THE AXIS OF ANGER IGNITES/GLOBAL RESISTANCE TO TRUMP GROWING 27/28.01.2026
Including geopolitical issues affecting the balance of power in the ongoing end game war to establish our common future, a closely monitored prison planet or tolerance for diverse modes of governance.
THE SPECIAL MILITARY OPERATION
RUSSIA’S ALLIES
COALITION OF THE LOSING - INC. USA
RUSSIA & BELARUS/EXPATS IN RUSSIA
NON-ENGLISH NEWS
THE MAGA GANGSTER
Criminals always find a way to justify their crimes. For them simply wanting someone killed is justification enough. Their entire mode of operation is to expect their will to be done... law or no law.
Gangsters do what they like whenever they like. They justify any murders they order others to commit using blatant lies.
The only thing that matters to a gangster is that he gets what he wants. Gangsters will use any means “necessary” to get what they want. For them the law is only a barrier they must overcome to obtain the fulfillment of their wishes. Those who enforce the law are their enemies. These they hold in contempt.
For a gangster the only rules to follow are those within the criminal fraternity they belong to. They justify their crimes with spurious “facts” that are mere excuses convincing no one with a sound mind. A gangster will think nothing of having someone killed. A gangster lies constantly to manipulate and control others who may try to bring him to justice.
There is a saying, ‘If the hat fits, wear it’. There is a man in the White House currently well known for wearing a certain red cap. That man acts like a gangster in every possible way described above and absolutely deserves to own the term. He has shown (and has even said) that he respects no law to be above the thoughts arising within his own mind.
So far, Donald Trump is responsible for over 100 acts of murder. 126 of these acts of murder were carried out by the U.S. military off the coast of Venezuela. The only “justification” given by Donald Trump is that the killing of these men were acts of war, that those killed were “combatants”. A cooked-up term was coined to give this slaughter a semblance of legality, where these acts are said to be within a ‘Non-International Armed Conflict’, just as the George W. Bush administration “justified” torture using the euphemism ‘Enhanced Interrogation’. ‘Extraction’, ‘Neutralization’ and ‘Rendition’ have all been employed as euphemisms for kidnapping.
Gangsters also use a language of their own to justify their crimes:
What term would a gangster use when telling his people he wanted someone murdered?
Google AI:
In organized crime subcultures, gangsters rarely use the word “murder” to avoid creating direct evidence. Instead, they use a variety of euphemisms and slang that signify a permanent “hit” or removal.
Common Gangster Euphemisms for Murder
“Take him out” or “Take care of him”: One of the most versatile terms; depending on the tone, it can mean anything from a bribe to a killing, but in a violent context, it is a direct order for a hit.
“Clip him”: A common term for a quick, efficient assassination.
“Whack him”: Traditionally associated with the Italian-American Mafia (Cosa Nostra), meaning to kill someone on orders from leadership.
“Put him in the ground” or “Put him on ice”: Direct references to the aftermath of a killing—burial or the coldness of a corpse.
“Erase him” or “Cancel him”: Terms suggesting the complete removal of a person’s existence or influence.
“Smoke him”: Often used in street-level or cartel contexts, referring to the smoke from a firearm.
“Give him a one-way ticket”: Implies the person is being sent somewhere they will never return from.
“Handle it”: A vague but lethal command often given to subordinates when the specific method isn’t as important as the final result (the person being gone).
Professional/Technical Slang
“Wetwork”: A term (derived from the Russian mokroye delo) used in espionage and high-level organized crime to refer to operations that involve shedding blood.
“Liquidation”: A colder, more “corporate” gangster term for the systematic removal of an individual or an entire rival group.
“Neutralize”: While also a military euphemism, “sophisticated” crime syndicates use this to frame a killing as a necessary business adjustment.
For Donald Trump only his own thoughts and desires are important and take precedence over any law whether that is U.S. law, international law or the laws of conduct in war. This is typical of the thought processes of a street criminal, an everyday gangster.
In the case of the 126 people killed by the U.S. military off the coast of Venezuela on the instigation and authority of Donald Trump they are said to be legal by him on the basis of memos issued by the Department of Justice. Let that sink in for a moment, memos take precedence over all laws, whether we are talking about U.S. law, International law, the internationally accepted laws of conduct during war, or the stipulations of the charter of the United Nations. A memo takes precedence.
According to the gangster in the White House a memo is all he needs to authorize and instigate murder with impunity.
Is international law and the laws governing right and wrong conduct during war clear on whether the killing of the people in boats off the Venezuelan coast by the U.S. military was legal or illegal?
Google AI:
In 2026, international legal experts and global human rights bodies largely view the U.S. military’s lethal maritime strikes as illegal extrajudicial killings, though the Trump administration maintains they are lawful actions within a state of “armed conflict.”
The debate centers on two conflicting legal frameworks:
1. The U.S. Administration’s Argument (Armed Conflict)
The Trump administration justifies the strikes by reclassifying drug cartels as “combatants” in a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC).
Legal Basis: A classified 2025 DOJ memo argues that because cartels are designated as “foreign terrorist organizations” (FTOs) and their activity poses a national security threat, they can be targeted with lethal force under the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC).
Expansion of Power: This view treats suspected smugglers as “combatants” rather than criminal suspects, granting the military latitude to use lethal force as a first resort.
2. The International Consensus (Law Enforcement)
United Nations experts, human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International), and numerous legal scholars reject the “armed conflict” classification, arguing it lacks a factual basis.
Extrajudicial Killings: Experts state that because no “protracted armed violence” exists between the U.S. and these groups, the International Human Rights Law (IHRL) framework applies. Under IHRL, lethal force is only permissible as a last resort to prevent an imminent threat to life.
Violation of UNCLOS: The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides for the right to board and inspect vessels, not to destroy them without warning. Even for stateless vessels, the legal remedy is detention and trial, not missile strikes.
Denial of Quarter: Evidence that the U.S. military conducted follow-up strikes to ensure no survivors remained (reportedly following a “kill everybody” directive) has been flagged as a potential war crime under customary international law, as it violates the prohibition against “denial of quarter.”
Do the views expressed in a DOJ memo about the killings by the U.S. military off the coast of Venezuela take precedence over international law and the established rules of conduct during war?
In 2026, the question of whether a Department of Justice (DOJ) memo takes precedence over international law is a central point of global legal crisis. Within the United States, a DOJ memo acts as binding legal guidance for executive agencies and the military, effectively granting them domestic legal cover even if their actions are considered illegal under international law.
The Precedence Conflict
Domestically (Inside the U.S.): Under longstanding executive branch precedents cited in 2026 DOJ memos, the President has the constitutional authority to “override” or violate international treaties and customary law if it serves national interests. For U.S. personnel, these memos provide “immunity” from domestic prosecution for acts like the 2025–2026 maritime strikes.
Internationally: A DOJ memo has no standing to change international law or the UN Charter. United Nations experts and international law scholars maintain that these strikes—and the subsequent capture of Nicolás Maduro—remain “extrajudicial executions” and “acts of aggression” that violate the non-derogable right to life.
Key Legal Arguments from the 2026 DOJ Memos
Armed Conflict Designation: The memos argue that the U.S. is in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels. This allows them to classify suspected smugglers as “combatants” rather than criminals, meaning they can be targeted with lethal force without the warnings required in law enforcement.
“War-Sustaining” Activities: The DOJ rationale claims that because drug revenue finances cartels’ alleged “war efforts” against the U.S., the cargo (and those transporting it) are legitimate military targets.
Executive Supremacy: One memo specifically states that even if an operation were later found to violate international law, that argument “does not vitiate the president’s authority to order it” under U.S. domestic law.
Global Consequences in 2026
International observers warn that this “law of the jungle” approach sets a dangerous precedent, where powerful nations can use secret internal legal opinions to redefine “murder” as “enemy casualties”. The UN Secretary-General has termed this a “dangerous precedent” that signals a collapse of the rules-based international order.
---
What law is recognized by a gangster? No law. A gangster obeys no laws. He decides what is right and what is wrong. No one else. What he wants he gets by whatever means he decides is right. He lives outside the law. He will circumvent any law to get what he wants. This is Donald Trump’s attitude exactly. He has no respect for any law that hinders him. He doesn’t care what kind of terrible precedent he sets or what consequences will flow from his actions. Getting what HE wants is all that matters to him. And he will “justify” what he does with whatever terms (or memos) he needs to do whatever he likes.
THE MAGA GANGSTER
DONALD TRUMP AND LINDSEY GRAHAM: A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE (A.I.Q.)
There was a shotgun (or was it a machine gun) wedding in Washington recently. A self-styled “peacemaker” wedded a “warmonger”. Take a guess... What will their bastard child look like?
It seems that Donald Trump and Lindsey Graham need each other much more than they feel the need to do the right thing for the people of the USA.
On the principle of “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours,” Lindsey Graham gets Trump’s assistance in winning the South Carolina Republican primary, beating his rival Paul Dans who has seen his popularity rise significantly.
Lindsey Graham is the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Trump relies on Graham to get his trillion-dollar-plus military budget through the Senate and secure the renewal of his tax cuts.
This corrupt process where two largely opposed policy agendas work together to circumvent outside opposition is known by a variety of terms, Mutualism, Reciprocal Corruption, an Unholy Alliance, Logrolling and Tacit Collusion.
These two vile men have previously hated and despised each other to the extent of name-calling and release of private details. Back in December of 2015 Lindsey Graham called Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot”. Earlier that year he had called Trump a “jackass” which prompted Trump to read out Graham’s private cell phone number during a televized speech in Graham’s home state suggesting people “give it a shot”.
It seems the only reason they have now become best buddies is due to what they can get out of it for their mutual advantage. But how much advantage does this relationship made in Hell have for the American taxpayer or for the MAGA zealots?
U.S. taxpayers are having to watch as their taxes are spent on ever more militarism. Having a large number of U.S. warhips murdering boatmen off the coast of Venezuela has been very expensive, as was the attack upon Venezuela. Now another flotilla of warships is either on its way to the Gulf of Oman and appears ready to unleash multiple attacks on Iranian cities. None of this comes cheap.
Quite aside from a soaring national debt eternally rising through the Trump/Graham militarism think what the undermining of international law (Venezuela) and the potential consequences for both the Middle East and the entire world of waging war against Iran. If the Straits of Hormuz are closed by Iran then a major energy crisis that will hit every pocket is likely to ensue.
Do you think Trump turning on a dime from talking up peace to advocating ever more war is a coincidence? Nothing at all to do with his relationship to known warmonger Graham? Or are we watching a friendship made in Hell? A marriage of pure convenience.
What does having a friend like Lyndsey Graham say about Trump’s character?
Google AI:
In 2026, Donald Trump’s friendship with Senator Lindsey Graham is often analyzed as a reflection of his transactional nature and his preference for loyalty over ideological consistency.
Their relationship has transformed from mutual vitriol—with Graham once calling Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” and Trump publicly sharing Graham’s private cell phone number—into what critics and allies alike call a “marriage of convenience”.
Key Character Insights from the Relationship
Transactional Loyalty: Trump’s ability to “pardon” Graham’s past insults illustrates his character as a dealmaker who prioritizes current utility. Graham has admitted his pro-Trump shift is based on a desire for “relevancy” and political survival, specifically securing Trump’s endorsement for his 2026 Senate re-election bid.
Influence of “Hawks”: Critics like Senator Rand Paul have stated that Trump is “under the thrall” of Graham, particularly regarding aggressive foreign policy. In early 2026, Graham has been a primary voice pushing Trump toward military action in Iran and supporting the “abduction” and prosecution of Nicolás Maduro. This indicates Trump’s openness to being influenced by traditional neoconservative “hawks” when it aligns with a projection of strength.
Flexibility on Ideology: The relationship highlights Trump’s willingness to work with established political figures who are willing to “do the dance” of Washington. Despite Graham’s occasional disagreements with Trump on issues like abortion, Trump has continued to endorse him, calling him a “great friend”.
The “Supplicant” Dynamic: Observers note that the friendship is often one-sided, with Graham making “Palm Beach pilgrimages” to serve as a high-level surrogate for Trump’s more controversial policies, such as the 2026 push to acquire Greenland.
Political Impact in 2026
Election Survival: For Graham, the friendship is a strategic tool to navigate a South Carolina primary where he faces challenges from more populist “MAGA” candidates like Paul Dans.
Third Term Advocacy: Demonstrating his absolute alignment, Graham recently stated he would support a third Trump term in 2028, despite constitutional limits, remarking, “I hope this never ends”.
What does Trump get out of appearing to be a friend and supporter of Lindsey Graham?
Google AI:
In 2026, Donald Trump’s continued public friendship with Lindsey Graham is viewed as a highly strategic alliance where Trump leverages Graham’s seniority and “hawkish” reputation to advance his own executive agenda.
By appearing as a steadfast supporter of Graham, Trump secures several critical advantages:
Control of the Senate Budget: As of 2026, Graham serves as the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Trump relies on Graham to shepherd his trillion-dollar-plus military budget and to secure the renewal of his landmark tax cuts.
A High-Profile “Hawk” Surrogate: Trump uses Graham to test and promote aggressive foreign policy maneuvers. For instance, in early 2026, Graham has been the primary voice calling for U.S. strikes on the Iranian regime, allowing Trump to maintain “peace through strength” rhetoric while having a Senate ally demand escalation.
The “Liberal Voter” Tool: Trump has candidly admitted that he views Graham as a useful bridge to reach more moderate or “liberal” lawmakers when he needs their votes for specific legislation, despite Graham’s unpopularity with the hard-line MAGA base.
Media and Intelligence Shield: Graham is one of the most frequent guests on Sunday news programs and cable networks. Trump benefits from having an articulate, senior Senator constantly defending his most controversial actions—such as the abduction of Nicolás Maduro or the pursuit of Greenland—in mainstream media circles.
Consolidating the Establishment: By rewarding Graham’s “Complete and Total Endorsement” early in the 2026 cycle, Trump signals to other establishment Republicans that total loyalty will be rewarded with protection from primary challengers like Paul Dans.
In exchange, Trump provides Graham the political “oxygen” he needs to survive in South Carolina. Despite being booed at rallies by voters who view him as a “warmonger” or “progressive,” Graham’s approval ratings among SC Republicans have risen to 74% specifically because of his proximity to Trump.
What are terms for the kind of corruption where two politicians who would normally oppose each other work together for each other each other for purely personal gain?
Google AI:
In political science and general discourse, several terms describe the cynical cooperation between supposedly antagonistic politicians for mutual personal or political gain:
1. Collusion and Logrolling
Tacit Collusion: A situation where opposing parties secretly or implicitly cooperate to limit competition, often to maintain their shared grip on power rather than following the will of voters.
Logrolling: The trading of favors or “vote trading”. This occurs when two politicians agree to support each other’s otherwise unrelated projects or bills so that both can pass. It is often described as a quid pro quo arrangement.
2. The “Unholy Alliance” and “Uniparty”
Unholy Alliance: A coalition formed between antagonistic groups for hidden or ad hoc gain, often involving deceptive ties that prioritize private interests over the public good.
Uniparty: A term used by critics to describe a situation where opposing parties appear to fight on the surface but consistently cooperate to pass legislation that benefits a shared elite, such as corporations or lobbyists.
3. Mutualism and Backscratching
Reciprocal Corruption: Also known as “transactive” corruption, this involves a mutual arrangement between two parties for immediate or future payoffs.
“You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”: A common idiom for “backscratching,” where two people provide mutual aid to each other’s personal interests, often bypassing official procedures or merit.
Mutualism: In a social or financial sense, this refers to a relationship where both parties benefit from an alliance despite being otherwise independent or opposed.
4. Systemic Terms
Kleptocracy: A “rule by thieves” where leaders across a system exploit their positions for personal enrichment.
Clientelism: Ongoing, two-way relationships (dyadic) between “patrons” and “clients” where favors are exchanged for loyalty or services.
Elite Pluralism: A theory noting that while different elite groups may compete, they hold disproportionate power and may collectively engage in “regulatory capture” to protect their mutual status.
DONALD TRUMP AND LINDSEY GRAHAM: A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE (A.I.Q.)
