..
‘Dark money’ organization may have helped Biden win
26 Nov, 2021 13:30
November 3, 2020. © Reuters / Edgard Garrido
A shadowy non-profit known as the Voter Participation Center reportedly spent over $100 million ahead of the 2020 presidential election to attract hundreds of thousands of votes from those considered likely to support Joe Biden.
The Washington-based group raised $85 million and spent an even larger amount delivering millions of mail and digital notifications to voters during 2020, The Hill reported this week. Accessing the group’s tax filings, the news outlet noted that last year’s spending dwarfed the $14 million it spent during the previous election in 2016.
Although the Voter Participation Center (VPC) does not explicitly campaign for specific candidates, it targets younger voters, minorities and unmarried women – all of whom traditionally favor Democrats but typically generate below-average turnouts.
The group’s CEO Tom Lopach told The Hill it had delivered some 371 million pieces of mail over the 2020 election cycle, urging voters to register for mail-in voting or to vote early. They also apparently sent out another 300 million digital messages through ads and emails.
Lopach estimated that the group had brought in about 272,000 votes from people who might not otherwise show up at polling stations – potentially helping Biden secure his narrow victories in swing states like Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia.
Since the group is a registered non-profit, it is exempt from disclosing the sources of its funds – and Lopach did not elaborate. He did, however, say the group had “strong support from foundations” and “organizations who believe in voter participation, and private individuals.”
Describing the VPC as being among a “constellation of dark money organizations,” The Hill reported that hundreds of millions of “dark money” dollars flowed into the 2020 elections, both supporting and attacking Biden and Donald Trump, as well as prominent congressional candidates.
Watchdog group OpenSecrets, which tracks dark money in politics, has highlighted over $30 million in such funding spent during the election. That figure does not include funds from the VPC and other groups that have not filed with the IRS – which is how much of the dark money in elections only becomes publicly identified years later.
Who is buying the government these days?
FBI accused of acting as Biden’s Gestapo
29 Nov, 2021 12:28
Trump aide Roger Stone said the FBI leadership has turned the agency into “Joe Biden’s personal Gestapo” as he solicited donations to cover his legal expenses. The remark came after he was subpoenaed by the January 6 committee.
Stone was among five individuals who were subpoenaed last week by the Democrat-led select committee investigating the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill. He denies any wrongdoing and claims to be a victim of persecution.
Making his case in a fresh interview, Stone accused top officials at the FBI of turning the law enforcement agency into a partisan secret police.
“We have a group of politicized thugs at the top of the FBI, who are using the FBI – and I hate to say it – as Joe Biden’s personal Gestapo,” he said, referring to the notorious Nazi secret police service.
He claimed that many rank-and-file FBI agents, including those who participated in the infamous January 2019 pre-dawn raid on his house, had expressed their support for him. But senior figures are corrupting the agency, he believes.
Stone was previously convicted in federal court of seven felonies committed when he obstructed investigations involving his longtime boss, Donald Trump. The former president initially rejected his call for a full pardon, instead commuting his sentence to time served. However, Stone was among the people he pardoned in the final weeks of his presidency.
In the interview with WABC 770 AM radio, Stone claimed the committee’s interest in him is the continuation of a pattern of legal harassment of people in Trump’s orbit. He complained that the subpoena, which he said had only added “insult to injury,” looked to him more like a “press release” and was disclosed to the public before his own lawyers received it.
I’m clickbait for the far left. That’s what I am.
He joked that his immediate thought about the new development was “how many of my ‘Roger Stone still did nothing wrong’ T-shirts” he would be able to sell. He said legal expenses had led to his financial ruin, and he solicited donations to fund his defense in several civil lawsuits filed against him.
Stone said he will wait till the December 17 deadline given to him by the committee before choosing whether to comply with or defy the subpoena. Regardless, he added, his previous experience with the justice system would come in handy.
“It’s kind of been there, done that, got the T-shirt and the pardon,” he quipped.
=========================================================================================
Left-wing wife of ousted Honduran leader wins presidential election
1 Dec, 2021 04:05
November 28, 2021 © Reuters / Jose Cabezas
Xiomara Castro, the wife of ousted former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, was pronounced the winner of Honduras’ presidential election on Tuesday after rival Nasry Asfura conceded defeat.
Asfura conceded the election after 52% of the counted votes showed Castro had a clear majority of 53% over Asfura’s 34% and he publicly congratulated her victory, saying, “I hope that God illuminates and guides her so that her administration does the best for the benefit of all of us Hondurans, to achieve development and the desires for democracy.”
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken also congratulated Castro for becoming Honduras’ first female president and said the US was looking forward to working with her government.
“We congratulate Hondurans for the high voter turnout, peaceful participation, and active civil society engagement that marked this election, signaling an enduring commitment to the democratic process,” Blinken declared.
Castro previously served as Honduras’ first lady between 2006 and 2009, up until her husband Manuel Zelaya was ousted in a military coup. Zelaya claimed the US was behind the coup and attributed it to his signing of Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA).
“The US warned me: If you sign the Bolivarian Alternative to the Americas (ALBA), you’re going to have problems with the US. I signed it, and six months later, I had problems,” he told RT America in 2019, adding, “When you give them competition in the free market, they stop being capitalist. They become retrograde, authoritarian, and they play coups, wars, invasions.”
This sounds like American foreign policy for Central and South America.
Assange verdict branded as ‘travesty of justice’
In so many 3rd world countries, and a few 1st world countries, you expect the courts to be political; it happens all the time. But you don't expect to see it in the cradle of democracy.
10 Dec, 2021 12:48
Human rights and press freedom activists have fiercely condemned a UK court ruling paving the way for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to be extradited to the US where he faces espionage charges.
The UK High Court on Friday granted the US’ request to extradite Assange, a request it had previously blocked due to Assange’s declining mental health. While the ruling is not final and can be appealed by Assange’s legal team, it brings the former WikiLeaks boss one step closer to a trial on US soil, where he faces a possible 175 years behind bars if convicted of espionage.
“These proceedings, and today’s ruling, are a black mark on the history of press freedom,” wrote Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. “That United States prosecutors continued to push for this outcome is a betrayal of the journalistic principles the Biden administration has taken credit for celebrating,” Timm, who previously testified in Assange’s defense, continued.
Reporters Without Borders joined in the condemnation, with Secretary-General Christophe Deloire stating that Friday’s ruling “will prove historic for all the wrong reasons.”
“We fully believe that Julian Assange has been targeted for his contributions to journalism, and we defend this case because of its dangerous implications for the future of journalism and press freedom around the world,” Deloire wrote.
Assange’s plight has long been recognized by free speech and press freedom activists, and the deprivations endured by Assange during his years in detention have been criticized by human rights organizations. Amnesty International’s Europe Director Nils Muiznieks described the court’s decision as “a travesty of justice.”
“If extradited to the US, Julian Assange could not only face trial on charges under the Espionage Act but also a real risk of serious human rights violations due to detention conditions that could amount to torture or other ill-treatment,” Muiznieks wrote.
The High Court granted the US’ extradition request after American prosecutors promised that Assange would not be subjected to so-called Special Administrative Measures while in US custody. These measures include extended periods of solitary confinement, and have been criticized by human rights groups as tantamount to torture.
“We don’t think diplomatic assurances like this are worth the paper they’re written on,” Amnesty’s Simon Crowther explained. “They’re always given by a state when that state has prevalence of torture… that’s a kind of state that shouldn’t be trusted.”
The charges against Assange stem from his communications with whistleblowers, most importantly Chelsea Manning, who gave WikiLeaks classified materials about US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although Assange did not personally hack these materials, he still faces espionage charges for his role in publishing them.
Deep State becomes very angry when its failings and madness are revealed. It's very unfortunate that it appears to reach into England's High Court. No-one in their right mind would ever turn Assange over to the Americans for revealing the crimes the government was committing.
George W. Bush’s startling admission to UK ambassador revealed
Bush told the UK’s envoy in the US he knew little about foreign policy,
in a candid admission, unsealed documents reveal
Former US President George W. Bush attends an event commemorating the 20th anniversary
of the September 11, 2001 attacks. © Reuters / Evelyn Hockstein
Former US president George W. Bush revealed in a 1998 conversation with the then-UK ambassador that he knew little about international issues, according to documents released by the National Archives.
Bush, who was Governor of Texas at the time of the meeting with Sir Christopher Meyer, was described as accepting that his worldview was “largely limited to the Texan and Mexican horizons.”
“Bush admitted that, apart from Mexico, he did not know much about international affairs and that he would do well to broaden his experience,” Sir Christopher wrote in the documents.
During the meeting, the ambassador invited Bush to visit the UK but the American politician turned down the offer, as he was concerned about how it would look ahead of the upcoming gubernatorial election in Texas.
“The Texas electorate would not forgive him if he appeared to be taking his eye off the business of governing Texas,” Sir Christopher noted.
Despite the admission that Bush lacked foreign-policy experience, the UK’s envoy stated after their 40-minute encounter that, if the Republican ran for president, he was considered “by far the front runner” in his party.
Sir Christopher's remarks were revealed in documents just unsealed by the National Archives, the UK’s official archive of government and other important documents dating back over 1,000 years.
Foreign-policy matters dominated Bush’s presidency following the September 11 terrorist attacks, with the US invading Afghanistan and fighting against the Taliban. Later, alongside the UK, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime, over concerns he possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Which, of course, was completely bogus. It was arranged by Dick Cheney who was really in charge of foreign affairs (ie Deep State). Bush was chosen simply because he knew nothing about foreign affairs and could easily be manipulated.
========================================================================================
A tale of two fighter jets — and what it means
for Canada's defence and place in the world
Ottawa could decide this year on aircraft to replace country's aging CF-18s
Will Canada decide, or will Deep State decide for us, again?
Murray Brewster · CBC News ·
Posted: Jan 03, 2022 4:00 AM ET
Gripen, a Swedish fighter aircraft, performs on the second day of Aero India 2017 at Yelahanka air base in Bangalore, India, in February 2017. Saab, based in Stockholm, offered the latest version of the aircraft as part of its pitch to sell Canada a new fleet of fighter jets. (The Associated Press)
Canadians will get a better idea this year of which fighter jet the Liberal government intends to buy for the country's air force.
The decision amounts to more than a simple choice between two expensive new aircraft: the American F-35 and the Swedish Gripen-E. It's expected to say a lot about how the federal government sees Canada's place in the world — whether it remains tied to a politically shaky United States or to a Europe that is determined to step out of Washington's defence shadow.
Canada officially narrowed the field of bidders to two manufacturers on Dec. 1 by excluding Boeing. The federal government told the U.S. aerospace giant that its bid in the $19-billion program to replace the country's CF-18s did not meet Ottawa's requirements.
Is that true or is it just that no-one trusts anything Boeing has built in the last three years?
The federal government is expected this year to either select a winner and negotiate a contract or help the two remaining companies — U.S.-based Lockheed Martin and Saab, with headquarters in Stockholm — improve their bids.
The decision this year "will be a fork-in-the-road moment," said an expert in defence and military affairs.
The F-35 is manufactured by U.S.-based Lockheed Martin, one of two remaining companies bidding in the federal government's $19-billion program to replace Canada's CF-18 fighter jets. (Murray Brewster/CBC)
"If we buy the F-35, we would be more intricately embedding ourselves in an American military alliance, which we have been a part of for decades, but acquiring that particular aircraft would take that relationship up a couple of notches in a couple of different ways," said David Perry, a senior analyst and vice-president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute based in Ottawa.
If the Swedish aircraft is chosen, it would be the first time in almost half a century that Canadians have flown something other than an American-designed warplane.
And going to Europe to buy the next fighter jet would be stepping outside decades of alignment with the U.S., particularly when it comes to continental defence, Perry said — which could lead to repercussions for the bilateral relationship between Canada and the U.S.
Repercussions, I guess! American war oligarchs would go nuts, just like they did when we built the Arrow. They forced our Prime Minister to abandon building a fighter jet that was a generation ahead of anything built in the USA. This is how Deep State works for America's friends.
"I don't think the United States government would be very enthused to see us operating a non-American aircraft for the first time since ... the Spitfire," he said with a chuckle.
Decades of U.S.-designed warplanes
Perry's assessment is close. The Royal Canadian Air Force flew the Spitfire, a British warplane, in the 1940s. The last European-designed warplane flown by Canada was the British de Havilland Vampire, a jet fighter that was retired in the late 1950s. Canadian pilots also flew the home-grown CF-100 Canuck up until the 1980s in a mixed fleet that included a bevy of American designed warplanes.
Aside from history coming down on the side of the Americans, another defence expert said modern alliances and rapidly evolving technology will weigh heavily in their favour.
Stéfanie von Hlatky, an associate professor and defence policy expert at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont.,
says she thinks the selection of the F-35 'is more of a foregone conclusion.' (Nishelle Walker)
"When I saw it narrowed down to the F-35 and the Gripen, I really felt that now the F-35 is more of a foregone conclusion," said Stéfanie von Hlatky, an associate professor and defence policy expert at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont.
Sweden is not among Canada's longtime defence partners, she added, and when you look at who the military might be partnered with in future multinational operations, "it will make it hard to choose something other than the F-35."
It is a point Lockheed Martin has made repeatedly in its pitch to the Canadian government, calling the stealth fighter the most survivable, best value fighter.
"As a cornerstone for interoperability with NORAD and NATO, the F-35 will strengthen Canada's operational capability with allies," Lockheed Martin Canada CEO Lorraine Ben said, referring to the North American Aerospace Defence Command and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
"The F-35 gives pilots the critical advantage against any adversary, enabling them to execute their mission and come home safe."
Among the most crucial interoperability aspects being touted is the ability of F-35s from different nations to seamlessly share data with each other, as well as ground stations and warships. The fighter also has the ability to link with so-called fourth-generation fighters, which the Gripen-E is considered.
One of the other major interoperability considerations is how the choice of the new fighter will affect NORAD, the decades-old pact between Canada and the U.S. that is being renewed to meet newer and more sophisticated threats. Whether a Swedish-designed fighter would meet the stringent "two-eyes" security requirements of the partnership has been a matter of active debate — one that appears to have been resolved.
"We are approved by the Canadian government," said Ander Hakansson, a former Gripen test pilot and Saab's deputy campaign director in Canada. "We have the same, or very similar, systems in our technical solution as the American aircraft."
Being able to operate with allies and the capability of the aircraft are not the only deciding factors — and that is why Perry, of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, is not prepared to write off the Swedish bid.
"I don't share the view that this is done and dusted for Lockheed Martin," he said.
The benefits factor
The request for proposals allocated substantial points for economic benefit. The way the Joint Strike Fighter program is structured, there is only so much the F-35 proposal can deliver in terms of benefits and offsets to Canadian industry because the aircraft's contracts compete and are spread out across the consortium.
All over America! Is there a single state that doesn't contribute parts to the F-35? Isn't that why there has been criticism about the F-35's reliability?
Saab, on the other hand, is pitching that Canadian Gripens be assembled in Canada (at IMP Aerospace & Defence in Nova Scotia) and more importantly that all of the intellectual property rights for sustainment and operations become the property of the federal government. That by itself is a significant concession that would give Canada sovereign control over its fighter jet fleet in a manner that has not been seen in decades.
"To have the capabilities in Canada [handled] by Canadians is a way to give Canada sovereign control over the system," said Stefan Nygren, Saab's campaign director in Canada.
The competition, which has dragged on in fits and starts for years, has demonstrated that Canada has been willing to consider something other than a U.S. warplane, Perry said.
Either that or it just doesn't want to commit to a 20-30 billion dollar program.
That is significant because following the political meltdown over the former Conservative government's plan to sole-source the F-35 a decade ago, there was deep skepticism among European aircraft-makers that their proposals would be considered.
The decision by the Harper government was roundly criticized at the time by the auditor general, the parliamentary budget officer and the Liberal opposition of the day. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau went so far in 2015 as to promise that Canada would not buy the F-35 and that the savings would be plowed back into recapitalizing the navy.
