Exclusive: Putin Secretly Sanctions Pro-Gay Obama Campaign Donors

[DonViejo]

Source: The Daily Beast

The Kremlin has expanded a secret list of Americans banned from entry to Russia, and campaign bundlers tied to the LGBT community are on it.

Josh Rogin

The Kremlin has expanded its secret “black list” of Americans banned from Russia to include Obama campaign fundraisers tied to the LGBT community and senior Congressmen, diplomatic sources tell The Daily Beast. Moscow’s list, these sources say, was expanded in retaliation to the Obama administration’s attack on the assets of key business associates of Vladimir Putin last month.

The Russian government has been working for months to expand the list in response to the three rounds of sanctions against Russian officials, businessmen, and institutions. But unlike the United States, which made all three rounds of sanctions public, the Russian government only publicly revealed one list of sanctioned Americans, which included top Senators and White House officials. The contents of the subsequent additions to the Russian list, however, remain officially undisclosed.

In late March, the Russian Foreign Ministry said publicly that it had responded to the second round of U.S. sanctions by expanding its black list. But the Kremlin said it would not reveal the names publicly.

“Of course, such actions cannot remain unanswered. Russia responded by undertaking similar measures,” the foreign ministry said in a statement that was all-but-ignored in the West.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/02/exclusive-putin-secretly-sanctioned-top-obama-campaign-donors.html

---

[nyabingi]

1. Let's expand on the western media's

propagandist push to demonize Putin and focus everyone's attention on the "new" Hitler, shall we?

He may be anti-homosexual (which I condemn strongly), but that has nothing at all to do with the situation the US and EU are escalating everyday.

[DonViejo]

2. Do you still use the term "negro" in reference to

Black folks? Your condemnation of Putin's "anti-homosexual" positions rings rather hollow if you are unaware that gay folks prefer to be known as gay. Putin may not yet be the equivalent to Hitler but, what would qualify him for that in your view? Condoning the beating of lesbians and gay men on the streets of Russia? Signing into law legislation that would imprison gays for advocating for their rights? Where do you draw the line?

[nyabingi]

9. Well, I certainly wasn't aware

that the word "homosexual" is now considered a slur, so excuse me for my lack of enlightenment.

My point is that Putin's personal biases and prejudices against the gay community (or internal Russian politics) isn't what's relevant here and you, like the rest of the American media and others who've accepted their propaganda, are trying to focus attention on Putin instead of the fact that the US and EU instigated this mess, supporting the rise of fascists again in Europe, and are actively looking for a confrontation with Russia. So please stop with the diversionary tactics.

I don't refer to myself as "Negro", but I've been called worse in my life (the latest being "spear-chucker" and the n-word while playing an online video game). Don't think you have me figured out, Don, because you have no clue.

[DonViejo]

15. blm's response to you, #14 below minus the last sentence...

was my intended response to you but, blm beat me to it.

I don't think I have you "figured out" at all. Very sorry you feel that I'm busy "figuring out" commenters here or, presumably, anywhere; not my style.

[Ash_F]

23. Homophobic is a better term than "anti-homosexual"

I think both superpowers are escalating unnecessarily.

[nyabingi]

34. True to both statements

[laurent]

42. +1 nt

[Adrahil]

5. Yeah, 'cause it's the US and EU that ANNEXED part of another sovreign nation. NT

[nyabingi]

10. Per the wishes of the annexed

part, no doubt. Also, the US and EU have no need to annex countries thousands of miles away - they just use groups like the USAID and the CIA to get their handpicked people in power. Why annex when you simply change a few people and have the whole country that way?

[MADem]

20. Yeah, just like the Poles couldn't wait to join Germany!

"He didn't invade...why, he was INVITED!!!"

[Adrahil]

25. So, Russia should take anyplace they can claim the population wants it? What BS.

If the U.S. did something like this you'd be quite rightly howling about imperialism.

[nyabingi]

36. The US wanted it (especially Crimea) but Russia and Crimeans beat them to it...

...and "taking" means appropriating something not given freely.

[blm]

50. Geez - who feeds you the BS you repost here?

.

[nyabingi]

76. I'm not "reposting" anything

It just confuses me that a website that is presumably left-leaning is dominated by such pro-war, bloodthirsty people who seem to think the US government is always honest and is always a force for good in the world.

You should've figured out that was a lie before you left grade school...

[Sunlei]

98. putin is that you?

[Ash_F]

22. The US did that plenty of times.

As recently as Iraq and Afghanistan

[Adrahil]

27. We have NOT annexed Afghanistan.

And this kind of argumentation is complete bullshit anyway, and you know it. No one here would support such an annexation by the U.S. and it would in NO WAY justify Russia doing the same.

[Ash_F]

30. You are right, the US was just freeing them

Kind of like how Russia is freeing the Crimeans.

[EX500rider]

31. Well gosh they did have that awesome Taliban govt, right?

[Ash_F]

40. Which is why they had to take over the whole country for 10 years

And privatized their energy and mineral resources.

ahhh freedom.

[laurent]

43. +1

[EX500rider]

48. Who "took over" their country? The people they voted in?

And privatized WHAT??? AHAHAHA, never been to Afghanistan I see.

[Ash_F]

56. In case anyone else actually takes this poster at face value

This isn't for you this is for other DUers.

US Economic Policy in Afghanistan Doomed it: From Dogmatic Privatization to Neglect of Rural Sector

By Juan Cole

http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/economic-afghanistan-privatization.html

[EX500rider]

80. The article you posted shows what one of the biggest problems is..

.....that almost 80% of the population are subsistence farmers. They by definition don't have much left over to sell after they feed their family. The other big issue is the fractured tribal nature of the Afghans, where people one valley over are foreigners, much less the central government in Kabul. And frankly after 35 years of warfare their really wasn't much to privatize. Most of the country looks exactly like it did when Alexander the Great (which Kandahar is named after) came thru 2.300 years ago.

[Adrahil]

32. So answer, do think US actions JUSTIFY Russian actions?

Because that seems to be what you're saying.

As best I can tell, you just wanna take a shot at the US, even if it means propping up Putin's Russia.

[Ash_F]

41. No, I just think it the "the US didn't" is a line that people should not be using

It damages their(your) credibility.

The US totally did.

[Adrahil]

44. No...we DID NOT ANNEX Afghanistan

And to say otherwise is good ole fashioned lying.

[Ash_F]

57. Sure thing, tovarisch! /nt

[EX500rider]

86. Gosh you are SO right, the 51st State of Afghanistan, we've all heard of that, right? lol

[NuclearDem]

49. What on earth are you talking about?

The US hasn't annexed shit in Afghanistan.

[Ash_F]

58. If you are going to use the same line as the other poster,

you might as well continue in that subthread.

Cheers.

[NuclearDem]

60. The line that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about?

Afghanistan was never "annexed." That false equivalence nonsense only undermines your credibility.

[Ash_F]

62. See post #57.

[NuclearDem]

63. Your insults aren't even making any sense!

Unless you're somehow equating the Soviet and US invasions of Afghanistan. In which case, you still don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

Since you're not aware of my ethnic background, I'll just let the "comrade" remark slide.

[blm]

14. Putin's blatant, public attacks on homosexuals began last year, and it was calculated to curry favor

with the churches and right-wingers in Russia. He learned from the GOP how to assemble a coalition of bigots who will stick with you no matter what, even when you invade a nation that didn't attack you.

The pro-Putin crowd really doesn't seem to WANT to see any of Putin's moves for what they are.

[nyabingi]

16. Again I say, and for the last time,

Putin's personal biases and prejudices are not the real issue as far as Ukraine is concerned. I could care less about Putin's politics in Russia - it's up to the Russian people to vote him out of office if they find his bigotry disagreeable. The Republicans in the US may admire Putin's stance on gays (blm, please don't use "homosexuals" because it is a slur) but they, like many Democrats, are fully behind the idea of instigating a confrontation with the Russians. In fact, people like the decrepit McCain are complaining that Obama isn't being belligerent enough with Putin.

I'm not "pro-Putin" but you are free to believe whatever makes you and Don happy.

[blm]

21. It wasn't PERSONAL - It was a political CALCULATION to give him a BASE to support his INVASION

and he used the exact same playbook as Bush - who also couldn't give a rat's ass about whether or not someone WAS gay but would use it to build and protect his leadership image so he could INVADE IRAQ. You refuse to see Putin's calculation for what it is - more important to you to keep investing in your fairy tale.

[EX500rider]

26. "Putin's personal biases and prejudices are not the real issue as far as Ukraine is concerned."

Who brought up the Ukraine? This is about what a homo-phobic piece of shit Putin is. Try and stick to the OP.

[nyabingi]

38. The whole reason this piece was posted

was to demonize Putin (since we're being told by John Kerry and Angela Merkel that Putin is the problem).

If the Ukrainian situation weren't an issue in pointing out Putin's homophobia, the piece would've never been posted.

Now go and get my comments hidden if you want...

[laurent]

45. They have to have a bad guy.

Ho Chi Minh, Noriega, Gaddfi, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Putin. The US needs to personalize its targets to get public support for attacking them. It helps if the target is already seen by the public or some segment thereof as a bad guy. The US government gets automatic support from many gays for its aggressive operations in Ukraine because Putin has homophobic policies. This is how the government manipulates its citizens.

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. So now the LGBT community is so uninformed that they would reflexively support US...

involvement in Ukraine, based on something the government said? You don't give them much credit. There have been activists calling for action against Putin's government, well before his annexation of Crimea. Is it just possible that people can be motivated by personal outrage, and not everything is a government conspiracy? I'm sure George Takei would take issue with your mis-characterization.

Sounds a lot like the anti-government idiots who walked around with actual teabags dangling from their heads. Talk about uninformed.

[nyabingi]

78. Finally someone with a little perspective - thanks laurent (nt)

[DonViejo]

53. WTH are you talking about?...

The whole reason this piece was posted was to demonize Putin

That is NOT the reason I posted the article. As a gay man I post articles related to and effecting my community, in China, Uganda, Nigeria, Vatican City, London and any of the 50 States; IOW, related to and effecting my community anywhere

[Cha]

54. You don't really know wtf you're talking about.. but you just keep digging away.

[Adrahil]

29. I'm sorry, but Russia's decline into Nationalistic fascism IS the issue here. NT

[nyabingi]

37. As far as Ukraine and western interference

it isn't an issue.

Russia now is without a doubt very nationalistic (thanks US and EU) and is as oligarchic and fascistic as the US currently is.

As an American, I'm more concerned about these problems at home moreso than Russia's. Shouldn't you?

[Adrahil]

46. OFFS!

Now you're blaming Russian Nationalism of the US and the EU!?

[EmilyAnne]

52. LOL! Perfect. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

65. !!!

[nyabingi]

75. Putin's approval ratings are sky-high right now

because it is obvious to those not totally dazzled by pro-Western propaganda that the EU and US are the aggressors in this situation and Putin has been able to use this to his political advantage back home by promoting Russian pride and defense of the country.

It's the same nationalistic fervor that Bush took advantage of after 9/11 - all the flag-waving and American pride made Bush's approval ratings shoot up.

What's so hard for you to understand about this?

[Adrahil]

77. Sure... Hitlers were very high too.

Fascists leaders often get very popular when they reference a state of former greatness and promise to restore it.

You, on the other hand, have let you brain fall out. Pick it back up and stop swallowing this former KGB agent's bullshit.

[nyabingi]

79. Yes, promising to restore greatness past works

as does convincing the population, whether actual or imaginary, that they are under attack from outside forces helps build nationalism as well. Bush used the 9/11 attacks to make Americans feel they were under attack from "al-Qa'ida" (imaginary), and Putin is taking advantage of the nationalism generated by convincing Russians they are under attack from NATO-aligned countries (actual).

Hitler's approval ratings were indeed high in Germany, and just as high among the business and political leaders here in the US until he declared war of us.

[EX500rider]

81. "Americans feel they were under attack from "al-Qa'ida" (imaginary)"

So I imagined the whole Twin Towers falling down? 'Cause it really looked like a attack to those in the real world.

[nyabingi]

82. No you didn't imagine that the towers fell

but the "fact" that radical Islamists were responsible, the same ones we're supporting in Syria, was indeed imaginary.

[EX500rider]

83. Wrong...al Qaeda has themselves taken full responsibility for 9/11.....

So is there a wonderful crossover between Truthers and Putin fans? Not surprising.

.....and at the beginning of the Syrian insurgency it was all home grown.

Now the three major groups of rebels are seculars and Islamic moderates (about two-thirds of the armed men), Islamic terrorists (10-20 percent), and Kurds (10-20 percent).

We have given the moderates some help but most come from Saudi and the Gulf States. The main hardcore Islamist are al Qaeda (bin Laden successor Ayman al Zawahiri), Syrian Jabhat al Nusra (JN) and the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) and we haven't given them squat.

[nyabingi]

84. The US has no control over who is getting weapons

in Syria, and radical Islamists have been leaving many western countries (Britain for example) to travel to Syria to wage "jihad" against the Assad government. If these westerners were going to "train" in Pakistan or Somalia, they'd be targeted for death by the Americans for assisting terrorism. So yeah, the Syrian civil war started with just Syrians, but with the west's blessing, foreigners from many different countries have flooded in to help the US achieve its stated goal of removing Assad.

The Obama State Department has gone out of its way to assure Americans that our assistance is in no way going to ISIS and al-Nusra Front, but they have no way to make sure it's not happening, and if they were so concerned about dangerous weaponry falling into the hands of these people, they wouldn't be sending it in the first place.

What is known as "al-Qa'ida" is a creation of the CIA (in fact, the name is one created by Americans, the Arabic name for "base", or the computer database the CIA kept of mujahadeen fighters they kept tabs on during the Afghan war against the Soviets) and there is no reason to believe the CIA isn't still using these people to fight their proxy wars. "Al-Qa'ida" was simply a convenient patsy to justify war against Iraq and Afghanistan and further military adventures across the world.

The idea of them "taking responsibility" is laughable because bin Laden was always a CIA asset.

[EX500rider]

85. Wrong again..

al-Qaeda was formed at an August 11, 1988, meeting between "several senior leaders" of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Abdullah Azzam, and bin Laden, where it was agreed to join bin Laden's money with the expertise of the Islamic Jihad organization and take up the jihadist cause elsewhere after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan

Bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in October 2001:
The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#History

Were we funneling money to the the native Afghan mujahideen who were fighting the Soviets? Yes, but that is not the same as "the CIA founded al-Qaeda"

[nyabingi]

88. That is the Wikipedia version

and I'm sure it was approved by the appropriate people to appear on their site.

Any mention of the origins of al-Qa'ida without involvement of the CIA is suspect. The CIA worked with Pakistan's ISI to create the Taliban and arm them, so it all connects neatly.

[EX500rider]

89. Wrong yet again...so sad...

In 1991, the Taliban (a movement originating from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-run religious schools for Afghan refugees in Pakistan) also developed in Afghanistan as a politico-religious force. Mullah Omar started his movement with fewer than 50 armed madrassah students in his hometown of Kandahar. The most often-repeated story and the Taliban's own story of how Mullah Omar first mobilized his followers is that in the spring of 1994, neighbors in Singesar told him that the local governor had abducted two teenage girls, shaved their heads, and taken them to a camp where they were raped. 30 Taliban (with only 16 rifles) freed the girls, and hanged the governor from the barrel of a tank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Origin

If you notice, 1994 was AFTER the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA wasn't supporting squat by then.

[nyabingi]

91. The Pakistan ISI were the main benefactors of the Taliban

and the CIA has always had a close relationship with the ISI. I'm speaking simply from personal knowledge, but I'll provide you a link to Wikipedia since you seem rather fond of that site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Services_Intelligence_activities_in_Afghanistan

[The Magistrate]

92. Personal Knowledge, Sir? So You are C.I.A. Or I.S.I.? Perhaps Taliban...What?

[nyabingi]

94. Personal knowledge meaning I'm relating to you what I

currently know without referring to websites or looking for links to back up what I'm saying.

[The Magistrate]

96. In Other Words, Sir, You Have No Personal Knowledge Of The Matter, And Just Wanted To Puff Up A Bit

Lend an air of mystery to yourself, give us a sense you were some sort of continental op sharing inside dope with people who could never have gone where you have trod....

[EX500rider]

90. The Wikki version? No, it was from Ben Laden's own taped interview..

Bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist

You're batting almost a perfect ZERO!! That's hard to do...

[nyabingi]

93. Osama bin Laden and his family were associates of the Bushes

and that's why the bin Laden's in the US at the time of 9/11 were flown out and the reason why Bush eventually sought to downplay the significance of capturing bin Laden and didn't try to capture him. I suspect that arrangements were made with the bin Laden family to leave Osama because Obama had him located and killed so soon after he had taken office.

There were a lot of suspect videos of bin Laden popping up during the reign of the Bush regime, so of which didn't resemble bin Laden at all, and considering the long history of bin Laden's involvement with the CIA, they would've had plenty of video to piece together "admission of guilt" spots. Also consider most of us aren't fluent in Arabic and we'd pretty much have to trust the translation of what is being said - those airing the videos could tell you they were saying anything and we wouldn't know the difference.

Why do you think bin Laden survived completely through the Bush era? Do you think he was really that good at hiding that he evaded us the whole time? I think not...

[EX500rider]

95. Since we weren't allowed to search Pakistan it's not surprising..

...he managed to hide for so long...especially with inside Pakistani help.

[NuclearDem]

87. This post pretty much proves you don't understand the Mujahideen or Operation Cyclone.

Comes from being a conspiracy theorist, probably.

All it was is proof that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a terrible policy, and it almost always backfires.

[arely staircase]

19. sure he is a fascist bigot but.......nt

[nyabingi]

33. Well it seems many here at DU

can't bring themselves to acknowledge and condemn the fascist and racist Right Sector thugs gearing up to fight eastern Ukrainians at the behest of CIA director John Brennan. I guess your fascist is better than mine, eh?

Putin's character is not the issue here.

[arely staircase]

39. here this is for he man vladi

[laurent]

47. +1 nt

[NuclearDem]

61. Oh please.

Absolutely fucking nobody here is having a hard time condemning Right Sector or Svoboda. Plenty just don't believe they're the giant casus belli boogeyman Putin and RT want the rest of the world to believe to justify his land grabs and imperialism.

So the only one here defending any fascist is you, champ.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. So secret sources CONFIRM a secret list

Proof positive.

(Putin might be a monster, but this passes for reporting?)

[DonViejo]

4. Yes, just as much as your comments pass for intelligent and well thought out. eom

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Huh? Where'd that come from?

Are you looking to bash me just for fun?

Well, I hope it was fun for you.

[Enrique]

12. good point

this article is way too credulous.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. More stilted, clunky bigotry from the atavistic Putin crowd. I was banned, along with my work

associates at that time, from South Africa by the racists in the Apartheid government. To this day I am very proud of that fact. They wrote to us to say 'you are not welcome to visit here in any capacity for all time'. Of course not many years later that government fell and Nelson Mandela reversed that ban and welcomed us to South Africa at any time, for any reason.
The folks banned by Russia will feel the same way and in a similar brief time, they will see those barriers removed along with the bigots who built them. Because bigots never prevail. They always fail. They get their moment to write to 'those people' and ban us from their countries and beat their chests, but in short time their own people eat them alive and replace them with decent human beings. That's what always happens.
It is a great honor to be specifically disrespected by bigots.

[OKNancy]

8. +1

[msanthrope]

17. You got one of those, too? I had SA, Iraq, and Turkey send me those letters after

Being arrested in front of the Iraqi embassy in the 80s.

Good times.

[Arkana]

11. Not sure it's really going to put a hitch in anyone's giddyup

if they can't go to to Putin's Russia.

[kelliekat44]

13. Be glad when all those Russian closets open up and many of those "elites" come falling out. nt

[msanthrope]

18. I await the Greenwald/Assange/Snowden outrage over this. nt

[NuclearDem]

24. This must be that standing up for human rights that Russia apparently does.

[Hekate]

68. Don't hold your breath...

I won't be holding mine.

[yurbud]

28. someone said his antigay thing is psyops to get US cons on his side

This would tend to confirm that theory.

[EmilyAnne]

51. Huh? Oh my goodness. This is really silly.

Its classic scapegoating, actually. The low birth rate, high HIV rate, low life expectancy, economic problems as well as other social problems can now be blamed on a single enemy. And now Putin is unified with Patriarch Kirill its become more of a holy mission.

[Sunlei]

35. well everybody knows that republican run group went to russia with their gay hate campaign.

[laurent]

55. "...diplomatic sources tell The Daily Beast."

That's all I have to see to doubt the article.

[Cha]

59. Oh yeah.. I can see why the putin pushers here wouldn't believe this.. because putin is so pro-Gay.

People.

[Tarheel_Dem]

66. And remember, Putin is dreamy.

[Cha]

67. posters are twisting themselves into pretzels to defend the dictator putin.. it is

to laugh at.



But, what is not funny is the way Putin treats Gays, Journalists, and anyone who disagrees with him in Russia..and seizes other countries in Eastern Europe.

[Hekate]

69. Pretzels? My gods yes, with salt and mustard on top...

Cha, there are a whole bunch of truly creepy posts in this thread.

[Cha]

70. Really, Hekate. the Russian propaganda is alive and snaking

on DU.

[Tarheel_Dem]

71. It's ridiculous. I just ran into one who's been here for 5 years, and only came out of....

seclusion to defend this asshole. You gotta wonder why. Seems Putin has a lot of admirers in this country.

[Cha]

72. The rwingers just love putin.. he's made sure of that with his anti-gay stance. btw

seagal looks stupid and putin doesn't look too brilliant, either.

[Tarheel_Dem]

73. Do you remember the countless threads on Obama sharing the stage with Rick Warren &

Donnie McClurkin, and all the outrage that provoked? And here we have a world leader who has actually supported & written discrimination into the law, and for whatever reason, there's virtual silence? Why is that? Was the outrage at Obama pretend, or was there another agenda afoot?

[Cha]

74. That's right.. freaking crickets. One might suspect

there is an agenda from anonymous posters on the internet regarding President Obama. Too bad for them they're not nearly as smart as they think they are.

[Sunlei]

97. Republicans provide Putin with campaign/political information & they ID American citizens to Russia

IMO, republicans have crossed the line and perhaps need to be charged with Federal crimes.