Scott75

I refer you to anything else he's written for Newsweek. 🙃 First of all, the article was published by 2 diplomats. Secondly, I've already seen another article by both of these diplomats in Newsweek and I didn't even see any evidence that they belonged to a particular party, let alone that they were "Republican shills".

They may not be able to find it on a map, but apparently most of them support financing Ukraine's war with Russia, at least as of February 2025: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/14/americans-views-of-the-war-in-ukraine-continue-to-differ-by-party/ That being said, support differs widely by party: Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/14/americans-views-of-the-war-in-ukraine-continue-to-differ-by-party/sr_25-02-14_ukraine-views_1/ Seeing as how Republicans control the House, the Senate and the Presidency, Trump has little to lose by trying to end the war sooner rather than later and thus end or at least greatly diminish the United States' support for Ukraine.

Putin's motivation for starting the war is revanchism. Utter nonsense. For almost 2 decades, Russia has made it clear that it would not tolerate Ukraine becoming a part of NATO. Professor John Mearsheimer predicted that Ukraine would get wrecked due to western policies way back in 2015. Business Insider actually wrote an article pointing this out 2 weeks ago. It can be seen here: https://www.businesstoday.in/world/us/story/ukraine-going-to-be-wrecked-after-zelenskyy-trump-spat-john-mearsheimers-2015-prediction-goes-viral-466448-2025-03-03 As to the final straw for Russia, I'm pretty sure that it was Ukraine's renewed assault on the Donbass Republics. To date, I know of only a single writer who lays out the evidence for this in a clear and concise manner, former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud. The article where he does so can be seen here: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

It's quite possible if not probable, but that's not the problem. The problem is how -many- the U.S. could intercept. Quoting from an article on the subject from 2017: ** Right now, a constellation of sensors and 36 interceptor missiles make up the ground-based midcourse defense system, or GMD. It’s intended to act as insurance against a small-scale nuclear attack from North Korea, or possibly Iran, according to the Department of Defense. (Neither country has missiles capable of reaching the US, although US officials say North Korea is getting closer.) It’s not meant to ward off an unlikely attack from the much larger and more sophisticated arsenals of Russia or China — nor would it be able to. ** Source: https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/30/15713966/ballistic-missile-attack-department-of-defense-pentagon-north-korea I think the number has now increased to 45 interceptors. Why is it not meant to ward off arsenals from Russia or China? Well, China has 600 nuclear warheads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction Russia has over 5,000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction To be fair, only about 1,700 are ready to be launched at a moment's notice, but I think it's pretty obvious that the U.S. interceptors aren't going to make much of a dent if they got serious. Concerned for who, the Russians? If so, that's certainly commendable, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference on the battlefield.

[snip] are you claiming standing up for Ukraine requires invading Russia? First of all, your characterization that the U.S. is "standing up for" Ukraine is nonsense. Ukraine was always just a bit player for the U.S. to help "weaken" Russia. Zelensky said it so well back around 10 years ago, back when he was still just a comedian: "We will join NATO soon, as an American henchman, ofcourse." Source: Alas, the fate of henchman generally isn't very good. Aside from never getting into NATO after 10 years, Ukraine has already shrunk considerably and I doubt that'll change. Even worse is the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who have died in this war. As retired U.S. diplomat Chas Freeman said 2 years ago in an interview: ** And the West was basically saying, ‘We will fight to the last Ukrainian for Ukrainian independence,’ which essentially remains our stand. It’s pretty cynical, despite all the patriotic fervor. And I’d add, I have heard, I know people who have been attempting to be objective about this, and they’re immediately accused of being Russian agents. ** Source: https://thegrayzone.com/2022/03/24/us-fighting-russia-to-the-last-ukrainian-veteran-us-diplomat/ Secondly, most of the territory that Russia now controls has officially become part of Russia which means that, yes, booting Russia out of "Ukraine" would, in Russian eyes, be invading Russia itself. The best example of this type of scenario being on the other foot was when Russia put nukes in Cuba. There were 4 times during those few days where a nuclear strike was only barely averted at the time. It may be that one such 'almost miss' almost happened during the current Ukraine war: https://consortiumnews.com/2024/09/19/scott-ritter-72-hours/

That's not what's happening here at all. What's happening to Ukraine now was predicted around 10 years ago by Professor John Mearsheimer: To use your school analogy, it's kind of like this Biden kid encouraged the Ukrainian student to pick a fight with that Russian fellow and that he'd back up the Ukrainian. After doing so, and helping the Ukrainian a bit, the Biden kid had to go, but he was replaced by this Trump fellow. The Trump fellow, much smarter than this Biden kid, realized that continuing to help the Ukrainian kid could get not just the Ukrainian out for the count (he was already looking pretty bad), but stood a very good chance of wrecking Trump as well. Trump, to his credit, decided to try to work out a deal with the Russian fellow. Now, Trump had a lot of friends that wanted to see the Russian fellow come to harm, so he couldn't make things -too- easy for the Russian to make a deal. I think Simplicius may be on to something with the following theory that he voiced in a recent article he wrote. Quoting: ** For now, the above clearly fruitless call infact gives opportunity for Trump to re-characterize it as a ‘success’, which allows him to sell the ongoing negotiations as positive and friendly, which keeps the hyenas and hawks off his back, allowing him to put off being forced to ‘act tough’ and tighten the proverbial vise on Russia. This could be what the secret backdoor ‘plan’ with Russia is all about: keep stringing these useless “negotiations” along while pretending they are “making headway”, all while giving Ukraine a symbolic amount of “aid”, while in effect waiting for Russia to slowly finish Ukraine off until such time that Kiev becomes “amenable” to real war-ending concessions. ** Full article: https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/historic-putin-trump-call-is-small?publication_id=1351274&post_id=159353837&isFreemail=true&r=z34xz&triedRedirect=true

I've seen read and skimmed some articles from some authors that I think are pretty good and I'm somewhat less optimistic about what happened. Still, a bit of optimism. I think the following article by a substacker who goes by the name of Simplicius is quite good: https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/historic-putin-trump-call-is-small Quoting from the introduction and conclusion of his article: ** The long awaited discussion between Putin-Trump has finally taken place, reportedly clocking in at a historic two-and-a-half hours, which according to some sources is the longest call between an American and Russian president since at least the Cold War. As expected, it was another nothing-burger, with Putin essentially repeating precisely the same talking points as have already been conveyed time and again to the US, most recently during Witkoff’s Moscow visit last week. [snip] For now, the above clearly fruitless call infact gives opportunity for Trump to re-characterize it as a ‘success’, which allows him to sell the ongoing negotiations as positive and friendly, which keeps the hyenas and hawks off his back, allowing him to put off being forced to ‘act tough’ and tighten the proverbial vise on Russia. This could be what the secret backdoor ‘plan’ with Russia is all about: keep stringing these useless “negotiations” along while pretending they are “making headway”, all while giving Ukraine a symbolic amount of “aid”, while in effect waiting for Russia to slowly finish Ukraine off until such time that Kiev becomes “amenable” to real war-ending concessions. As stated, we will know if this is precisely the plan based on how Trump proceeds with any further ‘pressures’ or ‘leverage’ on Russia. Recall Scott Bessent has also previously threatened that Russian sanctions are currently a mere 5 on a scale of 10 and could be brought up to a 10. It’s obvious that Trump must keep up a domestic ‘strongman’ image by “threatening Russia”, otherwise the media will eat him alive as being a Russian asset, Putin’s puppet, and the like. So we must judge him by his actions, not merely his words. There are some hopeful indications here and there: for instance, news today that the US is considering leaving its post as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander: This could mean Trump is serious about throwing Ukraine to the Europeans. But we’ll have to see, he’s already quickly back-tracking on his anti-war campaign platform by senselessly attacking Yemen, so expectations are not exactly high. Which forking path will he take? Share your thoughts. ** I've skimmed through another article from Larry Johnson over at another site called SONAR21 that I thought was interesting and definitely more optimistic, at least from the U.S./Russia angle. Quoting the introduction: ** Putin Gives Trump a Meaningless Concession, But Sticks to June 2024 Position The much anticipated phone conversation between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin took place on Tuesday, as expected. There was quite a bit of propaganda flack flying about prior to the call… for example, the Ukrainians told the NY Times that Trump was going to concede Russia’s right to control Odessa. It was also rumored that Putin might relinquish control of the Zaporhyzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP). That didn’t happen. The White House account of the meeting emphasized that Trump got Putin to agree to suspend attacks on energy infrastructure in Ukraine. This was only a symbolic concession by Putin, because such attacks are not a critical element of Russia’s military campaign. With Spring in the air, halting attacks on power plants does not detract from Russia’s offensive operations along the entire line of contact. The Kremlin’s readout of today’s conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, however, provided a more measured and demanding perspective compared to the White House’s account. Key points from the Kremlin’s readout include: Putin supported Trump’s proposal for a 30-day halt on attacking energy infrastructure in Russia and Ukraine. Russia identified significant issues related to ensuring effective control over a potential ceasefire, including the need to stop forced mobilization in Ukraine and the rearmament of Ukrainian armed forces. Putin emphasized that a key condition for ending the war should include a complete cessation of foreign military and intelligence assistance to Kyiv. The Kremlin stressed a prisoner exchange scheduled for March 19, involving 175 people from each side, along with an additional 23 seriously wounded Ukrainian servicemen as a goodwill gesture. Russia expressed interest in reviving some of its diplomatic activities in the United States, such as reopening closed consulates in San Francisco and Seattle. The readout highlighted Putin’s appreciation for Trump’s willingness to contribute to ceasing hostilities and preventing loss of life, while emphasizing the importance of addressing the “root causes of the crisis” and acknowledging “Russia’s legitimate security concerns.” The Kremlin made no reference to Ukraine’s role in peace negotiations, instead pointing out “serious risks with the attempt to negotiate with the Kyiv regime.” Overall, the Kremlin’s account suggests that while progress was made on certain issues, a comprehensive ceasefire agreement has not yet been finalized. While Donald Trump and his team were happy with the results of the chat, the same cannot be said for Zelensky and the Europeans. They ain’t happy. Today’s conversation sent a clear message to Ukraine, the Brits, the French and the Germans that they are not relevant to any negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. Prior to the call with Donald Trump, Putin spoke at the congress of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs and revealed that he fully understands the nature of the threat posed by the West. He provided this fascinating analysis of sanctions: **

Based on what I've read from both sides, I'm cautiously optimistiic. From the U.S.: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/world/europe/trump-putin-call-ukraine-russia-war.html?unlocked_article_code=1.404.wmJI.1ZVnw_YE3nvQ&smid=url-share From Russia: https://www.rt.com/russia/614396-putin-trump-call-ukraine/

It's good to know the types of things that the USIP engages in. Here's an article from 2019, when Trump was President the first time: https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/01/us-working-lebanon-corruption-protests-hezbollah/ Quoting from it: ** American meddling in the protests is not yet a full-scale operation, however it has been seen through the presence of US-backed political parties and activists backed by the most familiar outfits of the US regime-change machine: the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the US Institute for Peace (USIP), and USAID. Together, these elements are seeking to popularize the call for a technocratic, Hezbollah-free government in provocative actions across the country. [snip] In his November testimony to congress, former US ambassador to Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman highlighted the advantage in the demand: “With the demonstrators calling for a technocratic rather than political government, our public messaging can emphasize our expectation that a new Lebanese government, if it seeks international support, should effectively and immediately address the reform aspirations of the Lebanese people,” he said. By clamoring for a technocracy, the veteran US operative argued, protesters can “seize the next electoral opportunity to strip Hezbollah of the parliamentary partners it uses as force multipliers to assert its will politically.” The US Institute for Peace, a State Department cut-out that was founded under Reagan alongside the NED, echoed Feltman’s call. #Lebanon's protesters have several commons core demands: the resignation of the current cabinet; a new, technocratic, reformist government; and the reduction of taxes on poor communities. https://t.co/9ianOF9wbg ** Now, I'm not saying I know that Trump is giving USIP a hard time for the right reasons. I'm just saying that they're hardly an innocent organization doing good things.

Yes, that's why I asked you if you knew what an opinion piece even is. You were framing it as if it was Newsweek's view, rather than just the on-brand opinion of another Republican shill who wrote into Newsweek. 🙃 I just said that Newsweek published it, I never said it was Newsweek's view. As to your assertion that these diplomats were 'Republican shills', you've presented no evidence of this. I actually looked to see if I could find if either of the authors were even associated with any political party, but couldn't find any such evidence. I did find these links on the 2 men: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B08BXZ9VH9/about?ccs_id=26876cdc-ede7-4bbe-b49e-0553c8b06539 https://www.benfranklinfellowship.org/michael-gfoeller I also see that they published another opinion piece in Newsweek a few months earlier then the piece I originally quoted and linked to that I think is also good, along the lines of things that other diplomats have said, including the current CIA director: https://www.newsweek.com/never-forget-real-reason-russia-went-war-opinion-1781535

Lmao...ok Skippy75. Who censored free speech? Trump or the left? So far, I'd say the medal goes to the democrats on that one. Both. Both, though to be fair to Trump, he started to at least talk to the Russians soon after he got into office. Trump to some extent, but it's not just waste, fraud and abuse that he's cutting. From Chris Hedges' article: ** The firing of over 9,500 federal workers — with 75,000 others accepting a less-than-ironclad deferred buyout agreement amid plans to cut 70 percent of staff from various government agencies — freezing of billions of dollars in funding and ongoing seizure of confidential data by Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is not about downsizing and efficiency. The cuts to federal agencies will do little to curb the rapacious spending by the federal government if the military budget — Congressional Republicans are calling for at least $100 billion in additional military spending during the next decade — remains sacrosanct. And while Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine, part of his effort to build an alliance with the autocrat in Moscow he admires, he backs the genocide in Gaza. The purge is about gutting oversight and protections. It is about circumventing thousands of statutes that set the rules for government operations. It is about filling federal positions with “loyalists” from a database compiled by the Conservative Partnership Institute. It is about enriching private corporations — including several owned by Musk — that will be handed lucrative government contracts. ** You'll have to elaborate on what you mean here for me to properly respond.

From what I can see, Russia still doesn't even want to take all of Ukraine. I've been looking at the front lines for the past month or so and they haven' been taking that much more land, other than Kursk, which was Russian to begin with. Now, some could say that this is because Ukraine's military is holding them back, and I certainly think there's some merit to this, but I also think that Ukraine's rapid loss of territory in Kursk suggests something else- Russia doesn't actually feel the need for much more land at this point. There is another issue too, ofcourse, which is that it's hard to move front lines in the winter and early spring. So perhaps there'll be a bit more movement in the coming months. If Ukraine would just acknowledge that it's lost the land Russia now holds and to be fairly neutral, the war could probably end in a week or 2, but Ukraine doesn't appear ready for this at all. I've predicted that the war will end this year in one way or another, but there's still a lot of months to go before then and Ukraine stands to lose a lot more soldiers by then as well.

I suspect the first step may be informing people of what's going on. Articles like the one below from Chris Hedges are a good start in my view: https://scheerpost.com/2025/02/24/chris-hedges-the-purge-of-the-deep-state-and-the-road-to-dictatorship-2/

Great article from Joe Lauria, who I've come to greatly respect as a journalist. Quoting some of his article below: ** March 16, 2025 By Joe Lauria Nothing could have been clearer than Russia’s repeated conditions for a permanent end of the war, rather than a temporary ceasefire: Ukraine’s neutrality, its demilitarization and denazification, the inclusion of four Russian-speaking oblasts into the Russian Federation and treaties establishing a new security architecture in Europe. Equally clear was Ukraine’s utter rejection of these conditions, demanding instead the return of every inch of its territory, including Crimea, and Ukraine’s membership in NATO. It is the reason the two sides are still fighting a war. It is a war, however, that Ukraine is badly losing. Obscuring that fact is an important aim of Ukraine and its European allies to keep their publics onside. But it isn’t only their publics that they needs convincing to continue supporting Ukraine, but the president of the United States too. After the Oval Office dustup, in which Donald Trump and J.D. Vance laid it on the line to Zelensky in public, the Europeans held two summits. At both they made loud noises about continuing to support Zelensky, but also made clear they couldn’t do it without the United States. Much as they loathe him, Zelensky and the European leaders need Donald Trump. So they set Zelensky up to writing a letter sucking up to Trump, a man clearly susceptible to flattery. Very likely also influenced by his Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, both of whom had previously expressed neocon support for Ukraine and condemnation of Russia, Trump was apparently turned around, convinced to propose the 30-day ceasefire. Trump then somehow got the notion that Vladimir Putin, despite his oft repeated conditions for ending the war, would yield to pressure. It could be Trump thinks he is a neutral mediator who needs to bully both sides to force them to do a deal. So after the ceasefire was floated, Trump resumed arms and intelligence flows to Ukraine, new sanctions on Russia were threatened and Ukraine fired 350 drones at residential areas of Moscow just as Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff was arriving in Moscow to discuss the ceasefire. Like Casting a Lone Veto All this was designed to push Putin to accept it or appear like a man guilty of rejecting peace. If U.S. arms, intelligence and sanctions had not deterred Putin before, why would it now? Putin saw this as the public relations exercise that it is and treated it as such. He responded with public relations of his own. Instead of firmly saying the expected, “No,” he said, “Yes,” followed by “nuances,” such as who would monitor such a ceasefire along a 2,000-kilometer front? He said such a ceasefire could not begin as occupying Ukrainian troops were encircled on Russian territory; and, crucially, that a 30-day ceasefire — with no Ukrainian rearmament — could only mark the start of talks for a permanent settlement. Putin exposed the motive to give Ukrainian troops on the run a chance to regroup. Just as designed, Zelensky and European leaders blasted Putin for being a man who loves war, and hates peace. At the U.N. Security Council, which I covered as a correspondent for a quarter of a century, I often saw countries introduce resolutions for a vote even though they were certain one of the five permanent members would veto it. Diplomats explained that this was done on purpose to force the arm of that nation’s ambassador to be the lone one raised in opposition to the measure for all the world to see, causing it maximum public embarrassment. That is precisely the exercise we have seen with this phony ceasefire proposal. The Europeans and the Ukrainians are trying to milk it for all it’s worth. Zelensky did a selfie video to call Putin a “manipulator” of world leaders. [snip] In the end, the “ceasefire” gambit may create more public sympathy for Ukraine. But the big question is whether it will harden Trump against Russia by continuing arms shipments and intelligence and perhaps levelling new sanctions against Moscow. All that would do, however, is prolong the death and destruction. Without NATO’s direct participation in the war against Russia, which would risk nuclear annihilation, the outcome of the war is certain. Because of that, Trump could resume pressure on Zelensky to essentially give up instead. The ball is now in Trump’s court. The course of this three-year conflict since Russia’s intervention makes clear that the longer Ukraine tries to fight, the worse deal it will get, no matter how many public relations points it might win along the way. ** Full article: https://consortiumnews.com/2025/03/16/the-phony-ceasefire/

You do know what an opinion piece is, right? I literally said it was an opinion piece in the comment you're responding to. Much more important then what it's categorized as is who wrote the article and the evidence it brings to the table. Here's who it's written by: ** David H. Rundell is the author of Vision or Mirage, Saudi Arabia at the Crossroads and a former chief of mission at the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia. Ambassador Michael Gfoeller is a former political advisor to the U.S. Central Command who spent 15 years working the Soviet Union and former Soviet Union. ** Hardly lightweights. The article itself is also replete with very good information in my view. Quoting most of it below for those who don't like clicking on links: ** Democracies do not ban opposition parties. The fact that so many such parties ever existed says something about the level of opposition faced by the Ukrainian nationalist government that came to power after the 2014 revolution. Then in May of 2022, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law formally banning all these parties. President Volodymyr Zelensky signed the law. The list included the Opposition Platform for Life, which had held fully 10 percent of the seats in parliament. Among the 11 banned parties are the Socialist Party of Ukraine, the Progressive Socialist Party of the Ukraine, the Union of Left Forces, and the Communist Party of Ukraine. Democracies do not ban elections, but Ukraine has put the democratic process itself on hold since declaring martial law in 2022. This hiatus was supposed to be temporary, but it has been repeatedly extended, most recently in July 2023. As a result of that vote in the Ukrainian parliament, where all opposition parties have been removed, the parliamentary elections scheduled for last month were canceled. Presidential elections were scheduled for March 2024, but under current rules they too will not be held, and Zelensky has stated that "now is not the time for elections." Democracies do not censor the media. In February 2022, the Ukrainian government ordered the nine largest television networks in Ukraine to combine their news operations into a single, state-controlled news program called "Telemarathon." In April 2022 the National Security Council ordered three independent television channels associated with Zelensky's predecessor taken off the air. In December 2022, Zelensky signed a law which gave the National Broadcasting Council statutory authority to regulate all print, broadcast, and digital media. This law gave the Ukrainian government the ability to censor and shut down independent platforms such as Google. It has been harshly criticized by the European Federation of Journalists, which stated that it is incompatible with European Union membership. Ukraine's own National Union of Journalists called the law "the biggest threat to free speech in (Ukraine's) independent history." At this point there are no independent television stations broadcasting news in Ukraine. Print and digital media remain heavily censored. Democracies to not prohibit travel. When Ukraine declared martial law, men aged 18 to 60 became subject to conscription and were therefore forbidden to leave the country. Many have nevertheless sought to avoid the war by fleeing abroad. Those apprehended by the border police are sent to military service. Those who manage to escape remain mostly in Poland and Germany. The Ukrainian government has asked the EU to forcibly return them to Ukraine, thus far without success. Democracies do not restrict religious freedom. In December 2022, Zelensky banned the activities of all religious organizations linked to Russia. This included Ukraine's largest denomination, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which had been closely integrated with the Russian Orthodox Church for more than a thousand years. In May 2022 the church's synod of bishops, in a historic step, formally voted to sever all ties to Moscow and condemned the Russian Orthodox Church's support for the invasion of Ukraine. This was not enough for the Ukrainian government. It increased efforts to ban the Orthodox Church while organizing and promoting a new, state-controlled church. If people wish to join this new church, they should certainly be free to do so, but the government in Kiev has been forcing congregations to switch allegiance and seizing the property of those who resist. The Ukrainian parliament is now preparing to formally outlaw the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Democracies do not seek to ban a nation's oldest and largest denomination. [snip] To be fair, governments do frequently limit civil liberties in times of crisis. Our own Patriot Act probably went too far in that direction. President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for Southern sympathizers during the American Civil War, but he never canceled elections. Neither did Winston Churchill, to whom Zelensky is sometimes compared. Churchill actually lost the 1945 British election and had to watch Clement Attlee take the final victory lap for World War II. The catalogue of authoritarian abuses is growing in Ukraine and shows little sign of slowing. Under the guidance of the West's favorite autocrat—Zelensky—it has created a state-controlled church, taken control of all television news, and banned major opposition parties. This far exceeds anything that occurred in recent American or British history. Both of those nations remained fundamentally democratic during war, even a civil war. This latest cancellation of presidential elections in Ukraine destroys any pretense that we are supporting a functioning democracy. ** Full article: https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-sure-doesnt-look-like-democracy-anymore-opinion-1844799

Because every socialist/anarchist I've seen, heard or read about is doing shit like burning the flag, waving Ukrainian or Hamas flags [snip] The only self described anarchist I know is Chris Hedges, and I've not seen him do any of these things. Sure. From Wikipedia's article on him: ** NDAA lawsuit [edit] Main article: Hedges v. Obama In 2012, after the Obama administration signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Hedges sued members of the US government, asserting that Section 1021 of the law unconstitutionally allowed presidential authority for indefinite detention without habeas corpus. He was later joined in the suit, Hedges v. Obama, by activists including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg. In May 2012 Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the Southern District of New York ruled that the counter-terrorism provision of the NDAA is unconstitutional.[87] The Obama administration appealed the decision, and it was overturned in July 2013 by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Hedges petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case,[88] but the Supreme Court denied certiorari in April 2014.[89][90] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges Sadly, the U.S. is moving away from the land of the free it once was. People like Chris Hedges best encapsulate the push to keep that freedom.

Funny post, good too 🙂

You might try clicking on the links in the above quote. I assume you know what the deep state is, so I'll skip that one. As to the U.S. having the largest prison poluation of any nation, here's the link where he proves it: https://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prison-population-total?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All As to the GOP pushing a 1 trillion dollar defense budget, here's the link where he proves that as well: https://news.bgov.com/bloomberg-government-news/boosting-defense-spending-is-top-goal-for-armed-services-leaders

Gladly. I just learned that Chris Hedges is a self described socialist and anarchist, which means he's an America hating psychopath. Where do you get this notion that being a socialist and an anarchist must mean that you're an "American hating psychopath"? Wikipedia does mention that he's described himself as a socialist and an anarchist, but it certainly doesn't arrive at your conclusion. Quoting from their article on him: ** Hedges has described himself as a socialist[67][68] and an anarchist.[69][70] His books Death of the Liberal Class and Empire of Illusion are strongly critical of American liberalism. Hedges's 2007 book American Fascists describes the fundamentalist Christian right in the United States as a fascist movement. In March 2008, Hedges published the book I Don't Believe in Atheists, in which he argues that new atheism presents a danger that is similar to religious extremism.[71] ** Full article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges

I suspect if she were really flagged, they would have charged her with something. I think the border guards were just overzealous. What I'd like to know is why. But what really gets me is if she was arrested in in what looks like the California border and then -transferred- to a for profit prison in Arizona. Some pretty high level corruption here going on, and in this case, the buck stops at Trump, who reversed Biden's policies on for profit prisons on the second day of his presidency.

Yeah, that's stupid. Just keep it Flag Day. Well, at least we agree on that one :-p.

This has all been well covered. Cut the fat (useless employees) and eliminate bad funding (DEI bullshit). It's necessary AND it's beautiful. I disagree. Here's an excerpt from the linked article on the firing of the 9,500 federal workers: ** Musk is relying on a coterie of young engineers with little government experience to manage his DOGE campaign, and their early cuts appear to be driven more by ideology than driving down costs. 'I'VE BEEN BETRAYED BY MY COUNTRY' Fired federal workers expressed shock. "I've done a lot for my country and as a veteran who served his country, I feel like I've been betrayed by my country," said Nick Gioia, who served in the Army and worked for the Department of Defense for a total of 17 years before joining the USDA's Economic Research Service in December only to be fired late Thursday. "I don't feel like this has anything to do with federal workers, I feel like this is just a game," said Gioia, who lives in Elizabethtown, Kentucky, and has a child with epilepsy. "To sit here and watch people like Mr. Musk tweet out how he feels like he’s doing a great job, he doesn’t realize what he’s doing to people’s lives." Steve Lenkart, executive director of the National Federation of Federal Employees union, which represents more than 100,000 workers, said he expects Musk, whose SpaceX businesses has major contracts with the U.S. federal government, and the Trump administration to concentrate on agencies that regulate industry and finance. "That's really what this whole thing is really all about," Lenkart said. "It's getting government out of the way of industry and incredibly rich people, which is why Elon Musk is so excited about this." ** Source: https://archive.is/DA2hW#selection-1433.0-1465.202

Schedule F would also make woke operatives vulnerable which is the whole point of Schedule F. Of course Joe Biden rescinded that because he too, is a woke operative. Looks like the Nazis and the Bolsheviks had similar reasoning, they just called their targets different names such as "non-Aryans" or "counter-revolutionaries" instead of "woke operatives".

Rather, those deemed hostile to America, meaning woke operatives. You haven't provided a shred of evidence that a single one of the 17 inspector generals fired were "hostile to America". Here's the summary from the linked article on the matter: ** Summary Dismissals may violate federal law requiring 30-day notice to Congress Independent IG group says firings illegal Democrats decry move as late-night purge Senators Schumer and Grassley express concerns ** Biden did fire a single Inspector General, but only after an investigation. From the same article: ** Last year, Trump's predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden, fired the inspector general of the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, after an investigation found the official had created a hostile work environment. ** More interesting information from the article: ** The Washington Post, which was first to report the dismissals, said most were appointees from Trump's 2017-2021 first term. [snip] In 2022, Congress strengthened protections for inspectors general, making it harder to replace them with hand-picked officials and requiring additional explanations from a president for their removal. **

This is just crazy... ** Family and friends of a Vancouver entrepreneur are demanding answers after she was unexpectedly detained by U.S. immigration officials while attempting to cross the border with a job offer and visa paperwork in hand. Jasmine Mooney, a 35-year-old business consultant and co-founder of a drink brand, has been detained for 10 days under what her supporters describe as “inhumane conditions,” with no clear explanation of why U.S. Customs and Border Protection arrested her. “I haven’t been able to sleep thinking about what my daughter is being put through. We treat cattle better than this in Canada,” Mooney’s mother, Alexis Eagles, said on Thursday. Eagles, who said she found out about Mooney’s detention through a family friend, noted that her daughter had been working in the U.S. but was detained at the San Ysidro U.S.-Mexico border crossing near San Diego, Calif., on March 3. Eagles said an immigration lawyer was finally able to reach Mooney late Thursday, but despite having no criminal record and facing no charges, Mooney remains in custody with no clear timeline for release. “We have no issue with her being denied entry, we have no issue with her initially being detained. But we have a huge issue with the inhumane treatment she is receiving and that she knows nothing, has not been charged and has not been able to speak with us directly,” her mother said. “It’s been 11 days, just release her. It doesn’t make sense to spend taxpayer dollars to continue to detain her when she’s not a criminal.” Eagles said the family has received an update from a third-party that Mooney may have a tentative release date of March 24, which — if true — remains “still too far away.” [snip] Since Donald Trump became U.S. president and began implementing stricter immigration policies in late January, Nietor said he has noticed an increase in cases of non-U.S. citizens being detained by immigration authorities. “One or two months ago, if CBP officers found an issue with a Canadian’s work visa, the typical route taken is revoking the visa and ordering that person to leave the country,” said Nietor. “To detain someone like this would have been considered extreme not long ago, but’s it happening much more frequently nowadays.” Nietor noted that while there is no limit on how long U.S. immigration authorities can detain a non-U.S. citizen, individuals have the legal right to talk to a lawyer while in detention. Mooney’s associate, Chicago-based BJ McCaslin, said he hopes the detainment was the result of a mistake or misunderstanding, stressing that Mooney is not doing anything illegal. The pair had plans to meet at a health product expo in Anaheim, Calif. “She’s definitely not criminal,” McCaslin said. “She’s coming to a health-food product exposition. She’s an upstanding person who is very well-respected in our industry.” McCaslin has been in contact with Mooney through a messaging app designed for detainees, allowing them to communicate with people outside the facility. In her messages, Mooney described the whole process as “the most inhumane.” In one message, she explained that about 30 women were crammed together on mats in a concrete cell, with inedible food and bright fluorescent lights “shining on you all day and night.” She added, “I am going to be a voice for the women in here because what is happening is not OK." [snip] What to know about Arizona’s San Luis Regional Detention Center The San Luis Regional Detention Center where B.C.’s Jasmine Mooney is being held depends, like many for-profit private prisons, on the size of its detainee population. The more inmates, the better. [snip] Although the U.S. Department of Justice under Joe Biden banned federal contracts with for-profit prisons and detention centres, Trump reversed those policies on the second day of his presidency. ** Full article: https://vancouversun.com/news/bc-woman-detained-at-us-border-sent-to-arizona-detention-facility