JK22

Mer detaljer er kjent; det vist seg at denne familien - autentiske bilder av gjerningsstedet med døde eller skadde ikke vist - var i slekt med "journalisten" Abdallah Aljamal som arbeidet for Palestine Chronicle som er underlagt Hamas`s kontroll. Nyere opplysninger vist at det var der det kvinnelige gisselet, Noa Argamani, var holdt. Ifølge palestinske kilder hadde forkledde israelerne tatt i bruk stiger for å komme seg inn i bygningen og man vet annetsteds at de hadde ordre om å drepe alle potensielle attentatmann som kunne drepe gisselet.

80 % propaganda, 15 % sjokkbilder og 5 % faktiske opplysninger. Det er hva man så langt har etter redningsoperasjonen som har fått kodenavnet "Operasjon Arnon" etter den drepte spesialsoldaten Arnon Zamora - som var en krigshelt fra før. Det er få verifiserte og autentiske bevis; missilnedslag fra helikoptre, bruk av bomber fra fly for å sprenge ut åpninger og bruk av mitraljøser. Da israelerne sniket seg inn, var det med en nødhjelpskjøretøy ifølge palestinerne, men dette kjøretøyet har blitt visuelt vist for å være et originalt møbelflyttekjøretøy som israelerne hevdet. Møbelflytting er ganske lukrativt når befolkningen flyttet på seg hele tiden. Dette kom som en stor overraskelse for palestinerne, spesialsoldatene var i stand til å plukke ut det ene gisselet uten vansker, men allerede idet man entre det andre bygget for å hente ut tre gisler, kom det til skuddveksling hvor Zamora blir dødelig såret. Dette fulgt til all-out angrep hvor ingen sjanse var tatt, og det hevdes på palestinsk hold om at en familie var utryddet da de tre gislene ble funnet og ført ut. Da hadde væpnede militante som var i sivil antrekk, kommet til og tok spesialsoldatene under ild. Men da hadde panserkjøretøyer fra utsiden brutt seg gjennom, på nytt var palestinerne overrasket. De tre gislene og den sårede soldaten var ført om bord på det nevnte kjøretøyet, som deretter prøvd å komme seg ut av flyktningleiren, det var da dette var observert sammen med et par pansrede transportkjøretøyer. Men så kjørt kolonnen seg fast, og dette fulgt til at palestinske militante som hadde konsentrert seg i Nuseirat som aldri var inntatt, kunne summer seg og omringe israelerne. Sammen med dem var horder av ubevæpnede sivilister, stort sett yngre menn, som fulgt etter både for å overvære trefninger og for å gi assistanse. Det var da IDF gikk til motangrep med kamphelikoptre, mens det blir lansert en "thunder run" med panseravdelinger som rykket svært raskt inn i området for å åpne bresjer. Ifølge israelerne var flere spesialsoldater truffet med splinter fra RPG-våpen som var avfyrt mot dem. Som respons skjøt israelerne ned enhver som beveget seg, i et opptak etter en "thunder run" var et halvt dusin tilfeldige menn funnet drept. I slutten klarte spesialsoldatene å komme seg ut, men splittes i to - den ene fortsatt videre til den amerikanske piren hvor et helikopter ventet, mens den andre kom seg ut til det planlagte evakueringsstedet hvor et større helikopter ventet. I mellomtiden ble palestinerne holdt tilbake med konsentrert ildgivning, blant annet med bomber - på kun et sted var det registrert ødelagte byggemasse. Tilbake lå flere dusin verifiserte drepte, stort sett menn, spredt rundt omkring på gatene hvor kampene var på sitt meste intenst. Israelerne mener under 100 var drept, og at mange av disse var sivilister "drept under kryssild". Palestinerne derimot iverksatt et meget stort propagandamaskineri som gjør at man bli lettere forvirret, raidet hendt i lyse dagen om morgenen når noe palestinere babler om "natt" og "sovende barn". Mellom 150 og 236 skulle ha blitt drept. Det er bemerkelsesverdig få autentiske bilder/opptak av steder hvor drepte og skadde hvis det skulle være så mange - og det hendt i mindre enn et kvarter. Alt tyder på at det var et "Mogadishu-slag" i Nuseirat.

Det blir flere og flere droneflyangrep dypt inn i Russland. Su-57 flyet kan ikke repareres uten retur til flyfabrikken fordi det er så nytt, så skadene er permanent for tiden. Andre fly må kannibaliseres eller delvarer må bygges - som tar tid. Nå trenger ukrainerne bare å ha tusener av dronefly - og finne ut hvordan å narre det russiske luftvernsforsvaret omkring Su-34 flybaser. Merkelig. Innlegget var slettet og erstattet uten vesentlige endringer.

En av de farligste mennene i USA, en kristenfascist, omtales her; Russ Vought - Trumps svar mot Himmler. Han er en av de verste fanatikerne i dagens USA. Trump loyalist pushes ‘post-constitutional’ vision for second term (msn.com) Trump loyalist pushes ‘post-constitutional’ vision for second term A battle-tested D.C. bureaucrat and self-described Christian nationalist is drawing up detailed plans for a sweeping expansion of presidential power in a second Trump administration. Russ Vought, who served as the former president’s budget chief, calls his political strategy for razing long-standing guardrails “radical constitutionalism.” He has helped craft proposals for Donald Trump to deploy the military to quash civil unrest, seize more control over the Justice Department and assert the power to withhold congressional appropriations — and that’s just on Trump’s first day back in office. Vought, 48, is poised to steer this agenda from an influential perch in the White House, potentially as Trump’s chief of staff, according to some people involved in discussions about a second term who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. Since Trump left office, Vought has led the Center for Renewing America, part of a network of conservative advocacy groups staffed by former and potentially future Trump administration officials. Vought’s rise is a reminder that if Trump is reelected, he has said he will surround himself with loyalists eager to carry out his wishes, even if they violate traditional norms against executive overreach. “We are living in a post-Constitutional time,” Vought wrote in a seminal 2022 essay, which argued that the left has corrupted the nation’s laws and institutions. Last week, after a jury convicted Trump of falsifying business records, Vought tweeted: “Do not tell me that we are living under the Constitution.” Vought aims to harness what he calls the “woke and weaponized” bureaucracy that stymied the former president by stocking federal agencies with hardcore disciples who would wage culture wars on abortion and immigration. The proposals championed by Vought and other Trump allies to fundamentally reset the balance of power would represent a historic shift — one they see as a needed corrective. “The president has to be able to drive the bureaucracy instead of being trapped by it,” said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who led the GOP’s 1994 takeover of Congress. Vought did not respond to interview requests and a detailed list of questions from The Washington Post. This account of his plans for Trump’s potential first day back in office and the rest of a second term comes from interviews with people involved in the planning, a review of Vought’s public remarks and writings, and Center for Renewing America correspondence obtained by The Post. The Trump campaign has distanced itself from the extensive planning. Campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita said in a statement, “Unless a message is coming directly from President Trump or an authorized member of his campaign team, no aspect of future presidential staffing or policy announcements should be deemed official.” But in a sign of Vought’s status as a key adviser, Trump and the Republican National Committee last month named him policy director for the 2024 platform committee — giving him a chance to push a party that did not adopt a platform in 2020 further to the right. Trump personally blessed Vought’s agenda at a Mar-a-Lago fundraiser for his group and said Vought would “do a great job in continuing our quest to make America great again.” Some of Vought’s recommendations, such as bucking the Justice Department’s tradition of political independence, have long percolated in the conservative movement. But he is taking a harder line — and seeking to empower a presidential nominee who has openly vowed “retribution,” alarming some fellow conservatives who recall fighting against big government alongside Vought long before Trump’s election. “I am concerned that he is willing to embrace an ends-justify-the-means mentality,” said Marc Short, formerly chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he won’t endorse Trump. Vought, Short added, is embracing “tactics of growing government and using the levers of power in the federal bureaucracy to fight our political opponents.” Vought’s long career as a staffer in Congress and at federal agencies has made him an asset to Project 2025, an initiative led by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, to lay the groundwork for a second Trump term. Vought wrote the chapter on the executive office of the president in Project 2025’s 920-page blueprint, and he is developing its playbook for the first 180 days, according to the people involved in the effort. “We’re going to plant the flags now,” Vought told Trump’s former strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, on his far-right podcast. “It becomes a new governing consensus of the Republican Party.” From fiscal hawk to MAGA warrior Vought was raised in Trumbull, Conn., the son of an electrician and a teacher and the youngest of seven children. Brought up in what he has characterized as a “very strong, Bible-preaching, Bible-teaching church,” he attended Christian camps every summer. He received a bachelor’s degree from Wheaton College, an evangelical Christian school in Illinois, and headed to Capitol Hill near the end of the Clinton administration. Vought mastered the federal budget working for fiscal conservatives, including Sen. Phil Gramm and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, both Texas Republicans, while getting his law degree from George Washington University. Years before the Freedom Caucus enforced right-wing ideology on Capitol Hill, Vought was the bomb-throwing executive director of the conservative House Republican Study Committee. His prime targets: big government and entitlement spending. He worked under Pence, then a congressman, who called him “one of the strongest advocates for the principles that guide us” in 2010. That year, as the populist tea party movement was surging, Vought joined the Heritage Foundation’s new lobbying arm. From a Capitol Hill townhouse dubbed the “frat house,” Vought and his other brash, young male colleagues tormented Republican leaders by grading their fealty to fiscal conservatism. “Russ was determined to make our scorecard tougher than others out there,” said Republican strategist Tim Chapman, who worked closely with Vought at Heritage Action. “He wanted to separate the wheat from the chaff.” Joining the Trump transition allowed Vought to put his principles to paper. Later, Pence cast the tiebreaking vote for his confirmation in 2018 as deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. Vought ascended to the top post in 2019. But instead of slashing spending as Vought and other budget officials recommended, Trump resisted significant reductions to domestic programs and backed trillions in emergency pandemic assistance. The national debt ballooned by more than $8 trillion. Vought blamed Congress. And he stood by Trump throughout his tumultuous presidency, as a procession of other Cabinet officials balked at breaching what they viewed as ethical and legal boundaries. “A bunch of people around him who were constantly sitting on eggs and saying, ‘Oh my gosh, he’s getting me to violate the law,’” was how Vought later described them at a Heritage Foundation event. By contrast, Vought found workarounds to fulfill the president’s ambitions that tested legal limits and his own record opposing executive overreach and deficit spending. When Congress blocked additional funding for Trump’s border wall, the budget office in early 2020 redirected billions of dollars from the Pentagon to what became one of the most expensive federal infrastructure projects in U.S. history. And it was Vought’s office that held up military aid to Ukraine as Trump pressed the government to dig up dirt on Joe Biden, prompting the president’s first impeachment. Vought defied a congressional subpoena during the impeachment inquiry, which he mocked as a “#shamprocess.” The Government Accountability Office concluded that his office broke the law, a claim Vought disputed. Near the end of Trump’s presidency, Vought helped launch his biggest broadside at the “deep state” — an order stripping civil service protections from up to tens of thousands of federal employees. The administration did not have time to fully implement the order. After the 2020 election, as Trump refused to concede, Biden officials complained that Vought was impeding the transition. Vought rejected that accusation — but wrote that his office would not “dismantle this Administration’s work.” He was already planning ahead; bylaws for what would become the Center for Renewing America were adopted on the day of Biden’s inauguration, records show. “There’s a marriage of convenience between Russ and Trump,” said Chapman, senior adviser at Pence’s group, Advancing American Freedom. “Russ has been pursuing an ideological agenda for a long time and views Trump’s second term as the best way to achieve it, while Trump needs people in his second term who are loyal and committed and adept at using the tools of the federal government.” Radical constitutionalism Since Biden took office, Vought has turned the Center for Renewing America into a hub of Trump loyalists, including Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department lawyer later charged in Georgia with trying to overturn Biden’s victory in 2020. Vought called Clark, who has pleaded not guilty, “a patriot who risked his career to help expose voter fraud.” “I think the election was stolen,” Vought said in a 2022 interview with Trump activists Diamond and Silk. He is no longer in touch with Pence, his longtime patron, who has said Trump’s efforts to overturn the vote disqualified him from serving as president again, according to people familiar with the relationship who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive topic. The Center for Renewing America is among several pro-Trump groups incubated by the Conservative Partnership Institute, founded in 2017 by former senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). The center, a tax-exempt group that is not required to publicly disclose its donors, raised $4.75 million in 2023, according to its annual report. As Vought and other Trump allies work on blueprints for a second term, he is pushing a strategy he calls “radical constitutionalism.” The left has discarded the Constitution, Vought argues, so conservatives need to rise up, wrest power from the federal bureaucracy and centralize authority in the Oval Office. “Our need is not just to win congressional majorities that blame the other side or fill seats on court benches to meddle at the margins,” he wrote in the 2022 essay. “It is to cast ourselves as dissidents of the current regime and to put on our shoulders the full weight of envisioning, articulating, and defending what a Radical Constitutionalism requires in the late hour that our country finds itself in, and then to do it.” In practice, that could mean reinterpreting parts of the Constitution to achieve policy goals — such as by defining illegal immigration as an “invasion,” which would allow states to use wartime powers to stop it. “We showed that millions of illegal aliens coming across, and Mexican cartels holding operational control of the border, constitute an invasion,” Vought wrote. “This is where we need to be radical in discarding or rethinking the legal paradigms that have confined our ability to return to the original Constitution.” Vought also embraces Christian nationalism, a hard-right movement that seeks to infuse Christianity into all aspects of society, including government. He penned a 2021 Newsweek essay that disputed allegations of bias and asked, “Is There Anything Actually Wrong With ‘Christian Nationalism?’” He argued for “an institutional separation between church and state, but not the separation of Christianity from its influence on government and society.” Looking at immigration through that lens, Vought has called for “mass deportation” of illegal immigrants and a “Christian immigration ethic” that would strictly limit the types of people allowed entry into the United States. At a 2023 conference organized by Christian and right-wing groups, he questioned whether legal immigration is “healthy” because, in a politically polarized climate, “immigration only increases and exasperates the divisions that we face in the country.” In a podcast interview last year, Vought said it’s appropriate to question whether immigrants “have any sense of the Judeo-Christian worldview that this country was founded on,” adding, “And that doesn’t mean we don’t give religious liberty, but it does mean — are they wanting to come here and assimilate?” Vought’s views amount to a kind of Anglo-Protestant cultural supremacism, said Paul D. Miller, a Georgetown University professor who published a book critiquing Christian nationalism. “The Civil War taught us that America is big and broad and strong enough to include non-Christians and non-Whites,” Miller wrote in an email to The Post. “It also should have taught us that the greatest threat to the American vision are racial and religious supremacists.” Planning for 2025 Vought’s playbook for Trump’s first 180 days, the final phase of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, has not been publicly released. But a review of his proposals so far suggests that a second Trump term could breach even more political norms than the first. Vought argues that protocols intended to shield criminal cases from political influence, which were adopted in the wake of the Watergate scandal, have allowed unelected prosecutors to abuse their power. Even as Trump vows to “go after” Biden and his family without providing clear evidence of alleged crimes, Vought wants to gut the FBI and give the president more oversight over the Justice Department. “Department of Justice is not an independent agency,” he said at a Heritage Foundation event last year. “If anyone brings it up in a policy meeting in the White House, I want them out of the meeting.” Echoing Trump, Vought supports prosecuting officials who investigated the president and his allies. “It can’t just be hearings,” he told right-wing activist Charlie Kirk on his podcast. “It has to be investigations, an army of investigators that lead to firm convictions.” Vought favors boosting White House control over other federal agencies that operate somewhat independently, such as the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces consumer protection laws, and the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates television and internet companies. Trump’s never-implemented order from his first term making it easier to fire government employees would allow the White House to excise policymakers who resist the will of the elected chief executive. “It really concerns me, and I know it concerns Russ, that these agencies have turned on the very people they are supposed to serve,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who led a House panel that Vought pushed for on the alleged “weaponization” of government. Vought also recommends reviving presidential “impoundment” power to withhold funding appropriated by Congress; the practice was outlawed after President Richard M. Nixon left office, but Vought calls that move “unconstitutional.” And he supports invoking the Insurrection Act, a law last updated in 1871 that allows the president to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement. On abortion policy, Vought calls for Congress to outlaw the drugs used in medical abortions — a hard-line stance at odds with some Republicans, who are sidestepping an issue that has galvanized Democrats in recent elections. “My personal story has fortified my beliefs,” Vought told antiabortion activists in 2020, describing how his younger daughter, now 10 years old, was born with cystic fibrosis. The chronic illness can cause severe digestive and breathing problems and require intense, daily treatment; patients’ average life span is 37 years, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Vought said in that speech that 87 percent of fetuses diagnosed with the disease are “tragically aborted” — though the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the ACOG and other health organizations told The Post they were not aware of any research of that nature. Vought proposes in his Project 2025 chapter a new special assistant to the president to ensure “implementation of policies related to the promotion of life and family.” To Vought, that means curbing abortion — and boosting the birthrate. “The families of the West are not having enough babies for their societies to endure,” he wrote in a Center for Renewing America policy paper. When Trump said this spring that abortion limits should be left to the states and was silent on a national ban, disappointing some antiabortion leaders, Vought urged them not to lose faith. “Trust the man who delivered the end of Roe when all the other pro life politicians could not,” he said. Even fellow critics of the federal bureaucracy said some of Vought’s proposals would face legal challenges and other hurdles. Michael Glennon, a Tufts University constitutional law professor who wrote a book that Vought cites as a formative critique, said in an interview that the framers were wary of concentrating too much power in the presidency. “If conservatives trash long-held political norms to move against liberals, what will protect them when liberals retake power?” Glennon asked. Bannon, the former Trump strategist ordered this week to serve a four-month prison term for contempt of Congress, touted Vought and his colleagues as “madmen” ready to upend the U.S. government at a recent Center for Renewing America event. “No institution set up within its first two years [has] had the impact of this organization,” Bannon said. “We’re going to rip and shred the federal government apart, and if you don’t like it, you can lump it.”

Ingen nåde.

De var ikke engangs i kjelleren. De var i fleretasjes leilighetsbygninger. The buildings were about 200 meters apart, and the decision to go for both simultaneously, and not just one of the sites, was due to the possibility that Hamas may murder the hostages after identifying the rescue operation. Argamani was held by Hamas guards alone in the home of a Palestinian family, while the other three hostages were held at a separate home. According to the IDF, Hamas pays such families to hold the hostages in their homes. Blodbadet oppsto da bergingskjøretøyet kjørt seg fast i en trang smug, slik at dusinvis, om ikke hundrer, av menn kom til å angripe gislene og soldatene som da kalt inn hjelp. Kamphelikoptre og "thunder runs" med panserpelotonger rykket fram og tok palestinerne under ild.

Enig i dette! Snikpellik og jeg har påpekte at israelerne lot til å ha intet som helst plan som vil få bort Hamas uten å endre status quo omkring den palestinske besettelsen av Gazastripen som en del av den internasjonale anerkjente Palestina - og dette er hovedgrunnen for at krigen har bokstavelig talt kjørt seg fast uten en troverdig militær løsning. Det er ikke mulig å ta ut Hamas uten å ta befolkningen under kontroll, som betyr at man må ha et formelt okkupasjonsregime og da innbar det bruk av meget store ressurser og titusenvis av soldater samt høy risiko for stor tap. Mao visst hva han mener at "fiskene trives i dammen", for å komme til fiskene må dammen tømmes. Netanyahu nektet å lede vannet i dammen innenfor Gazastripen, det var derimot sett tegn på at man aktet å tømme vannet UT av Gazastripen! Selve vannet er befolkningen. IDF er derfor blitt meget frustrert fordi det ikke finnes en troverdig plan om hvordan å ta ut Hamas og hvordan å overføre Gazastripen til egne okkupasjonsautoritet eller andre autoriteter som må bestyre landet. De to saker henger sammen; det koker ned til spørsmålet om hva som skal skje med Gazapalestinerne. I dag har man ikke nok menn, ikke nok våpen og ikke ressurser til overs i et sønderknust land der samfunnsfunksjonene har blitt utslått. En krigsmobilisering og minst 100 milliarder kroner for okkupasjonsstyring med gjenreisning og nødassistanse er nødvendig. Men dette vil ikke Netanyahu og høyreekstremistene høre snakk om. Så krigen trekker seg ut i det endeløse. Araberlandene vil aldri akseptere en utradering av den palestinske Gazastripen, det vil heller ikke Europa som er bare få små skritt fra å sette Israel under blokade. Så israelerne må vinne ved å ta vare på gazapalestinerne. Hvilken synes å være uoverkommelig. Det er små detaljer fra Nuseirat så langt, men mye tyder på at mannlige sivilister gikk berserk da de oppdaget israelske soldater i egne midte, slik at hundrevis ble meiet ned med mitraljøser, automatgevær og missiler. De var så full av blind raseri at de mistet all forstand og bare springer rett i kuleregnet uten den minste nølingen.

Stort sett menn og yngre gutter er vist i autentiske opptak (stoler ikke et eneste mikrosekund på disse med drepte barn som proklameres av palestinerne som er beryktet for total skamløshet). Et opptak vist mange døde som var spredt rundt omkring som på et typisk åsted etter en trefning, de hadde vært orientert nedover gaten. Det minner om at scener fra Mogadishu i 1993 har hendt i Nuseirat, da hadde hundrer av rasende sivilister og militante stormet nedover smug og bygater i en "flom" av mennesker mot amerikanske soldater som skjøt helt vilt uten hemninger for å hindre mobben. Opptil 315 var drept, to tredjedeler var sivilister som var i "morderhumør", mobbvold mot fremmede soldater var et stort problem fram til etiopierne "avsluttet" dette ved å meie ned opptil 6,000, av disse var 2,000 døde i april 2007. Siden har det vært et opphør i mobbangrep i Mogadishu - for godt. Amerikanerne var involvert. De hadde utplassert spesialavdelinger akkurat i Nuseirat hvor den velkjente flytepiren for nødhjelp festes med fastlandet, og dermed hadde bokstavelig talt orkesterplassen inn i flyktningleiren som lå noe dypere inn i landet. Disse hjalp de israelske spesialstyrker med å ta seg inn i flyktningleiren og deretter holdt tilbake hordene som prøvd å følge etter israelerne som hadde fått tak på de fire gisler, som føres ut til kyststripen omkring piren.

Verifisert, det er blitt ganske sjeldent med gode nyheter fra Gazastripen. Det vist seg at de var skjult i to lokaliteter i Nuseirat hvor det lå en flyktningleir som var utsatt for et voldsomt raid med mange drepte og skadde sivilister som militante. Det var ganske dramatisk ifølge israelske soldater som etter signende var i Mogadishu-scenarioer med "horder av angriperne" i alle kanter.

Makt, makt. Det var galimatias å fortsette med "vinneren tar alt"-prinsippet i det amerikanske politikersystemet slik at dette i virkeligheten fremme maktambisjon, maktbegjær og maktmisbruk. Meget få land med demokratistyre har dette prinsippet hvor man satse på "en mann, en stemme"-prinsippet og størst mulig bredde i det politiske spektrumet med mange partier, som har vist seg mye mer stabilt i sammenligning. Apropos; en kvinnelig dommer skal ha hoppet ut gjennom et vindu i Moskva under mystiske omstendigheter - hun var en Putin-lojalist som var ganske beryktet for hennes strenghet mot politiske fanger. Det var Natalia Larina som hadde nylig blitt svindlet for alt hun eide. Da kom det ut at "telefon scam" har blitt en folkeplage i det russiske folket som opplever at disse svindles for sine formuer. Larina var informert av ukjente om at ukrainerne var etter hennes formue, som kunne reddes om hun overføre den til en ny konto - som vist seg å være svindel. Hun mistet alt. Og ikke bare det; hun hadde sluttet i hennes embete et par måneder i forveien av uvisste grunner. Hele saken er ganske merkelig; vi har en dommer som hadde sluttet uten forklaring, en mystisk svindelsak og angivelig selvmord uten vitner.

Det er ikke stort bedre med Trump, heller. Det er flere og flere tegn på at han også er blitt sterkt svekket på det kognitive feltet, han babler mer og mer uforståelig, blant annet under et oppmøte i Arizona hvor selv de meste ivrige deltagere latt merke til at noe var galt. Det kan slutte med at både Biden og Trump må suspenderes lenge før november fordi begge partier vil da få alle tidenes skandale om de skulle stille opp med to bablende og forvirrende gamlinger. Den tredje kandidaten, Kennedy junior, har signalisert at han aktet å forråde Ukraina (og Europa) "for å ha fred for enhver pris".

https://x.com/clashreport/status/1799343795081040071 (noe feil for tiden) Only 27% of Ukrainian thermal power plants are now operating, Ukrainian PM Shmyhal says. — 42 power units were destroyed. — 73% of thermal power plants are destroyed or damaged. — 20 hydropower units are not working. Det er nå en meget seriøs krise, for da betyr det at den ukrainske industrien er permanent slått ut slik at våpenproduksjonen kan bremses helt opp. Dette skyldes feil his ukrainerne - og spesielt i Vesten. Man skulle ha levert over et dusin NASAMS batterier, men bare to skal ha blitt aktivt - "alle" har realisert at noe er meget galt, som den norske regjeringen i våren har begynte med å reagere på. Jeg tror det er fordi radarutstyret for NASAMS hadde vært så lavt prioritert fordi det ikke selges, slik at det blir for liten produksjonskapasitet. Dessuten hadde ukrainerne prioritert flybaser og lokaliteter med våpen ment for å lansere angrep med stand-off våpen som Storm Shadow, og dermed i realiteten gjort resten av landet forsvarsløst. Ukrainerne har begynte med å slå ut den russiske kraftproduksjonen, Kursk og Belgorod oblast er snart uten kraftanlegg, og det er nå garantert at de vil deretter angripe kraftanlegg helt opp til Moskva senere i året fordi hittil har de satset på raffinerier og militære mål. Skal Ukraina fryser, skal Russland også sendes ut i kulda. Samtidig må man sette inn nødkraftanlegg fordi kuldeperioden vil begynne i september/oktober og varer fram til mai 2025. Det betyr masse og masse av dieseldrevne generatorer og mobile kraftanlegg. Fra felten er det heller ikke gode nyheter. Donetskfronten er i ferd med å dyttes så langt vekk fra storbyen, at den ikke lenge kan kalles "Donetskfront", ukrainske styrker klarer ikke å holde stand mot kontinuerlig angrep som skje nærmest uten stans og dermed dyttes minst et halvt kilometer vekk annenhver dag. Tusener på tusener av russiske drepte og skadde ligger i landskapet, uten at det hjalp ukrainerne som sliter meget kraftig med FPV-droner, Lancet-droner og artilleri. I Chasiv Yar på Bakhmutfronten klarte ukrainerne å gjenvinne Kalinina, men den østre forstaden (kalles "Kanal-distriktet") deretter kom under dobbelt angrep av russerne. Så langt er det klart at fraværet på en strategisk krigsplan fortsetter, slik at det er åpen krangel mellom USA, Frankrike og Tyskland for tiden. I Normandie er det blitt nå ganske åpenbart for alle at Biden ikke er lenge ved hans fulle fem, han skal ha oppvist tegn på stressutløste kognitive svekkelse - og det er åpen krig mellom Blinken og Sullivan. Heldigvis er Sullivan i ferd med å bli generelt forhatt av både demokrater og republikaner pga. hans håndtering av Iran, Russland og Israel. Scholz hele tiden vakler, på den ene siden forbereder han Tyskland på krig, på den andre siden er han for ettergivende mot antikrigskreftene som dessverre er for sterk i den tyske folkeopinionen. Så langt har INGENTING vært gjort for å straffe Iran! Det er Iran som gjør ødeleggelsen av den ukrainske kraftproduksjonen og svekkelsen av luftvernsforsvaret mulig ved å selge tusener på tusener av enveisdroner og deretter lært opp russerne om hvordan å produsere disse! Med dette har Iran blitt en dødsfiende for Vesten - medregnet Norge. Mange skjønner ikke lenge hva Sullivan egentlig driver med her. Spesielt ettersom Iran kan ha gitt Russland verktøyet det trenger for å kaste Europa ut i storkrig. Og sanksjonsregimet har blitt en enorm katastrofe og en av de verste fadeser i historien fordi man hadde ikke regnet med at korrupte krefter i Vesten villig ignorere sanksjonene - slik at Russland nå produsere massevis av våpen med vestlige elektronikk som kan angripe hele Europa.

Det er åpen korrupsjonsskandale i den føderale høyesteretten etter det kom ut meget seriøse avsløringer om at Clarence Thomas trolig er en av de verste korrupte høyesterettsdommerne i Washingtons historie. For det kom ut at han hadde mottatt 193 "gaver" med en verdi på 4,042,286 dollar! Og det er 126 andre "angivelige gaver"! Etter norsk valuta mener det at han hadde fått gaver og tjenester verdt nesten 43 millioner kroner i 2004-2024, og det var bare med disse 193 verifiserte gaver! Thomas har en fastslått lønn oppgitt til 174,000 dollar i juni 2000, nå 306,000 dollar eller 3,245 mill. kroner, og allerede for tjuefire år siden klaget han over at lønnen var "for lav" i møte med høyesterettsjef Rehnquist som ikke tok det pent. Da hadde Thomas truet med å slutte hvis lønnen ikke økes, og da hadde det blitt latt merke til at han hadde for dyre vaner med gjeld, ved å leve i luksus. Det vist seg at han lånte mer enn det som tilsvarer årslønnen, 267,000 på en gang. 'Sold his soul!' Justice Clarence Thomas gets lambasted after report claims he accepted $4M in gifts during his career (msn.com) "One of these justices is not like the others": Experts say report exposes Clarence Thomas "grift" (yahoo.com) Rehnquist var brysk og fikk Thomas til å holde seg i ro fordi dommerlønnen er kongressbestemt og egentlig symbolsk, da man ikke skulle leve av dette viktige embetet. Selv den gang var 174,000 dollar ganske mye penger for folk flest - som bar i seg økonomisk fornuft. Det har ikke vært sett omkring Thomas. Det kan skyldes ekteskapet med Ginni som for mange kjente var uforståelig; fordi Thomas i tillegg til hans hudfarge var regjeringsansatt uten andre inntektskilder mens den hvite konen kom fra en velstående familie med advokatsold - hun kom fra en pengerik bakgrunn i kontrast til mannen. Nå er det klart at Thomas har altfor dyre uvaner som gjør at han har blitt meget dypt kontroversielt, og som kan stemples som korrupt utenfra de fleste landenes lovverk, inkludert det norske - ikke minst fordi han brøt reglementet om å oppgi inntekter og gaver, bare 27 var oppgitt! Dette er soleklar bevis på tjenesteforsømmelse og grov regelbrudd. "Supreme Court justices should not be accepting gifts, let alone the hundreds of freebies worth millions of dollars they've received over the years," Gabe Roth of Fix the Court made a statement. "Public servants who make four times the median local salary, and who can make millions writing books on any topic they like, can afford to pay for their vacations, vehicles, hunting excursions and club memberships." Ingen høyesterettsdommer hadde noensinne mottatt så mange kostbare "gaver" som Thomas, ingen hadde unnlatt å rapportere så mye - og heller ingen hadde mottatt så mye penger som Thomas. De andre kan ikke engangs sammenlignes med Thomas, avdøde Antonin Scalia mottok "bare" 210,164 dollar i 2004-2016 mens Samuel Alito kom på tredjeplass med 170,095 dollar i 2006-2024. Siden 1991 hadde Thomas kommet i åpen konflikt med fargede lederemner, som republikanske løgnerne av og til tok fram for å "avsløre" hva de mener var hykleri som med en artikkel av Mark Paloetta i 2022, Forty Years of Attacks and Slurs Against Justice Thomas | Opinion - Newsweek - som i dag er blitt litt pinlig for artikkelforfatteren etter Thomas avslørt at alt dette som stemples som hets og fordommer, ikke var uten grunner. Clarence Thomas: A Timeline of His Supreme Court Scandals (biography.com) Denne artikkelen gjort det klart at det er for mange kontroverser og skandaler omkring Thomas. Han hadde i 2003-2007 skjult hans kones inntekter fra Heritage Foundation - som mange i dag anser som en meget sterk antidemokratisk bevegelse - som var på 686,000 dollar. Det eneste rette er å fjerne Thomas fra dommerstanden, men republikanerne hadde i de siste tjue år sluttet med å følge loven, og selv blitt hyppige lovbrytere - slik at de vil ikke få ham fjernet, istedenfor beskytter de den korrupte dommeren som har nå gjort seg meget dypt forhatt av de fargede. Det gjør det meget vanskelig å forstå hvorfor altfor mange fortsette med å støtte et så korrupt og destruktivt parti som er 85 % ansvarlig for alle plagene som rammer det amerikanske folket.

Det er opplysninger om at Macron hadde latt Dassault skru opp tempoet på byggingstakten på Rafale fly som skal erstatte Mirage 2000C (Mirage 2000-5 er i realiteten oppgraderte 2000C), det hadde blitt beordret 286 fly, og "bare" 54 skal bygges i 2025-2029. Istedenfor er det sett tegn på at fly for Frankrike prioriteres fremfor andre for tiden, da de er meget opptatt med å bygge flyet som har blitt ganske attraktivt pga. USAs fall som en pålitelige alliert. Det kunne mene at opptil 30 Mirage 2000C/2000-5 kan bli tilgjengelig for Ukraina etter nyttåret, og da er ikke 13 uoppgraderte Mirage 2000C i lagring, tatt med. Heller ikke Dassaults mottagelse av utrangerte (59) fly fra Emiratene som skal erstatte sine Mirage 2000 EAD med nye Rafale i 2024-2030. Mirage 2000-5 vil være spesielt verdifull som et luftvernvåpen med sitt bevæpning som gjør at det kan skyte ned droneflyer og kryssermissiler, fordi vestlige fly kunne unngå å komme for nær i kontrast til de sovjetiskbygde flyene Ukraina benytter. Macron så ut til å ha sett seg lei på den skandaløse F-16 saken. Ukraina har altfor få piloter under opplæring, og da ukrainerne vil ha yngre og uerfarne piloter som F-16 piloter, vist det seg at pilotdanningssystemet har blitt altfor smalt fordi Biden-administrasjonen ikke tillatt en strøm av ukrainske pilotpersonell i sine flyskolene. Da hadde nesten hele NATO med få unntak regelrett bygd ned sin kapasitet - slik at det blir for få piloter. Bare erfarne piloter aksepteres. Et av disse unntakene er Frankrike som har aldri oppgitt sitt flyutdanningskapasitet. Nå er det slikt at det er flere lovede fly fra Vesten enn det er piloter fra Ukraina for dem. Dette vil Macron gjør noe med.

Russerne i sannheten kan ikke skyte ned ATACMS raketter med sine S-400 missiler. Det var registrert syv eksplosjoner, og mye talt for at det "bare" var to eller tre ATACMS som var benyttet i Luhansk. Med fulltreff som vanlig. Og S-400? Vi ser nemlig to-tre S-400 detonasjoner som skjer automatisk når disse ikke lenge har mål i sikte og er for lavt - og et eller flere missil traff bygninger og eksplodert.

Kanskje fordi det er ord mot ord uten selvstendige bekreftelser - og FORDI IDF ER TATT I LØGN? IDF har altfor mange ganger blitt tatt i løgn og usannheter til man kan ha tillit mot denne militærorganisasjonen, spesielt med tanke på WCK-angrepet og det siste kontroversielle angrepet som rammet en teltby i Tal as-Sultan, tyder på at IDF hadde lansert et angrep på falsk grunnlag. Selv israelske eksperter har blitt frustrert over denne tendensen i IDF.

Problemet er at MAGA ikke var skapt av Trump, men oppstått i det republikanske partiet hvor det allerede var meget god grobunn for ekstremistiske holdninger. Dagens situasjonen er først og fremst det republikanske partiets ansvar, for det var en kontrarevolusjonær aktivitet hvor man hadde først søkt å reversere "den andre rekonstruksjonen", deretter å drepe den progressive USA - og nå å innføre partifascistisk styre. De tradisjonelle og moderate kom allerede i 1980-årene i fåtall, da hadde den sentrumsorienterte kjernen begynte med å forsvinne. De blir færre og færre, nå utgjør de en minoritet. Det republikanske partiet startet sin sabotasje allerede i slutten på 1970-årene. Siden hadde republikanerne bygd ned staten, motarbeidet reformpolitikk, saboterte kongressprosesser, fjernet reguleringer "overalt", og deretter begynte med å skru klokka tilbake, spesielt etter kongressvalget i november 1994 som kan betraktes som startskuddet på den demokratisk-republikanske feidekonflikten. Demokratene har hele tiden vært ettergivende, passiv og sivilisert etter hvert som republikanerne bli mer aggressiv, kranglevoren og barbarisk i sin atferd. Det er helt ufattelig at det amerikanske folket ikke straffet GOP. Disse på ytre venstresiden har minimal innflytelse i sammenligning med disse på ekstreme høyresiden som derimot har nå mesteparten av innflytelsen i GOP. For at sentrumspolitikken skal gjenopplives, må den republikanske kontrarevolusjonen - BEGGE partier er høyreorientert, Demokratene er i praksis lik det norske Høyrepartiet - stanses og knuses. Hvis dette fortsetter, vil USA brenner opp i et fryktelig blodbad.

Inside the 'irregular warfare' campaign fascists are conducting against America | Opinion (msn.com) Det er gammelt nytt at Trump anklages for høyforræderi mot USA da han var president, spesielt i forbindelse med Putin. Men det må også sies at da Putin vist svakhetstegn i våren 2020 etter å ha gått på skikkelige blemmer i Syria og Libya, var det sett at Trump, som tidlig var svært ettergivende, regelrett gikk i strupen på russeren med en manisk besettelsestrang. Det er hvorfor Putin ikke kunne stole på hans "venn", en mann som selv for ham er altfor impulsivt og utilregnelig. Ennå vet man at han anså Trump som et nyttig våpen for å ødelegge Vesten fra innsiden. For ham er Trump ikke mindre farlig mot amerikanerne enn mot ham selv... Trump lies that the guilty verdict against him — by a jury of his peers that his own attorneys picked — is an illegitimate, politically motivated show trial. Trying to help Trump destroy Americans’ faith in our democracy and its justice system, Russian president Vladimir Putin’s spokesman today said of Trump’s trial: “If we speak about Trump, the fact that there is simply the elimination, in effect, of political rivals by all possible means, legal and illegal, is obvious.” Hungary’s dictator Viktor Orbán and Italy’s neofascist Deputy Prime Minister, Matteo Salvini, both also argued that Trump is the victim of political persecution. Right wing media commentators and Republicans in Congress have leaped at the opportunity to echo Putin and Orbán. This sort of propaganda is called “irregular warfare” (IW) — warfare by means outside of troops, bombs, navies, etc. — and the US used to be an expert at it. Typically, irregular warfare involves the use of propaganda, proxies, or people willing to betray their own country. Irregular warfare is part of how the US and western Europe brought down the Soviet Union (although that system also disintegrated from within under the weight of its own corruption and rot), with propaganda systems like the Voice of America, Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Europe. A keen observer of this process was an irregular warfare leader based in East Germany at the time. Lieutenant Colonel Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin supervised spying and propaganda operations within East Germany until the fall of the Berlin Wall, when he moved to Moscow where, in 1999, he became the head of the Russian government and is now the longest-serving Russian leader since Stalin. Having been on the receiving end of US and western European propaganda efforts, Putin dedicated himself to turning the tables on us, since the democratic example of America (and other western nations) is a thorn in his autocratic side. And he’s had considerable success, including helping get his man Trump into the White House where Donald then handed a western spy over to Putin’s Foreign Minister Lavrov in a secret Oval Office meeting during his first month in office. Two months later, US intelligence had to pull another spy out of Russia because they had evidence Trump had given his name to Putin as well. Trump may well represent the single most successful irregular warfare program Putin has ever run against America. On July 31, 2019, as Trump was ramping up his 2020 campaign, he had another of what by that time were more than 16 private, unrecorded conversations with Putin. The White House told Congress and the press that they discussed “wildfires” and “trade between the nations.” No droids in this car. The following week, on August 2nd, The Daily Beast’s Betsy Swan reported that Trump had just asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for a list of all its employees (including all our “spies” across the world) who had worked there more than 90 days, and the request had intelligence officials experiencing “disquiet.” Fourteen months later, The New York Times ran a story with the headline: “Captured, Killed or Compromised: C.I.A. Admits to Losing Dozens of Informants.” The CIA then alerted American spies around the world that their identities had probably been compromised, apparently by President Donald Trump himself. Also in 2019, when the international press verified that Putin was paying the Taliban bounties to kill American service members in Afghanistan (and 4 had already died as a result), Trump refused to demand the practice stop, another possible sign that Putin ran him, not the other way around. As The New York Times noted at the time: “Mr. Trump defended himself by denying the Times report that he had been briefed on the intelligence... But leading congressional Democrats and some Republicans demanded a response to Russia that, according to officials, the administration has yet to authorize.” Instead of stopping Putin from offering the bounties, Trump shut down every US airbase in Afghanistan except one (there were about a dozen), intentionally crippling incoming President Biden’s ability to extract US assets from that country in an orderly fashion. Today, Republicans — particularly House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) and committee members Cory Mills (R-FL) and Michael Lawler (R-NY) — have used the resulting chaos and associated American and Afghan deaths as a political club to beat up President Biden. Trump also took an axe to the Voice of America — an institution viscerally hated by Putin for half a century — appointing a rightwing hack and friend of Steve Bannon’s to run the organization, who promptly fired the heads of Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia and shifted their coverage away from defense of democracies. According to The Washington Post: “He ousted the diplomats and media professionals on oversight boards and replaced them with low-level Trumpists from other government agencies. … “Having driven off the American media professionals at VOA, Pack went after the more than 70 foreign journalists who work for the organization, refusing to support the renewal of their U.S. visas as they came up. He claimed to be acting for security reasons and insinuated, on no evidence, that some of the staff were spies. … Now, they are being forced to repatriate, in some cases at personal risk. A VOA report in late August said 15 were returning home and another 20 had visas that will expire by the end of the year. “They weren’t Pack’s only targets. He attempted to fire the board and cut off the funding of the Open Technology Fund, an organization that supports Internet freedom initiatives, such as tools to circumvent firewalls. A court blocked the firings, but the fund was forced to suspend 49 of its 60 projects. Among those affected were journalists and activists resisting government crackdowns in Hong Kong and in Belarus.” The damage to the Voice of America continues to this day as most of Trump’s people are still there; just three months ago, The Hill ran an article titled “Putin’s influencers? Why is taxpayer-funded VOA spreading his propaganda?” But Putin’s efforts at irregular warfare against the United States have extended far beyond his apparent manipulation of Donald Trump to betray spies and kneecap American anti-fascist propaganda programs. The Irregular Warfare Center was created within the US Department of Defense in 2021 by Congress; in their January 23, 2024 report “Russian Information Warfare Strategy: New IWC Translation Gives Insights into Vulnerabilities” they show how Putin’s efforts have had considerable success recruiting average Americans within the US. For example, as one of hundreds of Putin’s early efforts to help Donald Trump become president, they note that the year of Trump’s election: “On 21 May 2016, two protest groups faced off in Houston near an Islamic cultural center to demonstrate competing opinions on Texas’ future. Both groups, one which was protesting the perceived Islamization of Texas, and the other in support of the Islamic community, had been organized on Facebook pages. At first glance, this seemed like a normal and innocuous part of the U.S. political process. “Unbeknownst to most participants, however, both Facebook pages had been created by Russian actors seeking to exacerbate political discord in the United States. This event was not an isolated case; it was a part of a coordinated effort by Russia to meddle in the U.S. elections, both in the social media space and in the physical domain.” Another example was the promotion of Putin’s assertion the month before he invaded Ukraine in February, 2022 that the US and Ukraine were running bioweapon labs in that besieged nation. As NBC Newsreported in March, 2022 as the invasion was moving ahead full steam: “Boosted by far-right influencers on the day of the invasion, an anonymous QAnon Twitter account titled @WarClandestine pushed the “biolabs” theory to new heights… “Much of the false information [about the alleged biolabs] is flourishing in Russian social media, far-right online spaces and U.S. conservative media, including Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News.” When viewed in context, Putin’s successes at irregular warfare against the United States, designed to tear our society apart, have been quite breathtaking. During the summer of 2020, as Trump and Biden were squaring off for the election that year, in thesmall Oregon town of Klamath Falls about 200 locals showed up downtown with guns, baseball bats, and whatever other weapons they could find around the house. They were in the streets to fight off the busloads of Black Antifa marauders they believed Jewish billionaire George Soros had paid to put on a bus in Portland and was sending their way. Of course, George Soros had done no such thing and there were no busloads of Black people. But the warnings were all over the Klamath Falls Facebook group, and, it turns out, similar Facebook groups for small towns all over America, apparently as part of another Russian disinformation effort. From coast to coast that weekend white residents of small towns showed up in their downtown areas with guns, rifles, hammers, and axes prepared to do battle with busloads of Black people being sent into their small white towns by George Soros. In the tiny town of Forks, Washington, frightened white people brought out chainsaws and cut down trees to block the road leading to their town. In South Bend, Indiana police were overwhelmed by 911 calls from frightened white people wanting to know when the “Antifa buses” were arriving. And in rural Luzern County, Pennsylvania, the local neighborhood social media group warned people that busloads of Black people were “organizing to riot and loot.” Similar stories played out that weekend from Danville, California to Jacksonville, Florida, as documented by NBC News. It was both a successful test of using social media to create mass panic among credulous Trump followers and, perhaps, a planning session for the violence ABC News documents Trump is trying to gin up if he loses this fall. One of Putin’s greatest recent IW successes came last July when Federal District Judge Terry Doughty, a hard-right Trump appointee, blocked federal agencies from informing social media companies about Russian and other efforts to spread disinformation on their platforms. In March of this year four Republicans on the Supreme Court granted cert and the case was heard; we’re awaiting the ruling which could come any day. The issue may be moot: Russia is now moving their efforts to promote Trump and encourage civil strife in the US away from their own trolls posing as Americans, now using instead Trump-aligned US-citizens and congressional Republican influencers. These include using rightwing media commentators, average citizens active on social media, and even members of Congress who’ve bought into Russian propaganda from issues around Ukraine to vaccines to the alleged theft of the 2020 election (and “planned theft” of 2024). As the Irregular Warfare Center notes: “[F]uture Russian foreign-targeted OIEs [Operations in the Information Environment] appear to be shifting toward proxy operations, including semi-independent and strategically-chosen influencers on social media, rather than using a directly-controlled team of professionals, as was the case in 2016 with Yevgeny Prigozhin’s “troll factory” that worked to interfere in the U.S. elections.” This possibility of Trump (and thus Putin) seizing control of US intelligence agencies should he be elected is freaking out former senior U.S. intelligence officials. The headline at Raw Story says it all: “Intel officials 'very concerned' about Trump's intentions for spy agencies.” The simple reality is that Russia has been using IW techniques in Putin’s war against America — particularly in his efforts to reinstall Trump in the White House — for over a decade and those efforts are now being amplified on a daily basis by Republicans in Congress, rightwing media outlets, and some of our largest social media companies. With the ability of our government to work with social media and news outlets to combat Putin’s irregular warfare handicapped, and the possibility that Republicans in Congress and on the Supreme Court will further handcuff the Biden Administration’s efforts, the possibility increases that Russia’s useful idiots could succeed in helping Trump prevail this November. And the election season is now just beginning. Buckle up: to paraphrase Trump’s invitation to January 6th, this is going to get wild. Som denne artikkelen - og det som langt har vært sett hos republikanerne siden Trump ble straffedømt - gjør det klart at det amerikanske folket trenger å realisere at det republikanske partiet er i ferd med å begå forræderi på et utenkt skala mot det amerikanske livet, med en mann som hadde demonstrert at han var villig til å begå høyforræderi mot den amerikanske staten og det amerikanske folkets interesser. 'Apocalyptic' Trump allies want no 'decency or restraint' in going after Democrats: report (msn.com) Denne artikkelen forklarer at republikanerne er villig til å begå lovbrudd for å innlede politiske forfølgelser. Men i det minst har det blitt latt merke til at tradisjonelle og patriotiske republikanerne er i ferd med å få nok av vanviddet omkring Trump, mange tar avstand fra det som så langt har hendt i partiet hvor de moderate viser tegn på at de er i ferd med å få nok av den fascistiske utviklingen. Dessverre er det et meget stort spørsmål omkring de selvstendige og de misfornøyde demokratene, samtidig som det er et lite flertall blant republikanerne som støtter Trump. These 38 GOP senators just voted against protecting contraception. Here's why. (msn.com) Og man sliter meget seriøst med å få amerikanerne flest til å innse at demokratiet er i fare. Fra senatet ser man at McConnell nok en gang angripe det amerikanske folket i ryggen, han blokkert en avstemning for beskyttelse av prevensjonsmidler ved å la alle senatorer sier nei og deretter ljuget i Putin-tradisjon rett opp i ansiktet på alle. De har kunne gjøre det fordi de frykter ikke konsekvenser fra et folk som er blitt altfor blind. Selv om halvparten av befolkningen i USA vil bli skadelidende om prevensjonsmidlene forbys, det er oppstått snakk om å forby kondom og pornografi i det siste. Vi SER FREMDELES IKKE at amerikanerne flest klarer å fatte dette, det er som hvis disse bare leser på mobiltelefoner og sosiale medier - avisutgivelse er praktisk talt ikke-eksisterende. Det som hendt i 2020 tyder på at altfor mange har rett og slett mistet bakkekontakten fordi de får ikke lenge verifisert informasjon gjennom massemediene. U.S. Senator Exposed for Spreading Russian, Iranian Propaganda Against America (msn.com) Washington Post avslørt at en republikansk senator, Mike Lee, hadde spredt fiendtlig propaganda fra Russland og Iran i kongressen i bevisste forræderihandlinger. Men dette tror jeg amerikanerne flest ikke bryr seg fordi de har ikke råd til TV og kan ikke finne avis, lokalradio formidler ikke nyhetsdekning... HVORFOR ER IKKE AMERIKANERNE I STAND TIL Å FATTE AT REPUBLIKANERNE ER DERES FIENDE?!! Så hvis demokratiet forsvinne og krig brytes ut - det er nylig lansert en film som kan vise hvordan en borgerkrig skjer i den nære fremtiden - HAR DET AMERIKANSKE FOLKET SEG SELV Å TAKKE.

Putin er en kronisk løgner av den aller verste sorten i menneskehetens historie, at ingen kan kunne ha noe som helst tiltro på ham. 1) Hvis han mener "50,000", betyr det som regel at det i virkeligheten er en tredjedel. 2) Selvsagt skulle det være langt flere ukrainske fanger, det er disse som var i defensiv strid mens det er vanskeligere å ta disse i angrep til fange. 3) 100 % løgn. 4) En av de sykeste løgnene i det russiske folkets historie. Det viser at Putin er så rablende gal at "sannhet" er ikke-eksisterende for ham. 5) De fleste journalister var i militære antrekk. Putin har fått meget store problemer med Xi som selv er opptatt med Taiwan, fordi kineserne hadde for lengst forstått at han er altfor utilregnelig og upålitelig, slik at de vil bare handle med ham på egne kriterier. Xi har overfylte oljedepotene. Alle gassdepotområdene er overfylt. Det er simpelt ikke mer plass. Og ettersom det koster for mye å bygge nye transportrør som skulle ta mange år, ønsker han ikke unødvendige ekstrautgifter i møte med en mann som bruker opp penger i svimlende hastighet. I Vesten er det nå bare Sullivan og Scholz som frykter ham, alle andre hadde for lengst forstått at det er helt umulig å ha noe som helst tillit i det hele tatt mot verdenshistoriens verste løgner.

RIM-174 Standard ERAM – Wikipedia Den amerikanske marinen er i ferd med å sluttføre prosjektet om å kunne benytte luftvernsmissilet som et universalt våpen for benyttelse i alle plattformer fra kampluftvern til kampfly mot et stort spektrum av forskjellige mål oppe i atmosfæren, mål i atmosfæren og sist på bakken. SM-6 er dessuten sammensatt av eksisterende konsepter; AMRAAM, SM-2 og SM-3 i ett og samme missil. Resultatene skal ha vært så lovende at det er sterk interesse, ikke minst da skipsmonterte SM-6 klarer seg meget godt i møte med ballistiske missiler over Rødehavet og Israel siden desember 2023. Dette skaper sterk etterspørsel som gjør at produksjonsutgiftene kan falle. Hvis NASAMS kan pares med SM-6 vil man da ha et geostrategisk luftvernsystem med trolig tre til fire rakettramper med tjue missiler som kan dekke opptil 460 km med ekstrabooster og 240 km med vanlig booster, i praktisk en fortsettelse av Nike Hercules-forsvaret fra den kalde krigen som den gang nådd 140 km. Og med AWACS/AEW&C assistanse kan man oppdage kommende trusler mye tidligere. Problemet er nå hvordan å fjerne produksjonsflaskehalsene som har blitt et sikkerhetsproblem for Vesten.

Det har blitt vedtatt. Proposal 21 har blitt vedtatt som del av partiprogrammet i for det texanske republikanske partiet. Texas Republicans’ Brazen Plan to Control the State Forever (msn.com) The Texas Republican Party approved its new platform at its annual convention last week. It reflects the hard-right stances of its members, with reiterations of Texas’s “right to secede,” demands for bans on quarantines during future pandemics, calls to investigate “unidentified aerial phenomena,” and more. Tucked in between these more outlandish provisions is an ominous one that would effectively end representative democracy in Texas—and keep the state firmly in GOP hands even as it becomes increasingly diverse and urban. The platform calls for the establishment of what can best be described as an electoral college of sorts for Texas statewide races. “The State Legislature shall cause to be enacted a State Constitutional Amendment to add the additional criteria for election to a statewide office to include the majority vote of the counties with each individual county being assigned one vote allocated to the popular majority vote winner of each individual county,” the new plank declared. The proposal is born from the party’s fear that it will not rule Texas forever. Texas Republicans frequently tout their state’s economic growth in recent years and brag that residents in sapphire-blue states like California are fleeing there. But those migrations are turning statewide races in the Lone Star State more competitive, and right-wing leaders in Texas fear that Democrats might once again hold the governorship and other key offices. It is hard to imagine that such a system as the Texas GOP has proposed would comply with the one-person, one-vote principle, to put it lightly. Texas has 254 counties, some of which are extremely sparsely populated. Loving County, which is on the state’s western border with New Mexico, counted only 64 residents during the 2020 census, making it the least populous county in the United States. Eight Texas counties are home to fewer than 1,000 people, and an additional 86 counties each have fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. Adopting a county-majority requirement for statewide elections would obviously cement Republicans into perpetual power in statewide races. In modern American politics, Democratic voters tend to be concentrated in urban areas while Republican voters are overwhelmingly popular in rural counties. President Joe Biden received 1.9 million votes just from the three Texas counties in 2020 that cover Houston, Dallas, and Austin. Beyond the partisan implications, a county-majority requirement would dramatically shift the state’s electoral power toward its rural residents in general. Roughly 3.9 million people live in the least-populated half of Texas counties. They would enjoy an effective veto in statewide elections over the other 26 million or so Texans who live in denser areas. That proportion is similar to Texas’s population within the United States. If that power disparity were similarly reflected in the Electoral College, Texas would have an additional 229 electoral votes. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether such a system would be constitutional. Only one other state has ever adopted something like it. During its 1890 constitutional convention, Mississippi implemented a dual-track system of its own. It required candidates for statewide office to win a majority of the popular vote and a majority of districts in the state House of Representatives. If no candidate met both thresholds, the state House would elect them instead. A person who is casually familiar with American history will have already guessed based on the year and the state that Mississippi’s 1890 system wasn’t created with good intentions. Those who participated in the convention openly declared that its purpose was to eliminate Black political power. “There is no use to equivocate or lie about the matter,” Mississippi Governor James Vardaman, an ardent white supremacist, recounted a few years later. “Mississippi’s constitutional convention of 1890 was held for no other purpose than to eliminate the n— from politics.” The two-tier system prevailed in Mississippi until 2020 when state voters approved a constitutional amendment that repealed it. A voting rights coalition had filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the state in 2019 to challenge the system’s constitutionality, and a federal judge had suggested in court that the system might violate the equal protection clause and the one-person, one-vote principle. State lawmakers rushed to replace it before a ruling could be handed down. It would be impossible to justify Texas’s system under existing legal precedent. So to whatever extent Texas Republicans are thinking strategically about the matter, they may be hoping that the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority will side with them. At least one of the justices is already willing to excise the one-person, one-vote principle from American constitutional law. The Supreme Court first articulated the one-person, one-vote principle in a series of cases in the 1960s that addressed state malapportionment. In the 1962 case Baker v. Carr, the justices ruled that the apportionment of state legislative districts could be reviewed by federal courts. That led to landmark rulings over the next few years that required equally drawn districts for federal House races and for state legislative seats. The only legislative body in America today where that principle does not apply is the U.S. Senate. In the 2016 case Evenwel v. Abbott, two voters went to the Supreme Court to challenge Texas’s state legislative districts. They argued that Texas had violated the equal protection clause by drawing those districts based on total population instead of voting population. By relying on total population, the plaintiffs claimed, the state had diluted their votes by using noncitizens and otherwise ineligible voters to apportion districts. Their argument ran counter to more than two centuries of historical practice. State legislatures have always used total population to apportion state legislative districts, and the Constitution effectively requires it for congressional districts. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected their complaint and ruled that it was permissible for Texas to use total population to apportion its state legislature. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion to note that he agreed with the ultimate result, but not with the reasoning that the majority used to get there. “In my view, the majority has failed to provide a sound basis for the one-person, one-vote principle because no such basis exists,” he wrote. No other justices joined his opinion. “The Constitution does not prescribe any one basis for apportionment within States,” Thomas claimed. “It instead leaves States significant leeway in apportioning their own districts to equalize total population, to equalize eligible voters, or to promote any other principle consistent with a republican form of government. The majority should recognize the futility of choosing only one of these options. The Constitution leaves the choice to the people alone—not to this Court.” Thomas’s concurring opinion was focused on the unspoken question raised by the case. While the justices unanimously said that the Evenwel plaintiffs could not force Texas to use voting population for apportionment, they did not address whether Texas lawmakers could choose that method themselves. But his denunciation of one-person, one-vote and the precedents that established it would upend American political systems in other ways. In a decision last month on a racial-gerrymandering case from South Carolina, Thomas once again called for those precedents to be overturned. He argued that the Constitution gave the federal courts no role to countermand how states draw their political divisions, even if they do so to weaken or eliminate Black electoral power. Thomas even expressed doubt about the validity of the high court’s efforts to enforce Brown v. Board of Education in the face of widespread resistance to desegregation from Southern states. By recognizing the one-person, one-vote principle in the 1960s, the Warren court effectively dragged the United States into liberal democracy. If the Texas Republican Party had its way, the country would be dragged right back out of it. And at least one justice on the Supreme Court would be sympathetic to their goals of perpetual one-party rule. Nok en gang ser vi at den fargede høyesterettsdommeren angripe hans egne bakgrunn og hans egne mulighet man hadde i ungdommen, da han ikke bare vil ødelegge raselikestillingsdoktrinen som den legendariske Warren hadde introdusert, men også stemmeretten basert på "en person, en stemme"-prinsippet. Da Warren tvunget gjennom allmenn stemmerett på et føderalt grunnlag var store deler av USA den gang i fakta kvasidemokratisk, fascistisk og ikke-demokratisk, spesielt sørstatene. Det var tre sentrale høyesterettsavgjørelser som hadde sørget for at USA blir et ekte liberaldemokratisk land, sluttførte utviklingen av den progressive USA som startet i "den progressive æren" 1900-1917 - Baker v. Carr (1962), Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) og sist Reynolds v. Sims (1964) - Earl Warren som er norskættet og kjent som en av de meste rettskafne mennene i USAs historie både som politiker og dommer (Nixon og Warren hatet hverandre i en klassisk ondskap vers godhet-konflikt) kan sies å være det amerikanske demokratiets far. "The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. [...] Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized." (Earl Warren 1964) Det avslører at USA i realiteten er et ungt demokratisk land. Ikke så gammelt som mange trodde, amerikanerne selv, og det skyldes grunnlovsfedrenes egne beslutning om å innføre rasesegregering som kriterium for det amerikanske samfunnet - det var de som bestemte at en fargede skulle være mindreverdig mot en hvite. Dette skaper meget alvorlige problemer den dag i dag. Dette er under angrep av republikanerne med flere høyesterettsdommerne i spissen, mest notert Clarence Thomas som åpenbart har blitt for mentalt forstyrret av hans identitetsforvirring. Fra Texas har det blitt avslørt at republikanerne aktet å forkaste den allmenne stemmeretten hvor 3,9 millioner skal ha fortrinn foran 26 millioner som i realiteten betyr at Texas ikke lenge kan kalles et demokrati når alle prinsipper knyttet til stemmerett forkastes til fordel for et minoritetstyranni. Fra Kansas hadde den delstatlige høyesteretten hvor dommerne nesten gikk løs på hverandre med never, bestemt at den delstatlige stemmeretten ikke beskyttes i tråd med verken den føderale "Bills of Rights" eller den delstatlige konstitusjonen. Opinion: Pay-to-play politics is killing our democracy — we can save it using the Constitution (msn.com) Det er nå oppstått meget voldsomme bekymringer "over hele fjøsa" i hele USA hvor det nå er sett en intellektuell reisning der man mener det amerikanske demokratiet er under seriøs fare ikke bare fra Trump, men også republikanerne og den føderale høyesteretten. In the past few decades, in cases like Citizens United, the Supreme Court essentially rewrote the Constitution, deciding that the First Amendment prohibits Americans from having fair and even-handed spending rules to protect the integrity of our elections and the votes of all Americans. For the first 200 years of American history, no one thought that the First Amendment stripped Americans’ ability to limit spending in elections. Now, a handful of lawyers and judges have decided otherwise, and all Americans are paying the price. For example, 86 percent of Maine’s voters approved a ballot initiative in November to stop foreign government owned or controlled corporations from spending money to influence elections there. Such foreign entities spent $100 million in the state’s election in the previous three years. Earlier this year, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction to block the law, explaining that the law likely violated Citizens United. Foreign influence is a threat to self-government. Foreign actors exploit dark money groups disguised as domestic organizations to funnel money and carry out electioneering activities in local, state and federal races. Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine), who introduced their own legislation last year to curtail foreign influence in elections, point out the blatant national security risks associated with the campaign finance system’s opacity, writing that “it is undeniable—foreign agents and individuals, with agendas of their own, can affect our electoral process, and by extension, our daily lives.” Siden 2010 har det politiske systemet blitt et "pay-to-play" arena for milliardører og pengerike krefter - og dette var ikke godt mottatt av den amerikanske offentligheten, som dessverre forbli blind for at dette var hendt som et resultat av den republikanske kontrarevolusjonen om å feie bort den progressive USA og at den føderale høyesteretten er de egentlige skurker, støttet av republikanske politikere som McConnell i kongressen og erkekonservative organisasjoner som FedSoc som aktet å ødelegge Warrens verk. Thomas blir disses villige slave. Red, Blue & Now Authoritarian: The New Political Party Rising in America (msn.com) * Florida Book Bans: Governor Ron DeSantis has been actively reshaping the public education system in Florida by removing books from school shelves. * Transgender Rights Restrictions: The rights of transgender people are under attack throughout the country, with many states passing laws restricting their access to healthcare and other basic rights. * Voting Restrictions: Efforts to restrict voting rights and suppress dissenting voices are also prevalent, with many Republican leaders questioning the legitimacy of election results and advocating for stronger, unelected leaders. * Trump’s Authoritarian Rhetoric: Donald Trump’s political career has been marked by authoritarian tendencies, including attempts to overturn election results and his statements about using force to achieve political goals. * Polarization and Isolationism: The Republican Party has shifted towards isolationism and rejecting international institutions. 'Greatest threat you never heard of': Report reveals lurking menace to U.S. democracy (msn.com) Det er oppstått en militant bevegelse med kristenfascistisk ideologi som er i ferd med å bli en seriøs trussel - og speakeren Johnson er knyttet til disse. "Mike Johnson, who is now the speaker of the House, joined the NAR’s 'Global Prayer for Election Integrity,' which called for Trump’s reinstatement as president, in the weeks leading up to the attack on the Capitol. Johnson has also stated that Jim Garlow, an NAR leader, has had a 'profound influence' on his life." The NAR is an amalgamation of like-minded organs such as Truth and Liberty Coalition and City Elders pursuing the same aims: to wrest control of political sway throughout American society. City Elders founder Jesse Leon Rodgers seeks to create the mission of a Kingdom of God in America. That translates into a way of life where all businesses, culture schools are beholden to religious tenets. The SPLC describes what happens with any detractors of the NAR's grand plans. It suggests that opposition are literally “demonic” and argues demonizing any argument is perilous. "When everyone but your own is demonic, there is no room for discussion or any daylight left between you for compromise, which undermines the very heart of a modern, democratic system," according to an SPLC release. "The effect is a wearing down, and sometimes, a tearing down of institutions and trust meant to hold people accountable to each other and to help moderate conflict before it breaks into violence. "The destruction of our civic institutions, even when they need reform, will only give the hard right a free hand unencumbered by checks and balances to rewrite our social contract into a dystopian, Christian supremacist, and even neo-fascist future." Vi nærmere oss borgerkrig. Hva tror man vil skje når 26 millioner få beskjed om at deres stemmer er verdt mindre enn stemmer fra under 4 millioner? De vil eksplodere. Bokstavelig talt. Og det er ikke bare i Texas hvor innflyttere er i ferd med å få sterk ideologiske innflytelse, i delstaten Idaho har tradisjonelle republikanerne i stigende grad kommet i konflikt med ekstreme republikanerne som hadde flyttet fra demokratiskkontrollerte delstater som California. Mange republikanske delstater har kuttet sine skatteinntektene så meget, at mange flytte til disse - uten å ense de politiske og kulturelle forskjellene - samtidig som disse er i ferd med å oppleve alvorlige følger innenfor velferd, sosialstøtte, naturvern og mikroøkonomi. Det skjer en voldsom flytteorgie i USA som har skapt meget forvirrende orienteringsrot.

Ukrainere må innta en passiv rolle i Kharkivfronten, de har allerede oppnådd hva de ønsker. For de må overføre styrker til Donetskfronten snarest mulig. Der har russerne tatt seg fram til østre Karlivka vest for Donetsk flyplass og tatt Paraskoviivka nordøst for Vuhledar. I sistnevnt har russerne prøvd i lang tid å ta byen Kostyantynivka uten suksess, nå vil de ta byen fra flere kanter. Ukrainerne har for dårlig med menn, glidebomber gjør det meget vanskelig å holde stand, og Lancet-droner har fulgt til at selv om det er mer enn nok ammunisjon, er det ikke lenge mange nok SP artilleri. Ukrainerne har mistet for mange. Glidebomber og klasevåpen har fulgt til at det nå er enslige kampkjøretøyer, små stridslag ned til bare to-tre menn om gang og små angrepsgrupper på et dusin mann om gang som slåss mot hverandre i Ukraina - som gjør at FPV-droner kunne få store virkninger under stridighetene, men russernes evne for å fortsette til døden uten å stanse og bli stående i deres poster slik at de er nærmest mulig å tvinge ut, gir dem en fordel mot de langt færre ukrainerne. Det er nå bare en eneste våpentype som ikke er introdusert utover masseødeleggelsesvåpen. Moralødeleggende våpen. Det kan være dette som kan endelig få russerne til å stanse.

Jon Stewart Argues Trump Verdict Response Shows 'Media Has Decided That There's Really No Such Thing as Reality' | Video (msn.com) "News media has decided that there's really no such thing as reality," "God, the justice system hunts Republicans while protecting Democrats," an exasperated Stewart said. "Someone should mention that to such unprotected Democrats as Senator Robert Menendez and Congressman Henry Cuellar, both facing corruption charges brought by our Department of Justice, not to mention Hunter Biden was facing jury selection in a federal gun charges trial, f—ing today." "Perhaps it is time for those on the right to begin to examine what it might be like to investigate Hillary and William Clinton, or perhaps to do it continuously and relentlessly for the last 30 years," Stewart said with heavy sarcasm. "But, to admit their own political gamesmanship, their own attempts at weaponizing justice, their own relentless pursuit of opponents, their own dehumanizing rhetoric towards the left, would be to allow a molecule of reality into the airtight distortion field that has been created to protect MAGAdonian from the harsh glare of actuality." Speaker Johnson calls Biden ‘the worst president in the history of the country’ (msn.com) “Look, there’s no question President Biden, I think, is the worst president … I think President Biden’s the worst president in the history of the country, and there may well be impeachable offenses,” he added. “There is an investigation process that’s gone about that has been looked at [by] our committees of jurisdiction, and the process continues, so I’m not making any commitment on that this morning. We have to let the constitutional process and our constitutional responsibility play out.” Han er sprøytende gal. Trump the totem (msn.com) The former president, Johnson said, “is not just our nominee, not just an individual running for president. I think now he’s seen as a symbol, a symbol of one who is willing to fight back against that corruption, the deep state and all the rest.” Enda verre. Now the totem is the flag of the clan…. [The participant] does not know that the coming together of a number of men associated in the same life results in disengaging new energies, which transform each of them. All that he knows is that he is raised above himself and that he sees a different life from the one he ordinarily leads. However, he must connect these sensations to some external object as their cause. Now what does he see about him? On every side those things which appeal to his senses and strike his imagination are the numerous images of the totem…. Placed thus in the centre of the scene, it becomes representative. The sentiments experienced fix themselves upon it, for it is the only concrete object upon which they can fix themselves. It continues to bring them to mind and to evoke them even after the assembly has dissolved, for it survives the assembly, being carved upon the instruments of the cult, upon the sides of rocks, upon bucklers, etc. By it, the emotions experienced are perpetually sustained and revived. When the leader becomes the totem, no transgression is capable of separating him from his acolytes. A totem can’t lie or be vulgar. A totem doesn’t have marriage vows that can be violated. A totem can’t sexually assault a woman. A totem can’t commit fraud. A totem can’t betray an oath to the Constitution. A totem has no innate human characteristics at all. It is a mirror, reflecting back the collective fears and aspirations of the group, who both generate its image and receive it back reinforced. Intet demokrati, langt mindre en republikk, kan ha et slik enmannsfenomen uten å ruineres som et resultat. Da er det oppstått en personkult som har ikke noe plass i et demokratisk system - og mest av alt, ikke et republikansk system. Dette er antitese av republikkidealet. 'Enemy within': Trump rhetoric rings alarm bells (msn.com) It was at the same rally that Trump caused an outcry by describing his domestic opponents as "vermin" and described immigrants as "poisoning the blood of the country," remarks that Biden has compared to the language of Nazi Germany. "I think the enemy from within, in many cases, is much more dangerous for our country than the outside enemies of China, Russia, and various others," Trump said when asked if he would be willing to suspend parts of the US Constitution to deal with opponents. The question is: who exactly is the enemy within that Trump talks about? "It's not just directed at Joe Biden, you see the increase in threats against people in the legal system, judges, prosecutors," said Rebecca Gill, who teaches political science at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. In his rambling speeches, Trump has also frequently lashed out at leftwingers, the media, immigrants, communists and what the tycoon calls political elites. "It rhymes with some of what we have heard throughout history, in fascist governments and authoritarian governments," Gill said. "It's definitely increasing." The term "enemies from within" burst onto the US political scene when senator Joseph McCarthy used it while leading his anti-communist crusade in the 1950s. Leonard Glass, one of 27 psychiatrists who jointly wrote a book called "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" in 2017, says Trump's main goal in echoing the phrase now is to whip up his supporters' anger. Trump's House allies pressure Mike Johnson on criminal prosecution bill (msn.com) * Conservatives want a floor vote on a bill that would allow current or former presidents to move any state case brought against them — such as the one in New York that resulted in Trump's conviction — to federal court, according to multiple House Republican sources. Meanwhile, Johnson told Republicans in a conference meeting Tuesday that the House GOP will target DOJ through attempts at increased oversight, funding cuts and other means, according to a source in the room. * The big picture: Trump's conviction by a Manhattan jury has spurred Republicans to rush to his defense, but it's still unclear what legislation leadership will put forward. * House Judiciary chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Monday floated cutting federal funding for state prosecutors investigating Trump and defunding the federal investigations into the former president. * Johnson last week called for the U.S. Supreme Court to "step in" to overturn the guilty verdict. * A group of conservative Republican senators have also signed onto a pledge to seek to block floor action in response to the conviction. Trump is facing more state-level charges in Georgia, where he and others are charged in a racketeering case based on an alleged scheme to overturn that state's 2020 election results. * Theoretically, if the bill House conservatives are pushing were signed into law, Trump would be allowed to move the Georgia case from state to federal court. If he was convicted and got elected president again, he could try to pardon himself. Presidents can't pardon state convictions. * That bill already has cleared the Judiciary Committee, making it an easy option for leadership to bring to the House floor quickly. Johnson became a co-sponsor of the bill less than a month before he became House speaker last fall. Yes, but: A House Republican close to Johnson told Axios that a floor vote on the bill is "unlikely at the moment." * A floor vote on the measure could put moderate Republicans in a jam. They'd be forced to choose between crossing Trump and his allies or taking a position that might be unpopular in their districts. * Rep. Mike Garcia (R-Calif.) told Axios that he is "not a big fan of changing jurisdictions" of cases through federal legislation. * Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) said Congress has to "respect federalism." * Both represent districts Biden won in 2020. Reality check: Even if the House were to pass the bill, it doesn't stand a chance of being considered in the Democrat-controlled Senate, let alone signed into law by President Biden. Dette er i klar konflikt med 1789-konstitusjonen og det amerikanske demokratiet. Den føderale kongressen kan ikke tilsidesette delstatsrettigheter uten juridisk dekning i akkurat den nevnte konstitusjonen. Det er ikke tillatt å sabotere delstatlige rettsprosesser da dette vil være en krenkelse av den amerikanske føderalretten, og det er noe som meget mange amerikanerne ikke vil akseptere. Spesielt disse på den republikanske siden. I slutten er det klart at det er oppstått meget alvorlige korrupte tilstander i USA, og at korrupsjonen er meget spesielt sterk i det republikanske partiet, som domfellelsen etter hysjsaken mot Trump har avslørt for hele verden. De amerikanske velgerne om de skulle fortsette med å stemme republikansk, vil være dummere enn de dummeste idioter i menneskehetens historie!

Det har bare vært dårlige nyheter fra USA så langt hvor det er oppstått meget store problemer med et sterkt uvitende folk, et nasjonalparti "gått av sporene" og meget seriøse problemer som truer med å sende USA ut i kaos. The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that voting is not a fundamental right. What's next for voters? (msn.com) Fra Kansas måtte det komme en innrømmelse om at det ikke finnes konstitusjonell bestemmelse om stemmerett eller valgrettighet i hoveddokumentet "Bill of Rights" fra 1789 - som i virkeligheten er den egentlige konstitusjonen fordi alle andre som kom i ettertiden er bare grunnlovsprotokoller (det som no.wiki påstår er "grunnlovsendring", STEMMER IKKE fordi disse er tilføyde uten å endre et eneste komma i den konstitusjonelle teksten) av sekundær betydning. Grunnlovsfedrene simpelt brydd seg ikke om stemmerettigheter av tre årsaker; for det første, det var meget forskjellige stemmebestemmelser fra delstat til delstat, for det andre, det var en antidemokratisk føring der man vil forhindre "pøbeldemokrati" - for det tredje, man vil unngå partipolitikk av en meget ubegripelig årsak. Det er med tilleggsprotokoller det først kom inn bestemmelser om stemmerett og valgordning. Dessverre er disse yngre og dermed ikke inkludert i "Bill of Rights" - den første var i 1870 med 14. grunnlovstillegg. Som var i realiteten suspendert i nitti år fram til Earl Warren satt et halt på dette. Alle lover om stemmerettigheter var bare delstatlig, føderal stemmerett eller føderal lov om prinsipiell stemmerett har seriøse mangler. Det er hvorfor USA er det eneste demokratiske landet uten automatisk stemmerett. Meget mange, amerikanerne inkludert, er ikke klart over dette. Noen av delstatene har ikke stemmerettigheter for sine borgerne innbygd i sin delstatskonstitusjoner. Kansas er en av disse delstatene. Der har man derimot meget vage antydninger utover adoptering av en føderal bestemmelse i 1859 - slik at lovgiverne i ettertiden "glemt" å inkludere dette i den delstatlige konstitusjonsteksten. Det var det som fulgt til den skandaløse høyesterettsavgjørelsen som nesten fulgt til vold mellom dommerne, da de konservative med Caleb Stegall i spissen tvunget gjennom en avgjørelse i Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach om at stemmerettighetene ikke er beskyttet av den delstatlige loven mot utenforstående inngrep. Og når man tar utgangspunktet i 1789-konstitusjonen, blir det plutselig et stort hull å falle gjennom. This Supreme Court Term Was All About Undoing Democracy – Mother Jones Denne artikkelen er en massiv fordømmelse av den føderale høyesteretten. This Supreme Court Term Was All About Undoing Democracy The justices made racist gerrymandering easier—and that’s just the start. In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court will wrap up a consequential term and issue decisions that are expected to undercut bedrock assumptions about each branch of government and create a new balance of powers—one that tips the scales toward an unassailable executive and an all-powerful judiciary. It began on Thursday, as the court gave states new leeway to discriminate against minority voters. The justices may soon add women’s right to healthcare to the list of privileges that a state may deprive its citizens, another step that would turn the clock back to a time when the Constitution viewed states rights as more sacrosanct than the rights of its people. Though the cases at issue address many different issues, a theme punctuating them all is that the Republican-appointed majority appears willing to do serious damage to American democracy. Two years ago, Americans enjoyed a fundamental right to an abortion. With that right since demolished, last month during oral arguments in a case involving an Idaho abortion ban, several justices contemplated whether states can deprive women not just of elective abortions, but ones necessary to spare their uteruses, kidneys, and even their lives. It was a stunning and rapid reversal of fortune for women in this country—and one that cannot be squared with a healthy democracy. “There’s an exceptionalism in terms of democracy, women, [and the] law in these reproductive cases,” says Georgetown Law professor Michele Goodwin, who argues the case, along with the 2022 Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, ignores “the constitutional citizenship and personhood of women.” In the decision he wrote that ended the right to an abortion, Justice Samuel Alito placed the state’s interest in protecting an embryo or fetus over a pregnant person’s bodily autonomy. Now, in Moyle v. United States, Idaho asks the justices to place the same state interest over the federal government’s interest in ensuring that everyone receives emergency medical care. At issue is whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), an almost 40-year-old law mandating hospitals that receive Medicare funding provide stabilizing treatment in emergencies, preempts Idaho’s abortion ban, which forbids abortion except to save the life of the mother. Put simply, does a state’s right to ban abortion override the federal government’s interest in ensuring women’s safety? Idaho argued that it should have the final say on its citizens’ health and safety. When Justice Elena Kagan asked the attorney for Idaho, Joshua Turner, whether a state could ban abortion even when “death [for the mother] is around the corner,” Turner said it could. “That understanding is a humble one with respect to the federalism role of states as the primary care providers for their citizens, not the federal government,” Turner responded. To which Kagan replied, “It may be too humble for women’s health, you know?” It’s a shocking argument. It carves pregnant people out of medical protections guaranteed to everyone else, while more broadly allowing a state to inflict violence—up to and including death—upon its citizens. It assigns more dignity to states than to their citizens. And yet, if oral arguments are any indication, it seemed a majority of the justices were ready to usher in such a future. The case also indicates that the conservative justices appear ready to rewrite basic legal principles in order to achieve a certain outcome. Under longstanding constitutional precedent, their decision in the Idaho case should be simple: when federal law conflicts with state law, federal law wins. The 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War, transformed the relationship between the federal government and the states—a fact all the justices invoke when it suits them. “The whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment was to restrict state power, right?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked in February, when the court heard oral arguments in a case over whether the 14th Amendment permitted Colorado to remove Trump from the ballot on the grounds that he is an insurrectionist. Roberts was right. But its purpose went further. As David Gans, a constitutional law expert at the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center, wrote in the Atlantic in 2021, the framers of the 14th Amendment contemplated the fact that freedom included the right to marry and create a family according to one’s wishes—a juxtaposition to the culture of rape and family separation that defined slavery in America. These rights are an extension of bodily autonomy, which was explicitly discussed when Congress drafted the 14th Amendment. “During the debates, members of Congress insisted that a person’s ‘uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health’ was a bedrock right guaranteed to all,” Gans wrote. “Without bodily integrity, the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equal citizenship would be illusory.” EMTALA was not enacted under the authority of the 14th Amendment, but the case implicates its key themes, and the way that the court is shrinking its application while refusing to apply it to women’s and minority rights. In Dobbs, the conservative majority denied that abortion rights had any basis in the Constitution, history, or traditions of the United States. If they let Idaho override federal law, they will be making clear they do not see the federal government’s power to protect its citizens in it either. The EMTALA case is shocking both because it again denies this view of liberty to pregnant people, and because it asks the justices to disregard the federal government’s interest in protecting their life, limbs, body, and health. On the term’s last day of arguments, the court heard Trump’s claim to absolute immunity for official acts he made as president. Just as in the EMTALA case, which was heard the day before, most of the GOP-appointed justices appeared ready to rewrite longstanding rules to achieve their desired outcome. Limiting the ability to prosecute presidents for wrongdoing in official acts would move the office from a position that operates under the rule of law to one that operates above it. While the GOP-appointed justices are technically correct that the Constitution does not mention abortion, it certainly does not mention presidential immunity. The founders, who had just made a radical break from monarchy through a revolutionary war, expressly rejected the notion. “Key participants in the ratification debates expressly emphasized that the President would remain subject to criminal prosecution, and that check was important to the ratifiers’ understanding of the constitutional order they were approving,” scholars of the era wrote in an amicus brief in this case. But when it came to the immunity question, at oral arguments the court’s originalists became consequentialists. What should the court do, they wondered, to stop prosecutors from going after ex-presidents? “I’m not concerned about this case so much as future ones,” Neil Gorsuch claimed. “I’m very concerned about the future,” Brett Kavanaugh declared, while admitting that immunity is not stated in the Constitution but might be read into it implicitly. “This case will have effects that go far beyond this particular prosecution,” Samuel Alito said when the government’s attorney tried to discuss the facts at hand. While exploring what new immunities they might extend presidents, the justices on the courts’ rightmost flank painted a grim picture of American democracy, besieged by vengeful presidents and rogue prosecutors who bring bogus cases to sully their opponents retirements. This vision was completely ahistorical—it’s a feverish fear, not a reality. Yet several of the GOP appointees found the hypothetical scenario to be a credible, imminent threat to the republic. The only plausible reason to be on such high alert is the assumption that that future has already arrived, to be red-pilled enough to believe that the criminal indictments against Trump are, as Trump claims, a political vendetta, that our democracy has already tipped toward authoritarianism, and that the only way to save it is to remove more guardrails. In that worldview, democracy is not being sacrificed to a lawless president, but preserved by the creation of an immune executive. Justice Samuel Alito even floated the idea that presidents might try to stay in power illegally in order to protect themselves from a vengeful successor—a bizarre hypothetical that makes more sense now that we know that after the 2020 election the Alito residence flew an upside-down flag, a sign of support for Trump’s insurrection. But a country with a commander-in-chief who is not beholden to the law is not in fact a democracy anymore. It fell to Sonia Sotomayor to make this point. “A stable democratic society needs the good faith of its public officials, correct?” she asked. “And that good faith assumes they follow the law?” It’s unlikely that the justices will give Trump the sweeping immunity he seeks. But what might be dubbed a compromise by the press—a ruling that allows some immunity for official acts, for example—would elevate the presidency above the law in certain situations, upsetting the system of checks and balances that undergird our system of government. In order to protect Trump, they are abandoning not just their professed originalism, but adherence to the foundational idea of an accountable executive, despite the embarrassing irony that Trump has promised to use the DOJ to attack his political enemies—the very behavior that the GOP-appointed justices claim to be worried about. When choosing between democracy and Trump, a majority of the justices look to be seriously considering picking Trump. Lest that seem extreme, the Democratic-appointed justices have already issued a public warning this term that the majority is looking out for Trump’s interests. When the court ruled that Colorado could not exclude Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban, the minority’s dissent explained how the decision went out of its way to create a process for enforcing the prohibition that protects Trump and his allies. A vital element of democratic self-preservation is that someone who tried to overturn that democracy not then take charge of it. But, as Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in their March dissent, “The majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office” and “goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President.” The court’s anti-democratic activity this term will likely include a judicial power grab that will undermine Congress’ authority and the functioning of the federal government. In January, the Supreme Court heard a pair of cases that could hand significant new powers to lower federal courts and—ultimately—to the justices themselves. At issue is so-called Chevron Deference, named for the unanimous 1984 decision Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which stipulates that when a statute is ambiguous, courts defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation. Staffed with experts and civil servants, the principle behind Chevron is that agencies are best situated to make tough calls in thousands of regulatory decisions every year. Chevron has been a target of the right for several years because it enables regulations, such as environmental protections under the Clean Air Act, that industry wants to block. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both broadcasted their opposition to Chevron while auditioning for their Supreme Court seats, and after oral arguments, there’s little doubt that the doctrine will either be overruled or significantly whittled down. While the effects on Americans’ daily lives—from the air they breathe to the parks they play in, the food they eat and the medicine they take—will be significant, losing Chevron will also be a serious blow to American democracy. A decision handcuffing the administrative state would come on top of another bold judicial power grab already underway: a method of legal interpretation dubbed the “major questions doctrine,” by which the justices have decided they can invalidate agency rules if they deem them too politically significant or expensive to leave up to an agency. When the court’s GOP-appointed majority first officially invoked the novel doctrine in 2022 to overrule an Environmental Protection Agency rule addressing climate change, Kagan called out the political expediency behind the move in her dissent. When the majority’s preferred method of judicial interpretation fails to achieve their goals, she wrote, “special canons like the ‘major questions doctrine’ magically appear as get out-of-text-free cards.” In 2023, the justices relied on the doctrine to put themselves in charge of major policy areas, including by striking down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan as too major for the Department of Education to carry out. Without Chevron, executive branch agencies would be hobbled in creating thousands of rules and regulations that protect Americans. Instead of agencies and experts having the final say, it would fall to the courts to decide what the law should be, whether regulating drug safety, Medicare and Medicaid, or nuclear waste. Not only are rules considered too significant now available for judicial veto, so too would any that arise from an ambiguous or broad statute. After oral arguments, University of Pennsylvania law professor Kate Shaw worried that the decision in the case “could be just a nightmarishly judicial supremacist opinion” that invests the courts with unprecedented powers. “It’s going to be seismic if they do the maximalist version of this opinion,” she said on the podcast she co-hosts, Strict Scrutiny. The end of Chevron would not just shift power from agencies (and the presidents who direct them) to the courts, it would also significantly disempower Congress. Congress writes statutes that are purposefully broad and vague because it knows that it cannot predict every application of the law and thus delegates to the agencies the responsibility to carry out the law as new challenges arise. Likewise, Congress knows that scientists, doctors, and other agency experts are better suited than lawmakers to make certain regulatory decisions. Congress is perhaps the most democratically-accountable branch of government; and agencies, while unelected, are led by chiefs who are picked by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Administrative rule-making includes a comment process that is open to the public. Judges, conversely, enjoy lifetime appointments unless impeached for serious misconduct. A shift in power toward the judiciary is a shift away from democratic accountability. Further, by removing Chevron, the justices would essentially be forcing Congress to change how they write statutes to court-proof the ways they empower agencies. “We expect Congress to have a fair bit of leeway that allows it to do its job and to legislate in a way that best reflects the will of the people,” says Miriam Becker-Cohen, an attorney at the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal legal organization. “If you have judges, who are not part of the legislative branch, coming in and dictating the way in which Congress has to write statutes, that undermines democratic values.” But disempowering the elected branches of government is the point. Republicans have lost the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections, but in his four years, Trump was able to reshape much of the federal judiciary. Judges can be a route to minority rule, and ending deference to agencies would allow the conservative movement to wipe out the policies of administrations it doesn’t agree with. Conservatives “are looking to the judiciary vis-a-vis their power, or lack thereof, in the other branches,” says Becker-Cohen. “It’s not just that overruling Chevron would transfer power to judges: it’s that that is specifically the goal.” Perhaps no issue is as central to democracy as voting. Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has chipped away at the ability to challenge unfair maps and racially-discriminatory voting practices, both under the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. On Thursday, the Republican-appointed majority took another significant step that will limit challenges to racially-discriminatory gerrymanders. In 2021, the South Carolina state legislature sought to shore up Republicans’ hold on the 1st Congressional District by drawing more than 30,000 Black voters out of it. A three-judge district court panel found that was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In its decision Thursday overturning the district court’s order, the Supreme Court departed from precedent and usual judicial methods, as Kagan wrote in her dissent, by placing “uncommon burdens on gerrymandered plaintiffs.” While the decision confirmed that racial gerrymandering is technically unconstitutional, successfully proving it occurs in court will be nearly impossible. The decision is an invitation to lawmakers around the country to disempower Black and brown voters, an outcome at odds with equal voting rights for all. In 2019, in one of the court’s landmark rulings weakening voting rights, Chief Justice John Roberts held that partisan gerrymandering was beyond the purview of federal courts. Although Roberts was clear that racial gerrymandering was still justiciable, his opinion threatened to swallow those claims as well because race and political affiliation are often closely correlated. On Thursday, that’s exactly what happened. Because partisan gerrymandering is allowed, all South Carolina had to do, according to the conservative supermajority, was to claim that politics motivated its map-drawing. Further, Alito wrote in his 6-3 majority opinion, district courts must view such claims with a “presumption that the legislature acted in good faith.” The Supreme Court’s decision creates a black hole that will now suck in virtually all gerrymandering claims. Though the justices have spent the last several years attempting to end government uses of race—even when the purpose is to increase racial equality—racial gerrymandering is now one area in which the justices invite racial discrimination, and promise that lawmakers will almost always get away with it. These four cases, taken together, strike at the heart of American democracy. They threaten to institute a topsy-turvy Constitution in which its post-Civil War amendments protect an insurrectionist but allow states to dismantle the rights of women and minorities, while the president grows more king-like and judges snatch critical decisions from the elected branches. It doesn’t resemble what the framers intended—nor is it the basis for a democratic future. Det er korrekt. Det er ikke hva grunnlovsfedrene ønsker, og ikke i tråd med 1789-konstitusjonens ånd som er basert på borgerlige idealer omkring likemannsprinsippet med et valgbart oligarki oppstilt av likemenn med kongressen som hovedarena for et politisk system i en føderasjon, hvor formålet er at man skulle ha et representasjonssystem med representanter som skulle representere samfunnet som en enhet. Men de samme grunnlovsfedrene hadde gjort alvorlige feil som underminere konstitusjonen nærmest helt fra begynnelsen. De valgt å ignorere politiske ideer fra 1700-tallets Europa som fikk et minimal innflytelse, til fordel for politiske ideer fra 1600-tallet. De valgt dessuten å basere seg på sine ideer om den romerske republikken fordi de vil ha et amerikansk imperium "fra hav til hav" (ja, de hadde slike ambisjoner allerede i 1780-tallet), og det athenske "pøbeldemokratiet" som skulle avverges for å bevare stendersamfunnet. Dessuten hadde de erstattet en konstitusjonell konge med en enmannsregjering som allerede i begynnelsen fikk for mye makt. I Europa er regjeringstradisjonen basert på kongerådgiverinstitusjonen der rådgivere blir ministre - slik at man får en flermannsregjering med en "formann" i lederrollen. Det vist seg å være en meget stor feil. Og sist, men ikke minst: man hadde delt opp makten i den utøvende, den lovgivende og den dømmende - men uten et hierarki som i Norge, der er den utøvende i toppen, den lovgivende i midten og den dømmende underst. Det kan skyldes merkelig for folk å vite det. Men; dette er maktutøvende hierarki i hverdagslivet, ikke politisk makthierarki - som da snu det dels på hodet; av den lovgivende makten utspringer den utøvende og den dømmende. For å få til dette uten maktakkumulasjon eller uønskede konsekvenser må man ha strukturelle rammer som sørger for en balansegang, og dessverre åpner grunnlovsfedrene for at de tre maktene kunne sabotere hverandre. Det var det som hendt i de siste tjue år, spesielt etter Obama kom til makten i 2009. Det var et stort feilsteg å ha politisk nominering av dommere fordi man risikere partioppdeling og dermed splittet lojalitet - som har gjort dagens høyesteretten mulig i dag. Det var likedan et stort feilsteg å ha for dyp splittelse mellom presidentembetet og nasjonalforsamlingen. Konstitusjonen fra 1789 skulle ha blitt erstattet i begynnelsen på 1900-tallet da "den progressive tiden" skapt nye forutsetninger som gjør en ny konstitusjon nødvendig, eller under "den andre rekonstruksjonen" i 1960-tallet da den progressive USA for alvor manifestert seg, men allerede i "den forgylte tiden" var det oppdaget at systemet hadde stivet seg fast i et maktkonservativt system til fordel for samfunnselitene som siden gjort sitt ytterst for å stanse sosialistiske reformer. Dette var dels imøtekommet med sosialliberalismen som Roosevelt og LBJ var sterke forkjemperne for i 1933-1969. Det var sosialliberalismen som åpnet for en amerikansk velferdsordning som i dag er noe amerikanerne flest TRODDE var en skandinavisk særpregenhet. Som har siden blitt revet opp og deretter erstattet med kostbare og ineffektive makkverk. Men anstrengelsene for å stanse sosialismen lykte. Og nå ser vi følgene av dette. Det er som hvis grunnlovsfedrenes drøm om å gjenskape den romerske republikken har gått i oppfyllelse. For republikken gikk under som et resultat av sosialrettighetskonflikter. Dette åpnet opp for borgerkrig og tyranni i slutten, med innføring av keiserstyre som resultat. Trump vil bli USAs keiser. Og republikanerne kan ikke lenge kalle seg "republikanere".

Det er verre; det er den georgiske ortodokse kirkens ledelse som helhjertet støtter den antivestlige linjen i Georgia, og har en meget sentral rolle for å skape forvirring blant georgierne omkring EU og egne samfunn - slik at meget sterke motsetninger oppstår; når 80 % vil til EU og slutte seg til Vesten, vist det seg at mange har ganske urealistiske forestillinger om hvordan de skal bli vestlig, spesielt i sine ønsker om å bevare sin kulturelle identitet. Dette liker ikke EU som skyr meget sterkt en reprise på den britiske "kirsebærplukkingen" fra Brexit-samtalene. Allerede nå er store deler av økonomien i Georgia EU-avhengig. Så hvis EU ligger på is Georgias EU-søknad og deretter avslutte det nære forholdet med georgierne, kan det komme som et meget stort sjokk - så voldsomt, at det kunne få meget uante følger. Det er hvorfor det stort sett er bare de yngre i 15-30 årsalder som demonstrere, mens de eldre uteblitt - fordi de førstnevnte hadde mye større virkelighetskontakt. Georgia risikere da å bli økonomisk ruinert, slavebundet til Russland i et land med en aldrende befolkning med spøkelsesbyer og tomme industrisentre. Bare fordi de ikke forstår at man må gi for å få, og at deres ønske om å beholde "identitet" vil være kontraproduktivt. Spesielt når identitetssaken utsettes for ekstremisme som av de georgisk-ortodokse prestene som kom fra en antivestlig kirke.