Once Again, Trump Takes Words out of the Mouth of his Mentor Roy Cohen

The Roy Cohen in Donald Trump shines through. Journalist Mary Papenfuss writes “In a particularly unhinged rant Friday, former President Donald Trump accused a New York judge of being part of a “Communist takeover” of his Trump Organization.

Trump’s lawyers have failed in their attempt to remove State Supreme Court judge, Arthur Engoron, from the case involving accusations of tax evasion and fraud. Yesterday Trump ranted: Engoron is “vicious, biased and [a] mean ‘rubber stamp’ for the Communist takeover of the great & prosperous American company that I have built over a long period of years.”

The lawsuit was introduced by New York Attorney General Letitia James, (whom Trump mocked by calling her “Peekaboo”) and accuses Trump and three of his children of using inflated company financial statement to mislead lenders in obtaining loans, numbers that were grossly at odds with his tax statements.

James’s response to Trump was: “Claiming money that you do not have does not amount to the ‘Art of the Deal," in reference to Trump’s ghost-written book. “It’s the Art of the Steal.” 

Lier, thief and anti-Communist were three salient features in the career of Trump’s mentor Roy Cohen, Joseph McCarthy’s right-hand man.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-accuses-judge-in-fraud-lawsuit-of-communist-takeover-of-his-company/ar-AA13v4Xs?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=ce27875d1f3a4a02ac4b3956a9906c77

The Ukrainian Conflict Didn’t Begin with the Russian Invasion

 “Democracy Now” is correct in calling Russia the “aggressor,” but the term has to be contextualized. The Russian invasion was set off by NATO, as the war is a direct consequence of NATO’s ongoing expansion beginning in the 1990s, which our man in Moscow, Boris Yeltsin, strongly objected to. Furthermore, Putin himself was originally not anti-U.S. but became so largely under the threat of NATO expansion to the east. In yesterday’s Democracy Now interview with Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies, Nermeen Shaikh seemed excessively intent on labelling Russia the aggressor, while Bennis responded by reaffirming the same point. Bennis did criticize Biden’s announced intention of beefing up U.S. military presence in Poland and throughout Europe, and its war exercises in the Baltics just 40 miles from the nearest Russian base. But the narrative in which Russia is called the aggressor while Washington is criticized for responding irresponsibly to that aggression is misleading. It leaves the impression that Russia bares the blunt of the blame, when in fact the U.S. is at best equally at fault. This is not to let Russia off the hook, just that the larger story has to be told. Otherwise, the mainstream’s narrative that praises NATO goes largely unchallenged, when in fact the struggle for its abolition needs to be in the forefront of the peace movement.   

https://www.democracynow.org/2022/10/27/congressional_progressive_caucus_ukraine_russia_democrats

WITH ITS MISGUIDED VENEZUELAN POLICY, WASHINGTON IS SHOOTING ITSELF IN THE FOOT

I published this short piece in the Inter-American Dialogue’s “Latin America Advisor” newsletter, in a forum on the prospects for the Venezuelan opposition. My piece deals with just one aspect of the total bankruptcy of U.S. policy toward Venezuela.

Juan Guaidó’s steady loss of support within the Venezuelan opposition is the result of repeated fiascos that demonstrated lack of political acumen: the coup attempt of April 30, 2019, the Operation Gideon invasion originating from Colombia, and the mishandling of Venezuelan companies in Colombia (Monómeros) and the U.S. (Citgo) turned over to his parallel government. His only remaining asset is Washington's recognition of him as president. Actually, ever since Guaidó's self-proclamation in January 2019, U.S. involvement in Venezuela on his behalf has only hurt the opposition.

Washington’s unconditional support for Guaidó ignored the fact that the main leader of his Voluntad Popular party, Leopoldo López, always had abrasive relations with other opposition parties, due to his alleged intransigence and impulsiveness. Indeed, López belonged to two of those parties – Primero Justicia y Un Nuevo Tiempo (UNT)– but broke with them, or more accurately (at least in the case of UNT) was forced out.

In addition, with Guaidó’s failures, an emerging opposition sector rejected positions of the four main opposition parties grouped in the G-4. The new groups, best represented by Fuerza Vecinal which has scored impressive electoral victories, recognized the Maduro government, opposed electoral abstention, and favored pragmatic solutions over regime-change tactics, positions in line with the thinking of the opposition’s base. G-4 leaders have now publicly recognized their errors, but through their new grouping the Unitary Platform are attempting to maintain control of the entire opposition. Furthermore, Guaidó reportedly intends to compete in the primaries slated for June 2023 to choose the opposition’s united candidate for the 2024 presidential elections. Emerging opposition leaders voice distrust of the Platform which is calling the shots for the primaries. Washington’s continued recognition of Guaidó and its preference for the G-4 limits the possibility that the opposition can resolve its own problems without direct or indirect foreign interference.

 

Steve Ellner is a retired professor of the Universidad de Oriente in Venezuela and currently an Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives. His latest books are his edited Latin American Extractivism: Dependency, Resource Nationalism, and Resistance in Broad Perspectives (2021) and his co-edited Latin American Social Movements and Progressive Governments: Creative Tensions between Resistance and Convergence’s (2022).

https://bit.ly/3MPb1kK

 

U.S. only interested in Venezuelan and Ukrainian immigrants, not those from the Central American Triangle

Welcoming Venezuelan immigrants is totally different from welcoming those from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, according to PBS’ White House correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez. On yesterday’s PBS Hour she was asked why is President Biden giving Venezuelans and Ukrainians a “path to citizenship” while not doing the same for others. Barron-Lopez responded that Biden’s recently announced program favoring 20,000 Venezuelans seeking to come to the U.S. makes sense because immigration from the Central American triangle is now down, while those seeking refuge from Venezuelan “communism” [sic], Nicaraguan communism [sic] and Cuba is on the rise. Read between the lines. Actually you don’t have to because it’s pretty explicit what she’s saying. Those poor Indians from the Guatemala-El Salvador-Honduras triangle don’t count. What’s important is politics, namely the fight against “communism,” ie. policies that Washington is opposed to. Nothing to do with humanitarian concerns. It’s about weaponizing the issue of immigration. Indeed, Trump did the same.  

 

Washington’s policy toward Saudi Arabia versus Washington’s policy toward Venezuela

The hypocrisy of the Biden administration on foreign policy once again shows its colors. As presidential candidate, Biden vowed to treat Saudi Arabia as a "pariah" due to the involvement of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the gruesome murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, As president however, Biden travelled to Saudi Arabia in August to plead for increased oil production to offset the sanctions against Russia. Now he says there will be “consequences” for Saudi Arabia after its decision to cut oil production along with the other OPEC members. So he is going to punish Saudi Arabia, but not for blatant violation of human rights, but because the Saudis are not cooperating with the U.S. on oil policy. At the same time, the Biden administration maintains harsh sanctions on Venezuela and Cuba with devastating effects. The real question is the following: Are spokespeople for the Biden administration able to talk about defending democratic principles without blinking an eye?  

 

The left doesn’t dare do things that the right gets away with doing all the time

Just compare Ilhan Omar’s “The Benjamin” statement with those of Marjorie Taylor Greene, who spoke at a “conference” of the America First Political Action Conference organized by a holocaust denier who has spoken well of Hitler.

By using the term “The Benjamin,” Omar was referring to the hundred-dollar bill which she claimed motivated Israel’s allies in congress to vote on legislation favoring that nation. After the scandal broke out, not only did Omar state that she wasn’t aware of the alleged anti-Semitic connotations of the term (nor was I), but she apologized for the misunderstanding. Pressure forced the Democratic Party leadership to denounce Omar for making the statement.   

Greene, on the other hand, has no such excuse. How could she, for accepting an invitation from a man who the Anti-Defamation League has called “a prominent white supremacist pundit”?

In another contrast, the Democratic Party leadership was pressured to censure Omar for her comment. On the other hand, the Republicans have remained silent on Greene on her multiple statements which have been characterized as having anti-Semitic overtones. Do as I say, not as I do, may be an appropriate adage for Republicans.

One other example of contrasts between left and right. January 6 participants who were engaged in a military attempt to overthrow the government were given sentences that were not much more than a slap on the wrist, considering the gravity of the crime. How would the same judges be sentencing those involved in a left-wing plot to do the same? 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/conservative-rabbi-hammers-republicans-for-silence-on-marjorie-taylor-greene-s-jew-hatred/ar-AA12FnCB?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=1e9e9b3f2b2144e5b755e2ea2618cd11