Khashoggimania and Our Islamist Colluding Media

Khashoggimania and Our Islamist Colluding Media

After Egypt, Libya and Syria, will we stop falling for the same lies?

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

In 2014, Jason Rezaian, the Washington Post’s Tehran Bureau Chief, was arrested and spent two years in prison. Iran kept him in one of its worst prisons, he slept on a damp concrete floor, was denied medical treatment, experienced hallucinations due to sleep deprivation and was abused by his captors. His wife was told that her legs would be cut off and her husband would be thrown off a cliff if she didn’t confess.

While Jamal Khashoggi has often been misidentified as a Washington Post journalist, all he did for the radical leftist paper owned by Amazon’s CEO is write editorials promoting the Muslim Brotherhood agenda. The Muslim Brotherhood leader and former Bin Laden pal was never a journalist. The closest he came to it was acting as a terrorist propagandist in Afghanistan, glamorizing Osama bin Laden, on behalf of a man listed by the Treasury Department as one of “the world’s foremost terrorist financiers.”

And yet the arrest and abuse of Jason Rezaian didn’t touch off a fraction of the outrage from his own paper as the possible death of Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of the Saudis. The media went through the usual formal protests, but the outrage was muted and there was no talk of sanctions. Instead, Rezaian, along with some other hostages, was illegally ransomed after two years by Obama for $400 million.

The media did not vigorously campaign to break off relations with Iran, as it now is with Saudi Arabia. 

It didn’t push too hard out of fear of spoiling Obama’s dirty nuclear deal with Iran’s terrorist regime. And even the arrest may have taken place, according to some sources, because of Rezaian’s closeness with some regime figures.

The New York Times showily announced that it was suspending its pricey Saudi tours over Khashoggi, but it never stopped its Iranian tours, not over Rezaian’s imprisonment, or the killing, torture and rapes of Iranian protesters. 

The Washington Post rolled out a special Jamal Khashoggi edition, but there was no special Jason Rezaian edition. There were fewer news stories about Rezaian’s imprisonment after two years than there have been after a week of Khashoggimania. The Post and the rest of the media did far less for Rezaian, one of their own, than they were willing to do for Khashoggi, a shady Islamist activist.


The answer has everything to do with the media’s political agendas. It is not concerned with human rights. And it’s even less interested in freedom of the press. It has no principles, only allegiances.

The media will always favor Islamist movements over non-Islamists. 

The media underreacted to Rezaian’s arrest because it supported Iran’s Islamist government. It overreacted to Khashoggi’s disappearance because he is an Islamist leader. And under Mohammad bin Salman, the Saudis, once the hub of regional Sunni Islamism, turned against the Muslim Brotherhood.

The media is raving against Mohammad bin Salman because he opposes Iran and the Brotherhood. It repeats every piece of propaganda from Turkey and Qatar because they back the Muslim Brotherhood. 

If the Saudis turn around and support the Muslim Brotherhood, the media will happily let them kill as many reporters, journalists, hacks and pundits as they like. The media does not care about human rights. It cares only about the triumph of Islamist political movements and it will tell any lie on their behalf.

The scandal of the Khashoggi case is not whatever the Saudis or anyone else did to Osama’s old friend. It’s that the Washington Post provided space for a Muslim Brotherhood leader to push the agenda of America’s enemies, and is colluding in a political campaign to overthrow the Saudi government.

The Washington Post is not “investigating” Khashoggi’s death, it’s spreading smears from the Turkish regime’s pet media while pressuring American lobbyists to drop the Saudis. Khashoggi’s death is just another tool for implementing regime change in Saudi Arabia and replacing its king with another ruler who will return the oil power to its usual stance of supporting Islamic terrorists and fighting Israel.

That’s what Khashoggi wanted. It’s what the Washington Post and the rest of the media want.

The truly disturbing thing is not Khashoggi’s death. It’s his life. Khashoggimania exposes an alliance between the media and the Islamists. Human rights is the cover for this red-green alliance, just as it was in the Iranian Revolution and the Arab Spring. The differing media reactions to Khashoggi and Rezaian, parallel the differing reactions to the Green Revolution and the Arab Spring, to human rights abuses in Egypt under Morsi and under Sisi, and in Turkey under military rule and under Erdogan.

There is a consistent pattern, not of human rights principles, but of Islamic expediency. 

The media will occasionally report on human rights abuses by Islamists. But it will do so in a cursory fashion, without incendiary outrage or calls to action. It’s only when reporting on Islamist protests against non-Islamist regimes that the media will shift from being bystanders to becoming activists. 

When human rights abuses occur in Islamist countries, such as Iran, the media will emphasize the importance of liberalizing them by maintaining ties with them. But when Islamists claim human rights abuses at the hands of our allies, such as Egypt, the media will urge us to break ties with them. 

Saudi Arabia is only the latest to fall afoul of this ubiquitous double standard. 

When the Saudis were sponsoring Islamist terrorists, including Al Qaeda, we were repeatedly lectured on the importance of maintaining relations with them in order to liberalize them. But once the Saudis actually began making some small steps toward liberalization, the media wants to break ties with them.

Like Khashoggi, the media does not want actual liberalization. When Khashoggi  talked about democracy, human rights and freedom of speech, he meant those as political tools for a Muslim Brotherhood takeover. And then, just as in Erdogan’s Turkey or Morsi’s Egypt, they would end.

Khashoggimania has proven beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt that the media thinks the same way.

When the media wanted Saudi Arabia to liberalize, it didn’t mean women driving cars. It meant just enough political liberalization to enable Khashoggi and the Muslim Brotherhood to take over.

The media wants to do to Saudi Arabia what it did to Iran, and what it did to Egypt. When the media talks about, “liberalization” in the Middle East, read it as, “Islamization.” 

The media did not form an alliance with Islamists of its own accord. Its pro-Islamist agenda is not the work of mere lobbyists, as some have claimed in the past, otherwise the Saudis would be riding high. Khashoggimania casts light on a deeper alliance between the red elites of America and the green elites of the Middle East, between Qatar, Turkey and Iran, and between a radical establishment in America.

Both the red and the green elites fuse revolutionary ideological movements with state power. Our red media echoes the conspiracy theories and talking points of the green media of Turkey and Qatar. Neither are a free or independent press in any truly meaningful  sense of the term. The Washington Post and Al Jazeera are just two sides of the same coin. Khashoggimania is a shared regime change operation.

Every Islamist regime change operation has been advanced under the guise of human rights. It’s time that we stopped being fooled by the same lies, and started asking some hard questions. After the Iranian Revolution and the Arab Spring, those questions are more urgent than ever.

The media has spent the better part of a year regaling us with conspiracy theories about foreign collusion. Why is it colluding with the Muslim Brotherhood on regime change operations by lying to Americans, just as it did in Egypt, Libya and Syria, and how will it be held accountable?


Video ~ The Invasion.. Urgent.. Border patrols needed.

First broadcast oct.19, 2018. Skip ahead to 2Min. 30 Sec. to begin broadcast without adverts. 8 Min total.

All following is solely my personal opinion. Exercise your own judgment.

However this is not a drill. we the People have had enough. this is the crisis point. It was inevitable. President trump needs to act quickly before it is too late.

God bless the republic!

Freedom Rider ~ wwg1wga


Canada installs Chinese underwater monitoring devices next to US nuclear submarine base

Canada installs Chinese underwater monitoring devices next to US nuclear submarine base

  • Ocean Network Canada confirms addition of hi-tech sensors built by Chinese scientists to its marine observatories in Pacific Ocean
  • US state department has ‘nothing to say’ on matter
PUBLISHED : Monday, 22 October, 2018, 1:02am
UPDATED : Monday, 22 October, 2018, 2:29pm
While the eyes of the world have been on the strategic tussle between Beijing and Washington in the South China Sea, Chinese scientists, with the help of the Canadian authorities, have succeeded in positioning four monitoring devices in waters just 300km (186 miles) off the United States’ Pacific coast.
The instruments, which use hi-tech sensors to monitor the underwater environment, are connected to the Ocean Network Canada (ONC), a grid of marine observatories stretching from the northeast Pacific to the Arctic. While the network is operated by the University of Victoria in British Columbia, its four new additions are the property of the Sanya Institute of Deep-sea Science and Engineering, a unit of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which also developed and built them.

The devices were placed on the Endeavour segment of the Juan de Fuca Ridge by a remote-controlled submersible owned by the Canadian Coast Guard on June 27. Now fully operational, they can be used to provide real-time streaming of data to the Chinese institute’s control centres in Sanya, a city on the island province of Hainan, and elsewhere.

While the ONC confirmed it had sited the Chinese devices within its network, it declined to provide any information about them or say how they might be used.

The Chinese institute was equally reticent, and while the Canadian foreign ministry acknowledged the receipt of a request for comment it did not immediately reply.

The US state department said it had “nothing to say” on the matter.

What is known is that information collected by the devices will help Chinese marine scientists better understand the environment of a strategic waterway close to the United States, and get a close look at the structure and operation of one of the world’s largest and most advanced underwater observatories.

While there is no evidence to suggest China’s military is involved with the project – there is also no suggestion the devices can be used to track submarines or other vessels – maritime environmental data is equally valuable to both civilian and non-civilian researchers.

The ONC is primarily a scientific research facility, but it does also have a defence contract to help the Canadian military monitor Arctic waters with the help of a surveillance system powered by artificial intelligence technology, state broadcaster CBC News reported last year.

Some Chinese government research websites have suggested the positioning of the monitoring devices could be a precursor to China building its own network in the region.

Exactly why Ottawa was prepared to give Beijing such unfettered access to its observatories is a moot point, but it comes at a time of growing rivalry between China and the US, and strained relations between Canada and its powerful neighbour to the south.

The Strait of Juan de Fuca is one of the world’s busiest waterways. Across the strait to the south, not far from the city of Seattle, is one of the United States’ two strategic nuclear weapon facilities – Naval Base Kitsap – which is home to a nuclear submarine shipyard and the only dry dock on the country’s west coast capable of accommodating a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.

Whatever the devices end up being used for, Chen Hongqiao, a researcher at the Centre for Canadian Studies at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies in Guangzhou, said there was no doubting the sensitivity of the issue.

“Deep sea observation networks are highly sensitive, and closely related to national security,” he said. “Countries don’t open them up to third parties unless there is a high level of trust and confidence.”

The decision to give China such access could have only come from highest corridors of power on both sides, he said.

“Such collaboration is very unusual. The implications go far beyond science, [so] it could have only happened with a nod from the top on both sides.”

China and Canada signed a memorandum of understanding in 2013 to collaborate on marine observation, according to China’s State Oceanic Administration, but until recently few actual projects had been initiated.

While it may be a coincidence, the deployment of the Chinese devices came less than a month after the US imposed what Ottawa described as “unacceptable” tariffs on imports of Canadian steel and aluminium. Canada retaliated with duties on US$12.8 billion worth of goods it imports from the US.

In the months since then, Beijing and Washington have become embroiled in a punishing trade war, while tensions between their respective militaries have also spiked.

Xin Qiang, a professor at Fudan University in Shanghai and deputy director of its American Studies Centre, said that such was the sensitivity of the collaboration between China and Canada, that the US might seek to curtail it.

Just last week, US senators sent a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asking him to ban mobile operators from using equipment made by Chinese telecoms giant Huawei in their 5G networks.

“The same could also happen to the undersea network,” Xin said. “The Americans are too powerful, the Canadians can hardly say no.”

Shocking study reveals 72 per cent of French youngster want to leave France

Shocking study reveals 72 per cent of French youngster want to leave France

Better career opportunities, a stable political situation, or even a better climate… A lot of reasons are behind France’s youth desire to leave their country.

Of France’s 18-24-year-olds, 72 per cent are contemplating leaving France, reveals a Yougov study.

Around 2.5 million French were expatriates in 2017, says the Foreign Ministry. This number doubled since 2000, when it was around 1 million.

But now, this number is about to grow even more as now France’s youth majority want to leave France. This will to leave is motivated primarily by finding better “career opportunities” (40 per cent) and seeking “new adventures” (46 per cent).

There are other reasons besides better career opportunies or new adventures, like “the price of a plane ticket”, a “stable political situation” in the country they would arrive in and a “nice climate” too.

If these criterias are filled, 23 per cent of French people are willing to leave France for good. This study can be related to what we reported yesterday, on the “French flight” to Hungary.

Mexico Says There Are Up to 10,000 in the Caravan Heading for US

Mexico Says There Are Up to 10,000 in the Caravan Heading for US

Fox News reports about 5,000 or 7,000 to 10,000 foreigners are heading to the U.S., mostly Hondurans. These people are openly looking to Democrats to help them get into the country. The timing is perfect for them. The propaganda has already begun, even on Fox.

Brian Stelter and other Democrats can claim there is no organization to the up to 10,000-strong caravan of future illegal aliens but that rings hollow. The cartels are definitely involved in organizing this caravan and so are Hispanic-Americans. Also involved is Pueblo sin Fronteras which is funded by several groups funded by George Soros’s foundation.

This is coming as the election draws near and anyone turned away will have a tragic story to tell. The media will blow up them up into fake headlines as they did with the child separation story.

The incoming Communist president Obrador could have a hand in it. Obrador said it’s a human right to enter the U.S. illegally. He also promised to flood our borders.

This is a typical leftist tactic — overwhelm — so nothing can be done. If we don’t take them in, we will be labeled immoral and the Democrat media will promote that.


About 700 Mexican law enforcement guarded the border bridge filled to capacity with thousands of future illegals, but they were indifferent to the people below who were crossing the river.

The hordes swarmed at the Suchiate River and crossed easily.

The river separating Guatemala and Mexico is the primary crossing point for tens of thousands of Central American immigrants who migrate north each year looking for work, welfare, and to break our immigration laws.

The caravan, numbering anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000, is composed of young, unemployed men, women with children, some families and unaccompanied juveniles. Most are from Honduras.

Once into Mexico, the migrants received water and medical care in a nearby warehouse.

The young men Fox News spoke to said the caravan would resume moving north to the U.S. after everyone was off the bridge.  An organizer for Pueblos Sin Frontiers said they could leave in the next few days.


Mexico also says it asked for help from the United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR. A spokesman for the group says it will use the same international criteria used to adjudicate caravan claims as, say, Syrian refugees in Turkey, namely a “well-founded fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion.”

What a sick joke. The U.N. and Mexico working together? We trust this?

The U.N. is providing medical services, food, shelter and whatever else they need.

Mexico will not issue transit visas as they did last year, meaning if immigrants are caught wandering around Mexico, they will be deported. They could start with the Caravan, but will they?

We keep hearing about the deteriorating conditions in Central America. That is Central America. They are always deteriorating. We can’t possibly take all these future Democrats in.

The administration of new President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador takes over in December and he has already said he believes in open borders. He especially believes in flooding the U.S. border. It wouldn’t come as a surprise if he is behind this.

And just in time, the former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Roberta Jacobsen penned an article for The Hill claiming there is “extreme chaos” in the Trump White House. Nothing suspicious about this timing or what she said.

REPORT: Second migrant caravan: New group rushes to join ranks, deportees vow return to America

REPORT: Second migrant caravan: New group rushes to join ranks, deportees vow return to America

Below is a report that DML News gives a 4 OUT OF 4 STARS trustworthiness rating. We base this rating on the following criteria:

  • Provides named sources
  • Reported by more than one notable outlet
  • Does not insert opinion or leading words
  • Includes supporting video, direct statements, or photos

Click here to read more about our rating system.

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service on the internet, DML News offers the following information published by FOXNEWS.COM:

As the massive migrant caravan pushes toward the southern U.S. border, a second group of about 1,000 people from Honduras is rushing to join the main group — which reportedly has swelled its ranks with several people who’ve already been deported.

As the massive migrant caravan pushes toward the southern U.S. border, a second group of about 1,000 people from Honduras is rushing to join the main group — which reportedly has swelled its ranks with several people who’ve already been deported.

The caravan, which has around 5,000 to 7,000 members, was on the move again Monday morning, departing the southern Mexico city of Tapachula. The smaller group trailing it entered Guatemala from Honduras late Sunday, according to the Associated Press.

The article goes on to state the following:

“They catch you, and you try to get back,” said Imner Anthony Fuentes, a 29-year-old who reportedly was deported for the sixth time from the U.S. five months ago. He has a son and a U.S. citizen girlfriend living in Birmingham, Ala., according to the Washington Post.

‘This Is Not a Right or Left Issue’: Pirro Echoes Trump’s Threat of Military to Stop Migrant Caravan

10,000 Voters Change Teams, Join Republican Party Ahead of Midterm Elections

10,000 Voters Change Teams, Join Republican Party Ahead of Midterm Elections

By Cillian Zeal
October 21, 2018 at 9:46am

Exterior shot of voters inside polling places with curtains pulled.

Is Wyoming a bellwether state? Republicans should certainly hope so — since, in America’s least populous state, over 10,000 voters have changed their registration over to the GOP in just the past few months.

According to County 10, in Freemont County, Wyoming, data from the Wyoming Secretary of State’s Office reveals 12,509 individuals changed their party affiliation between July 6 and Sept. 20.

Of those, the vast majority changed to Republican — 10,402 voters.

The data revealed that “6,057 Democrats changed and registered as Republicans” and “4,355 Unaffiliated persons changed and registered as Republicans.” Only 430 Republicans, meanwhile, changed sides and went over to the Democrats.

“It is absolutely vital that anyone analyzing these party change numbers understand that these numbers are tied to a person’s voter registration and do not represent total ballots cast in the election, and that these numbers do not indicate for whom a person voted,” State Election Director Kai Schon said.

It’s worth noting that 701 also changed their party affiliation again and went back to their original party.

So, what does this mean? It’s hard to say that it’s a state that’s really up for grabs; Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Wyoming back in 2016 by a margin of 68 to 22 percent and both of the state’s senators are Republicans.

Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

There’s also not much one can glean from party registration qua party registration, especially in a midterms year in a state where the Republican Party is as secure as it is in Wyoming.

However, the trend since the hearings to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has been a marked increase in enthusiasm among members of the GOP — something that these numbers would tend to reinforce.

An NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist poll from earlier this month found that “the wide Democratic enthusiasm advantage that has defined the 2018 campaign up to this point has disappeared.”

“In July, there was a 10-point gap between the number of Democrats and Republicans saying the November elections were ‘very important,’” NPR reported.

“Now, that is down to 2 points, a statistical tie.”

That shift, according to pollsters, came from conservatives who were riled up over the Kavanaugh hearings.

“The result of hearings, at least in the short run, is the Republican base was awakened,” Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, told NPR.

However, it’s important to note that the Wyoming registration data only goes up to Sept. 20 — just days after Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s identity had been revealed and Democrats hadn’t yet sunk as low as they eventually would in the confirmation fight. It’s unlikely that the bulk of these changes of party came in response to the Kavanaugh controversy.

So, is it an outlier? Is it the sign of an incipient “red wave?” None of the above? It’s impossible to discern, but it’s certainly interesting. Perhaps most importantly, it’s yet another reminder of how urgent voting will be this Nov. 6.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Reagan Paleoconservatism Is Dead: America Is In An Existential Fight to the Death With Globalists ~ Lionel Nation

Have A Laugh ~ If You Can! ~ WWG1WGA

Trump: Democrats Obstruct Easy Fixes for Border Crisis, Caravan

Trump: Democrats Obstruct Easy Fixes for Border Crisis, Caravan

Thousands of Honduran migrants stream towards the border bridge in Tecun Uman, Guatemala, Friday, Oct. 19, 2018, moments before the migrants broke down the gates at the Guatemala-Mexico border crossing and began streaming toward a bridge into Mexico. (AP Photo/Oliver de Ros)
AP Photo/Oliver de Ros

An immigration deal that would fix the border crisis could be set in one hour if Democrats decide to stop obstructing legislation, President Donald Trump tweeted Saturday morning.

Trump’s tweet came as the Mexican government halted a Honduran caravan of roughly 3,000 job-seeking migrants at its southern border.

On Friday, the caravan broke through barriers at the Guatemalan side of the border and rushed onto a bridge linking the two countries. Mexican police used tear gas to stop the migrant column, which then stayed on the bridge during the night.

Mexican officials say they will allow 100 migrants through the barrier to seek asylum in Mexico. Once in Mexico, officials expect most of the migrants to travel north to the U.S. border alongside thousands of other migrants who are being covertly trafficked into the U.S. by cartel-connected human smugglers.

Buzzfeed reported:

Firing rounds of tear gas, authorities clashed with several members of the caravan, sending people on the bridge into a panicked retreat. In the mayhem, children were separated from their mothers and many fainted from heat and exhaustion. Some people jumped into the river while women and children — who had been instructed to stand at the front of the line — began trudging back the way they’d came.

At least 20 people were treated for injuries after clashes with authorities, including a Mexican reporter, according to the Guatemalan Red Cross.

But after Mexican authorities pushed them back, clusters of defeated families sat on the bridge, trying to figure out what to do next.

U.S. media coverage of the caravan has dropped abruptly since Trump began spotlighting the group during his 2018 campaign speeches.

Most of the caravan migrants are poor, male job-seekers, but the caravan’s organizers — and media outlets — are showcasing the group’s contingent of women carrying children. Some of the men in the caravan also bring children because the children help trigger catch-and-release loopholes.

The loopholes in U.S. immigration law allow the migrants to live in the United States and to legally get jobs until backlogged U.S. courts reject their asylum applications. The wait for immigration court hearings can take up to two or more years. In 2017, for example, officials were forced to provide work-permit to more than 400,000 migrants, each of whom helps drag down wages for Americans and also to boost routine consumer prices for food and other sales for U.S. retailers.

This migrants’ focus on economic migration — not sanctuary from criminals — is backed up by an Oct. 18 New York Times article which highlighted the migrants’ focus on jobs in the United States:

For or all of them, heading north is a gamble for a better life. Most migrants said they were aware that jobs were plentiful in the United States, and many said they believed that having a child accompany them might help them avoid long-term detention …

Among those arriving at the motel in Tucson, there appeared to be more fathers than mothers traveling with a child. Asked why they had come north, one man after another said “trabajo” — work — in construction, restaurants, landscaping or cleaning.

“I want to work — any job, I’ll do,” said one man, Efrain, as he cradled his sleepy 2-year-old daughter Suleymi and wiped her runny nose. Efrain said he had been a farmer in Guatemala and had sold a small plot of land to pay for the two-week trek to America. He said he and Suleymi were headed for Florida, where his uncle lives

Read more here.

Count on Hillary Clinton running again in 2020

Count on Hillary Clinton running again in 2020

Hillary Clinton

This is beyond odd, but here goes. I rise to defend Hillary Clinton.

She is under attack and this time, the long knives are wielded by members of her own clan. Suddenly, after two years of indulging Clinton’s blame games and pity parties, lefty pundits say she’s talking too much, she’s stuck in the past, she had her chance and she blew it.

Vanity Fair, declaring that she “still hasn’t learned the lessons of #MeToo,” is furious that Clinton said her husband’s Oval Office dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was not an abuse of power ­because the 22-year-old intern “was an adult.”

Politico flatly declared Clinton a “problem” who won’t go away and fretted that Democrats “don’t know what to do” about her.

A New York Times columnist, noting that Clinton is a font of gaffes and a focus for Republicans, accused her of “moral arrogance” and wrote that “someone needs to perform an intervention.”

The passions are real and the imagery colorful. Imagine an intervention where a pink pussy-hat posse forces Clinton into a van and drives her to a remote cabin in the woods to keep her from talking.

Alas, the motives are suspect. These three writers, all female, are not so much angry at what Clinton is saying as they are over the timing. The gist of their complaint is that she is hogging the spotlight they believe should be trained on Democrats running in the midterms. They’re mad because they fear she’s undercutting the holy war they subscribe to against President Trump.

Intramural feuds are often bloody, but this one is also stupid. Trying to silence Clinton is a lost cause and, even if it succeeded, wouldn’t cure what ails Democrats.

In fact, shutting her up might push the party even deeper into the wilderness.

Implicit in the charge that Clinton is the problem is the assumption that others are the solution. It’s a fair point — until you try to name any Dem who has a better shot at serving as the party’s leader, uniting it around a message and potentially defeating Trump in 2020. After all, that’s the job that is vacant.

So let us run through the parade of likely applicants, starting in the Senate: Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Anybody stand out? While there is political talent, none strikes me as a heavyweight contender who could lead the party and go toe-to-toe with Trump.

Sanders is running on vapors, Booker is a lightweight who embarrassed himself with the Spartacus shtick and Gillibrand is a ­do-nothing hack.

As for Warren, CNN, showing its usual tin ear, moved her to the top of the Dem field just before she imploded with her disastrous DNA test. Her silly repetition of the now-disproven claim that she has significant Native American ancestry opens her to endless ridicule and further diminishes her ­already narrow appeal.

Others advertising their availability include Joe Biden, Eric Holder, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

Same question: Does anybody in the group look like a champion in waiting? Not to me and, to judge from the lack of great enthusiasm, not to big funders or hot-shot consultants.

Two others in the thinking-and-hoping stage are New York’s feuding Frick and Frack, Mayor de Blasio and Gov. Cuomo.

Mayor Putz is term-limited and it looks as if his career has peaked. His image of being lazy, corrupt and incompetent means he’s not an asset to anyone, so he may have to get a real job when he finally leaves City Hall.

As for Cuomo, his mediocre rec­ord might get him a third term in deep-blue New York, but it’s not likely to endear him to national Dems. He trusts no one, including himself, which is why he hides from the media, lest he say things like America “was never that great.”

His habit of ducking debates won’t fly in a grueling presidential campaign against numerous competitors, and the rampant corruption on his watch makes him a fat target.

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is also considering a run, and fellow richie Tom Steyer, whose deep pockets are funding the “Need to Impeach” movement, could be a candidate. Oprah flirted with the idea before saying no, but don’t be surprised if she flirts again.

The list, then, is long, varied and growing — but not compelling. Which is why Clinton, despite her enormous flaws and two presidential defeats, can’t be ruled out as the party’s best hope. God knows she wants it more than anybody else.

It’s also why I have been saying for months that she was keeping her options open and might actually seek a rematch with Trump.

And that was before she and Bill Clinton announced their six-month speaking tour. The gambit is designed to keep her name front and center without having to declare herself a candidate. Her recent phone calls to White House reporters also signal her plan.

So I was not surprised when one of her former aides, Philippe Reines, admitted to Politico that Clinton might run. He cited her fan base, said she was tough enough to go against Trump and could raise the money.

There you have it, the official word that attempts to silence her are doomed. Brace yourself — she’s baaaack!

Russia nuclear treaty: US warned over threat to scrap deal

Russia nuclear treaty: US warned over threat to scrap deal

A Russian missile is fired during military exercises

Russia has condemned US plans to withdraw from a key nuclear weapons treaty and threatened to retaliate over the “very dangerous step”.

On Saturday, President Trump said he intended to “terminate” the three-decade-old 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty.

He said Russia had been “violating it for many years”.

The deal banned ground-launched medium-range missiles, with a range of between 500 and 5,500km (310-3,400 miles).

What exactly has Trump said?

President Trump said the US would not let Russia “go out and do weapons [while] we’re not allowed to”.

“I don’t know why President [Barack] Obama didn’t negotiate or pull out,” the president said of the INF treaty after a campaign rally in Nevada.

In 2014, President Obama accused Russia of breaching the INF after it allegedly tested a ground-launched cruise missile. He reportedly chose not to withdraw from the treaty under pressure from European leaders, who said such a move could restart an arms race.

US National Security Adviser John Bolton is expected to confirm the withdrawal during talks in Moscow later this week.

How has Russia responded?

“This would be a very dangerous step that, I’m sure, not only will not be comprehended by the international community but will provoke serious condemnation,” Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said.

Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov pictured in February 2018

Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption Russia’s deputy foreign minister accused the US of using “a method of blackmail”

The treaty is “significant for international security and security in the sphere of nuclear arms, for the maintenance of strategic stability,” he told state news agency Tass.

Mr Ryabkov said Russia condemned US attempts to gain concessions “through a method of blackmail”.

The minister also told the news agency RIA Novosti that if the US continues to behave “clumsily and crudely” and backs out of international agreements, “then we will have no choice but to undertake retaliatory measures, including involving military technology”.

“But we would not want to get to this stage,” he added.

‘A significant setback’

Analysis by BBC defence and diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus

Concern about Russia’s development and deployment of a missile system that breaches the INF treaty predates the Trump administration. But the president’s decision to walk away from the agreement marks a significant setback for arms control.

Many experts believe that negotiations should have continued to try to bring the Russians back into compliance. It is, they fear, part of the wider unravelling of the whole system of arms control treaties that helped to curb strategic competition during the Cold War.

Other factors too may have played into President Trump’s decision. This was a bilateral treaty between Washington and Moscow. China was free to develop and deploy intermediate range nuclear missiles. Some in the Trump administration feel that the INF treaty places them at a growing disadvantage in their developing strategic rivalry with Beijing .

Has Russia breached the treaty?

The US insists the Russians have, in breach of the deal, developed a new medium-range missile called the Novator 9M729 – known to Nato as the SSC-8.

It would enable Russia to launch a nuclear strike at Nato countries at very short notice.

Russia has said little about its new missile other than to deny that it is in breach of the agreement.

Analysts say Russia sees such weapons as a cheaper alternative to conventional forces.

The New York Times reported on Friday the US was considering withdrawing from the treaty in a bid to counter China’s expanding military presence in the western Pacific.

The country was not a signatory of the deal, allowing it to develop medium-range missiles without restraint.

Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan signing the INF treaty in 1987

What is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty?

Image copyright AFP
Image caption Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan signed the INF treaty in 1987
  • Signed by the US and the USSR in 1987, the arms control deal banned all nuclear and non-nuclear missiles with short and medium ranges, except sea-launched weapons
  • The US had been concerned by the Soviet deployment of the SS-20 missile system and responded by placing Pershing and Cruise missiles in Europe – sparking widespread protests
  • By 1991, nearly 2,700 missiles had been destroyed. Both countries were allowed to inspect the others installations
  • In 2007, Russian president Vladimir Putin declared the treaty no longer served Russia’s interests. The move came after the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002

The last time the US withdrew from a major arms treaty was in 2002, when President George W Bush pulled the US out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which banned weapons designed to counter ballistic nuclear missiles.

His administration’s move to set up a missile shield in Europe alarmed the Kremlin, and was scrapped by the Obama administration in 2009. It was replaced by a modified defence system in 2016.

%d bloggers like this: