campaign.

Biden’s stumbles and gaffes have already raised alarms among his followers and been seized upon by rivals such as Cory Booker, who has publicly suggested that the 76-year-old former vice president is losing it.

Biden’s lead in the polls also appears shakier with each month. Senator Elizabeth Warren has just taken a narrow lead in a Des Moines Register poll and crusading against Beltway corruption is central to her campaign.

“Too many politicians in both parties have convinced themselves that playing the money-for-influence game is the only way to get things done,” Warren told her massive rally in New York City. “No more business as usual. Let’s attack the corruption head on.”

Soon it will not only be Trump and Giuliani asking Biden questions about Ukraine, Burisma, and Hunter, but Democrats, too. Calls are rising for Biden’s son to be called to testify before congressional committees.

With Trump airing new charges daily, Biden will be asked to respond by his traveling press. The charges and the countercharges will become what the presidential campaign is all about. Bad news for Joe Biden.

Can he afford to spend weeks, perhaps months, answering for his son’s past schemes to enrich himself through connections to foreign regimes that seem less related to Hunter’s talents than his being the son of a former vice president and possible future president?

“Ukraine-gate” is the latest battle in the death struggle between the “deep state” and a president empowered by Middle America to go to Washington and break its grip on the national destiny.

Another issue is raised here—the matter of whistleblowers listening in to or receiving readouts of presidential conversations with foreign leaders and having the power to decide for themselves whether the president is violating his oath and needs to be reported to Congress.

Eisenhower discussed coups in Iran and Guatemala and the use of nuclear weapons in Korea and the Taiwan Strait. JFK, through brother Bobby, cut a secret deal with Khrushchev to move U.S. missiles out of Turkey six months after the Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba.

Who deputized bureaucratic whistleblowers to pass judgment on such conversations and tattle to Congress if they were offended?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at


Read more:


Read from top.


In fact, as a detailed review of the evidence conducted by The Intercept in May showed, Biden’s intervention in Ukrainian affairs that year, when he successfully pressed Ukraine’s then-president to dismiss a chief prosecutor who had failed to pursue corruption investigations, was no secret and was widely praised by Ukrainian anti-corruption activists and international donors to the country.

The reason there is footage of Biden boasting about this intervention on stage at a public event in 2018 is that he knew he had nothing to hide.

Put simply, there is no evidence to support the conspiracy theory that Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani want Ukraine to validate by opening an investigation. Still, it has become an article of faith among Trump supporters that Biden got the chief prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, dismissed to derail a corruption investigation of a Ukrainian firm his son was paid to advise.

But journalists at leading American news organizations — including CNN, the New York TimesPoliticoABC News, and MSNBC — have helped weaponize this disinformation by repeating the baseless smear over and over, without promptly and accurately conveying that Trump and Giuliani are lying about what the former vice president did in Ukraine. So lies and misinformation have been broadcast nationwide, reaching millions of people who will never read subsequent fact checks debunking them.


Read more:


Question: what was Joe Biden's son doing in Ukraine? 




One party investigating these allegations was the United Kingdom, because Zlochevsky had $23 million in a British bank account that UK officials believed has been laundered. Britain’s Serious Fraud Office froze that account, and shortly after Yanukovych left office in February 2014, sent a request to Ukrainian officials for documents it believed would help in prove its case. Following this request, the new Ukrainian government began its own investigation into Zlochevsky, looking into whether he embezzled public money.

In the midst of these troubles, Hunter Biden accepted a Burisma board seat, and was paid for his trouble, sometimes as much as $50,000 per month. It is unclear what he did for the company. Burisma said at the time that Biden — a lawyer — would be “in charge of” a legal unit. Biden told the New York Times in May 2019 that this was incorrect: “At no time was I in charge of the company’s legal affairs.” 

Though none of this looks great for the Bidens, it is, unfortunately, routine business in Washington to hire the family members of powerful officials in hopes of gaining influence over public policy. For example, President Jimmy Carter’s brother, BillyPresident George W. Bush’s brother, Neil; and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham were all involved in business interests that once drew concern.


Read from top.


Now you know. This is capitalism at worse ("All the presidents family did it"). But this has also to do with the US support for the Nazis in Ukraine in order to displace the influence of Russia. One should see Trump refusal to pay the promised cash — as well as get info about the Biden saga for self-kicks — but to give a warming to the new president of Ukraine not to get too close to Moscow...


It appears The Intercept is covering its arse... "was widely praised by Ukrainian anti-corruption activists and international donors to the country" does sound like a fairy tale — when we know that the international "influencers" were sponsoring the Nazis in Ukraine. And who were the "Ukrainian anti-corruption activists"? And what would "international donors" expect in return — or were these guys purely altruistic.....?


forgetting his own biden words...?

Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden condemned President Trump’s comparison of the House impeachment against him as a “lynching” on Tuesday — but the former Vice President himself once used the same term when referencing the impeachment against former President Bill Clinton.

Hours after Trump made the characterization on Tuesday morning, Biden fired off a tweet of his own, saying “Impeachment is not ‘lynching,’ it is part of our Constitution.”

“Our country has a dark, shameful history with lynching, and to even think about making this comparison is abhorrent. It’s despicable.”

But in a 1998 CNN interview, Biden referred to the then-impending House impeachment probe against Clinton as a possible “partisan lynching.”

“Even if the President should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standard, the very high bar, that was set by the founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense,” Biden told the network.

Clinton that year wound up being impeached by the House of Representative for lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

He remained in office as the Senate in 1999 acquitted him, and he served as commander in chief until his second term ended in 2001.


Read more:

biden has become hackneyed to the point of ridicule...

By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

After years of Russophobic insolence and diatribes and after his family's recent history in Ukraine was exposed for all to see, it is crystal clear who and what Joe Biden is: in a word, unfit for office as POTUS. He should not take himself too seriously...

In constantly pressing the anti-Russia button, Biden is following a line which has become hackneyed to the point of ridicule. It is a line which is popular among those of his generation, growing up in the shadow of McCarthyism, those who belong to the yesteryear of international relations, whose generation created the hell-hole which is planet Earth today. They believe that if you want to control someone, all you have to do is to make her/him afraid. This involves creating ogres and monsters, non-existent enemies, creating a strong image of "them" to justify "us" and tell people that if they vote for you, then you will keep them safe and they can go back to their political slumberland drooling over a can of beer as they watch Barney belching on The Simpsons and curl up giggling. They then sidle up to the military-industrial complex and create hotspots to create conflict and sell weapons acting at the same time as a portal for the interests of the Lobbies, the BARFFS (Banking, Arms, eneRgy, Finance, Food, drugS).

Not surprisingly, Biden uses this approach, so popular among those who look for Reds under their Beds every night and who believe that 17 Russians were smarter than 300 million Americans at the last election. Soon he will be claiming that Russia is behind a massive campaign to discredit his candidacy for the Presidency.

In fact, Biden is perfectly capable of doing all that by himself. We are speaking of the man who went to Kiev to lecture the Ukrainian parliament on corruption, then lo and behold guess whose son suddenly finds himself as a bigwig in the Ukrainian energy scene? Like, what a coincidence. This, after the illegal Putsch which ousted the democratically elected President (Yanukovich) amid acts of terrorism (so often the modus operandi of the USA).

Here stands the man who has referred to Russia and its President in derogatory terms, with sheer insolence, scare-mongering, projecting lurid images without a shred of evidence. Perhaps he cannot remember the four-letter word, Iraq, with which his country is indelibly associated.

Perhaps Joe Biden cannot remember the shocking acts of torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq where people were subjected to medieval-style abuse after being detained without trial. Perhaps if he wants to disassociate himself from Iraq, then Joe Biden has forgotten the role his country played in Libya when he was Vice-President, sending the country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa back to the stone age, fragmented, dangerous, crawling with terrorists and hosting open slave markets.

Perhaps Joe Biden has forgotten the role the USA and its yapping chihuahuas have played in Syria, training, aiding and arming terrorists and then maybe he has forgotten the deplorable acts carried out by terrorist groups in this country, slicing the breasts off nuns before raping them, playing soccer with the heads of little girls who were raped before and after decapitation and after being forced to watch their parents being tortured to death.

So perhaps Joe Biden should mind his own (rude word) business, STFU, and realise that he reached his Peter's Principle of incompetence as number two to Barack Obama. Biden was not born to be a leader, he was not born to get anywhere near the Presidency because he has never had what it takes - one only has to see him floundering around on a stage being conceited, arrogant, rude and insolent. He is over his head, out of his depth. He is a has-been without ever having been.

Joe Biden, in short, is a confused, dangerous, Russophobic guttersnipe out of line with the hearts and minds of his people. Americans today want to be part of the international community, Americans today do not want wars and confrontation, they want peace, development, education in a globalised world of brothers and sisters. They want to embrace Russians, not glower at them through a sight of a gun.

Perhaps it is time Joe Biden did not take himself too seriously...

Читайте больше на

biden changes his mind for cash...

Greg Wilpert: Welcome to the Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Baltimore.

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign announced on Thursday that it is open to the formation of a so-called super PAC. That is, an independent political action committee that is allowed to raise unlimited donations from corporations, organizations, and individuals. As recently as last month, the Biden campaign had rejected the formation of a Biden for president super PAC. Early last year, Biden even claimed to have recommended to Senator Bernie Sanders not to allow the formation of a super PAC for Bernie’s campaign. Here’s what he said.

Joe Biden: I mean, I sat with Bernie. I’m the guy that told him you shouldn’t accept any money from a super PAC, because people can’t possibly trust you. How a middle class guy except if you … accept money. But here-

Greg Wilpert: So far, all major Democratic party candidates have rejected super PAC money for their campaigns. But just what does this mean that Biden is now willing to have a super PAC support his campaign? Joining me to discuss this issue is Norman Solomon. He’s cofounder of the national organization and national coordinator of Also, he’s the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. Thanks for joining us again, Norman.

Norman Solomon: Hey, thanks, Greg.

Greg Wilpert: So we can’t assume that everyone knows what a super PAC is. I briefly explained it in the introduction, but explain a little bit more to us what are they, where do they come from, and why is their involvement in politics an important issue?

Norman Solomon: Well, the bottom line is really, so to speak, is to quote what Biden just said. Super PACs mean that people can’t trust you. Of course, he’s not going to say that now, but the basic thing about super PACs is that they allow for unlimited contributions, and that is literally unlimited. It’s a door that has been opened up by the Supreme Court over the last several years with a couple of major decisions. And so it means that really millions and millions and tens of millions of dollars can very quickly pour into an entity that can do attack ads, and promotional ads, extensively independent from a campaign, but really the faucet has been opened and big money can pour in.

Greg Wilpert: Now, the Biden campaign justified their openness to Biden’s super PAC by saying that Biden has become a particularly large target for the Trump campaign because he is the front runner. Actually, several recent opinion polls show that Elizabeth Warren has overtaken Biden in the past month, which perhaps could be attributed to the Trump attacks. Also, the fact that Trump tried to get the Ukraine to investigate Biden and his son show that he’s indeed Trump’s main target. What do you make of this argument as a justification for Biden allowing the formation of a super PAC?

Norman Solomon: Well, for one thing, I think the major factor for why Biden has gradually been falling in the polls is by the way that he campaigns and speaks and contradictions in his claims versus his record. And those contradictions are very much played out in his current effort to rationalize taking huge money or accepting the huge money going into super PACs on behalf of his campaign. The reality is, the real reason is that he’s an AstroTurf candidate. He’s up against two grassroots candidates, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who are not accepting money from super PACs, are not getting big bucks from corporate CEOs and hedge fund managers and so forth.

And in contrast to Warren and Sanders, when Biden goes out to try and get money from the grassroots online and so forth, there’s not much to be gotten because people are not enthusiastic about him. As I say, as an AstroTurf, the candidates need to be continually remanufactured and have the money pouring into the assembly line of mythology about him and naturally, his campaign budget. And so he’s out of luck right now compared to Warren and Sanders who each raised about $25 million in the last quarter, overwhelmingly in small amounts.

He collected only 15 million in that quarter in much higher, bigger chunks and now more tellingly, has at the end of the last quarter, only $9 million in the bank. Whereas Bernie Sanders for instance, has more than 30 million. So I think part of the explanation is that Biden’s campaign is now in panic mode because they know, especially because they are AstroTurf, that they’re going to need a lot of money to try to overwhelm the grassroots support that Warren and Sanders have. And so they’re really out of options.

So the clip you just played from January last year on the PBS NewsHour where Biden said, “Well, there shouldn’t be acceptance of super PAC money cause then people can’t trust you.” Now he’s got to eat that. He certainly knows, his tacticians know that that soundbite is going to come back to haunt him. But he’s really out of other options, because unless he can more overtly depend on and solicit and be helped by the big corporate interests in the country, his campaign would just run out of sufficient money to keep a viable campaign going through the primary and caucus states.

Greg Wilpert: Now, assuming that these super PACs raise enough money to really compensate for the lack of grassroots fundraising, do you think that they’ll be able to make a difference and actually drive Biden’s campaign forward? That he could eventually become the nominee?

Norman Solomon: Oh, I think he definitely has a real shot at it, whether we consider him or Warren according to the polls to be front runner. The fact is that his biggest base is the billionaires and the multi-multi-multimillionaires who do not like Trump and want a corporate Democrat to be the nominee. And the other crucial base and constituency that Biden has is the corporate media, which increasingly are attacking Elizabeth Warren as she has gained in the polls, have always been hostile to Bernie Sanders.

And so for Biden he has those assets, the deep pockets that now will be coming forth with large contributions to his campaign or on behalf of his candidacy through super PACs. Five figures, potentially six figures. That is a reality. He can depend on that. And then also corporate media which for their own interests in terms of profiteering and the strength of Wall Street and not challenging basic income inequality in this country. Corporate capitalism is rushing to Joe Biden’s defense and support, and as of the last couple of days, we now know Joe Biden is overtly welcoming and appreciating them with open arms through super PACs.

Greg Wilpert: Okay. Well, we’re going to continue to follow this of course, but we’ll leave it there for now. I was speaking to Norman Solomon, cofounder and national coordinator of Thanks again, Norman, for having joined us today.

Norman Solomon: Thank you, Greg.

Greg Wilpert: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.


Read more:



It's time for Biden to abandon his quest....





Democratic front-runner Joe Biden was reportedly denied communion by a priest at a South Carolina Catholic church over the weekend.

Biden, a lifelong Catholic, stopped by Saint Anthony Catholic Church in Florence on Sunday, but was denied Holy Communion by Father Robert E. Morey, local newspaper the South Carolina Morning News reported.

“Sadly, this past Sunday, I had to refuse Holy Communion to former Vice President Joe Biden,” Father Morey told the newspaper in a statement.

“Holy Communion signifies we are one with God, each other and the Church. Our actions should reflect that. Any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of Church teaching.”

“I will keep Mr. Biden in my prayers,” Morey said in the statement.

The Biden campaign did not return a request for comment on Monday night.


Read more:



Read from top.

biden's social security toilet views...

AS EARLY AS 1984 and as recently as 2018, former Vice President Joe Biden called for cuts to Social Security in the name of saving the program and balancing the federal budget. Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders highlighted Biden’s record on Social Security in prosecuting the case that Biden isn’t the most electable candidate. The issue could be raised again in Tuesday night’s debate.

After a Sanders campaign newsletter continued the attack on Biden’s Social Security record, the Biden campaign complained to fact-checkers at Politifact that his comments were being taken out of context. Placed in context, however, Biden’s record on Social Security is far worse than one offhand remark. Indeed, Biden has been advocating for cuts to Social Security for roughly 40 years.

And after a Republican wave swept Congress in 1994, Biden’s support for cutting Social Security, and his general advocacy for budget austerity, made him a leading combatant in the centrist-wing battle against the party’s retreating liberals in the 1980s and ’90s.

“When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” he told the Senate in 1995. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.” (A freeze would have reduced the amount that would be paid out, cutting the program’s benefit.)


Read more:



Read from top.