Majorityrights News > Category: Political analysis

Wow, such a breadth of choice

The Germans are non-ironically having an election in which Angela Merkel and Martin Schulz are the two front runners.

The choice seems to be quite simple.

Either you vote for Angela Merkel’s CDU and face the death by demographic replacement which will surely arrive by the year 2050 as things continue as they are, or alternately you vote for Martin Schulz’s SPD and face the death by demographic replacement which will surely arrive by the year 2050 as things continue as they are.

There are some policy disagreements that they have on other issues and usually I would actually go to the length of highlighting them and describing them, but when it comes to the issue of Germany it frankly doesn’t even matter anymore. After all, if Germany is going to seriously cease to exist as a nation then making projections about a nation which will not even be populated by the same people would be a pointless exercise from the perspective of ethno-nationalism. It is extremely sad.

In any case, let’s see how the situation looks in the polls at present, for this thoroughly pointless election:

POLITICO, ‘SPD in the lead according to German poll’, 19 Feb 2017:

Germany’s Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) have slumped to second place in an opinion poll conducted by the Emnid institute, with the Social Democrats (SPD) in the top spot for the first time since 2006.

The SPD’s climb comes after the party picked the former President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, as its candidate for chancellor.

Emnid’s poll of 1,885 voters found that the SPD would get 33 percent of the German vote, while Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union, would get 32 percent.

Schulz’s party has gained 12 points in the last four weeks, according to German newspaper Bild am Sonntag.

The SPD’s surge in the polls will add more pressure on Merkel, as she seeks her fourth term as chancellor within an uneasy CDU/CSU alliance. Merkel has faced tough criticism from the sister party over the controversial decision to temporarily open Germany’s borders to refugees in 2015.

This the latest in a series of polls that shows SPD’s rapidly rising popularity among German voters. Emnid’s poll chimes with separate findings by Politbarometer, a long-standing German election poll from German broadcaster ZDF, which showed Friday that only 38 percent of voters would like to see Merkel carry on her job as chancellor and that 49 percent preferred Schulz.

But Germany hasn’t completely fallen out of love with Merkel. ZDF’s poll also found that 71 percent of Germans think that the current chancellor is doing a good job, despite her party’s drop in popularity.

German elections are scheduled for September.

Such vibrant campaigning

Meanwhile, the way that Martin Schulz is conducting his campaign has drawn criticism from Wolfgang Shaeuble, a very strange-looking criticism at first brush:

POLITICO, ‘Wolfgang Schäuble: Martin Schulz is the German Donald Trump’, 10 Feb 2017:

Martin Schulz, the German center-left’s candidate to be chancellor, is behaving like U.S. President Donald Trump, according to German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble.

“If Schulz calls upon his supporters to chant ‘Make Europe great again‘ then that’s almost literally [like] Trump,” Schäuble told Der Spiegel in an interview published Friday.

He said Schulz, a former European Parliament president, was acting in a “populist way.”

Schäuble said Schulz needed to “think a little [bit more].” He warned that in times when there is a surge in populist movements, politicians should be careful with their language.

The SPD’s move to nominate Schulz as their candidate for chancellor in the September 24 federal election led to a surge in party membership applications. Opinion polls show that backing Schulz helped the party to its highest approval rating since 2013.

At first a person would think, “Hmm, something is very wrong here, in what important way does Martin Schulz resemble Donald Trump, aside from the use of a similar campaign slogan?”

Surely Schaeuble is just a ridiculous old man who is approaching senility, and he has begun to make even less sense than usual in his statement?

Nevertheless I decided to actually give Schaeuble’s statement some thought. Could I manage to find some unintended ‘sense’ in Schaeuble’s seemingly nonsensical statement?

After about twenty milliseconds of deep thought – which in neurological terms is basically ‘instantly’ – I arrived at the answer. First, take a look at this quote concerning Schulz:

Haaretz / Avraham Burg, ‘Say a big ‘thank you’ to Martin Schulz’, 14 Feb 2014:

[...] Martin Schulz, the president of the European Parliament, is a close friend of mine. On most issues connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict we disagree. He is closer to the Israeli mainstream, and his positions resemble those of Labor Party chairman Isaac Herzog. He once told me, during a frank and stern conversation, “For me, the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.” [...]

Secondly, take a look at this quote concerning Trump:

The Hill / Elliot Smilowitz, ‘Trump: ‘Stay strong Israel,’ my inauguration is approaching’, 28 Dec 2016:

President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday morning ripped the Obama administration’s treatment of Israel and pledged to end the “disdain and disrespect” for the country.

“We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!” Trump wrote in a series of tweets. [...]

If you look at it from that angle, then Schaeuble accidentally spoke a kind of truth in the midst of his babbling, somehow.

There indeed is a resemblance between Schulz and Trump. From the perspective of Jewish Zionists in the global sense, the two individuals are almost completely identical.

Stare in amazement

Christians and pro-lifers in general are so stupid that quite honestly I have to say that the Eastern mind boggles at the sheer scale of cascading stupid decisions that Christians choose to make.

Here’s the Breitbart article on it:

Breitbart, ‘Rep. Steve King Files Federal Pro-Life Heartbeat Bill: ‘If a Heartbeat Is Detected, the Baby Is Protected’’, 24 Jan 2017:

Pro-life congressmen stood in front of the Capitol — along with Janet Porter, the Ohio woman who led the fight for passage of that state’s “heartbeat bill” — all in support of Rep. Steve A. King (R.-Iowa) and his Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017, H.R. 490, which restores legal protection to unborn children once their pulse is detected.

“It is a profound religious and moral understanding that every human person has the right to life,” said King, who was joined by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R.-Texas), Rep. Trent Franks (R.-Ariz.), Rep. Scott G. Perry (R.-Pa.), and Rep.Don Bacon R.-Neb.), along with other prolife supporters of the bill.

“The question that has hung before the courts, since 1973 is: ‘When does life begin?’–we all know when that is,” the congressman said.

“We stand here and assert that it has to be a distinctive moment. You can’t guess a thing called viability. You can’t say 22 weeks versus 20 weeks. You have to say it is at a specific instant. The most precise instant that we can describe and that we can identify by science is the moment that that heartbeat begins,” he said.

“The core tenet is this: If a heartbeat can be detected, the baby is protected,” he said.

White America will now die by its own hand. White America will die because these comprehensive restrictions on abortion which are being tabled will have an effect of increasing the birth-rates of those minority populations which traditionally utilise abortion services more.

Where next?

Restrictions on abortion will hasten the decline of the overall White American population which already only comprises 47% of children under age 18.

The 2010 census shows where those effects would be grouped:

Is it going to be extremely inconvenient for minority groups to have a sharply reduced access to abortion services? Yes. No woman wants to have to be perpetually worrying about what her family planning options are as restrictions are tightening over and over again. But perhaps the inconvenience would be ironically ‘embraced’, particularly among Hispanics who could just go with the flow and have a Hispanic baby-boom. Hispanics can wait these laws out and reverse them in about half a generation, when demographics will dictate elections and identity politics will be entrenched in different ways in different zones within the United States.

Outcomes

The Northeast and Midwest of the United States will experience a ballooning African-American population next to White Americans. The Southwest will continue merrily along its way into becoming a Hispanic outpost, and the Southeast will be a mixture of all those things happening simultaneously.

Technically, ‘White America’ as a geographically contiguous concept has been pushed further upwards on the age-pyramid for quite a while now. The incoming administration is now taking moves that—unintentionally—will guarantee that the concept will be brought to an end.

The United States will have one of two futures to choose from:

• Ethnic balkanisation within two generations.
• Turning itself into Brazil.

Of course, Americans will probably manage to muddle around and inadvertently choose both options simultaneously, so that they can experience the worst aspects of both scenarios. Because why? Because it’s America of course.

Well, that day wasn’t actually today. Besides, American White Nationalism stopped making sense even on its own terms quite a while ago, around about the time when a sizable portion of them began to seriously endorse a certain New York real-estate developer named Donald Trump during the GOP Primary campaign.

Nevertheless, I’ll start with a quote from The Right Stuff:

The Right Stuff, ‘Requiem for a Dead Presidency’, 20 Jan 2017:

Today, this hallowed Day One of the Trump Age, we watch the man who has ran this country for the last eight years fly off into the distance on his presidential chopper and into the curio cabinet of political kitsch, a relic of a party that no longer exists.

[...]

Unsurprisingly, TRS is extremely enthusiastic about the result that has been brought about. But they are not the only ones. Also, this person is enthusiastic:

We did it! Congratulation Donald J. Trump President of the United States of America!

— David Duke (@DrDavidDuke) January 20, 2017

And so is this one:

Congrats to my friend President Trump. Look fwd to working closely with you to make the alliance between Israel&USA stronger than ever

— Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) January 20, 2017

That is the outcome which they’ve delivered. But that’s not all there is to it. Let’s go to David Duke’s recent radio broadcasts on the inauguration of Trump, since they act as a barometer for ‘the movement’ in America as a whole. It has been observed that he tends to echo the general median of where White Nationalism in America is standing on any given issue.

On 20 January 2017:

So right out of the gate, Duke basically admits that ‘there are Jews around him’. That’s an understatement if I ever saw it.

Mobilised them behind what? Elevating Jared Kushner to the position of being the most powerful Jewish person to ever exist in the world?

It’s actually saddening to see this level of hype being attached to Donald Trump. How on earth can the election of Donald Trump be considered ‘a more important event’ than the Battle of Tours or the breaking of the Siege at the Gates of Vienna?

These quotations are going to be haunting people later on.

On 16 January 2017:

David Duke’s analysis of the TRS scandal is of course completely divorced from facts, but that’s not even the most important part of this. Notice how the core principle which American White Nationalists claimed to adhere to, the position of taking a strong line on the ‘Jewish Question’, is completely abandoned by the wayside.

On 18 January 2017:

To actually answer this ridiculous question, the answer is: No.

No, they are not doing ‘good work’. Can anyone actually tell me what ‘work’ the TRS people have done that has actually been of any use? Is there anything at all measurable?

READ MORE...

EUObserver, “The rise and shine of Visegrad”, 30 Dec 2016:

The Visegrad leaders have made their voices heard on the EU stage.
         
From left to right, Robert Fico, Beata Szydlo, Bohuslav Sobotka and Viktor Orban. (Photo: Czech government)

The name of a quiet medieval town in Hungary – Visegrad – has in recent times become synonymous with the word “rebellion” in Brussels.

Others, particularly if they are from one of the four countries in the loose association of the Visegrad Group, might argue that it stands for “alternative”.

  V4 countries are trying to weigh in on the EU’s soul-searching process which was launched at a summit in Bratislava in September. (Photo: Kurt Bauschardt)

The group, also known as V4, was formed in Visegrad in 1991 and is comprised of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. It has remained relatively obscure for almost 25 years.

Then the migration crisis hit.

The EU’s inability to handle the crisis, combined with a tilt in the power structure within the union after the Brexit vote and increasingly bellicose and eurosceptic leaders in Hungary and Poland, has thrust the group to the fore.

In 2016, V4 leaders have pushed for a change in the EU’s migration policy and has refused to accept asylum seekers under the EU’s quota system. They also called for reform of the EU after the Brexit vote.

“The V4 basically fulfilled the role it was created for in the first place, to be a powerful lobby organisation.” Daniel Bartha, the director of the Budapest-based Centre for Euro-Atlantic Integration and Democracy, told Euobserver.

“It now holds on to a significant number of votes in the European Council to offset Germany.”
The original sin

Diplomats refer to a meeting of interior ministers in September 2015, when the four states were out-voted on migrant quotas, as the “original sin” that emboldened the group.

The V4 countries disagreed with the mandatory part of the system - even though in the end Poland, under its previous government, did not vote with the rest of the Visegrad nations - and particularly disliked how the European Commission rammed through its German-inspired proposal.

A year after the migration quotas were introduced, Slovak prime minister Robert Fico declared the idea politically dead. “Quotas today clearly divide the EU, therefore I think they are politically finished,” he told journalists while his country was holding the rotating EU presidency.

Eastern EU states were not the only ones that did not like the quota system, but they were the most vocal about it, with Hungary and Slovakia challenging it in the EU Court of Justice.

Strong anti-immigrant rhetoric coming from the Visegrad leaders was initially criticised, but eventually the focus of the EU’s migration policy shifted from taking in asylum seekers and distributing them fairly, to reinforcing border control and shutting down migration routes.

The issue has finally forced the realisation in the corridors of the Berlaymont, the EU commission’s headquarters, that V4 countries could not be ignored.

But as one EU official observed, commission president Jean-Claude Juncker still surrounds himself with a small circle of close aides and is less open to influence from the V4.

The official gave the example of the commission proposal on “posted workers”, which would require companies from the eastern EU to pay as much to their workers sent to Western Europe as their western counterparts.

In principle, the proposal makes sense in a single market, and some Western European states have long objected to easterners undercutting local wages. But 11 national parliaments objected to the commission’s proposal, the bulk of them eastern nations. The commission decided in July to move ahead with the proposal anyway.
After Brexit vote

The Brexit vote was a shock to the EU, but it reinforced the V4’s presence.

It has been interpreted as a vote against the ruling elite and mainstream politics, a public sentiment that Hungarian and Polish leaders have been successfully exploiting. Those two nations took it as a sign that the EU needs to change, and they were ready with an alternative.

“The European Commission hasn’t fully understood what happened in the British referendum,” Polish prime minister Beata Szydlo told reporters in July, when her country took over the V4 rotating presidency.

“The EU needs to return to its roots. We need to care more about the concerns of citizens and less about those of the institutions.”

Similarly, Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban said in June that democratic legitimacy for the EU can only come from the member states.

“We have to return to the notion that the basis of the EU is not its institutions, but the member states. The democratic feature of the EU can only be reinforced through the member states,” he said after the British referendum.

There is yet a concrete proposal, but in the Slovak capital in September, the 27 member states kicked off a soul-searching “Bratislava process” to explore how the EU could be reformed to win back citizens, and the V4’s ideas are bound to be influential.

“After Brexit, the EU’s political centre of gravity has shifted towards the east,” said analyst Daniel Bartha.

“France has had a declining economy since the early 2010s, so it has been less potent in offsetting Germany’s dominance on the continent. New power centres are destined to emerge in the union.”

But the V4’s rise in EU politics might only be temporary, as many issues divide the four nations and would hamper their ability to influence EU politics.

“The harmony only exists from the outside. Migration is the key issue where the four agreed. On everything else – for instance energy – there is little agreement,” said Bartha.

He cited as an example relations with Russia – a friend to Hungary but still regarded as a threat in Poland.

And Slovakia’s government has largely muted its opposition to EU migration policy during its presidency of the EU Council.

EU officials have suggested engaging with the “more reasonable” elements within the V4 – Slovakia and the Czech Republic – to separate them from Poland and Hungary whenever possible.

“They need our gestures. It is that moment,” argued one EU official.

        ... as Recorded by Refugee Resettlement Watch
       

20 Dec 2016: Terror around the world in the past few days…no thanks to these three ‘leaders.’
       
Pictures speak a thousand words….

How many of you remember that when Obama took office, Turkish President Erdogan was supposed to be his best (only!) friend among world leaders? Later, after she opened the gates to migrant Muslim invaders, Erdogan and Merkel became pals.
   

21 Dec:

Austin, TX mayor works with White House to welcome Syrians against official state position.

22 Dec:
Obama State Department approves 100 Syrian Muslims for West Virginia state capitol

Where were you WV Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito and Republican Rep. Alex Mooney?  Only two choices!—either asleep-at-the-switch or in support of this move by a local ‘interfaith’ group to be named a federal subcontracting agency for the purpose of beginning a new refugee resettlement site in the state.  (Charleston previously received a few refugees through Catholic Charities, but no where near this scale).

Did Mooney tell this nice lady that he is supporting Syrian Muslim resettlement in the state capitol? Charleston is in Mooney’s district. Photo: https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/57741

If Capito and Mooney had put up significant opposition, we would have heard about it and this decision might have turned out differently.

So why go ahead with this new site at the West Virginia state capitol?

For new readers we have followed the growing controversy in Charleston extensively for months, see here.

West Virginia is one of the Whitest (and poorest) states in The United States. It is also one of the most beautiful, at least where Massey Corporation has not strip-mined its mountain tops (and poisoned drinking water and given cancer to locals with that same operation).

21 Dec: 23 years after Black Hawk Down we admit Somali ‘refugees’ to US at highest rates ever

Here is the map of where they went (again these are the numbers for October 1, 2016 to December 10, 2016). This is the number for resettled refugees only:

       

READ MORE...

Israeli missile attack on the Al-Mezzeh Airport, west of Damascus.

TNO, “Israeli Attack as Aleppo End-Game Nears”, 7 Dec 2016:

Israel has launched another devastating airstrike in Damascus in a desperate attempt to thwart the final defeat of the terrorist “rebels” in the Syrian city of Aleppo.

The latest Israeli attack took place on an airport in Damascus near Syrian President al-Assad’s personal home on Wednesday morning.

The Syrian Arab News Agency reported that the “Israeli enemy launched at 3:00 a.m. Wednesday a number of surface-to-surface missiles from inside the occupied territories to the west of Tall Abu al-Nada (hill) that landed in the surroundings of al-Mezzeh Airport west of Damascus.”

The attack was part of the “desperate attempts of the Israeli enemy to support the terrorist groups and raise their deteriorating morale,” SANA added.

“This attack will only make the Syrian Arab Army even more determined to cut off the hands of the terrorist agents of the Zionist entity, which should be held fully responsible for the repercussions and consequences of these criminal attacks.”

SANA concluded that the attack “came a week after the air force of the Israeli army fired from the Lebanese airspace two missiles on al-Sabboura area in the western countryside of Damascus, in an attempt to divert attention from the successes which the Syrian army has been making against the terrorist organizations.”

The Israeli attack came as Syrian army forces, backed by ground units from Hezbollah and Iran, ousted the ISIS and other U.S., U.K., French and E.U.-backed “rebel” terrorists from Aleppo’s Old City area.

After terrorizing inhabitants of the city for years with torture, and murders of the most demented kind, the terrorists have now played a “humanitarian” card, asking for a five-day “ceasefire” to allegedly allow remaining civilians to be evacuated.

This cynical ploy—clearly aimed at seeking “world sympathy”—is an attempt by the shrinking terrorist forces to shore up their collapsing front line by seeking time to bring up reinforcements.

More than 30,000 civilians had already crossed over into safe areas set up by the Syrian government-held west Aleppo.

Ivanka’s simple presence as part of the entourage of the Trump administration is helping that brand promote itself

NPR, “Trump’s Potential Conflicts Of Interest: ‘They’re Everywhere”:

Donald Trump tweeted that he will be taking himself out of his business operations and will announce the detail his plan on Dec. 15th. But that hasn’t eliminated concerns that the trump organization’s business interests in the US and in at least twenty countries around the world could lead to conflicts of interest when Trump becomes president.

In response to Trump’s tweets yesterday, the office of government ethics tweeted that - as we discussed with your council - divestiture is the way to resolve these conflicts.

As we are about to hear, “divestiture” is different from Trump taking himself out of his business operations.

16 democratic members of the house judiciary requested that the committee hold hearings to discuss conflict of interest provisions that might apply to Trump when he becomes president.

New York Times investigative reporter Eric Lipton tells Fresh Air’s Terry Gross that because of a “quirk in the law,” American presidents are not mandated to separate themselves from their businesses.

“He could legally continue to operate them and even take actions as president that would benefit those businesses, and it wouldn’t be a formal ethics violation,” Lipton says.

Trump’s business entanglements and the complication of his potential conflicts of interest as president are unprecedented.
It’s worth a listen - NPR, 1 Dec 2016

Major western media outlets, The New York Times and Yahoo are misleading the public - they are vilifying Assad as he retakes Aleppo, inducing the misconception that it is Assad that has created the situation that has led to civilian casualties and from which the residents have had to flee.

Whereas Assad (a Left Nationalist) should be applauded for re-taking Aleppo on behalf of Syria and Aleppo natives, a misconception has been created by these Western outlets that casualties have resulted from Assad’s arbitrary aggression and that rather than seeking temporary safety from the fighting, civilians are fleeing Assad.

Rebels prevented some refugees from fleeing

New York Times, “Thousands Flee Aleppo, Syria, as Government Forces Advance”, 28 Nov 2016:

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Thousands of people were sent fleeing for their lives on Monday as rebel fighters lost a large stretch of territory to government forces in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo, in what could prove to be a turning point in the conflict, both militarily and psychologically.

Residents described desperate scenes of people’s being killed by shells as they searched for shelter after their homes came under the heaviest bombardment yet of the nearly five-year civil war. Years of airstrikes and shelling have destroyed entire neighborhoods of the rebel-held half of the divided city, once Syria’s largest and an industrial hub.

At least 4,000 people have fled from the rebel-held eastern districts to the city’s government-controlled western side and have registered with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent in Jibreen, a neighborhood there, Jens Laerke, the spokesman for the United Nations office of humanitarian affairs, said on Monday.

As the rebels absorbed the harshest blow since they seized more than half the city four years ago, it seemed increasingly likely that President Bashar al-Assad would eventually manage to take back all of Aleppo.

That would give the Syrian government control of the country’s five largest cities and most of the more-populous west, leaving the rebel groups that are most focused on fighting Mr. Assad with only the northern province of Idlib and a few isolated pockets in the provinces of Aleppo and Homs and around the capital, Damascus.

Throughout the day, government troops, supported by Iranian-backed militias from Iraq and the militant group Hezbollah, advanced from the east and north into the rebel-held areas of Aleppo. That included Hanano, one of the first areas to fall, in 2012, and Sakhour.

Residents of Aleppo, Syria, told us how they feel when they hear an aircraft overhead. Eastern Aleppo has been under heavy bombardment by Syrian and Russian forces.

Kurdish-led militias were also involved in the fight, advancing from the west, from the Kurdish-controlled neighborhood of Sheikh Maksoud, taking the rebel-held district of Sheikh Fares.

Kurdish militias have staked out areas of de facto autonomy in parts of the country but are not entirely aligned with either the government or the rebels. The state news media and opposition activists have portrayed them in the current fighting in Aleppo, however, as working with the government to fight rebels. The Kurdish militias have clashed previously with rebels in Aleppo, who shelled the Sheikh Maksoud area.

If the government takes back the whole city, large parts of Syria will still remain outside its control, as Kurdish groups and the Islamic State hold most of the eastern half of the country. But it could effectively spell the end of the Syrian insurgent movements that sprang up against Mr. Assad after a crackdown on protests in 2011.

“It’s like doomsday,” said Zaher al-Zaher, an antigovernment activist in eastern Aleppo, who could communicate only in short bursts of text messages, as internet connections were failing.

Hisham al-Skeif, a member of a council in the rebel-held eastern districts of Aleppo, said he was scrambling to find housing for families who had fled from areas that had been recaptured by the government in the past day.

“The problem today, in this moment, is not water and food,” he said, at one point choking with tears. “We are threatened with slaughtering, slaughtering.”

The advances shattered a standoff that had lasted months, after government forces surrounded and besieged the rebel-controlled parts of the city this year, closing off regular access to food, medicine and other supplies.

The battle of Aleppo has followed a pattern established by the government: Encircle a rebel-held area; bombard it with airstrikes, barrel bombs and artillery; hit not only rebels but medical clinics, schools and other civilian structures; and wait for exhausted residents to run away or make a deal.

That approach has worked in the old city of Homs, and in several Damascus suburbs. But eastern Aleppo is by far the biggest prize the government has tried to win in this way.

In the past two weeks of fighting alone, at least 225 civilians, including at least 25 children, have been killed by government bombardments in rebel-held areas. At least 27 civilians, including 11 children, have been killed by rebel shelling.

Despite an outcry from the United Nations and many governments condemning indiscriminate attacks, the world has largely stood by, unable or unwilling to stop the carnage, even as Syria’s civil war has become a proxy war, with Russia and Iran backing the government and the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and others, to varying degrees, backing the rebels.

“This is violence that is organized and executed by the Assad government with the willing support of the Russians and the Iranians,” the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, said Monday in response to the latest news from Aleppo.

READ MORE...