This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
After the victory of President-Elect Donald Trump over Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday night, China kept its comments neutral regarding the election, reiterating it wants to have a peaceful cooperation with the U.S.
China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said the U.S. election is an "internal affair," and China respects the choice of the American people.
"China's policy on the U.S. is consistent. We will continue to view and handle our bilateral relations under the principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation," Mao said.
Gong Pengsheng, a government employee, told the AP Trump's election win will definitely have an impact on China, its economy, and the Chinese people.
"So there will definitely be an impact on China, including on China's economy, people's lives, and even on the overseas travel of people and the exchanges between nations," Gong said.
School teacher Wu Yichen said Trump's former policies during his first term in office were "not friendly" with China.
"I feel like his political and economic policies were not friendly with China before, but looking at how China developed now in its economy and power, I believe they should be a bit more restrained," Wu said.
Other Chinese citizens worry the victory will put additional pressure on China, particularly if Trump puts an end to the Ukraine war, which brought China strategic room and opportunities for growth.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The House Judiciary Committee's GOP members are sounding the alarm on Vice President Kamala Harris in a new report released Friday that details how Harris funneled millions in taxpayer dollars to the United Nations to support their open-border initiatives.
The 12-page report, titled "Inside the Biden-Harris Administration's Open-borders Alliance with United Nations Bureaucrats" – shows how there have been an estimated 5.8 million illegal aliens released into the U.S. since January 2021, with an additional 1.9 million illegal aliens deemed as "gotaways."
"The images of mass illegal immigration and chaos at the southwest border became a political liability for President Biden and Vice President Harris. But rather than fix the actual problem of illegal immigration, the Biden-Harris administration engaged in misdirection – teaming up with open-borders bureaucrats at the United Nations to allow aliens to bypass the southwest border altogether," the report states in its executive summary.
The report goes on to note the State Department announced the Safe Mobility Initiative in June 2023, a plan to allow illegal aliens to "sidestep" the southern border. It was implemented under the direction of the Biden-Harris administration.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reportedly said the initiative would let migrants "avoid the risks associated with onward movement," meaning undocumented migrants were swiftly moved from the southern border and into the interior of the U.S. to avoid the "damaging optics at the border."
The initiative further enables aliens outside of the U.S. to consult with foreign nationals working for the UNHCR, and the International Organization for Migration. These organizations facilitate illegal migrants to resettle in the U.S. through various means, including labor pathways and family reunification.
According to the report, the Safe Mobility Offices are located throughout Guatemala, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Ecuador and are all paid for with taxpayer money. The committee estimates under the Biden-Harris administration, more than 18,000 aliens from Central and South America have resettled in the U.S. through the initiative.
Another 67,000 aliens have been referred to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for potential resettlement, while another 7,000 aliens have been identified as potentially eligible to enter through other means.
Approximately $67.1 million of U.S. taxpayer dollars was spent by the UNHCR to fund the SMOs, with the IOM spending another $14.6 million in taxpayer funds for the initiative, equating to over $80 million in total.
The committee stated in the report it will continue conducting aggressive oversight of the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats have unveiled a new campaign strategy in the waning days of the 2024 presidential race: Insults.
Just a day ago, Joe Biden called Trump supporters "garbage."
He was following the footsteps of Hillary Clinton, who previously insisted conservatives are "deplorables" and Barack Obama, who famously said they cling to their Bibles and their guns.
"Donald Trump, you never see him around strong, intelligent women," he said while campaigning on a television show. "Ever. It's just that simple."
Which triggered a few responders online, including one who said, "It's appalling to see Mark Cuban demean millions of strong, intelligent women who proudly support President Trump. Dismissing these women simply because of their political beliefs is not only disrespectful but exposes the arrogance and elitism that many on the left carry."
And another who said, "So not only are we Nazi garbage, our women are not strong and intelligent," and a third, who listed reasons why "this strong, intelligent woman supports Trump."
Those reasons: "Lower prices, Secure borders, No tax on overtime, No tax on soc. security, No tax on tips, School choice, Support our police, Energy independence, Healthier Food, Free Speech, Girls sports, Protect our kids, Fair trade deals, Peace through strength"
The report said Cuban added, "They're intimidating to him. He doesn't like to be challenged by them and you know, Nikki Haley will call him on his nonsense with reproductive rights and how he sees and treats and talks about women. I mean he just can't have her around. It wouldn't work."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a day when the federal government sends grandmothers to jail for advocating for the lives of the unborn, insists it can coerce Christian companies to pay for abortion and promote an LGBT ideology that is out of the mainstream, and more, a federal bureaucracy's blast against religious freedom shouldn't, perhaps, be a surprise.
It is the U.S. Department of Energy that has begun tracking employees' beliefs through a plan to monitor employment accommodations.
And Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., is objecting.
He wrote Ann Dunkin, a DOE official, to "express my strong opposition to the Department of Energy's recent notice regarding the establishment of a new system of records … ."
He warned the agenda "represents a grave violation of religious liberty as protected under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."
It is the Washington Stand that obtained a copy of the letter Lankford delivered to the DOE.
It included his warnings that the agency may be violating the constitutional rights of workers with its policy that requires the agency "to collect and store detailed information regarding requests for religious exemptions to various mandates," the report said.
The DOE has claimed its accumulation of information about employees' beliefs is needed to "collect, maintain, and disseminate records on employees and applicants for employment who seek and receive medical and non-medical accommodations."
Also caught up in the information dragnet is information about workers with varying disabilities, and their accommodations.
But it also insists on keeping records regarding, "Federal employees or applicants for employment requesting accommodation based on a 'sincerely held' religious belief, practice, or observance under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This system includes requests for a medical or religious accommodation."
The report said Lankford has concerns that "collecting detailed records on an individual's sincerely held religious beliefs and practices — alongside other personal and sensitive information — poses a significant threat to the privacy and religious freedoms of federal employees."
He said the government should protect those workers' religious – and privacy – rights.
"The new DOE policy also 'risks creating an environment in which employees may feel compelled to disclose private details about their faith or religious practices to justify their accommodation requests,' Lankford warned, observing that such an environment 'can lead to potential religious discrimination or bias in the workplace,'" the report said.
He suggested the bureaucrats find other ways to ensure that reasonable accommodations are available.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
JERUSALEM – The Knesset, Israel's Parliament, took the extraordinary step in a Monday night vote to approve two bills effectively barring the United Nations agency for eternal Palestinian refugees – including generations of descendants – from functioning in Israel, as well as acutely shrinking its role in Judea and Samaria, and Gaza.
At the opening session of the Knesset's winter term, Israel's lawmakers voted unanimously to severely curtail the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinians in the Near East's (UNRWA) ability to function effectively. MKs voted 92 to 10 to approve a law barring UNRWA from operating in Israeli territory, and 87-9 in favor of another measure curtailing UNRWA's activities in the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria, by making it illegal for state actors to have any contact with the agency.
Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman MK Yuli Edelstein presented both bills in the plenum, and on their conclusion took to X to announce gleefully, "UNRWA is out!"
"UNRWA long ago ceased to be a humanitarian aid agency, but in addition to it being an integral supporter of terror and hate, is an agency to eternalize poverty and suffering," he wrote.
"The rationale is simple – in order to survive, UNRWA created demand for the product it provides. The circle of horror ended today, they are out!"
The second bill, which passed by an even more emphatic margin – 87 votes for and only nine against – stated that the treaty signed between Israel and UNRWA following the Six Day War in 1967 would expire within seven days of the bill passing its final voting in the Knesset plenum. It added, no Israeli government agencies or representatives may contact UNRWA or a representative of it, beginning three months after the bill passes; that criminal proceedings into UNRWA employees' involvement in acts of terror will continue; and that Israel's National Security Council must report to the committee every six months regarding the bill's implementation.
These votes are the culmination of the decades of animus between Israel and UNRWA. The Jewish state has had significant issues with the only U.N. relief organization devoted entirely to one group of people for years, but matters really came to a head on Oct. 7, 2023.
There is significant documentary evidence, including footage, supplied by the Israeli government, the IDF, and non-governmental actors such as UN Watch, which highlighted the indivisibility of UNRWA from Hamas (and other Islamist terrorist organizations particularly operating out of the Gaza Strip), and their direct role in the atrocities committed on that black Sabbath. UNRWA even begrudgingly admitted its own employees' involvement in the massacres, and yet still expected Israel to just accept its presence.
The Biden administration was deeply grieved by the results of the vote, blasting the legislation and arguing it augured "catastrophe" for the Palestinians. Their argument might have been bolstered if they had not been proved wrong about almost everything they have thought and said over the last year or so. The U.S. administration tried to strong-arm Israel earlier in the month to provide additional aid to Gaza – even though there is strong evidence Hamas operatives are hoarding most of it – threatening a reduction in U.S. security assistance if this was not done.
Following the vote, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said earlier Monday that the Knesset's passage of the bill "could have implications under U.S. law."
"If UNRWA goes away, you will see civilians – including children, including babies – not be able to get access to food and water and medicine that they need to live. We find that unacceptable," he added.
While he was in the White House, President Donald Trump was persuaded of how nefarious an organization UNRWA was, and in 2018 he ordered a complete cut in the organization's funding. It seems it has not learned its lesson, because as soon as the funding spigot was turned on again under Biden, it has allowed its premises – schools and summer camps to name but two – to become hotbeds of terrorist indoctrination – with a direct causal link to the events of Oct. 7.
Israeli academic and former MK Einat Wilf, who grew up on the Left and was a former Labor lawmaker, and who has fought for some two decades to explain to both the wider world and Israelis about the ills of UNRWA took to social media to reinforce her opinion. Broadly, her assessment is that far from helping the Palestinians, UNRWA permanently infantilizes them by holding out a forlorn hope not based in any kind of reality.
"Since I already have mountains of books, essays, lectures, long and short videos, posts and tweets on UNRWA, I'll keep it simple now," she posted on LinkedIn.
"UNRWA is about as essential as the arsonist who masquerades as a firefighter. Get rid of the arsonist and you won't need the false firefighter."
There is clearly some jeopardy attached to the Knesset's decision, not least because it did not stipulate – and nor does it seem it was meant to – make a suggestion for what might replace UNRWA with regard to the disbursement of aid, most obviously in the Gaza Strip. Members of Israel's defense establishment reportedly informed the political class against passing the legislation, precisely because of the difficulty of finding an organization to substitute for UNRWA in the middle of a war.
Israel's lawmakers – including members of the official opposition, although the bills emanated from Netanyahu's Likud party – were aware of both the potential humanitarian risk and the likely international backlash against the vote.
However, it seems they felt the concerns of the domestic audience, which has witnessed the development of a symbiotic relationship between Hamas and UNRWA – to the point where it is not clear where one ends and the other begins – and culminating in the use of U.N. vehicles to transport murdered Israelis back to Gaza – won out in the end.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
During the 2020 presidential election state officials often arbitrarily abandoned their own states' laws regarding voting identification, time, place and method requirements.
Bundles of harvested votes were dumped off, and they were counted.
Further, sometimes the official "rules" were changed to accommodate a special interest group.
It resulted in a Joe Biden victory, which undoubtedly was helped, or even given the victory, by Mark Zuckerberg's $400 million handed out to local election officials and the FBI's decision to interfere in the results by falsely describing the accurate reporting about Biden family scandals in Hunter Biden's laptop as disinformation.
The result was that multiple states reviewed their election integrity procedures and decided to beef them up for 2024. Some even banned private cash being handed out to officials, like Zuckerberg's 2020 scheme.
But the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris Department of Justice doesn't want that.
So it has sued, according to a report at Just the News, "in an effort to thwart election integrity measures."
Already targeted are the states of Virginia, Alabama and rural towns in Wisconsin – because they've removed non-citizens, those for whom voting would be a federal crime, from voter rolls.
Lawsuits also have targeted the highly secure voting method using paper ballots and hand counting.
"Some of the jurisdictions are fighting back, arguing that they are following the law as they work to ensure election integrity," the report noted.
Stunningly, a federal judge ruled just days ago that Virginia must restored a long list of non-citizens to its voter rolls, even though their participation in the election would be a crime.
Just the News reported that fight involved the Biden-Harris administration and the election security plans from the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Virginia State Board of Elections, and the Virginia Commissioner of Elections.
The dispute is over the understanding of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 which doesn't let states use "systemic" procedures to remove the names on non-citizens during the 90 days before the election. The state said its program was not "systemic" in that in was only removing the names of those who self-identified as not eligible to vote.
The governor there, Glenn Youngkin, said, "Let's be clear about what just happened: only eleven days before a Presidential election, a federal judge ordered Virginia to reinstate over 1,500 individuals – who self-identified themselves as noncitizens – back onto the voter rolls."
Elections expert Cleta Mitchell explained "I fervently hope that the [Virginia] AG files an emergency petition to the US Supreme Court, bypassing the very left wing 4th Circuit and getting this resolved asap, not just for Virginia but for ALL the states, since the DOJ sen[t] a letter to every state election official telling them the states cannot remove anyone from the voter rolls, including noncitizens, people whose registrations are invalid under state law and are void from the beginning. So every state needs SCOTUS to weigh in and reverse this order handed down today in Virginia."
A similar fight developed in Alabama, as well is in two rural Wisconsin towns where officials switched from electronic voting machines to paper ballots.
The report said Michael Berry, executive director of the litigation center at the America Fist Policy Institute, charged, "It's appalling that the Department of Justice is bullying and targeting a small town in rural Wisconsin over its decision to use hand-counted paper ballots. I would think the United States Department of Justice has much better things to do with its time and resources, including fixing the rampant election integrity problems in many of our large cities. AFPI is proud to represent Thornapple, Wisconsin, as it stands up to the Goliath that is the Department of Justice."
Former Federal Election Commission member Hans von Spakovsky also said in the report, "No provision of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), including the 90-day pre-election deadline in Section 8(c)(2), prevents states from removing aliens who have illegally registered to vote from state voter registration rolls."
He suggested states actually have a constitutional right and obligation to have clean voter rolls – free from aliens "who are ineligible to vote.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For the first time in decades, the Washington Post will not be endorsing any presidential candidate this year, as owner Jeff Bezos personally killed the staff's planned endorsement of Kamala Harris.
William Lewis, publisher and chief executive officer of the newspaper, said: "The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates."
"We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable," Lewis said.
"We don't see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects."
"We also see it as a statement in support of our readers' ability to make up their minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions – whom to vote for as the next president."
Meanwhile, the news staff at the Post published an article Friday revealing editorial page staffers had actually drafted an endorsement of Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president over her Republican contender, former President Donald Trump.
"The decision not to publish was made by The Post's owner – Amazon founder Jeff Bezos," the Post reported, citing two sources.
Marty Baron, former editor of the Washington Post, stated: "This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty."
″@realdonaldtrump will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner @jeffbezos (and others)," Baron wrote. "Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."
The decision not to endorse a presidential candidate prompted Robert Kagan, the editor at large of the Post to resign Friday.
The Washington Post Guild, the union representing the staff at the paper, said it was "deeply concerned that The Washington Post – an American news institution in the nation's capital – would make a decision to no longer endorse presidential candidates, especially a mere 11 days ahead of an immensely consequential election."
"The message from our chief executive, Will Lewis – not from the Editorial Board itself – makes us concerned that management interfered with the work of our members in Editorial."
"We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers," the Guild said. "This decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers' trust, not losing it."
In August, Trump told Fox Business that Bezos personally phoned him after the assassination attempt in July at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.
"He was very nice even though he owns The Washington Post," Trump said of Bezos.
Bezos last posted on X on July 13, mere hours after the would-be assassin's bullet struck Trump's ear.
"Our former President showed tremendous grace and courage under literal fire tonight," Bezos wrote at the time. "So thankful for his safety and so sad for the victims and their families."
U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., said of the Post's decision not to endorse anyone in the 2024 race: "The first step towards fascism is when the free press cowers in fear."
As WND reported earlier this week, the owner of the Los Angeles Times instructed the paper not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in two decades, just weeks ahead of the 2024 election.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
During the 2020 presidential election, Mark Zuckerberg essentially interfered with the results.
He handed out $400 million plus to various local election officials and they often used it to recruit Democrat voters.
That helped the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris team.
Further, the FBI also played a role, by falsely claiming that the Biden family scandals documented in Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop were disinformation and media outlets should hide the information. In reality, the scandals were facts, and subsequent polling said had that information been reported routinely, Biden likely would have lost the election.
This year, there's another threat, according to experts: the manipulation of overseas votes.
The controversy is covered in an interview Gateway Pundit Editor Jim Hoft and his investigative journalist, Patty McMurray, had with Heather Honey, a professional investigator and expert regarding the Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting ACT.
The issue arose "when Democrats began telegraphing that overseas voters could be key in 2024 to winning and perhaps even overturning the election results one week or more AFTER the election," said a report at the Gateway Pundit.
"As reported earlier by Patty McMurray, the DNC's stated goal of winning the votes of approximately 9 million Americans through its Democrats Abroad website seems impossible, given that according to a recent report by the federal government FVAP website, only 4.4 million US citizens reside overseas, and only 2.8 million of those are of voting age," the report explained.
It explained Reuters recently claimed the DNC plans to spend $300,000 to register "9 million" UOCAVA voters leading up to the 2024 election.
However, the government confirms there are only 2.8 million eligible for that program.
The report said, "Let's assume that half of those eligible voters would vote Democrat (a generous assumption given the state of the US economy); that's only 1.4 million eligible voters in the 2024 election. The 1.4 million number doesn't account for how they would vote or even if they would vote, given that a meager number of eligible overseas voters vote."
At the same time, "Curiously, the DNC memo claims that 'over 1.6 million Americans from the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin" live overseas, adding that they plan to 'fight for every vote."
Warns the report, "The US government says there are 2.8 million total overseas eligible US voters. Democrats want you to believe that over half of those eligible overseas voters have a residence in the crucial swing states! That is absurd
However, the report noted, "The Gateway Pundit found out during our investigations on UOCAVA voters this year just how easy it is for anyone to obtain a UOCAVA ballot to vote in the US Election." And, it said that the program allows a vote "without verification of identity or citizenship status."
The requirements are the last four digits of a Social Security number or a driver's license or state ID, but that even can be bypassed, the report charged, simply by checking a box claiming you have neither.
The program, in fact, "opens the door to unlimited foreign voter voting." the report warns.
Adding to the concern is that the "voter" can choose any state in which to vote, without any process to verify they ever lived there or even were there.
The report noted Democrats have "identified" hundreds of thousands of "voters" living in each of the seven swing states – enough to change election results.
Further, the report noted the Department of Justice already has indicted Iranian nationals for allegedly attempting to interfere in the election, by hacking into accounts of current and former U.S. officials, members of the media, and others linked to political campaigns.
Federal prosecutors already had accused Iranian nationals Seyyed Mohammad Hosein Musa Kazemi and Sajjad Kashian of interfering in 2020, allegedly getting information from a state election website and sending threatening messages to intimidate voters.
They posted a video about how stolen voter details would be used to create fake voters for the UOCAVA site.
And it warns, further, that the danger is heightened by situations such as the one in Pennsylvania where there's a policy to exempt UOCAVA applicants from identification verification processes.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A former chief economist with Goldman Sachs has said the possibility of BRICS overtaking the U.S. economy is closer to a fantasy than reality because two of the main players in the alliance have a tenuous relationship at best.
Economist Jim O'Neil, who first coined the term BRICS in 2001, told Reuters the idea of BRICS being a genuine global club is "out there with the fairies" and "not feasible."
"The idea that the BRICS can be some genuine global economic club, it's obviously a bit out there with the fairies in the same way that the G7 can be, and it's very disturbing that they see themselves as some kind of alternative global thing because it's obviously not feasible," O'Neill said.
BRICS was first formed in 2009 in the wake of the 2008 global recession and originally had four member states – Brazil, Russia, India, and China. It has grown substantially over the past 20 years, adding South Africa in 2010, and since then has grown to include Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, and Egypt.
According to O'Neil, BRICS as a group has not achieved much over the past 15 years and added the alliance is more symbolic than anything.
"It seems to me basically to be a symbolic annual gathering where important emerging countries, particularly noisy ones like Russia, but also China, can basically get together and highlight how good it is to be part of something that doesn't involve the U.S. and that global governance isn't good enough," O'Neil said.
The relationship between China and India – the two economic powerhouses of the group – has been mired with disputes over territory over recent years. O'Neil said he would take the alliance seriously when both countries are actually able to work together effectively.
"I will take the BRICS group seriously when I see signs that the two countries that really matter – China and India – are actually really trying to agree on things, rather than effectively trying to confront each other all the time," O'Neil said.
Tensions could be beginning to ease between China and India, however, after China's President Xi Jinping and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to an agreement over the long-running border disputes on Wednesday.
According to the Associated Press, the two leaders met for the first time in five years and this could spell the end of a four-year standoff between their respective militaries along their shared Himylayan border, which China has laid claim to.
"It's important for both sides to shoulder our international responsibilities, set an example for boosting the strength and unity of the developing countries, and contribute to promoting multi-polarization and democracy in international relations," Xi said.
India's Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri told reporters the pact will have a positive impact on regional and global peace and prosperity. However, he did not detail how exactly the border dispute would be resolved, and if the tens of thousands of troops still stationed there would be pulled back.
"The two leaders affirmed that stable, predictable, and amicable bilateral relations between India and China, as two neighbors and the two largest nations on earth, will have a positive impact on regional and global peace and prosperity," Misri said.
Russian President Valdimir Putin seemed confident BRICS would continue to expand and stated on Wednesday there are over 30 countries currently wanting to join BRICS, according to a report from DP International.
"It would undoubtedly be wrong to ignore the unprecedented interest of the countries of the Global South and East in strengthening their contacts with BRICS," Putin said.
The summit's agenda is breaking away from Western-led financial institutions, reducing the reliance on the U.S. dollar and the influence of the SWIFT system. Putin reportedly wants stronger financial bonds between the members.
Putin said Wednesday the U.S. dollar is being used as a weapon, adding he does not reject using the dollar but feels forced to look for an alternative because Russia is not able to work with U.S. dollars.
"The [U.S.] dollar is used as a weapon, it is true and we see that. I think it is a great mistake by those who do it, since the use of the dollar, which is still the most important tool in global finance, and its use as a political tool undermines trust in this currency, thereby reducing its capabilities. We are not the ones who do that. It's others. We are not rejecting the dollar or fighting against it, but if they don't let us work with it, what else should we do? We should seek other alternatives and this is exactly what we do," Putin said.
Ulrich Schmid, professor of Russian studies at the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland, told France 24's Eve Irvine the West should not overestimate the significance of the BRICS summit because the member states have clashing agendas, making any real progress slow.
"We do have very diverging agendas among the member states. So, for instance, Russia and Iran are extremely interested to create alternative trade platforms, alternative payment systems to evade the heavy sanctions they're under … At the same time we have other countries who are just in favor of multilateral world orders, such as Brazil or India, and they at the same time want to continue to have very good relations also with Western countries, including the United States," Schmid said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The total abandonment of democracy by America's Democratic Party this year has resulted in a situation never before encountered: A candidate hand-picked by the party's elite who has never gotten a single primary vote.
That would be Kamala Harris, installed as the party's candidate after White House incumbent Joe Biden, afflicted for all to see by a physical and mental decline as he moves through his 80s, was tossed under the bus.
She got a surge of interest when Democrat power brokers announced they had chosen her, and she addressed the Democratic National Convention with her word salads.
But that's gone. Her polling has plummeted, and now there's speculation that perhaps the party was better off with lifelong politician Biden.
The Hill's commentary page stunningly demanded, bluntly, "What if Joe Biden was the better candidate all along?"
And President Trump, on the campaign trail in South Florida on Tuesday, couldn't avoid the issue.
"We just can't stand for this incompetence anymore. We are an incompetently run country. We are led by a man that – first of all, look, I'm not a fan of his, but what they did to him was incredible. He had 14 million votes. He won the primary fair and square, he had 14 million votes," Trump said.
"Then they came to him and they said he had a bad debate, he didn't do well and his numbers went down. But I think he would do, probably in the end, he might do better than her because she's more incompetent than he is. I think she's grossly incompetent, and I don't want to be nice about it because we can't take a chance."
A report at RedState.com defined the issue:
"When Vice President Kamala Harris pushed President Joe Biden aside to seize the Democratic Party presidential nomination, the move was universally praised by those with a rooting interest. Sure, Harris had a history of being an inauthentic, unlikable politician, but she wasn't going to melt down on a debate stage due to accelerating senility."
It pointed out how "suddenly," she was determined by Democrat party leaders, in a process that abandoned democracy, that "she was the best option."
"Some on the right warned, though, that it was just a matter of time before Harris overstayed her welcome with American voters, and with her campaign floundering, the question is finally being raised: Was Joe Biden the better option all along?"
The details followed, "No matter who wins, we have to ask: Would President Biden have been a better candidate and choice despite suffering from the effects of age and 81 years? Further, suppose that the disastrous June 27 debate with Trump had not taken place, or that Biden had been firing on all cylinders that night. Would Biden have been forced to withdraw? And whether Harris loses or wins, some will ask whether Biden might still have been a better candidate."
The reported cited the glowing accounts leftist Watergate-famed author Bob Woodward included in a book about Biden.
"Woodward paints a very positive picture of Biden's ability to lead and to govern despite making mistakes, most notably the disastrous withdrawal from Kabul. Woodward also reports that Biden's obvious decline was physical and not mental. This was caused in part by prior medical conditions accelerating the effects of age on a body. There were also the strains of high office; the president refused to limit his overworked schedule despite valid criticisms that he was on near-permanent holiday in Delaware or Camp David," the report said.
Many polls now are showing that Trump is tied with, or leading, Harris among American voters, including those in critical-to-win swing states.
The report did warn against believing Woodward's account, as he's a "massive left-wing hack with a soft spot for the older generation of Democratic Party leadership."
But the question will remain, the report said, "Was Biden the better option? Could he have smoothed over concerns about his health in the latter days of the campaign and capitalized on his traditional strength in the so-called 'blue wall' states? It's not crazy to ponder given Harris' inherent weakness in those key battlegrounds. Perhaps Biden was the best of two bad choices."
There's already been suggestions that some of the senior power brokers in the party have turned on Harris, behind her back, and are torpedoing her campaign.
It was Barack Obama who appeared in a television ad promoting President Donald Trump's candidacy.
He insisted that America doesn't need "another four years" of bumbling and bluster. This just as the Biden-Harris approaches its termination point.
Then it was Bill Clinton who appeared, explaining that the victim of a murderous illegal alien probably would be alive had not Joe Biden and Kamala Harris allowed in unvetted illegals.
Then it was Harris herself with words in support of Trump's campaign.
Only, she likely didn't mean them the way they came out:
A commentary at the Twitchy site explained the answer came from Harris while on "The View" in what was "clearly" nothing but a "softball chat and fawn-fest."
"During what was supposed to be a cake walk of a friendly chat for Harris, 'The View' co-host Sunny Hostin performed an accidental act of journalism after asking the Democrat nominee what she would have done differently from Joe Biden over these last nearly four years."
Her "awkward answer' was, "There is not a thing that comes to mind."
The ad then, cites illegal aliens, skyrocketing prices and global chaos, all under the Biden-Harris administration.
"And Kamala wouldn't change a thing," a narrator explains, just before she confirms that.
Clinton's comments came earlier, a harsh verdict on the Biden-Harris open borders policy allowing millions of illegal aliens simply to walk into America.
And Obama's remarks? They were at the Democrats' convention.
"We do not need four more years of bluster and bumbling and chaos," he shouted. "We have seen that movie before and we all know that the sequel us usually worse."
He seemed not to be aware of the most recent "four years" were with Biden and Harris at the steering of the nation.
The irony, of course, is that while Obama undoubtedly was trying to denigrate Trump's first term as he seeks a second, the current administration is run by Democrats Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and Obama's description easily could apply to those two.
The ad ends, as per standards, with, "I'm Donald J. Trump and I approved this message."