To Date which US Presidential candidate will you be voting for & why?

[ej1024]

Forbes then went on to criticize Ocasio-Cortez for her role in Amazon's decision to abandon its HQ2 plans in New York City.
"She already helped run Amazon out of town, costing 25,000 jobs paying $150,000 each a year and the tens of thousands of other jobs that would have created." Forbes said. "That kind of destruction we don't need, we need incentives, removing barriers to people starting new businesses and savings are critical

 

[ej1024]

Frankly, the knee-jerk reaction assuming that I "don't understand" how tax giveaways to corps work is disappointing.
No, it's not possible that I could come to a different conclusion. The debate *must* be over my intelligence & understanding, instead of the merits of the deal.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 19, 2019
Ocasio-Cortez also attacked the speculative deal's effect on the rental housing market, writing: "There's no CHANCE that the speculative insider real-estate buys that were creating immediate spikes in rent in one of the most rent-burdened communities in NYC could have possibly been unpopular?"
Or, she added, "that a technology giant of big-brother-esque potential was selling (notoriously flawed & racially biased) facial recognition technology to [the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency] while trying to move into 1 of the most immigrant-dense areas of the world?" referring to a scandal that has plagued Amazon in recent months.
"No, it must be because I'm dumb," she said.
'Doesn't seem to know much'
Ocasio-Cortez's level of intelligence has come up more times than we can count, but one prominent critic to take aim at the politician was White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway, who, during an appearance on Fox News's America's Newsroom called Ocasio-Cortez a "29-year-old congresswoman who doesn't seem to know much about anything."
Conway's comments came after Ocasio-Cortez accused then-outgoing White House Chief of Staff John Kelly of "cowardice," calling on him to apologize to Representative Frederica Wilson, a Florida Democrat, for calling her an "empty barrel" and incorrectly accusing her of having tried to take credit for the dedication of an FBI building in a 2017 incident.
Ocasio-Cortez hit right back at Conway, sharing an article with the White House counselor's comments and tweeting in response: "Kellyanne Conway has been engaged in a War on Facts since Inauguration Day."
"Leveraging those who belittle my capacity is exactly how I defeated a multi-generation, multi-million $ political machine," she said. "GOP is even weaker bc their bias has no self-control."
Kellyanne Conway has been engaged in a War on Facts since Inauguration Day.
Leveraging those who belittle my capacity is exactly how I defeated a multi-generation, multi-million $ political machine. GOP is even weaker bc their bias has no self-control.https://****/QHA66XqInY
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 12, 2018
'Fumbling basic civics'
In November, former vice presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin attempted to ridicule Ocasio-Cortez for "fumbling Basic Civics" after the New York politician talked about Democrats' chances of winning "all three chambers of government."
"YIKES," Palin wrote on Twitter. "Ocasio-Cortez Fumbles Basic Civics TWICE."
Palin wasn't the only one to note the slip-up, however, with a number of commentators jumping at the chance to point out that Congress has only two chambers, the House and the Senate, while the government has three branches: executive, legislative and judicial.
Ocasio-Cortez responded on Twitter, asserting that "now that's *TWO* fallen GOP Vice Pres candidates going after a freshman Congresswoman that's not even sworn in yet."
"Isn't it a little early to be bringing out the big guns? Especially when they look like the FWD:RE:FWD:WATCH THIS grandpa emails from the '08 election they lost." Yikes, indeed.
'Leftist fantasy programs'
Ocasio-Cortez also faced criticism from Republican Minority Whip Steve Scalise who tweeted last month that Democrats wanted to "take away 70 percent of your income and give it to leftist fantasy programs" in response to Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal.
Ocasio-Cortez responded by questioning Scalise's understanding of marginal tax rates. "You're the GOP Minority Whip," she said. "How do you not know how marginal tax rates work? Oh, that's right, almost forgot: GOP works for the corporate CEOs showering themselves in multi-million $ bonuses; not the actual working people whose wages + healthcare they're ripping off for profit."
You're the GOP Minority Whip. How do you not know how marginal tax rates work?
Oh that's right, almost forgot: GOP works for the corporate CEOs showering themselves in multi-million_bonuses; not the actual working people whose wages + healthcare they're ripping off for profit. https://****/R1YIng2Ok1

 

[ej1024]

Trump Won't Condemn Self-Proclaimed White Nationalist Christopher Hasson Because "Those Are His People," Ex-RNC Chair Says
"He's not going to thank law enforcement because he's probably not happy about what law enforcement did," Michael Steele speculated.
February 23, 2019
The former head of the Republican National Committee blasted President Donald Trump on Friday, speculating in a cable news appearance that Trump may have tempered his remarks about a self-identified white nationalist and domestic terrorist because "those are his people."
"Why are we acting like this is a space that Donald Trump is going to go in and behave of the American ideal?," said Micheel Steele, who is also a former lieutenant governor of Maryland, in an appearance on MSNBC's "Dateline." "No, he is not. These are his people. And he's not going to thank law enforcement because he's probably not happy about what law enforcement did."

 

[ej1024]

Steele, who served as the chair of the Republican National Committee from 2009 to 2011, delivered some of his harshest criticism of the Trump administration to date during the appearance. The remarks came while discussing reports that Trump failed to adequately condemn Christopher Paul Hasson, a U.S. Coast Guard lieutenant whom FBI officials accuse of concocting a plot to assassinate Democratic officials and journalists. Hasson, arrested Feb. 15, allegedly had a cache of weapons in his home and a hit list that investigators say included prominent politicians, including freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and former congressman and MSNBC commentator Joe Scarborough.
Trump characterized the Hasson allegations as a "shame" in a meeting with White House reporters, though critics have said he should have gone further to condemn Hasson in light of a flurry of statements Trump has previously made accusing reporters being the "enemy of the people."
"I think it's a shame," Trump said while speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Friday. "I think it's a very sad thing when a thing like that happens. I've expressed that." He rebuffed accusations that his harsh language could have played a part in Hasson's plot, saying he thinks his "language is very nice."
In the Friday interview with MSNBC, Steele suggested waiting for condemnation from the president was unrealistic.
"I'm not going to dress it up and be pie in the sky and hopeful that, oh, maybe in the next incident Trump will actually get it right, that he will have matured in his presidency enough to act like a president," Steele said.
White House Spokesperson Sarah Sanders defended Trump and pivoted the blame back toward media on Friday.
"I certainly don't think that the president at any point has done anything but condemn violence against journalists or anyone else," Sanders said when pressed about Trump's previous inflammatory statements about media and his political opponents. "In fact, every single time something like this happens the president is typically one of the first people to condemn the violence and the media is the first people to blame the president."
That statement, too, was rebuffed by journalists and political commentators, who pointed out that Trump had previously shared doctored gifs of him physically sparring with CNN and defended Republican Montana Rep. Greg Gianforte after he body-slammed a reporter.
"Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my kind of guy...He's my guy,'" Trump said at the time.

 

[ej1024]

Bill Maher Mocks Red State Voters, Says Rich and Educated Live in Blue States
"Our roofs have solar panels, theirs have last year's Christmas lights," Maher said during 'Real Time' on Friday night.
February 23, 2019
Bill Maher ridiculed red state voters in a segment about Amazon's HQ2 locations, saying that the rich and educated people of America live in blue states.
"That's why red state voters are so pissed off. They don't hate us, they want to be us," the Real Time host said on Friday night. "They want to go the party. It's like we're the British royal family and they're Meghan Markle's dad."
Maher quoted Hillary Clinton, who has said that during the 2016 election she won the "places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product." Clinton has also boasted that she won over voters in areas that are "optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward."
"Maybe that has something to do with why Trump voters are obsessed with 'owning the libs.' Because the libs own everything else," Maher quipped. "The blue parts of America are having a big prosperity party while that big sea of red feels like their invitation got lost in the mail."
The HBO host continued to pile on the insult for red state residents, saying that there are "no red carpets in Wyoming" and no one asks them what they're wearing because "the answer is always Target."
"We have chef Wolfgang Puck, they have Chef Boyardee," he said. "Our roofs have solar panels, theirs have last year's Christmas lights."
Maher said he knows red state voters are jealous of blue states because of the fact that more than 230 cities and regions across the country submitted proposals to Amazon to house a headquarter location in their area. He went on to say those cities were "all desperate for jobs that don't involve guarding prisons or murdering chickens."
Maher then went on to slam Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos for choosing the two cities that don't need the benefits of housing a headquarter location: New York and northern Virginia. The company has since pulled out of it's deal with New York after facing backlash from local politicians and residents.
The arrangement would have brought an estimated 25,000 jobs to Long Island City in return for nearly $3 billion in government incentives. But after intense criticism from lawmakers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Amazon backed out of the deal completely last week. The company now says it has no plans to look elsewhere for another headquarters location, despite holding it's nationwide contest last year.

 

[ej1024]

The arrangement would have brought an estimated 25,000 jobs to Long Island City in return for nearly $3 billion in government incentives. But after intense criticism from lawmakers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Amazon backed out of the deal completely last week. The company now says it has no plans to look elsewhere for another headquarters location, despite holding it's nationwide contest last year.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio released a statement slamming Amazon for not being "tough" enough to stand up to the deal's criticism. He added that state officials "gave Amazon the opportunity to be a good neighbor and do business in the greatest city in the world. Instead of working with the community, Amazon threw away that opportunity."
"Bezos, you're worth $130 billion. Take one for the team! Stop playing cities off against one another and help a dying one come back to life," Maher exclaimed. He then joked that Amazon could buy the state of Mississippi and rename it "Amazippi."
"If we keep leaving the red states behind, they're going to keep getting angrier and crazier, because if you're not invited to the party, the next best thing is to throw a turd in the punch bowl," Maher continued.

 

[Tpat591]

 

[ej1024]

Why Is Saudi Arabia Giving U.S. Weapons to Al-Qaeda? Elizabeth Warren Asks Trump Administration
The U.S. has been accused alongside Saudi Arabia of violating end user agreements to illicitly transfer weapons to insurgents in Syria.
February 22, 2019
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has issued a letter demanding that President Donald Trump's administration explain a recent report suggesting Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates transferred U.S. weapons to Al-Qaeda.
Warren's letter came in response to an investigation by CNN, which uncovered reports earlier this month that Saudi Arabia and its ally, the UAE, have taken weapons provided by the U.S. and given them to fighters linked to the Sunni Muslim militant group Al-Qaeda and other organizations as part of a secret, shared initiative to defeat Zaidi Shiite Muslim rebels known as Ansar Allah or the Houthis in Yemen. The document was addressed to Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
"If this report is true, it raises serious concerns that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and other governments have violated their end user agreements with the United States by diverting American weapons to terrorists and other extremists without prior authorization from the United States," Warren said, as reported Friday by CNN.
The report came amid lasting outrage over Saudi Arabia's involvement in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent journalist who fled the kingdom only to be slain by Riyadh's agents at its consulate in Istanbul in October, as well as suspicions surrounding alleged war crimes in Yemen and ties to insurgent groups that have called the U.S.-Saudi relationship into question.
While Saudi Arabia has repeatedly denied that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered Khashoggi's death, many U.S. politicians on both sides of the aisle have suspected otherwise, prompting Senate Foreign Relations Committee members Democrat Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Republican Bob Corker of Tennessee to invoke a mandatory explanation from Trump as laid out in the Magnitsky Act. As the 120-day deadline passed last week without any official answer, bipartisan outrage brewed.
At the same time, the House of Representatives voted to advance a bill condemning U.S. support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen. It was the latest action since Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders pushed a similar resolution to a successful vote in December, only for the measure to be barred from being heard in the House by an otherwise unrelated bill overseen by former Speaker Paul Ryan.
Sanders and Warren, both 2020 presidential hopefuls, have mounted a vocal opposition to Trump's intimate embrace of Saudi Arabia, the top importer of U.S. weapons, a close ally against revolutionary Shiite Muslim Iran and an energy giant. On Friday, Warren followed up her letter with a tweet further calling for action on Riyadh.

 

[Tpat591]

Philippine Central Bank Chief Dead

So Manila loses its master manipulator...

 

[PoppaVic]

And they shot him dead. <shrug>

 

[ej1024]

The Justice Department and Democratic lawmakers are bracing for a fight over access to the evidence uncovered by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III during his nearly two-year investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether President Trump obstructed justice.
Mueller’s investigation is winding down, according to people familiar with the matter, and Justice Department officials expect to receive a report from him in March. Democrats on Friday demanded that the report be made public.
A senior Justice Department official said Friday that the report will not be delivered next week, as appeared might be the case just days ago.
The agency’s regulations call for Mueller’s report to be a confidential account of who was charged, as well as who was investigated but not charged. Then, according to the regulations, the attorney general — William P. Barr — will summarize the work for Congress.
Lawmakers already are pressing for the Justice Department to turn over any additional underlying investigative documents produced during Mueller’s investigation.

 

[ej1024]

The maker of the chocolaty hazelnut spread known as Nutella shut down the world's largest factory that produces it because of a quality issue.
Production at the factory, in Villers-Ecalles, France, was halted Tuesday, after a "quality defect" was detected in semi-finished products.
"This defect does not correspond to our quality standards, so we decided to temporarily suspend the activity of the factory," Italian candy maker Ferrero said in a statement. "This measure, taken in the name of the precautionary principle, will enable us to carry out further investigations."
Ferrero said none of the Nutella products currently on store shelves is affected by the problem and that the supply of Nutella to customers should continue uninterrupted.
Nutella was created after World War II, when a cocoa shortage in Italy required pastry makers to get creative. One chef, Pietro Ferrero, created the spread using hazelnuts, sugar and a bit of cocoa.
This spread is beloved
Nutella is extremely popular. In some places, perhaps a little too popular.
Just over a year ago there was a near-riot in supermarkets in France after a French grocery chain discounted Nutella by 70%.
Chaotic scenes were reported at branches of Intermarche as customers fought to take advantage of the offer. Videos posted online showed the lengths to which people were prepared to go in order to get their hands on the spread.
"It was a real disaster, 200 people were outside waiting for the supermarket's opening," one employee at a store in Metz, northeast France," told CNN. "All of this mess for a Nutella jar."
And in November 2017, Nutella fans freaked out on social media after word got out that the recipe for the spread had been changed. The amount of skimmed milk powder in Nutella was increased slightly, giving the spread a lighter color.

 

[ej1024]

Philippine Central Bank Chief Dead

So Manila loses its master manipulator...

The Philippines you idiot!

 

[Tpat591]

Venezuela Faces Violent Showdown As Guaido Escorts Aid Trucks Across Border

Clashes at border towns as Guaido mounts aid convoy from Colombian side...

 

[Rossum]

I've never put anyone on Ignore before, not even Spank Monkey on the other forum, but there's a first time for everything, and this thread is much cleaner that way.

 

[Tpat591]

 

[Tpat591]

I've never put anyone on Ignore before, not even Spank Monkey on the other forum, but there's a first time for everything, and this thread is much cleaner that way.

I Imagine it would be. Apparently posting article titles & links that challenge the liberal narrative, Democrat hate hoaxes, & of the benefits of Socialism in safe spaces provokes childish responses. I triggered him.

 

[Tpat591]

All you can do is cut and paste drivel, I can tell ya now, no one is gonna bother reading it.

He knows, he is just pissed I keep posting updates, article links & Jussie memes in his safe space.

Kudos in winning the meme war!

 

[chopdoc]

He knows, he is just pissed I keep posting updates, article links & Jussie memes in his safe space.

Kudos in winning the meme war!

Think part of his panties being in a wad was my post too. He called me a mother fucker hahahahahahahahahaha

I love triggering liberals.

 

[chopdoc]

Well crap, I should of threw this one out when he was trying to accuse trump of being part of the Klan.

 

[chopdoc]

 

[Rossum]

Think part of his panties being in a wad was my post too. He called me a mother fucker hahahahahahahahahaha

I love triggering liberals.

Anyone who hasn't been called a MFer by EJ just ain't trying very hard.

 

[Tpat591]

 

[ej1024]

China has urged non-interference in the internal affairs of Venezuela, urging a negotiated solution to the political dispute in the country.

Speaking at a press conference in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said, "We urge other countries to adhere to the principles of the UN Charter, that is, non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries."

He said the conflicting parties in Venezuela had to find a political solution "through dialog and negotiations."

The spokesperson also described the country as "an important trade partner of China in Latin America," reiterating Beijing's commitment to trade with Caracas.

"China would like to cooperate with Venezuela in various fields in order to better benefit our people on the basis of equality, mutual benefit, and common development," he said.

China has loaned some 50 billion dollars to Venezuela in the past decade, with Caracas repaying the debt in several installments with oil shipments.

Venezuela has been in political turmoil over the past weeks, with the opposition blaming President Nicolas Maduro for an ailing economy, hyperinflation, power cuts, and shortages of basic items, and urging him to resign.

The political crisis deepened in the South American country on January 23, when opposition figure Juan Guaido, a lawmaker who leads the defunct National Assembly, proclaimed himself the "interim president" of Venezuela. US President Donald Trump was quick to officially recognize him as such, announcing sanctions on Venezuela's oil exports, the government's main source of revenue.

Some major Western powers such as the UK, France, Spain, and Germany have also recognized Guaido as "interim president," a move seen by Caracas and others as interference in its domestic affairs.

Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, and Syria have supported the elected government of Maduro.

 

[ej1024]

The pledges of support came after opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself interim president of Venezuela in an address to tens of thousands of people on the streets of the capital, Caracas.

"We are with you," Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told Maduro in a telephone call, according to his spokesman Ibrahim Kalin. "My brother Maduro. Stay strong, we are by your side."

Erdogan said the democratic process must be respected.


Advertisement

"As a country that believes in democracy ... wherever in the world there is a coup attempt, we stand against them all without distinction. Everyone has to respect the result of the ballot boxes."

Turkey's Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu later told news channel A Haber it was "very strange" that Guaido declared himself president despite the country already having an elected leader in Maduro.

"And some countries recognised him. This situation may lead to a chaos," Cavusoglu said.

He added Turkey was trying to support Venezuela's economy as it experiences serious challenges.

Since last year, Turkey has been refining and certifying Venezuelan gold after Maduro switched operations from Switzerland over concerns that further sanctions against his country could see it impounded.

Venezuela recently turned to gold in a bid to shore up its depleted foreign currency reserves as the economy implodes and international sanctions restrict the government's ability to raise foreign currency.

Russia backs Maduro
Russia, meanwhile, warned the US not to intervene militarily in Venezuela, saying its support for Guaido was a "path to lawlessness and bloodshed".


Venezuela opposition leader declares himself interim president (9:24)
The Kremlin, commenting on US statements, said on Thursday words about military intervention in Venezuela were extremely dangerous. It added so far there have been no requests for military help from Venezuela.

"We consider attempted usurpation of power in Venezuela as ... a breach of the foundations of international law," said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

"Maduro is the legitimate head of state."

Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova criticised countries that supported Guaido's move.

Nations that did so "show clearly the attitude of the progressive international community towards international law, sovereignty, and non-interference in the internal affairs of a country where it seeks a change in power," Zakharova said.

Alexei Pushkov, chairman of the information committee at Russia's Federation Council, called Guaido's declaration "an attempted coup" backed by the US.

"It's impossible to imagine that this was spontaneous," Pushkov said on state-owned Rossiya 24 television station. "That was a preplanned action and it was certainly coordinated by the United States."

'National sovereignty'
China also voiced support for Maduro.

"China always maintains the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, opposing external intervention in Venezuelan domestic affairs, and calling for international society to create good conditions," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told local media.

Beijing supports "efforts made by the Venezuelan government for national sovereignty, independence and stability," she added.

UN chief Antonio Guterres appealed for all sides to engage in talks.

"What we hope is that dialogue can be possible, and that we avoid an escalation that would lead to the kind of conflict that would be a disaster for the people of Venezuela and for the region," Guterres said at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

 

[Tpat591]

CNN Publishes Obama Official’s Civil War Conspiracy: Calls for Military, State Rebellion If President Trump Refuses to Accept Defeat and Won’t “Peacefully” Leave Office in 2020

 

[ej1024]

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Russia warns the United States against military interference in Venezuela's affairs, it would be a disaster, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Thursday, noting that Moscow stands for the principle of non-interference in internal affairs.
"We warn against this. We believe that this would be a catastrophic scenario that would shake the foundations of the development model we see in the Latin American region", Ryabkov said in an interview with the International Affairs magazine.

READ MORE: Will Trump's Coup Attempt in Venezuela Succeed?

The Deputy Foreign Minister stressed that Moscow would support Caracas on the matter, also regretting that the Organisation of American States "was to a large extent involved in this" and "added fuel to the fire".

"As we see how the situation in Venezuela develops, we note the willingness of a certain group of countries, including the United States, to use different platforms such as the Organization of American States, to increase pressure on our ally Venezuela under different pretexts… But we have always supported and will support friendly Venezuela that is our strategic partner", he stated.

The official also underlined that Washington uses pressure, blackmail, and bribery in order to force other countries stop their cooperation with Russia.

Commenting on the situation, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called on the Venezuelan opposition "not to be pawns in someone else's dirty game".

At the same time, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov stressed Moscow’s position on the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduro, ruling out the need to grant the rightful president any kind of political asylum.

"Mr Maduro is the legitimate president of Venezuela, therefore we consider the question inappropriate", Peskov said.

Venezuela's National Assembly head Juan Guaido waves to the crowd during a mass opposition rally against leader Nicolas Maduro in which he declared himself the country's acting president, on the anniversary of a 1958 uprising that overthrew military dictatorship, in Caracas on January 23, 2019.
AFP 2018 / FEDERICO PARRA
Things to Know About Venezuelan Opposition Leader Recognised as President by US
Nationwide anti-governmental protests have been shaking Venezuela since the beginning of the week, while supporters of the country's leader, Nicolas Maduro, have also held rallies.
On Tuesday, the opposition-run Venezuelan National Assembly adopted a statement declaring Maduro a usurper. On Wednesday, Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself the country's interim president at a mass rally in the Venezuelan capital.

Some foreign countries, including the US and Canada, have recognised Guaido as an interim president of Venezuela.

 

[PoppaVic]

As usual, the leftists are so completely clueless as to cause rotfl-syndrome..

I'd love to see a lot more folks monitoring every damned election and count, but in the end the only fact that matters is: leftist can't shoot.

 

[Tpat591]

Bill Maher mocks Middle Americans as less 'affluent and educated,' saying 'they want to be us'
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...fluent-and-educated-saying-they-want-to-be-us

 

[ej1024]

Fraudulent manipulation by Western stooges

This week (on Sunday) the "Opposition" organized an illegal and unofficial public consultation on Government plans to appoint a new Constituent Assembly with powers to substitute the National Assembly, giving it the possibility to alter the constitution. The other side of the coin is that the National Assembly is a bastion of Opposition members blocking Government measures, willfully sabotaging the process of Government and creating chaos to then blame the Government of President Nicolas Maduro of mismanagement.



In the 2015 legislative election, 7.7 million of Venezuela's 19.5 million voters favored Opposition parties to the ruling PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela). In this week's unofficial election, 7,186,170 people voted, 96 per cent of these against the Government plans. However the Venezuelan Opposition and their masters in Washington have to understand that an illegal vote by 28 per cent of the electorate does not constitute a valid constituionally-backed position or statement. It is a protest vvote by those who fear they will lose their vested interests and this affirmation is back up by the fact that most Venezuelans back the PSUV.

The Venezuelan Government has accused the Opposition of staging an illegal act which anyway is fraught with fraud, manipulation and violation of the principles of a democratic vote. Of the 102,000 registered Venezuelan voters abroad, some 600,000 voted, for instance. Jorge Rodríguez, leader of PSUV, declared that there is evidence that some people voted seven times, others 14 times.

European Union duped, swallowed nonsense hook, line and sinker

He states that the western observers, including the EU, were duped into thinking that "voters" was the same thing as "votes". They fell for the Opposition swansong hook, line and sinker, including outrageous acts such as adding 50,000 votes to the result in the State of Aragua, a practice which was allegedly commonplace among Opposition campaign managers.



Communication from the Government of Venezuela

Venezuela repudiates erratic US communiqué



The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela repudiates the unusual communiqué published by the White House, 17/07/2017.

It is a document never seen before, because of its low level and poor quality, and makes it difficult to understand the intentions of the aggressor country intellectually. Obviously, the United States government is accustomed to humiliating other nations in its international relations and believes that it will receive the subordination it is accustomed to. The gap that the United States government is digging into its relations with Venezuela hampers a rational prediction of its actions for the entire international community.

The United States government unabashedly shows its absolute partiality with the violent sectors and extremists of Venezuelan politics, who favor the use of terrorism to overthrow a popular and democratic government.

The moral ruin of the Venezuelan opposition has dragged President Trump to commit an open aggression against a Latin American country. We do not know who could have written, let alone authorized, a communiqué of so much conceptual and moral poverty.

The thin democratic veil of the Venezuelan opposition has fallen, and reveals the brutal interventionist force of the US government, which has been behind the violence suffered by the Venezuelan people in the last four months.

This is not the first time we have denounced and confronted threats as wild as those contained in this unusual document.

We call upon the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean and the free peoples of the world to understand the magnitude of the brutal threat contained in this imperial communiqué and to defend sovereignty, self-determination and independence, fundamental principles of international law.

The original constituent power is contemplated in our Magna Carta and it is only up to the Venezuelan people. The National Constituent Assembly shall be elected by the direct, universal and secret vote of all Venezuelans and all Venezuelans, under the authority of the National Electoral Council as contemplated by our legal system. It is an act of political sovereignty of the Republic, nothing and nobody can stop it. The Constituent Assembly Goes Ahead!

Today the Venezuelan people are free and will respond united before the insolent threat posed by a xenophobic and racist empire. The anti-imperialist thinking of the Liberator is more valid than ever:

"The United States seems destined by Providence to infest America with misery in the name of freedom" Simón Bolívar


See more at http://www.pravdareport.com/world/138200-venezuela_interference_usa/

 

[ej1024]

As the crisis in Venezuela escalates uncontrollably for the people, the politicians are in the centre of legitimising themselves as the president of the country. Current president Nicolas Maduro has recently rejected an ultimatum by the European Union to hold a snap elections in the country stating that he would not “cave in to pressure” from those calling for his departure. The European Union issued the ultimatum as the Juan Guaido, the head of Venezuela’s opposition-led National Assembly, declared himself as the country’s interim president . Many European countries such as the UK, Spain, France, Germany, Sweden and Denmark have all recognised Juan Guaidó as the interim president of Venezuela. Portugal, the Netherlands and Belgium have said they will recognize opposition leader Juan Guaido as president if Maduro failed to announce elections.

In addition to that, the biggest support for Juan Guaido is definitely from the United States as President Donald Trump has recognized and endorsed Juan Guaido as the president of Venezuela. Even Ireland has followed a number of other EU countries in recognising Juan Guaido as interim President of Venezuela. Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney said he supports Mr Guaido, the leader of the legislature, “in order for him to call for free, fair and democratic presidential elections”. The United Nations however has rejected Juan Guaido, as the interim president. The UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres responded to a letter written by Guaido seeking humanitarian aid to Venezuela. Guterres reiterated his concern about the impact of the current Venezuelan crisis on the people but however, in regards to Guaido’s request for humanitarian aid, the secretary-general requested to communicate with the Government of Venezuela, which is headed by President Nicolas Maduro . This directly meant that the United Nations are in support of the current government and president Nicolas Maduro.

Nicolas Maduro was sworn as the president on 10th January 2019 after he was re-elected in May 2018 by getting 67.7 % of the vote. This means that by law he is the legitimate leader of Venezuela. In addition to that, the country’s main opposition coalition, the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD), boycotted the election and that basically paved way for Maduro to be re-elected as the president. While many are now recalling for elections, why didn’t the MUD participate in the elections in the first place? They claimed that the elections was rigged in favour of Maduro but the fact that they did not contest shows that they are incapable to be in power and incompetent to run the country. Now there is Juan Guaido from the Voluntad Popular (VP), (Popular Will Party) who declared himself as the president. He was sworn in as leader of the National Assembly and de facto leader of the opposition early in January, at a time when not many in Venezuela had heard of him. It is said that at least 80% of the population in Venezuela have not heard of Juan Guaido. Thus the National Assembly basically elected a president without an electoral mandate which makes unlawful because there is a democratic process for a reason.

Another issue that should be taken into serious consideration in this Venezuelan political crisis is the involvement of the United States. It seems that as though the situation in Venezuela is a question of human rights, democracy and freedom that is built upon only by the National Assembly via the opposition although in reality that the whole move of making Juan Guaido as the interim president of Venezuela was engineered, organized and financed by the United States along with a small group of countries from Latin America and Europe. This definitely shouldn’t come as a surprise as the United States has had a long history of intervening and overthrowing leftist governments in Latin America for many years. Among a few examples are the 1954 US Intervention in Guatemala, 1964 US intervention in Brazil, 1973 US intervention in Chile, 1976 US intervention in Argentina and many others. All these interventions by the United States were coup d’états that were sponsored and engineered by the United States military by supporting right wing leaders or political parties.

The situation in Venezuela is a little different as the United States are not using military intervention yet but are engineering what many media outlets would not call which is a soft coup d’état through Juan Guaido. While many refrain from the word coup, in reality that is the situation in Venezuela at the moment because Juan Guaido is trying to seize power illegally and unlawfully. In addition, the United States seem to be using a similar tactic that was used when they intervened in both Chile and Iraq respectively in 1973 and 2003 by trying to destabilise the economy of Venezuela through economic sanctions before deciding to intervene or invade via military. This is because a destabilised economy would indeed give the United States a strong reason to invade or intervene Venezuela if needed. This was definitely the case in Iraq. Sometimes sanctions that are often used on countries are an act of war because it hurts the most poor and vulnerable sectors of a country’s population. Moreover sanctions are also genocidal and one example is in Iraq when almost 500,000 babies lost their lives due to the sanctions carried out by the United States. A similar trend is being seen in Venezuela as the US-led sanctions has cost the Venezuelan economy at least 6 million USD and this has indeed weakened the country and also the population.

Recently on 29January 2019, the United States has also announced that a new round of sanctions will block almost 7 billions USD in Venezuelan assets. These sanctions that are being carried out by the United States are actually against Venezuela’s state owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA). As a result, all property and interests in property of PdVSA subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and U.S. persons generally are prohibited from engaging in transactions with the company. The opposition in Venezuela approves the confiscation of the 7 billion USD as it is seen by them as securing assets although in reality it is actually an international theft. As the PdVSA, is an important source of income to Venezuela and while the United States are actually aware of it, the sanctions are a clear indication that the United States are trying to cut off every last source of income available to Venezuela to weakened their economy even more.

Besides that, just like in Iraq the United States would also want to get their hands on Venezuela’s oil via Juan Guaido because it is impossible that the United States are oblivious that Venezuela has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. An additional evidence that the opposition parties in Venezuela are aligning themselves to the United States is the fact that the National Assembly in Venezuela is beginning a process of appointing new board of directors for PdVSA to transfer the controls of Venezuela’s foreign accounts. It is clear that the National Assembly in Venezuela headed by Juan Guaido are not positioning themselves of running the country on behalf of the 30 million Venezuelan people but are instead only invested in securing power and position as well as allowing the United States to intervene in their country’s internal affairs.

The United States are definitely turning Venezuela into their colony and their actions are a demonstration that represents the greatest threat to peace and regional stability of Latin America as a whole. As it is now their custom, they threaten other countries through extortion and coercion so that these countries will recognize a puppet president, which would allow them to take full control of that particular country and exert their continuous influence for years to come. We have seen a similar trend carried by the United States in countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Libya that has led to the devastating effects that remains till this day. This is bound to happen in Venezuela if the opposition leaders led by Juan Guaido are not cautious in aligning themselves wholly to the United States. Although President Nicolas Maduro has not proven himself in leading Venezuela forward, but it has to be understood that US-led sanctions since the Obama Administration has had a huge influence the Venezuelan crisis.

The opposition parties in Venezuela should have shown their will to fight for the interest of the people by not boycotting the election in May last year because the boycott basically meant that they betrayed the people of Venezuela. Personally I am not a Maduro sympathizer but I believe in that a leader should be elected through a democratic electoral process and I also denounce foreign intervention into the internal affairs of a particular country because often times history have shown that a third party intervention by the United States has always brought more negative impacts instead of positive ones. For this reason, I would be on Maduro’s side and would urge other countries to recognise him as the legitimate leader of Venezuela because recognising Juan Guaido would mean recognising the United States colonialism against Venezeula.

 

[Tpat591]

Obama's wall

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098733399177490432

 

[ej1024]

American imperialism” is a term that refers to the economic, military, and cultural influence of the United States on other countries. First popularized during the presidency of James K. Polk, the concept of an “American Empire” was made a reality throughout the latter half of the 1800s. During this time, industrialization caused American businessmen to seek new international markets in which to sell their goods. In addition, the increasing influence of social Darwinism led to the belief that the United States was inherently responsible for bringing concepts such as industry, democracy, and Christianity to less developed “savage” societies. The combination of these attitudes and other factors led the United States toward imperialism.

image
“Ten Thousand Miles from Tip to Tip”: “Ten Thousand Miles from Tip to Tip,” refers to the extension of U.S. domination (symbolized by a bald eagle) from Puerto Rico to the Philippines. The cartoon contrasts the 1898 representation with that of the United States in 1798.
American imperialism is partly rooted in American exceptionalism, the idea that the United States is different from other countries due to its specific world mission to spread liberty and democracy. This theory often is traced back to the words of 1800s French observer Alexis de Tocqueville, who concluded that the United States was a unique nation, “proceeding along a path to which no limit can be perceived.”

Pinpointing the actual beginning of American imperialism is difficult. Some historians suggest that it began with the writing of the Constitution; historian Donald W. Meinig argues that the imperial behavior of the United States dates back to at least the Louisiana Purchase. He describes this event as an, “aggressive encroachment of one people upon the territory of another, resulting in the subjugation of that people to alien rule.” Here, he is referring to the U.S. policies toward Native Americans, which he said were, “designed to remold them into a people more appropriately conformed to imperial desires.”

image
Uncle Sam teaching the world: This caricature shows Uncle Sam lecturing four children labelled “Philippines,” “Hawaii,” “Puerto Rico,” and “Cuba” in front of children holding books labeled with various U.S. states. In the background, an American Indian holds a book upside down, a Chinese boy stands at the door, and a black boy cleans a window. The blackboard reads, “The consent of the governed is a good thing in theory, but very rare in fact… the U.S. must govern its new territories with or without their consent until they can govern themselves.”
Whatever its origins, American imperialism experienced its pinnacle from the late 1800s through the years following World War II. During this “Age of Imperialism,” the United States exerted political, social, and economic control over countries such as the Philippines, Cuba, Germany, Austria, Korea, and Japan. One of the most notable examples of American imperialism in this age was the annexation of Hawaii in 1898, which allowed the United States to gain possession and control of all ports, buildings, harbors, military equipment, and public property that had formally belonged to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands. On January 17, 1893, the last monarch of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Queen Liliuokalani, was deposed in a coup d’état led largely by American citizens who were opposed to Liliuokalani’s attempt to establish a new Constitution. This action eventually resulted in Hawaii’s becoming America’s 50th state in 1959.

Opposition to Imperialism

The American Anti-Imperialist League was an organization established in the United States on June 15, 1898, to battle the American annexation of the Philippines as an insular area. The League also argued that the Spanish-American War was a war of imperialism camouflaged as a war of liberation. The anti-imperialists opposed the expansion because they believed imperialism violated the credo of republicanism, especially the need for “consent of the governed.” They did not oppose expansion on commercial, constitutional, religious, or humanitarian grounds; rather, they believed that the annexation and administration of third-world tropical areas would mean the abandonment of American ideals of self-government and isolation—ideals expressed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, George Washington ‘s Farewell Address, and Abraham Lincoln ‘s Gettysburg Address. The Anti-Imperialist League represented an older generation and was rooted in an earlier era; they were defeated in terms of public opinion, the 1900 election, and the actions of Congress and the president because most younger Progressives who were just coming to power supported imperialism.

 

[ej1024]

The Spanish-American War was a conflict in 1898 between Spain and the United States. It was the result of American intervention in the ongoing Cuban War of Independence. American attacks on Spain’s Pacific possessions led to U.S. involvement in the Philippine Revolution and ultimately to the Philippine-American War.

Background

Revolts against Spanish rule had been endemic for decades in Cuba and were closely watched by Americans. With the abolition of slavery in 1886, former slaves joined the ranks of farmers and the urban working class, many wealthy Cubans lost their property, and the number of sugar mills declined. Only companies and the most powerful plantation owners remained in business, and during this period, U.S. financial capital began flowing into the country. Although it remained Spanish territory politically, Cuba started to depend on the United States economically. Coincidentally, around the same time, Cuba saw the rise of labor movements.

Following his second deportation to Spain in 1878, revolutionary José Martí moved to the United States in 1881. There he mobilized the support of the Cuban exile community, especially in southern Florida. He aimed for a revolution and independence from Spain, but also lobbied against the U.S. annexation of Cuba, which some American and Cuban politicians desired.

By 1897–1898, American public opinion grew angrier at reports of Spanish atrocities in Cuba. After the mysterious sinking of the American battleship Maine in Havana harbor, political pressures from the Democratic Party pushed the administration of Republican President William McKinley into a war he had wished to avoid. Compromise proved impossible, resulting in the United States sending an ultimatum to Spain that demanded it immediately surrender control of Cuba, which the Spanish rejected. First Madrid, then Washington, formally declared war.

The War

Although the main issue was Cuban independence, the 10-week war was fought in both the Caribbean and the Pacific. American naval power proved decisive, allowing U.S. expeditionary forces to disembark in Cuba against a Spanish garrison already reeling from nationwide insurgent attacks and wasted by yellow fever.

The Spanish-American War was swift and decisive. During the war’s three-month duration, not a single American reverse of any importance occurred. A week after the declaration of war, Commodore George Dewey of the six-warship Asiatic Squadron (then based at Hong Kong) steamed his fleet to the Philippines. Dewey caught the entire Spanish armada at anchor in Manila Bay and destroyed it without losing an American life.

Cuban, Philippine, and American forces obtained the surrender of Santiago de Cuba and Manila as a result of their numerical superiority in most of the battles and despite the good performance of some Spanish infantry units and spirited defenses in places such as San Juan Hill. Madrid sued for peace after two obsolete Spanish squadrons were sunk in Santiago de Cuba and Manila Bay. A third more modern fleet was recalled home to protect the Spanish coasts.

The Treaty of Paris

The result of the war was the 1898 Treaty of Paris, negotiated on terms favorable to the United States. It allowed temporary American control of Cuba and indefinite colonial authority over Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines following their purchase from Spain. The defeat and collapse of the Spanish Empire was a profound shock to Spain’s national psyche, and provoked a movement of thoroughgoing philosophical and artistic reevaluation of Spanish society known as the “Generation of ’98.” The victor gained several island possessions spanning the globe, which caused a rancorous new debate over the wisdom of expansionism.

Legacy of the War

The cartoon shows Uncle Sam standing on the United States, clawing at the Cuba and the surrounding area.
“La Fatlera del Oncle Sam”: A Catalan satirical drawing, published in La Campana de Gràcia (1896), criticizing U.S. behavior regarding Cuba.
The war marked American entry into world affairs. Before the Spanish-American War, the United States was characterized by isolationism, an approach to foreign policy that asserts that a nation’s interests are best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance. Since the Spanish-American War, the United States has had a significant hand in various conflicts around the world, and has entered many treaties and agreements. The Panic of 1893 was over by this point, and the United States entered a long and prosperous period of economic and population growth and technological innovation that lasted through the 1920s. The war redefined national identity, served as a solution of sorts to the social divisions plaguing the American mind, and provided a model for all future news reporting.

The war also effectively ended the Spanish Empire. Spain had been declining as an imperial power since the early nineteenth century as a result of Napoleon’s invasion. The loss of Cuba caused a national trauma because of the affinity of peninsular Spaniards with Cuba, which was seen as another province of Spain rather than as a colony. Spain retained only a handful of overseas holdings: Spanish West Africa, Spanish Guinea, Spanish Sahara, Spanish Morocco, and the Canary Islands.

 

[ej1024]

The Social Gospel was a Protestant movement that was most prominent in the early twentieth-century United States and Canada. The movement applied Christian ethics to social problems, especially issues of social justice such as economic inequality, poverty, alcoholism, crime, racial tensions, slums, unclean environments, child labor, inadequate labor unions, poor schools, and the danger of war.

In the United States, prior to World War I, the Social Gospel was the religious wing of the Progressive movement, which aimed to combat injustice, suffering, and poverty in society. Denver, Colorado, was a center of Social Gospel activism. Thomas Uzzell led the Methodist People’s Tabernacle from 1885 to 1910. He established a free dispensary for medical emergencies, an employment bureau for job seekers, a summer camp for children, night schools for extended learning, and English language classes. Myron Reed of the First Congregational Church became a spokesman for labor unions on issues such as worker’s compensation. His middle-class congregation encouraged Reed to move on when he became a Socialist, and he organized a nondenominational church. Baptist minister Jim Goodhart set up an employment bureau, and provided food and lodging for tramps and hobos at the mission he ran. He became city chaplain and director of public welfare of Denver in 1918. In addition to these Protestants, Reform Jews and Catholics helped build Denver’s social welfare system in the early twentieth century.

Walter Rauschenbusch and Dwight Moody

image
Pastor Dwight Moody, ca.1900: Portrait of Pastor Dwight Moody: preacher, evangelist, and publisher in the Social Gospel movement.
One of the defining theologians for the Social Gospel movement was Walter Rauschenbusch, a Baptist pastor of a congregation located in Hell’s Kitchen in New York City. Rauschenbusch railed against what he regarded as the selfishness of capitalism and promoted a form of Christian Socialism that supported the creation of labor unions and cooperative economics.

While pastors such as Rauschenbusch were combining their expertise in Biblical ethics and economic studies and research to preach theological claims around the need for social reform, others such as Dwight Moody refused to preach about social issues based on personal experience. Pastor Moody’s experience led him to believe that the poor were too particular in receiving charity. Moody claimed that concentrating on social aid distracted people from the life-saving message of the Gospel.

Rauschenbusch sought to address the problems of the city with Socialist ideas that proved to be frightening to the middle classes, the primary supporters of the Social Gospel. In contrast, Moody attempted to save people from the city and was very effective in influencing middle-class Americans who were moving into the city with traditional style revivals.

 

[ej1024]

The American Missionary Association (AMA) was a Protestant-based abolitionist group founded on September 3, 1846, in Albany, New York. The main purpose of this organization was to abolish slavery, educate African Americans, advocate for racial equality, and promote Christian values. Its members and leaders were both black and white and chiefly affiliated with Congregationalist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches.

The AMA started The American Missionary magazine, which published from 1846 through 1934. Among its efforts was the founding of antislavery churches. For instance, the abolitionist Owen Lovejoy was among the Congregational ministers of the AMA who helped plant 115 antislavery churches in Illinois before the American Civil War, aided by the strong westward migration of individuals from the East. While the AMA became notable in the United States for its work in opposition to slavery and in support of education for freed men, it also worked in missions in numerous nations overseas. The nineteenth-century missionary effort was strong in China and east Asia.

Legacy

While the Social Gospel was short-lived historically, it had a lasting impact on the policies of most of the mainline denominations in the United States. Most began programs for social reform, which led to ecumenical cooperation in 1910 during the formation of the Federal Council of Churches (although cooperation regarding social issues often led to charges of Socialism). It is likely that the Social Gospel’s strong sense of leadership by the people led to women’s suffrage, and that the emphasis it placed on morality led to prohibition. Biographer Randall Woods argues that Social Gospel themes learned from childhood allowed Lyndon B. Johnson to transform social problems into moral problems. This helps explain his longtime commitment to social justice, as exemplified by the Great Society, and his commitment to racial equality. The Social Gospel explicitly inspired his foreign-policy approach of a sort of Christian internationalism and nation building.

 

[ej1024]

The “Open Door Policy” refers to a U.S. doctrine established in the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, as expressed in Secretary of State John Hay’s “Open Door Note,” dated September 6, 1899, and dispatched to the major European powers. The policy proposed to keep China open to trade with all countries on an equal basis, keeping any one power from total control of the country, and calling upon all powers, within their spheres of influence, to refrain from interfering with any treaty port or any vested interest, to permit Chinese authorities to collect tariffs on an equal basis, and to show no favors to their own nationals in the matter of harbor dues or railroad charges.

The Open Door policy was rooted in the desire of U.S. businesses to trade with Chinese markets, though the policy’s pledging to protect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity from partition also tapped the deep-seated sympathies of those who opposed imperialism. In practice, the policy had little legal standing; it was mainly used to mediate competing interests of the colonial powers without much meaningful input from the Chinese, which created lingering resentment and caused it to be seen later as a symbol of national humiliation by many Chinese historians.

Formation of the Policy

During the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895, China faced an imminent threat of being partitioned and colonized by imperialist powers such as Britain, France, Russia, Japan, and Germany. After winning the Spanish-American War of 1898, and with the newly acquired territory of the Philippine Islands, the United States increased its Asian presence and was expecting to further its commercial and political interest in China. The United States felt threatened by other powers’ much larger spheres of influence in China and worried that it might lose access to the Chinese market should the country be partitioned.

As a response, William Woodville Rockhill formulated the Open Door Policy to safeguard American business opportunities and other interests in China. On September 6, 1899, U.S. Secretary of State John Hay sent notes to the major powers (France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Japan, and Russia), asking them to declare formally that they would uphold Chinese territorial and administrative integrity and would not interfere with the free use of the treaty ports within their spheres of influence in China. The Open Door Policy stated that all nations, including the United States, could enjoy equal access to the Chinese market.

In reply, each country tried to evade Hay’s request, taking the position that it could not commit itself until the other nations had complied. However, by July 1900, Hay announced that each of the powers had granted consent in principle. Although treaties made after 1900 refer to the Open Door Policy, competition among the various powers for special concessions within China for railroad rights, mining rights, loans, foreign trade ports, and so forth, continued unabated.

The Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine was a U.S. foreign policy regarding domination of the Americas in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention. At the same time, the doctrine noted that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued in 1823 at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved, or were at the point of gaining, independence from the Portuguese and Spanish Empires.

The cartoon shows Uncle Sam standing on a map of the Western Hemisphere. His top hat, ornamented with stars, stripes, and the label "Monroe Doctrine," rests on Central and South America. A number of men look on from a distance in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Monroe Doctrine: A 1912 newspaper cartoon about the Monroe Doctrine.
President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh-annual State of the Union Address to Congress. The term “Monroe Doctrine” itself was coined in 1850. By the end of the nineteenth century, Monroe’s declaration was seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets. It would be invoked by many U.S. statesmen and several U.S. presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and many others.

The intent and impact of the Monroe Doctrine persisted with only minor variations for more than a century. Its stated objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and avoid situations that could make the New World a battleground for the Old World powers, so that the United States could exert its own influence undisturbed. The doctrine asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, for they were composed of entirely separate and independent nations.

Inherent in the Monroe Doctrine are the themes of American exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny, two ideas that refer to the right of the United States to exert its influence over the rest of the world. Under these conditions, the Monroe Doctrine was used to justify American intervention abroad multiple times throughout the nineteenth century, most notably in the Spanish-American War and with the annexation of Hawaii.

 

[ej1024]

The Philippine-American War, also known as the “Philippine War of Independence” or the “Philippine Insurrection” (1899–1902), was an armed conflict between the United States and Filipino revolutionaries. The conflict arose after the Philippine Revolution of 1896, from the First Philippine Republic’s struggle to gain independence following annexation by the United States.

The conflict arose when the First Philippine Republic objected to the terms of the Treaty of Paris, under which the United States took possession of the Philippines from Spain after the Spanish-American War.

image
The Battle of Manila: The Battle of Manila, February 1899.
Fighting erupted between U.S. and Filipino revolutionary forces on February 4, 1899, and quickly escalated into the 1899 Battle of Manila. On June 2, 1899, the First Philippine Republic officially declared war against the United States. The war officially ended on July 2, 1902, with a victory for the United States. However, some Philippine groups led by veterans of the Katipunan continued to battle the American forces. Among those leaders was General Macario Sakay, a veteran Katipunan member who assumed the presidency of the proclaimed “Tagalog Republic,” formed in 1902 after the capture of President Emilio Aguinaldo. Other groups, including the Moro people and Pulahanes people, continued hostilities in remote areas and islands until their final defeat a decade later at the Battle of Bud Bagsak on June 15, 1913.

Impact and Legacy

image
Filipino soldiers: Filipino soldiers outside Manila in 1899.
The war with and occupation by the United States would change the cultural landscape of the islands. The war resulted in an estimated 34,000 to 220,000 Philippine casualties (with more civilians dying from disease and hunger brought about by war); the disestablishment of the Roman Catholic Church as the state religion; and the introduction of the English language in the islands as the primary language of government, education, business, and industry, and increasingly in future decades, of families and educated individuals.

Under the 1902 “Philippine Organic Act,” passed by the U.S. Congress, Filipinos initially were given very limited self-government, including the right to vote for some elected officials such as a Philippine Assembly. But it was not until 14 years later, with the passage of the 1916 Philippine Autonomy Act (or “Jones Act”), that the United States officially promised eventual independence, along with more Philippine control in the meantime over the Philippines. The 1934 Philippine Independence Act created in the following year the Commonwealth of the Philippines, a limited form of independence, and established a process ending in Philippine independence (originally scheduled for 1944, but interrupted and delayed by World War II). Finally in 1946, following World War II and the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, the United States granted independence through the Treaty of Manila.

American Opposition

Some Americans, notably William Jennings Bryan, Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, Ernest Crosby, and other members of the American Anti-Imperialist League, strongly objected to the annexation of the Philippines. Anti-imperialist movements claimed that the United States had become a colonial power by replacing Spain as the colonial power in the Philippines. Other anti-imperialists opposed annexation on racist grounds. Among these was Senator Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina, who feared that annexation of the Philippines would lead to an influx of nonwhite immigrants into the United States. As news of atrocities committed in subduing the Philippines arrived in the United States, support for the war flagged.

 

[Tpat591]

 

[Tpat591]

 

[PoppaVic]

Well, it's all about BELIEF and.. MORALITY.

 

[Tpat591]

All you can do is cut and paste drivel, I can tell ya now, no one is gonna bother reading it.

Pretty sure EJ hasn't read what he is cut & pasting either.

 

[ej1024]

Pretty sure EJ hasn't read what he is cut & pasting either.

You don’t know that motherfucker!!!

 

[Tpat591]

You don’t know that motherfucker!!!

Sure I do. You wouldn't be acting like such a childish little piss-ant if you had. I am done tolerating your disrespect and lack of common courtesy.

 

[Tpat591]

 

[Tpat591]

HERE WE GO: Crooked Hillary and Politico Publish Hit List of 200 Influential Conservatives They call “Foreign Actors” Who They Want Removed from Twitter

 

[Tpat591]

Fake Hate, Fake Collusion: All in the Name of Destroying the Trump Presidency
https://www.americanthinker.com/art..._name_of_destroying_the_trump_presidency.html

 

[Tpat591]

If Big Tech Can Censor Me, Think What It Can Do to You
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...or_me_think_what_it_can_do_to_you_139555.html

 

[Rossum]

CNN Publishes Obama Official’s Civil War Conspiracy: Calls for Military, State Rebellion If President Trump Refuses to Accept Defeat and Won’t “Peacefully” Leave Office in 2020

Meh. Conspiracies theories like that have been around in whichever party was out of power in every administration for the past 30 or more years.

 

[susieqz]

i've been enjoying the lectures of victor davis hanson.
he has a deep knowledge of ancient greece n rome.
he applies their history to our nation's problems.
i do not believe that any honest liberal could listen to him without becoming conservative.
i'm no republican, i'm libertarian, but this guy knows his stuff.