The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Randy Short on the War on Religion & ID Politics; Ken Meyercord on Mueller Report & Russia/Israel-Gate
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

First hour: Washington, DC based pastor and activist Dr. Randy Short comments on the War on Religion—including the wave of apparent false flags targeting houses of worship. (See my article “Simultaneous Notre Dame/Al-Aqsa Fires: Coincidence or Conspiracy?“) Dr. Short, a true native son of Washington DC (descended from Jamestown colonists, Martha Washington, enslaved Africans, and Native Americans) also discusses some of the nuances of identity politics issues that are overlooked or censored in the mainstream.

Second hour: Journalist and TV host Ken Meyercord (also based in Washington, DC) writes:

“I attended an event at the Brookings Institution yesterday on the Mueller Report. As is sadly customary at DC think tanks, the panelists and the moderator were all of one mind. Nevertheless, one panelist, a former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (a court notorious for rubber-stamping any charge the government brings against those who disrupt the smooth functioning of our foreign policy apparatus), made a curious analogy, arguing that the contacts Trump and his associates had with Russians would be culpable even if the contacts were with some other, less hostile country: . His remark got me to thinking, so in the Q & A I sought to ask him “What if you substituted ‘Israel’ for ‘Russia’?” (The moderator, who apparently knows me, had to look right at me with my hand raised whenever he called on someone but never called on me). I don’t know what his response would have been; but if he said it would still apply, I would have followed up with “Has there ever been an investigation on the scale of the Mueller investigation into possible collusion with Israel?”

“The more I think about it, the more intriguing I find Mr. Rosenberg’s remark. He seemed to think the sheer number of contacts by Trump folks with Russians proved culpability. It might be interesting to compare Trump’s contacts with the Russians during the campaign with his contacts with Israelis. I suspect the latter were more numerous and of greater significance. Certainly, Trump’s acts as President would seem to indicate he’s more Netanyahu’s puppet than Putin’s: moving the embassy to Jerusalem, cutting off aid to the Palestinians, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Imagine if Putin proposed naming a village in Russia after Trump in appreciation, as Netanyahu has proposed doing in the Golan Heights!

“P.S. Ueli Maurer is the President of the Swiss Confederation.”

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
Hide 4 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Rational says:


    The entire Western media is the enemy of the people. The Demogangsters and the mediocrats, Public Enemy #1, were angry that Trump won the election, so they fabricated a scam called contacts with Russians.

    They are saying that Trump and his people talked to the Russians as private citizens before the election, so it is illegal.

    What? Talking to Russians is illegal? Really? Says who?

    They will not tell you the law that was allegedly broken, because the law that was allegedly broken itself is illegal.

    It is the Logan Act which “criminalizes negotiations by unauthorized persons with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.”

    This law is a joke, because Trump never “negotiated” with any foreign govt. on behalf of the USA, and Russia is not having a dispute with the USA.

    Most importantly, the Logan Act is unconstitutional.

    That is why nobody has been prosecuted under it–for decades!

    So any American who posts on or on an Iranian website suggesting peace is technically violating the Logan Act.

    Any newspapers that publishes articles about Iran or Russia or Syria and suggesting peace or war is technically violating the Logan Act.

    So why are all they not in jail?

    Because the Logan Act is unconstitutional and it violates the first amendment.

    Go, say, “I will talk to the Russian govt. all I want and promote world peace.”

    Only in America—the criminal Democrats have investigated an innocent man for a non-existent crime of violating an unconstitutional law.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  2. Beb says:

    The attempted coup goes on, but – thankfully! – it appears to be floundering.

  3. Rational says:


    This is stated in the wikipedia article I put the link for above.

    In fact, the wikipedia article also talks about its unconstitutionality.

  4. @Rational

    Only in America—the criminal Democrats have investigated an innocent man for a non-existent crime of violating an unconstitutional law.

    While I would not say this happens only in America, this sort of thing is actually long-standing policy in the US. As long ago as 1944 in Wickard vs. Filburn, the Democrat Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man for not merely raising food on his own land, but for failing to offer the food for sale, on the rationale that the non-sale affected Interstate Commerce as much as if he had offered it for sale. Since then it has been ‘constitutional’ to find federal jurisdiction over even private vegetable gardens grown exclusively for domestic consumption. Under this theory, even breathing oxygen places one under federal jurisdiction because it is followed by exhaling CO2.

    One of the most surprising things I discovered when I began to practice law was the fact that no one is ‘innocent’. I.e, there is always some law somewhere that is being ‘broken’ no matter what one does, which means that if the government wants someone, they can always convict him because the government can always find some law he has broken. I’m speaking ironically, of course. Many of these laws should be unconstitutional. Just don’t bet that SCOTUS will ever rule that way because, as Gorsuch recently pronounced, “that’s all been settled.”

    The surprising thing about the Mueller report is that he found nothing. That’s impossible because when the government wants to find something, they find it. Why Mueller pulled the plug, I can’t say.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS