The photo, initially published by the Reuters and Getty news agencies, show Mrs. Clinton, 68, receiving help as she tries to ascend a staircase in front of a home.
The images were actually taken in February in South Carolina.
The key question here is "How many people want quite sick president of the USA?" What
additional risks are involved?
Clinton age and health are certain to be talked about, given that she would be vying to become
the second-oldest person in history to be elected as POTUS. She would be 69, only a little younger
than Ronald Reagan when he won his first term in 1980.
Moreover there were at least a dozen documented by video cases in the recent Presidential
race when it's quite clear from footage alone that Hillary Clinton has serious health issues. Three of them ("extended bathroom
break", "convulsions during her interview", "difficulties in ascending stairs") became
heavily publicized and
are well documented. They probably represent just the tip of the iceberg as for each of them
several similar events video might exist.
There are two main hypothesis that circulated about her condition
Parkinson's disease. It is unclear to what extent it affects mental abilities, but some
researchers think that it changes gradually changes personality. In the 2011 book “The Cognitive Neuropsychiatry of Parkinson’s
Disease,” Patrick McNamara, a neurologist at Boston University, stated
“Neuropsychiatric disturbances of Parkinson’s
disease . . . can be as disabling as the motor symptoms of the disease. . . . Upwards of
85% of PD patients evidence deficits in executive cognitive functions even early in the
disease.”
"Almost half of all patients progress toward a dementing
illness that may occur late in the disease. More than half of all patients suffer severe
anxiety or depression. Roughly 50% of patients suffer varying degrees and types of
apathy, hallucinations, sleep disturbance, and impulse control disorders.
Many neurologists believe that there is such phenomenon as identifiable as a “parkinsonian
personality” -- a distinct transformation of personality due to progression of the illness.
for example, a 1999 article in the European Journal of Neurology, about Hitler’s Parkinson’s,
declares flatly, “It has been proved that Adolf Hitler suffered from idiopathic Parkinson’s
disease.” Idiopathic means doctors have no idea why someone got it, but it wasn’t from getting
hit too often on the head. Hitler had “the typical premorbid personality of parkinsonian patients
with uncorrectable mental rigidity, extreme inflexibility and insupportable pedantry.”
McNamara declares, “PD patients are impaired. . . . They have difficulty making decisions,
developing plans . . . and monitoring and adjusting plans and actions.” this
study deserves a healthy skepticism and should be taken with a grain of salt.
For example, he
reports a study showing an “apparent willingness” among a subgroup of Parkinson’s patients “to
associate with a socially untrustworthy individual,” and, at the same time, highlighted near-opposite
tendency, a tendency
of parkinsonians generally to avoid risks and social interaction. Have
You Lost Your Mind - The New Yorker
Subcortical Vascular Dementia. This hypothesis arose from supposedly leaked documents
from Hillary Clinton personal physician, Dr. Lisa Bardack. It is unclear whether they were forged
or not -- Clinton campaign claims that they are forged, but the level of trust about anything
Clinton herself, or her campaign staffers say is extremely low. If true this is a devastating
blow. “Binswanger’s disease (BD), also called subcortical
vascular dementia, is a type of dementia caused by widespread, microscopic areas of damage to the
deep layers of white matter in the brain.” “symptoms include forgetfulness (but not as severe as
the forgetfulness of Alzheimer’s disease), changes in speech, an unsteady gait, clumsiness or
frequent falls, changes in personality or mood (most likely in the form of apathy, irritability,
and depression), and urinary symptoms that aren’t caused by urological disease.”…NIH
(Hillary Clinton diagnosed with Subcortical Vascular Dementia by Dr. Lisa Bardack
)
Another important consideration if the level of progression. From this point of view it is
important to understand then she started to demonstrate those symptoms. The consensus is that she
has first symptom in 2008 or earlier. Parson disease has several stage (
The Stages of Parkinson’s Disease National Parkinson Foundation ):
Stage One: During this initial stage, the person has mild symptoms
that generally do not interfere with daily activities. Tremor and other
movement symptoms occur on one side of the body only. Friends and family may
notice changes in posture, walking and facial expressions.
Stage Two: In stage two of Parkinson’s, the symptoms start getting
worse. Tremor, rigidity and other movement symptoms affect both sides of the
body. Walking problems and poor posture may become apparent. In this
stage, the person is still able to live alone, but completing day-to-day tasks
becomes more difficult and may take longer.
Stage Three: Stage three is considered mid-stage in the progression
of the disease. Loss of balance and slowness of movements are hallmarks of this
phase. Falls are more common. Though the person is still fully independent,
symptoms significantly impair activities of daily living such as dressing and
eating.
Stage Four: During this stage of Parkinson’s, symptoms are severe
and very limiting. It’s possible to stand without assistance, but movement may
require a walker. The person needs help with activities of daily living and is
unable to live alone.
Stage Five: This is the most advanced and debilitating stage of
Parkinson’s disease. Stiffness in the legs may make it impossible to stand or
walk. The person requires a wheelchair or is bedridden. Around-the-clock
nursing care is required for all activities. The person may experience
hallucinations and delusions. While stage five focuses on motor symptoms, the
Parkinson’s community acknowledges that there are many important non-motor
symptoms as well.
Existing evidence suggests that Hillary might be current at stage II which usually last
seven-eight years, and she might be at this stage from 2012. Some sources suggest stage three
(Friends of Hillary
say she has Parkinson’s)
Hillary Clinton has stage-three Parkinson’s disease and suffers from seizures, according to
three sources who have had a personal relationship with the Democratic Party presidential
nominee.
... ... ...
...
However, images captured at the 9/11 memorial Sunday showed Clinton apparently being asked
by a medical professional to squeeze her fingers, a test that would indicate she suffers
from a neurological disease such as Parkinson’s.
Here is the timeline of her problems which started at least seven years ago and progressively worsened.
It was created using timeline in
Hillary Clinton Has Parkinson’s Disease, Physician Confirms as a base, with additions from
various other sources (all errors are mine):
January 31, 2005: Clinton said she was feeling "queasy" as she began a
speech in upstate New York and later fainted at the podium. Secret Service agents broke her
fall, so she was unhurt. "Oddly, she did not seek medical attention," Noel claims, but, even
more oddly, an image of a CNNarticle
reporting that she did receive medical attention at scene from a doctor in the
audience flashes on screen at the exact moment he says it. The physician, Dr. Stephanie Pincus,
said Clinton had been suffering from a GI virus for at least a day, and needed fluids and a
rest. Nothing mysterious.
Physician Confirms
Hillary Clinton Has Parkinson's Disease snopes.com
June 17, 2009: Clinton fell and
broke her elbow on her way from the elevator to her car in the basement of the State
Department. Noel again uses the word "odd" to describe the incident, wondering why Secret
Service agents weren't able to break her fall, as they had done in the previous incident. "She
would have to fall at a distance from them with no warning," he opines. And, indeed, according
to news reports, she
slipped and fell — obviously without warning. Little else was made public.[i]
December 172012: On December 17, 2012, while Secretary of State, HRC fell and suffered
a concussion.[ii]Failing
reflexes are common in PD. Poor balance is also common in PD, and a fall without working protective
reflexes is a prescription for head injury. Later, a transverse sinus thrombosis was
diagnosed, resulting in chronic anticoagulation therapy.
[iii] Her post-concussion syndrome was declared “recovered” in about six months.[iv]
The original fall was publicly attributed to dehydration following gastroenteritis. After the
2012 fall, HRC had post-concussion syndrome (PCS). She should have declared herself unable to
fulfill her duties as Secretary of State. Her resignation from the position shortly thereafter
may have satisfied this need without public medical discussion.
January 23, 2013: Hillary is wearing special glasses with Fresnel prisms. "Reines
did not specify what type of lens the secretary was wearing, but medical experts say a fresnel
prism is common in cases like these. Fresnel prisms usually come in the form of a piece of
thin, transparent plastic that can be adhered to existing lenses. The special grooves in these
prisms change the way light enters the eye, making them useful in treating double vision.
"
Hillary Clinton's Glasses Are For Concussion, Not Fashion - ABC News
January 2013: An email from Huma Abedin (HRC’s closest advisor) on January 26, 2013,
says that HRC “is often confused.”[v]
Huma Abedin’s email comment can be referring to PCS as well, since it was during the six-month
period of rehab. One must, however, be cautious not to overlook persistent cognitive problems
that PCS can have. (Editorial note: The reader will note that this discussion is giving the benefit
of the doubt to as many HRC memes as can reasonably earn it.)
June 2014.
New York Post reports that "The 66-year-old former secretary of state has suffered more fainting
spells than publicly known, is prone to have blood clots, and may be at serious risk of a stroke,
according to the book, “Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,” by Edward Klein."
February 2016.
The photos of
HRC being helped up the steps is consistent with a fall similar to 2012, but with a security
detail close enough to catch her before she fell to the ground. This matches the loss of reflexes
and balance with PD. Photos show being assisted up what appears to be the steps of a residential
porch. This apparently happened in February of 2016. On August 4, 2016, Reuters and Getty published
the photos.[vi]
April 16, 2016:
A photo shows Mrs. Clinton at a crowd at Southwest College in Los Angeles on April 16 with
two aides at her side apparently trying to steady her.
May 2, 2016, At a rally on May 2, 2016, HRC demonstrates classic PD hand posturing.[vii]
She has no lectern in front, so she starts with her right hand pressed against her chest. At the
18:02 mark, she starts gesturing with her right hand, which is in a very unnatural position that
is common in PD.
July 21, 2016: On July 21, 2016 HRC was filmed talking to reporters at close range
when several spoke at once. Without warning, she started a bizarre head-bobbing episode
that must be seen rather than described. After several cycles, she regained control and declared
that the reporters “must try the iced chai.”[viii]
We should note the setting. She is answering questions, and then multiple reporters call out at
the same time. Such a shock is often too much stress for a PD patient, and the patient suffers
an “on/off” episode. Higher control turns off and an unpredictable dyskinesia takes over. Shortly
she switches back “on” and regains control. Her mind froze during the “off” state, but was aware,
so she is able to speak again, but inappropriately.
July 28, 2016:On July 28, 2016, during the balloon drop, HRC suddenly looks up
with a frozen wide-mouth and wide-eyed stare. After a couple of seconds she regains control
and a more normal expression.[ix]
Photos show HRC with an inappropriately exaggerated wide-mouthed smile and extreme wide-open eyes.
August 5, 2016: On August 5, HRC declared that she had “short circuited”[x]
a response to Chris Wallace in an interview that aired July 31 on Fox News Sunday.[xi]
August 6, 2016: On August 6, 2016, at a campaign rally, HRC freezes with wide eyes
in response to protestors. A large black male who commonly accompanies her leans in and
tells her “It’s OK. We’re not going anywhere. Keep talking…” Shortly after, she laughs strangely
and then says “OK. Here we are. We’ll keep talking.”[xii]
This “off” state is like the others, triggered by a startle/stress reaction. But what is more
telling is that the security detail gives her specific instructions in an attempt to get her to
turn “on” again. She then parrots those exact words as she restarts. This is another PD sign.
This discussion will not argue that the black male is carrying a diazepam injector, since
there is a plausible argument that it is actually a small flashlight, and is seen in other video
to be such.
August 9, 2016: Leak of documents supposedly originating from her physician Dr. Bardack
suggest that she suffers from
Dementia, Frequent Seizures. Dr. Bardack explains that both medical conditions were diagnosed
back in 2013 after conducting routine tests on Clinton. Interviewed on InfoWars, psychiatrist
and former deputy assistant secretary of stateDr.
Steve Piecenik, 72, affirms the medical records, while other specialists suspect Parkinson
disease. Close to Hillary site snope.com declared them false
Hillary Clinton Medical
Records 'Leaked' snopes.com
August 15, 2016. It is most curious that all of the bizarre physical signs seem to
be in 2016 videos. HRC was a public figure in 2015, with a lot of campaign work underway. Yet
all of the oddities seem to be within the last several months. No press conferences in 180 days
as of July 2, 2016. This suggests a significant progression of her PD. We also know that her contact
with the public has been rigidly controlled. These would be highly stressful to a PD sufferer
and would elicit many PD signs.
September 11, 2016. Complete loss of mobility during the
memorial service on the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks (The
Washington Post, Sep 11, 2016).
Numerous episodes of prolonged coughing at least from 2008, if not from 2005. Numerous events have
been interrupted by prolonged episodes of coughing unrelated to any infectious cause. Swallowing
disorders are very common in PD. They can lead to aspiration pneumonia, the most common cause
of death in PD. But before that they lead to chronic difficulty swallowing saliva. It gets onto
the vocal cords, leading to coughing in an attempt to clear them. The high frequency of these
episodes strongly suggests a major swallowing disorder.
Other issues: We will not discuss the circular area on her tongue. It appears to be the site of a mass
excision. Benign explanations that do not bear on chronic health issues may easily be proffered.
Hillary has strange and prolong coughing bouts (which sometimes happens to people who are allergic
to something and do not take anti-histamines) . See
Hillary mum on
coughing fits, special eyeglasses
NEW YORK – Hillary Clinton’s refusal to answer questions about her recent coughing fits or to explain
why she is wearing eyeglasses fitted with Fresnel prisms supports the conclusion of several qualified
physicians that her presidential campaign is still keeping key health records hidden from the American
public.
On Thursday and Friday, WND spoke with several physicians about Clinton’s double vision problem,
asking if they believed it could be related to the concussion she suffered in December 2012 that
resulted in a blood clot in her head.
WND also asked whether Clinton’s repeated coughing bouts could be related to her hypothyroid
condition for which she is taking Armour Thyroid, as
WND
previously reported, a natural remedy made from desiccated pig glands, or from her apparently
congenital predisposition to form blood clots. To prevent clots, as
WND reported,
she is taking Coumadin, otherwise known as warfarin, an old but commonly prescribed blood-thinning
medication originally developed as a rat poison.
WND also
reported the medication Clinton has taken since 1998 to deal with her blood-clotting problems
may have side effects such as blurred vision and confusion, both of which she has experienced.
And a California
physician warned Coumadin could be more life-threatening to her than the possibility of a
recurring blood clot.
Head trauma causing double vision?
“It is very hard to draw substantial conclusions from the limited medical information we have
on Hillary Clinton,” explained Dr. Todd Lasner,
a neurosurgeon at Mount Sinai Medical in Miami.
“We cannot opine with 100 percent certainty, because we do not have all the medical facts,”
he said. “Fresnel prisms are typically used to correct double vision, to refract light through
the prism so you can see a single image as you are normally used to seeing.
“My first suspicion would be the Fresnel prisms were prescribed for Hillary Clinton because
of nerve damage causing double vision resulting from a trauma to her head, possibly from the fall
causing the concussion,” Lasner concluded. “But without her medical records, I cannot say for
certain.”
Lasner did not believe Clinton’s need to wear eyeglasses fitted with Fresnel prisms was related
to the Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (CVST), the blood clot in the head between the skull and
the brain in the sinus behind the ear that she suffered as a result of the concussion.
“The type of blood clot she had in her brain can cause cerebral hemorrhaging, it can cause
swelling of the brain, and other times it can just cause headaches, or it may not even be symptomatic
in some cases,” he noted. “But for the CVST to cause double vision from a nerve injury that could
be cured with a prism lens is unlikely.
“It’s possible all these conditions could be interrelated somehow,” he acknowledged.
He said the trauma to the head could damage a vein in the brain that leads to the vein developing
a blood clot, with the same trauma to the head causing damage to a nerve resulting in the double
vision requiring the Fresnel prism lens.
“That is the more likely scenario, but without a complete medical record, or unless I examined
her myself, I cannot say for sure.”
Fresnel glasses require specialist diagnosis
Dr. Daniel Kassicieh, D.O., a dual board certified osteopathic neurologist and a leading headache
specialist who directs the Florida Headache and Movement Disorder Center in Sarasota, Florida,
agreed that the diagnosis of Clinton’s double vision and the prescription of a Fresnel prism lens
would require consultation with a medical specialist.
“I saw Hillary Clinton first wearing the eyeglasses with the Fresnel prisms when she testified
to Congress on Benghazi in January 2013, and she continued to wear them a while,” Kassicieh told
WND. “Then I saw her again this week in Las Vegas wearing those black eyeglasses with the Fresnel
prism lenses, and I wondered when her double vision came back, or if it never really went away.”
Kassicieh said he noticed Clinton’s coughing spells seem also to be a persistent and recurring
problem.
“I think Hillary’s cough is a separate medical problem from her double vision,” he said. “But
it makes me wonder if there isn’t something else going on with her health that we don’t know about.”
He said that if Clinton is taking medication for high blood pressure, she may be on ACE inhibitor,
a pharmaceutical drug used to help relax blood vessels that in some patients causes a dry, persistent
cough.
“But if high blood pressure medications were causing Hillary Clinton to have the persistent
cough, I can’t imagine why her physicians wouldn’t do something about it, like simply changing
her medications,” Kassicieh said.
“Or, the coughing could be related to a problem she has with gastroesophageal reflux disease
[stomach acid flowing back into esophagus],” he posed. “But without having access to Hillary Clinton’s
medical records, we really don’t know what the problem is causing her to have this persistent,
hacking cough.”
But Kassicieh said it was nearly certain that wearing eyeglasses fitted with Fresnel prisms
meant Clinton was under the care of a specialist eye doctor whose medical records have not been
made public.
As
WND reported Feb. 12, Kassicieh believes the concussion Clinton suffered in December 2012
that led to a serious blood clot requiring hospitalization may also have caused her to suffer
post-concussion syndrome, with symptoms including confusion, headaches and dizziness.
“If I were treating a patient for post-concussion syndrome who complained of diplopia [the
medical term for double vision] and had a history of concussion, I would send the patient to a
neuro-opthamologist, to get an M.D. specialist consult. That would be the best medical practice,”
he said.
“It takes a very complex examination and diagnosis to prescribe a Fresnel prism correctly,
and no one other than trained eye physicians are qualified,” he continued.
“So when you are talking about someone who is a candidate for the president of the United States,
I would assume, she would be referred to a high-end neuro-opthamologist to make the diagnosis
and write the prescription if a Fresnel prism were required.”
‘Public has a right to know’
Dr. Ronald Hoffman, a New York City physician who hosts the nationally syndicated radio program
“Intelligent Medicine,” told WND in a telephone interview that without the medical records, “we
really have no idea what the medical condition causing Hillary Clinton to be wearing eyeglasses
fitted with Fresnel prism lenses.”
Hoffman is past president of the nation’s largest organization of complementary and alternative
doctors, the American College for Advancement in Medicine, or ACAM. He’s the founder and medical
director of the Hoffman Center, specializing in a natural medicine approach that combines nutritional
and metabolic medical assessment tools with high-tech innovations in traditional medicine.
On Feb. 4,
WND
reported Hoffman’s concerns that Clinton’s underactive hypothyroid condition complicates the
medical treatment she is receiving for her genetic propensity to form blood clots.
This week, he told WND there is “no reason to suspect the medications Hillary Clinton is currently
taking for her hypothyroid condition (Armour Thyroid) or for her blood clotting condition (Coumadin)
are causing as a side-effect the persistent coughing we have seen interrupt her speeches recently.”
“I can’t imagine her diplopia is related to her hypothyroidism or her blood-clotting,” he continued.
“The persistent coughing has to have some explanation. Maybe there is an underlying condition
that is not being divulged. But with access to examine her full medical records, we simply do
not know.
He said it’s unusual for a person to have an uncontrolled coughing spell that lasts for minutes
at a time.
“That is something more than just an occasional clearing of the throat,” he said.
“But the real problem here with the Clintons is non-disclosure,” he concluded. “If she has
some medical issues, let’s hear about them.
“It would not be unexpected her physicians might want to gloss over some medical problems to
pronounce her in excellent health,” Hoffman said. “The truth is she might be in average health,
taking several medications. It’s to be expected there might be some medical problems that beset
people in their 60s.
“Why not just air out her full medical records? If she has some medical problems that are not
yet disclosed, let’s hear about them,” he said. “Especially for a person running for president,
the public has a right to know and there is no reason her full medical records should not be made
open for examination.”
Hillary Clinton hasn't held a press conference in 180 days. That fact hasn't been lost on
reporters who cover her, nor has it escaped the notice of her Republican opponent. "I am getting great
credit for my press conference today," Trump
tweeted,
referring to the
Trump Tower fiasco on Tuesday in which he scolded reporters for doing their jobs.
"Crooked Hillary should be admonished for not having a press conference in 179 days." Likewise, political
reporters
have hinted that they'd really, really like Clinton to hold a press conference of her own, if only
to counterbalance Trump's.
On Monday's New Day, CNN's David Gregory barely acknowledged the criticism of Hillary Clinton
for not holding press conferences before trying to offer excuses for the former first lady: "I
think she would much rather give the spotlight of negative publicity to Donald Trump, who's
doing an excellent job occupying that spotlight....I don't think she wants to face a series
of questions and follow-up questions on the I.G. report; on Clinton Foundation donations, and the,
kind of, unscripted nature of a press conference." [video below]
Moments
earlier, anchor Chris Cuomo asked The Daily Beast's Jackie Kucinich, "What are you seeing with Hillary
Clinton, in terms of how she is working with the media? Do you believe that something is seen as
needing to shift within that campaign? If so, do you believe you are seeing any shift or being told
about a potential shift?" Kucinich answered, in part, that "it's a great contrast; and when
you look at Donald Trump, who...will have a press conference. Whether or not what he says in them
are true, he's at least having them."
Another fact is that she is traveling with at least one personal full time physician who according
to reports in one episode administered valium to her when her was making her speech:
“An autoinjector (or auto-injector) is a medical device designed to deliver a dose of a particular
drug. Most autoinjectors are spring-loaded syringes. By design, autoinjectors are easy to use
and are intended for self-administration by patients, or administration by untrained personnel.”
Accompanying her physician might be Oladotun Okunola, M.D., of the Neuroscience Center of Northern
New Jersey. The picture in his profile shows a man who, although younger and thinner, has the same facial
features as "Burly Black Man." (H/t
The Last Refuge and FOTM‘s Anon )
Oladotun A. Okunola, M.D.
Dr. Okunola joins the prestigious Neurology group, Neuroscience Center of Northern New Jersey,
to provide a variety of specialized care. He specializes in
epilepsy, clinical neurophysiology, and sleep medicine.
Dr. Okunola completed medical school at Howard University College of Medicine. He stayed and completed
his internship and neurology residency at Howard University Hospital,
Washington, DC. He received fellowship training in epilepsy and clinical neurophysiology at Georgetown
University Hospital Washington, DC. He also completed a sleep medicine fellowshij
at Norwalk Hospital, Connecticut.
As part of his fellowship training in clinical neurophysiology/epilepsy, he focused on intraoperative
and epilepsy monitoring; EEG and EMG. As a sleep specialist, he diagnoses and treats sleep related
disorders such as daytime sleepiness (hypersomnolence), insomnia, narcolepsy, obstructive, central,
and complex sleep apnea, etc.
Dr. Okunola is board-certified in both adult neurology and clinical neurophysiology. He is a diplomate
of the American Board of Neurology.
The neoliberal MSM try to swipe those facts under the carpet, but sensationalism sometime stake over.
for example, the New York Post ran
a provocative headline: “Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage.”
The newspaper reported that George W. Bush’s former chief strategist suggested as much at a recent
conference near Los Angeles.
Rove, reached by The Washington Post, insisted that he had not gone quite that far, saying instead
that the former secretary of state should provide more information about a head injury she sustained
after a fall in December 2012.
“Of course she doesn’t have brain damage,” Rove said in the interview. But he maintained that
Clinton had suffered “a serious health episode” about which “she is going to have to be forthcoming.”
Of course, those words coming from the Republican Party’s most famous bare-knuckles operative
were read as something more than an expression of concern for her health.
“All he wants to do is inject the issue into the echo chamber, and he’s succeeding. It’s flagrant
and thinly veiled,” said Clinton’s press secretary, Nick Merrill. “They are scared of what she has
achieved and what she has to offer. What he’s doing is its own form of sickness. But she is 100 percent,
period. Time for them to move on to their next desperate attack.”
Rove also came under harsh criticism from some in his party, including former House speaker Newt
Gingrich.
“It’s a terrible thing for Karl to do,” said Gingrich, who is not known for being shy about attacking
an opponent. “It’s petty. It’s personal. It’s negative. It eats up time and space with things that
make no difference. . . . We are never going to beat her with this kind of stuff.”
The injury that Clinton suffered has been the subject of speculation by both her friends and her
enemies.
As a result, she had to reschedule her congressional testimony regarding the September 2012 attack
on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya. When she did appear, Clinton wore
special eyeglasses, with a lens known as a Fresnel prism, that help treat double vision.
“Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she’s wearing glasses that are only for
people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what’s up with that,” Rove was quoted as
saying at the conference.
In fact, Clinton spent only three days in the hospital. She was hospitalized Dec. 30, 2012, and
released Jan. 2, 2013.
But Rove was correct that the health of presidential candidates — and presidents themselves —
is no longer a subject they can avoid.
On June 23, 2014 Jow Tacopino published in
New York Post his review of the book “Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,” by Edward Klein.
Here is what he extracted from the book:
Hillary Clinton’s health issues are drastically worse than she has revealed publicly — and
the potential presidential candidate tried to keep her medical information private for fear that
it would damage her bid for the White House in 2016, according to a new book.
The 66-year-old former secretary of state has suffered more fainting spells than publicly known,
is prone to have blood clots, and may be at serious risk of a stroke, according to the book, “Blood
Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,” by Edward Klein.
The medical scare that forced Clinton to be rushed to New York-Presbyterian Hospital on Dec.
30, 2013, revealed how serious the situation is.“She has to be carefully monitored for the rest of
her life,” doctors warned former President Bill Clinton before Hillary was released from the hospital,
according to the book. The book claims Hillary was taken to New YorkPresbyterian after a fainting
spell and concussion that she suffered in her seventh-floor office at the State Department — not
at her home, as claimed.
Hillary was initially treated at a State Department facility and was transferred to her home to
recover. Bill Clinton, however, insisted Hillary be flown to New York City and be treated by specialists
there, Klein claims. During her visit to the Manhattan hospital, the presumed 2016 Democratic front-runner
was diagnosed with several problems, including the clots. Hillary had a right transverse venous thrombosis,
or a blood clot, between her brain and skull. “The unique thing about clotting in the brain is that
it could have transformed into a stroke,” a cardiac specialist with knowledge of Hillary’s condition
says in the book.
Increased health problems, especially the cognitive ones, might explain why she doesn’t do
press conferences for so long. She probably can’t "think fast enough" to answer bombarding by questions.
Such an atmosphere creates “confusion.” People with dementia do not like chaotic atmospheres, a lot
of loud talking, etc.
Hillary Clinton diagnosed with Subcortical Vascular Dementia by Dr. Lisa Bardack?, Medical
records on Twitter forged?, Hillary has diagnosed ailments and exhibits suspicious traits,
HillsMedRecords account deleted retrieved from WayBack Machine
“Binswanger’s disease (BD), also called subcortical vascular dementia, is a type of dementia
caused by widespread, microscopic areas of damage to the deep layers of white matter in the
brain.”
“symptoms include forgetfulness (but not as severe as the forgetfulness of Alzheimer’s disease),
changes in speech, an unsteady gait, clumsiness or frequent falls, changes in personality or mood
(most likely in the form of apathy, irritability, and depression), and urinary symptoms that
aren’t caused by urological disease.”…NIH
“The main stream media has been doing it’s best to hide the truth about Hillary Clinton’s
rapidly deteriorating health, but it’s getting to be a harder and harder trick to continue to
pull off. Just yesterday the Twitterverse lit up with photographs of her seemingly unable to make
it up a flight of steps as seen here”…nowtheendbegins.com
“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells
Hillary Clinton has ailments diagnosed by Dr. Lisa Bardack.
From a Healthcare Statement from Dr. Bardack dated July 28, 2015 we learn:
Hillary suffered a concussion in 2012.
Diagnosed with a transverse sinus venous thrombosis.
Anticoagulation therapy to disolve the clot.
Experienced double vision for a period of time.
Daily Coumadin treatment.
“Hillary’s Records @HillsMedRecords 1 d
Dr Bardack, you should have been honest about #HillaryClinton health. Luckily I saved a few
things when I left for a new job. #NeverHillary”
I will let the reader decide.
But something is affecting Hillary’s body.
From Dr. Drew on Breitbart January 8, 2016.
“‘Sudden Death’: Dr. Drew Warns of Coming Pulmonary Embolism with Hillary Clinton’s ‘Shoddy’
Health”
““Why is somebody who’s running for the President of the United States getting such shoddy
care?” Drew stressed on KABC’s Midday Live. “My problem is the quality of the overall care she is
getting,” he added.
Dr. Drew was reacting to a recent report by Breitbart News that revealed security officials
and medical professionals speculate Clinton could be suffering from long-term health issues
stemming from a concussion and blood clot, a claim that the Clinton campaign denied – referencing
Clinton’s health statement produced by her physician and published on her campaign website.”
“Dr. Drew noted several of his concerns:
Why is Clinton on Armor Thyroid “and not something that would be a higher standard of care?”
“Why is she clotting repeatedly? Something is wrong with her coagulation system.”
“Did she have an echocardiogram” and has she had a “sleep study?”
Dr. Drew, after reviewing Clinton’s doctor’s health statement, said she had “peculiar medical
histories.”
“Forget the politics…all aside, my physician senses are tingling and I’m worried about the
human being who also happens to be a presidential candidate,” he said.”
“ARE HILLARY CLINTON’S SEIZURES AND STUMBLING BEING CAUSED BY SUBCORTICAL VASCULAR DEMENTIA?
Then there was this freakish episode from her rally on August 4th where she was momentarily
disoriented and needed to be steadied by someone who was either a Secret Service agent or one of
her doctors. Take a good, close look at the expression on her face as she loses sense of where
she is mentally, and does not regain her composure until the man who appeared at her side
steadied her.”
The 2009 fall where HRC broke her elbow suggests that she had working protective reflexes, and
her arm took the brunt of the fall. But three years later, she had a catastrophic fall where her
reflexes were unable to help her. It is notable that this fall took place at home, where she
would have been unstressed and in a familiar setting. Failing reflexes are common in PD. Poor
balance is also common in PD, and a fall without working protective reflexes is a prescription
for head injury. Her subsequent concerns with transverse sinus thrombosis are plausibly related
to the fall. Her need for fresnel lens glasses also fits with post-concussion syndrome.
Huma Abedin’s email comment can be referring to PCS as well, since it was during the six-month
period of rehab. One must, however, be cautious not to overlook persistent cognitive problems
that PCS can have. (Editorial note: The reader will note that this discussion is giving the
benefit of the doubt to as many HRC memes as can reasonably earn it.)
2016 starts a spate of new data. The photos of HRC being helped up the steps is consistent
with a fall similar to 2012, but with a security detail close enough to catch her before she fell
to the ground. This matches the loss of reflexes and balance with PD.
On July 21 a video of HRC is posted that has many observers
calling a “seizure.”
We should note the setting. She is answering questions, and then multiple reporters call out
at the same time. Such a shock is often too much stress for a PD patient, and the patient suffers
an “on/off” episode. Higher control turns off and an unpredictable dyskinesia takes over. Shortly
she switches back “on” and regains control. Her mind froze during the “off” state, but was aware,
so she is able to speak again, but inappropriately.
It should be noted that such dyskinesias are sufficiently common with long term treatment that
they have a name: Parkinson’s Disease LevoDopa Induced Dyskinesia (PD LID).
A week later, during the balloon drop at the Convention, HRC suddenly “freezes.” This is an
“off” moment manifested by bradykinesia, another PD problem. The particular form is a brief
oculogyric crisis, complete with head arched back, fixed gaze, and wide open mouth. Again, this
is common in PD. We should compare it to HRC’s facial expressions on “Live with Kelly and
Michael” on November 19, 2015.[xiii]
At 6:30 in that video, we also see a PD tremor and posture in her left hand when it comes to rest
momentarily. In most videos her hands are in constant motion or clasped against some object.
These are strategies to suppress a tremor.
HRC’s description of her false answers to Chris Wallace as a
“short circuit” is extremely unusual.
It comes from the field of electronics, in which HRC has never been involved. The Urban
Dictionary definition is electrical, and there is no popular or slang usage. But one
semi-technical description of PD calls it “short-circuiting” brain circuits.[xiv]
Did she hear this during a doctor’s explanation of her disease? It would not be unusual to parrot
such a phrase if she has PD.
Days later, HRC “freezes” again at a campaign rally. This “off” state is like the others,
triggered by a startle/stress reaction. But what is more telling is that the security detail
gives her specific instructions in an attempt to get her to turn “on” again. She then parrots
those exact words as she restarts. This is another PD sign.
The numerous episodes of prolonged coughing are another tell. Swallowing disorders are very
common in PD. They can lead to aspiration pneumonia, the most common cause of death in PD. But
before that they lead to chronic difficulty swallowing saliva. It gets onto the vocal cords,
leading to coughing in an attempt to clear them. The high frequency of these episodes strongly
suggests a major swallowing disorder.
Multiple episodes of inappropriate and extended laughter have also been documented. This,
again, is common in PD.
We do not have video evidence of the “pill rolling” tremor that is common in PD. But that is
not a major concern for our thesis. Treatment with levodopa can reduce it. Also, PD sufferers
develop a variety of techniques to hide it. Since it is a tremor at rest, keeping the hands in
motion suppresses it. Grasping objects such as a lectern can also hide it. As long as the hands
are busy, it is usually not visible.
Summary: HRC probably has PD.
She has had clinical symptoms for a minimum of 4 years, and probably much longer, given that
the fall leading to her head injury required a significant progression of the disease. All of her
bizarre physical actions since that time fit nicely into the spectrum of signs that we expect in
PD. And since PD explains all of them, we have a high probability of a correct diagnosis. It has
almost certainly been treated with levodopa. Some of her symptoms may be related to this drug
treatment.
It is most curious that all of the bizarre physical signs seem to be in 2016 videos. HRC was a
public figure in 2015, with a lot of campaign work underway. Yet all of the oddities seem to be
within the last several months. This suggests a significant progression of her PD. We also know
that her contact with the public has been rigidly controlled. She has not done news conferences
during the campaign. These would be highly stressful to a PD sufferer and would elicit many PD
signs.
PD is a chronic disease with a downhill prognosis. HRC’s instability and frequent cough
suggest that her PD is advanced. This is not a good outlook for someone running for the
Presidency. The office of the President is one of the highest stress jobs in the world. Stress
sets off PD episodes, which render the sufferer incapable of proper response.
At this point, a bit of speculation seems appropriate. HRC talks about her yoga sessions. But
no one we know of has ever documented one. It is possible that this is cover for sessions
designed to teach her coping mechanisms for PD or for rest breaks. Exhaustion makes PD worse.
HRC’s coughing suggests that her swallowing disorder is advanced, placing her closer to an
aspiration pneumonia that would disable or kill her. That’s bad enough, but PD has one more, even
more dangerous step in its progression.
As PD continues, cognitive problems can develop. In time, they become full-blown dementia. The
United States cannot survive if its President is mentally impaired.
Conclusion:
It is not appropriate for a physician to make a diagnosis at a distance. But since the
evidence in the public record so strongly suggests that HRC has moderate to advanced PD, it is
imperative that HRC release her complete medical record to an impartial panel of
physicians for review. It is not necessary for the public at large to see them. Such a panel
should be secure in its deliberations and should present a summary to the public. If she has PD,
the panel would know and it would be made public. If not, then the air would clear.
Note on authorship:
The author of this document is a board-certified Anesthesiologist with 36 years of experience.
That brings with it the ability to understand medical discussions, but not the expertise to
evaluate PD signs and symptoms.
The first subject matter expert is a close friend of the author. This person is a brilliant
businessman who was forced to sell his interest in eight successful businesses because early
onset PD made him unable to continue in the daily duties of business. He is well versed in PD and
sees its ravages in himself.
The second subject matter expert is the author’s brother. He is an RN who spent two years
working 12-hour shifts caring for PD patients in a nursing home. This saturation experience
allows him to pick up PD signs automatically. He notes that he called HRC’s PD and levodopa
therapy when he watched the famous “What difference does it make?” exchange. Her mannerisms and
behavior were classic and stereotypical.
Of interest is that during a teleconference, the author called the others to look at HRC’s
left hand during the “Live With Kelly and Michael” video. The clip was played, and neither of the
others even saw her hand. They were both riveted to her eyes, and both exclaimed that
her eyes were “classic PD.” The clip had to be played a second and third time before they could
even take their gaze away from her eyes. They did finally see her hand and agree that it was also
demonstrating PD.
This is probably the most comprehensive outline of the color revolution against Trump. Bravo, simply bravo !!!
Reads like Agatha Christi Murder on the Orient
Express ;-) Rosenstein role is completely revised from a popular narrative. Brennan role clarifies and detailed. Obama
personal role hinted. Victoria Nuland role and the role of the State Department in Russiagate is documented for the first
time, I think.
Notable quotes:
"... The "insurance policy" appears to have been the effort to legitimize the Trump–Russia collusion narrative so that an FBI investigation, led by McCabe, could continue unhindered. ..."
"... Ohr, one of the highest-ranking officials in the DOJ, was communicating on an ongoing basis with Steele, whom he had known since at least 2006 , well into mid-2017. He is also married to Nellie Ohr, an expert on Russia and Eurasia who began working for Fusion GPS sometime in late 2015 . Nellie Ohr likely played a significant role in the construction of the dossier. ..."
"... The Obama administration provided a simultaneous layer of protection and facilitation for the entire effort. One example is provided by Section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333 , also known as Obama's data-sharing order . With the passage of the order, agencies and individuals were able to ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that was useful to a particular mission. ..."
"... Leaking, including felony leaking of classified information, has been widespread. The Carter Page FISA warrant -- likely the unredacted version -- has been in the possession of The Washington Post and The New York Times since March 2017. Traditionally, the intelligence community leaked to The Washington Post while the DOJ leaked to sources within The New York Times. This was a historical pattern that stood until this election. The leaking became so widespread, even this tradition was broken. ..."
"... The information contained within both articles likely came via felony leaks from James Wolfe, former director of security for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who was arrested on June 7, 2018, and charged with one count of lying to the FBI. Wolfe's indictment alleges that he was leaking classified information to multiple reporters over an extended period of time. ..."
"... The Steele dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several different sources. One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the former British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood later relayed information regarding the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who dispatched David Kramer, a fellow at the McCain Institute, to London to meet with Steele in November 2016. McCain would later admit in a Jan. 11, 2017, statement that he had personally passed on the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey. ..."
"... Trump, after issuing an order for the declassification of documents and text messages related to the Russia-collusion investigations -- including parts of the Carter Page FISA warrant application -- received phone calls from two U.S. allies saying, "Please, can we talk." Those "allies" were almost certainly the UK and Australia. ..."
"... Questions to be asked are why is it that two of our allies would find themselves so opposed to the release of these classified documents that a coordinated plea would be made directly to the president? And why would these same allies have even the slightest idea of what was contained in these classified U.S. documents? ..."
Spygate: The True Story of Collusion [Infographic] How America's most powerful agencies were weaponized against President
Donald Trump
Although the details remain complex, the structure underlying Spygate -- the creation of the false narrative that candidate Donald
Trump colluded with Russia, and the spying on his presidential campaign -- remains surprisingly simple:
CIA Director John Brennan, with some assistance from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, gathered foreign intelligence
and fed it throughout our domestic Intelligence Community.
The FBI became the handler of Brennan's intelligence and engaged in the more practical elements of surveillance.
The Department of Justice facilitated investigations by the FBI and legal maneuverings, while providing a crucial shield of
nondisclosure.
The Department of State became a mechanism of information dissemination and leaks.
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee provided funding, support, and media collusion.
Obama administration officials were complicit, and engaged in unmasking and intelligence gathering and dissemination.
The media was the most corrosive element in many respects. None of these events could have transpired without their willing
participation. Stories were pushed, facts were ignored, and narratives were promoted.
Let's start with a simple premise: The candidacy of Trump presented both an opportunity and a threat.
Initially not viewed with any real seriousness, Trump's campaign was seen as an opportunistic wedge in the election process. At
the same time, and particularly as the viability of his candidacy increased, Trump was seen as an existential threat to the established
political system.
The sudden legitimacy of Trump's candidacy was not welcomed by the U.S. political establishment. Here was a true political outsider
who held no traditional allegiances. He was brash and boastful, he ignored political correctness, he couldn't be bought, and he didn't
care what others thought of him -- he trusted himself.
Governing bodies in Britain and the European Union were also worried. Candidate Trump was openly challenging monetary policy,
regulations, and the power of special interests. He challenged Congress. He challenged the United Nations and the European Union.
He questioned everything.
Brennan played a crucial role in the creation of the Russia-collusion narrative and the spying on the Trump campaign. (Don Emmert/AFP/Getty
Images)
Brennan became the point man in the operation to stop a potential Trump presidency. It remains unclear whether his role was self-appointed
or came from above. To embark on such a mission without direct presidential authority seems both a stretch of the imagination and
particularly foolhardy.
Brennan took unofficial foreign intelligence compiled by contacts, colleagues, and associates --
primarily from the UK , but also from other Five Eyes members, such as Australia.
Individuals in official positions in UK intelligence, such as Robert Hannigan -- head of the UK Government Communications Headquarters
(GCHQ, Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency) -- partnered with former UK foreign intelligence members. Former MI6
head Sir Richard Dearlove
, former Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, and private UK intelligence firm
Hakluyt all played a role.
In the summer of 2016, Hannigan traveled to Washington to
meet with Brennan
regarding alleged communications between the Trump campaign and Moscow. On Jan. 23, 2017 -- three days after Trump's inauguration
-- Hannigan abruptly announced
his retirement. The Guardian openly
speculated that Hannigan's
resignation was directly related to the sharing of UK intelligence.
One method used to help establish evidence of collusion was the employment of "spy traps." Prominent among these were ones set
for Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. The intent was to provide or establish connections between the Trump
campaign and Russia. The content and context mattered little as long as a connection could be established that could then be publicized.
The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was another such attempt.
Western intelligence assets were used to initiate and establish these connections, particularly in the cases of Papadopoulos and
Page.
Ultimately, Brennan formed an inter-agency task
force comprising an estimated six agencies and/or government departments. The FBI, Treasury, and DOJ handled the domestic inquiry
into Trump and possible Russia connections. The CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency
(NSA) handled foreign and intelligence aspects.
Brennan's inter-agency task force is not to be confused with the July 2016 FBI counterintelligence investigation, which was formed
later at Brennan's urging.
During this time, Brennan also employed the use of
reverse targeting , which relates to the targeting of a foreign individual with the intent of capturing data on a U.S. citizen.
This effort was uncovered and
made public by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) in a March 2017
press conference :
"I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show the president-elect and his team were monitored and disseminated out in
intelligence-reporting channels. Details about persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little apparent
foreign-intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.
"From what I know right now, it looks like incidental collection. We don't know exactly how that was picked up but we're trying
to get to the bottom of it."
As this foreign intelligence -- unofficial in nature and outside of any traditional channels -- was gathered, Brennan began a
process of feeding his gathered intelligence to the FBI. Repeated transfers of foreign intelligence from the CIA director pushed
the FBI toward the establishment of a formal counterintelligence investigation. Brennan repeatedly noted this during
a May 23, 2017, congressional testimony :
"I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump
campaign, was shared with the [FBI]."
Brennan also admitted that his intelligence helped establish
the FBI investigation:
"I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in
my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and
it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred."
Once the FBI began its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016, Brennan shifted his focus. Through a series of meetings
in August and September 2016, Brennan informed the congressional Gang of Eight regarding intelligence and information he had gathered.
Notably, each Gang of Eight member was briefed separately, calling into question whether each of the members received the same information.
Efforts to
block the release of the transcripts from each meeting remain ongoing.
This final report was used to continue pushing the Russia-collusion narrative following the election of President Donald Trump.
Notably, Admiral Mike Rogers of the NSA publicly dissented from the findings of the ICA, assigning only a moderate confidence level.
Although the FBI is technically part of the DOJ, it is best for the purposes of this article that the FBI and DOJ be viewed as
separate entities, each with its own related ties.
The FBI itself was comprised of various factions, with a particularly active element that has come to be known as the "insurance
policy group." It appears that this faction was led by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and comprised other notable names such as
FBI agent Peter Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, and FBI general counsel James Baker.
The FBI established the counterintelligence investigation into alleged Russia collusion with the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016.
Comey initially refused to say whether the FBI was investigating possible connections between members of the Trump campaign and Russia.
He would continue to refuse to provide answers until March 20, 2017, when he disclosed the existence of the FBI investigation
during congressional testimony.
Comey also testified that he did not provide notification to the Gang of Eight until early March 2017 -- less than one month earlier.
This admission was in stark contrast to actions taken by Brennan, who had notified members of the Gang of Eight individually during
August and September 2016. It's likely that Brennan never informed Comey that he had briefed the Gang of Eight in 2016. Comey did
note that the DOJ "had been aware" of the investigation all along.
Comey opened the counterintelligence investigation into Trump on the urging of CIA Director John Brennan.
Following Comey's firing on May 9, 2017, the FBI's investigation was transferred to special counsel Robert Mueller. The
Mueller investigation remains ongoing.
The FBI's formal involvement with the
Steele dossier began on July 5, 2016,
when Mike Gaeta, an FBI agent and assistant legal attaché at the US Embassy in Rome, was dispatched to visit former MI6 spy Christopher
Steele in London. Gaeta would return from this meeting with a copy of Steele's first memo. This memo was given to Victoria Nuland
at the State Department, who passed it along to the FBI.
Gaeta, who also headed the FBI's Eurasian Organized Crime unit, had known Steele since at least 2010, when Steele had provided
assistance to the FBI's investigation into the
FIFA corruption
scandal .
Prior to the London meeting, Gaeta may also have met on a less formal basis with Steele
several weeks earlier.
"In June, Steele flew to Rome to brief the FBI contact with whom he had cooperated over FIFA," The Guardian reported. "His information
started to reach the bureau in Washington."
It's worth noting that there was no "dossier" until it was fully compiled in December 2016. There was only a sequence of documents
from Steele -- documents that were passed on individually -- as they were created. Therefore, from the FBI's legal perspective, they
didn't use the dossier. They used individual documents.
For the next month and a half, there appeared to be little contact between Steele and the FBI. However, the FBI's interest in
the dossier suddenly accelerated in late August 2016, when the bureau
asked Steele "for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify
his sources."
In September 2016, Steele traveled back to Rome to meet with the FBI's Eurasian squad once again. It's likely that the meeting
included several other FBI officials as well. According to a
House Intelligence Committee
minority memo , Steele's reporting reached the FBI counterintelligence team in mid-September 2016 -- the same time as Steele's
September trip to Rome.
The reason for the FBI's renewed interest had to do with an adviser to the Trump campaign -- Carter Page -- who had been in
contact with Stefan Halper, a CIA
and FBI source, since July 2016. Halper
arranged to meet with Page for the first time on July 11, 2016, at a
Cambridge symposium , just three days after Page took a trip
to Moscow. Speakers at the symposium included Madeleine Albright, Vin Webber, and Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6.
Page was now the FBI's chosen target for a FISA warrant that would be obtained on Oct. 21, 2016. The Steele dossier would be the
primary evidence used in obtaining the FISA warrant, which would be renewed three separate times, including after Trump took office,
finally expiring in September 2017.
Former volunteer Trump campaign adviser Carter Page on Nov. 2, 2017. The FBI obtained a retroactive FISA spy warrant
on Page.
After being in contact with Page for 14 months, Halper stopped contact exactly as the final FISA warrant on Page expired. Page,
who has steadfastly maintained his innocence, was never charged with any crime by the FBI. Efforts for the declassification of the
Page FISA application are currently ongoing through the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General.
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were two prominent members of the FBI's "insurance policy" group. Strzok, a senior FBI agent, was the
deputy assistant director of FBI's Counterintelligence Division. Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer, served as special counsel to FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe.
Strzok was in charge of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for government business. He helped
FBI Director James Comey draft the statement exonerating Clinton and was personally responsible for changing specific wording within
that statement that reduced Clinton's legal liability. Specifically, Strzok changed the words "grossly negligent," which could be
a criminal offense, to "extremely careless."
Strzok also personally led the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into the alleged Trump–Russia collusion and signed the
documents that opened the investigation on July 31, 2016. He was one of the FBI agents who interviewed Trump's national security
adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn. Strzok met multiple times with DOJ official Bruce Ohr and received information from Steele at those
meetings.
Following the firing of FBI Director James Comey, Strzok would join the team of special counsel Robert Mueller. Two months later,
he was removed from that team after the DOJ inspector general discovered a lengthy series of texts between Strzok and Page that contained
politically charged messages. Strzok would be fired from the FBI in August 2018.
Both Strzok and Page engaged in strategic
leaking to the press. Page did so at the direction of McCabe, who directly
authorized Page to share information with Wall Street
Journal reporter Devlin Barrett. That information was used in an Oct. 30, 2016, article headlined
"FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe ." Page leaked to Barrett thinking she had been granted legal and official authorization
to do so.
McCabe would later initially deny providing such
authorization to the Office of Inspector General. Page, when confronted with McCabe's denials, produced texts refuting his statement.
It was these texts that led to the inspector general uncovering the texts between Strzok and Page.
The two exchanged thousands of texts, some of them indicating surveillance activities, over a two-year period. Texts sent between
Aug. 21, 2015, and June 25, 2017, have been made
public . The series comes
to an end with a final text by Page telling Strzok, "Don't ever text me again."
On Aug. 8, 2016, Stzrok wrote that they would prevent candidate Trump from becoming president:
Page: "[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"
Strzok: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
On Aug. 15, 2016, Strzok sent a text referring to an "insurance policy":
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way [Trump] gets elected --
but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."
The "insurance policy" appears to have been the effort to legitimize the Trump–Russia collusion narrative so that an FBI investigation,
led by McCabe, could continue unhindered.
Department of Justice
The Department of Justice, which comprises 60 agencies , was transformed
during the Obama years. The department is forbidden by federal law from hiring employees based on political affiliation.
However, a
series
of investigative articles by PJ Media published during Eric Holder's tenure as attorney general revealed an unsettling pattern
of ideological conformity among new hires at the DOJ: Only lawyers from the progressive left were hired. Not one single moderate
or conservative lawyer made the cut. This is significant as the DOJ enjoys significant latitude in determining who will be subject
to prosecution.
The DOJ's job in Spygate was to facilitate the legal side of surveillance while providing a protective layer of cover for all
those involved. The department became a repository of information and provided a protective wall between the investigative efforts
of the FBI and the legislative branch. Importantly, it also served as the firewall within the executive branch, serving as the insulating
barrier between the FBI and Obama officials. The department had become legendary for its stonewalling tactics with Congress.
DOJ Official Bruce Ohr on Aug. 28, 2018. Ohr passed on information from Christopher Steele to the FBI.
The DOJ, which was fully aware of the actions being taken by James Comey and the FBI, also became an active element acting against
members of the Trump campaign. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, along with Mary McCord, the head of the DOJ's National Security
Division, was actively
involved in efforts to remove Gen. Michael Flynn from his position as national security adviser to President Trump.
To this day, it remains unknown which individual was responsible for making public Flynn's call with the Russian ambassador. Flynn
ultimately pleaded guilty to a process crime: lying to the FBI. There have been
questions raised in Congress regarding the possible alteration of FD-302s, the written notes of Flynn's FBI interviews. Special
counsel Robert Mueller has repeatedly deferred Flynn's sentencing hearing.
David Laufman, deputy assistant attorney general in charge of counterintelligence at the DOJ's National Security Division, played
a key role in both the Clinton email server and Russia hacking investigations. Laufman is currently the attorney for Monica McLean,
the long-time friend of Christine Blasey Ford, who recently accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her while in high
school. McLean was also
employed
by the FBI for 24 years.
Bruce Ohr was a significant DOJ official who played a
key role in Spygate. Ohr held
two important positions at the DOJ: associate deputy attorney general, and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
Force. As associate deputy attorney general, Ohr was just four offices away from then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and he
reported directly to her. As director of the task force, he was in charge of a program described as "the centerpiece of the attorney
general's drug strategy."
Ohr, one of the highest-ranking officials in the DOJ, was communicating on an ongoing basis with Steele, whom he had known
since at
least 2006 , well into mid-2017. He is also married to Nellie Ohr,
an expert on Russia and Eurasia who began working
for Fusion GPS sometime in
late 2015 . Nellie Ohr likely played a significant role in the construction of the dossier.
According to testimony from FBI agent Peter Strzok, he and Ohr met at least five times during 2016 and 2017. Strzok was working
directly with then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
Additionally, Ohr met with the FBI at least
12 times between late November 2016 and May 2017 for a series of interviews. These meetings could have been used to
transmit information from Steele to the FBI. This came after the FBI had formally severed contact with Steele in late October
or early November 2016.
John Carlin is another notable figure with the DOJ. Carlin was an assistant attorney general and the head of the DOJ's National
Security Division until October 2016. His role will be discussed below in the section on FISA abuse.
The Battle Between Rosenstein and McCabe
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe held a pivotal role in what has become known as "Spygate." He directed the activities of Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page and was involved in all aspects of the Russia investigation. He was also mentioned in the infamous "insurance
policy" text message.
McCabe was a major component of the insurance policy.
On April 26, 2017, Rosenstein found himself appointed as the new deputy attorney general. He was placed into a somewhat chaotic
situation, as Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself from the ongoing Russia investigation a little less than two months
earlier, on March 2, 2017. This effectively meant that no one in the Trump administration had any oversight of the ongoing investigation
being conducted by the FBI and the DOJ.
Additionally, the leadership of then-FBI Director James Comey was coming under increased scrutiny as the result of actions taken
leading up to and following the election, particularly Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation.
On May 9, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memorandum recommending that Comey be fired. The subject of the memo was "Restoring Public
Confidence in the FBI." Comey was fired that day. McCabe was now the acting director of the FBI and was immediately under consideration
for the permanent position.
On the same day Comey was fired, McCabe would lie during an interview with agents from the FBI's Inspection Division (INSD) regarding
apparent leaks that were used in an Oct. 30, 2016, Wall Street Journal article, "FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe"
by Devlin Barrett. This would later be disclosed in the inspector general report, "A Report of Investigation of Certain Allegations
Relating to Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe."
At the time, nobody, including the INSD agents, knew that McCabe had lied, nor were the darker aspects of McCabe's role in Spygate
fully known.
In late April or early May 2016, McCabe opened a federal criminal investigation on Sessions, regarding potential lack of candor
before Congress in relation to Sessions's contacts with Russians. Sessions was unaware of the investigation.
Sessions would later be cleared of any wrongdoing by special counsel Robert Mueller.
On the morning of May 16, 2017, Rosenstein reportedly suggested to McCabe that he secretly record President Trump. This remark
was reported in a New York Times article that was sourced from memos from the now-fired McCabe, along with testimony taken from former
FBI general counsel James Baker, who relayed a conversation he had with McCabe about the occurrence. Rosenstein issued a statement
denying the accusations.
The alleged comments by Rosenstein occurred at a meeting where McCabe was "pushing for the Justice Department to open an investigation
into the president." An unnamed participant at the meeting, in comments to The Washington Post, framed the conversation somewhat
differently, noting Rosenstein responded sarcastically to McCabe, saying, "What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?"
Later, on the same day that Rosenstein had his meetings with McCabe, President Trump met with Mueller, reportedly as an interview
for the FBI director job. On May 17, 2017, the day after President Trump's meeting with Mueller -- and the day after Rosenstein's
encounters with McCabe -- Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel.
The May 17 appointment of Mueller in effect shifted control of the Russia investigation from the FBI and McCabe to Mueller. Rosenstein
would retain ultimate authority for the probe and any expansion of Mueller's investigation required authorization from Rosenstein.
Interestingly, without Comey's memo leaks, a special counsel might not have been appointed -- the FBI, and possibly McCabe, would
have remained in charge of the Russia investigation. McCabe was probably not going to become the permanent FBI director, but he was
reportedly under consideration. Regardless, without Comey's leak, McCabe would have retained direct involvement and the FBI would
have retained control.
On July 28, 2017, McCabe lied to Inspector General Michael Horowitz while under oath regarding authorization of the leaking to
The Wall Street Journal. At this point, Horowitz knew McCabe was lying, but did not yet know of the May 9 INSD interview with McCabe.
On Aug. 2, 2017, Rosenstein secretly issued Mueller a revised memo on "the scope of investigation and definition of authority"
that remains heavily redacted. The full purpose of this memo remains unknown. On this same day, Christopher Wray was named as the
new FBI director.
Two days later, on Aug. 4, 2017, Sessions announced that the FBI had created a new leaks investigation unit. Rosenstein and Wray
were tasked with overseeing all leak investigations.
That Aug. 2 memo from Rosenstein to Mueller may have been specifically designed to remove any residual FBI influence -- specifically
that of McCabe -- from the Russia investigation. The appointment of Wray as FBI director helped cement this. McCabe was finally completely
neutralized.
On March 16, 2018, McCabe was fired for lying under oath at least three different times and is currently the subject of a grand
jury investigation.
State Department
The State Department, with its many contacts within foreign governments, became a conduit for the flow of information. The transfer
of Christopher Steele's first dossier memo was personally
facilitated by Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. Nuland gave approval for
FBI agent Michael Gaeta to travel to London to obtain the memo from Steele. The memo may have passed directly from her to FBI leadership.
Secretary of State John Kerry was also given a copy.
Steele was already well-known within the State Department. Following Steele's involvement in the FIFA scandal investigation, he
began to provide reports
informally to the State Department. The reports were written for a "private client" but were "shared widely within the U.S. State
Department, and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who was in charge of
the U.S.
response to Putin's annexation of Crimea and covert invasion of eastern Ukraine," the Guardian reported.
Nuland passed on parts of the Steele dossier to the FBI. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
In July 2016, when the FBI wanted to send Gaeta to visit Steele in London, the bureau
sought permission from the office of Nuland, who provided this version of events during a Feb. 4, 2018,
appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation":
"In the middle of July, when [Steele] was doing this other work and became concerned, he passed two to four pages of short
points of what he was finding and our immediate reaction to that was, this is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI
if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation. That's
something for the FBI to investigate."
Steele also
met with Jonathan Winer, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement and former special envoy
for Libya. Steele and Winer had known each other since at least 2010. In an opinion article in The Washington Post, Winer wrote the
following:
"In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as the 'dossier.' Steele's sources
suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign
but also had compromised Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign."
In a strange turn of events, Winer also received a
separate dossier , very similar to Steele's, from long-time Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal. This "second dossier" had been
compiled by another longtime Clinton operative, former journalist Cody Shearer, and echoed claims made in the Steele dossier. Winer
then met with Steele in late September 2016 and gave Steele a copy of the "second dossier." Steele went on to
share this second dossier with the FBI, which may have used it to corroborate his dossier.
Winer passed on memos from Christopher Steele to Victoria Nuland. (State Department)
Other foreign officials also used conduits into the State Department. Alexander Downer, Australia's high commissioner to the UK,
reportedly funneled his conversation
with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos -- later used as a reason to open the FBI's counterintelligence investigation --
directly to the U.S. Embassy in London.
"The Downer details landed with the embassy's then-chargé d'affaires, Elizabeth Dibble, who previously served as a principal deputy
assistant secretary in Mrs. Clinton's State Department," The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel wrote in a May 31, 2018,
article .
If true, this would mean that neither Australian intelligence nor the Australian government alerted the FBI to the Papadopoulos
information. What happened with the Downer details, and to whom they were ultimately relayed, remains unknown.
Curiously, details surprisingly similar to the Papadopoulos–Downer conversation show up in the
first memo written
by Steele on June 20, 2016:
"A dossier of compromising information on Hillary Clinton has been collated by the Russian Intelligence Services over many
years and mainly comprises bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls. It has not yet
been distributed abroad, including to Trump."
Clinton Campaign and the DNC
The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee both occupied a unique position. They had the most to gain but they
also had the most to lose. And they stood willing and ready to do whatever was necessary to win. Hillary Clinton's campaign manager,
Robby Mook, is credited with being the first to raise the specter of candidate Donald Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.
The entire Clinton campaign willfully promoted the narrative of Russia–Trump collusion despite the uncomfortable fact that they
were the ones who had engaged the services of Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele through their law firm Perkins Coie. Information
flowed from the campaign -- sometimes through Perkins Coie, other times through affiliates -- ultimately making its way into the
media and sometimes to the FBI. Information from the Clinton campaign may also have ended up in the Steele dossier.
Jennifer Palmieri, the communications director for the Clinton campaign, in tandem with Jake Sullivan, the senior policy adviser
to the campaign,
took the lead in briefing the press on the Trump–Russia collusion story.
Another example of this behavior can be seen from an instance when Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann
leaked information from Steele and Fusion GPS to Franklin Foer of Slate magazine. This event is described in the House Intelligence
Committee's final report on
Russian active measures
, in footnote 43 on page 57. Foer then published the article
"Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia? " on Oct. 31, 2016. The article concerns allegations regarding a server in the
Trump Tower.
The Slate article managed to attract the immediate attention of Clinton, who posted a
tweet on the same day the article was
published:
"Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank."
Attached to her tweet was a
statement from Sullivan:
"This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow. Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert
server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.
"This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump's ties to Russia. It certainly seems the Trump Organization
felt it had something to hide, given that it apparently took steps to conceal the link when it was discovered by journalists."
These statements, which were later proven to be incorrect, are all the more disturbing with the hindsight knowledge that it was
a senior Clinton/DNC lawyer who helped plant the story. And given the prepared statement by Sullivan, the Clinton campaign knew this.
This type of behavior would be engaged in repeatedly -- damning leaks leading to media stories, followed by ready attacks from
the Clinton campaign.
Alexandra Chalupa is a Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee. Chalupa
met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.
Chalupa began investigating
Manafort in 2014. In late 2015, Chalupa expanded her opposition research on Manafort to include Trump's ties to Russia. In January
2016, Chalupa shared her information with a senior DNC official.
Chalupa's meetings with DNC and Ukrainian officials would continue. On April 26, 2016, investigative reporter Michael Isikoff
published a story
on Yahoo News about Manafort's business dealings with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. It was later learned from a DNC email leaked
by Wikileaks that Chalupa had been working with Isikoff
-- the same journalist Christopher Steele
leaked to
in September 2016. Manafort would later be indicted for Foreign Agents Registration Act violations that occurred during the Obama
administration.
Perkins Coie
International law firm Perkins Coie served as the legal arm for both the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Ties to Perkins Coie extended
beyond the DNC into the Obama White House.
Bob Bauer, a partner at the law firm and founder of its political law practice, served as
White House counsel to President Barack Obama throughout 2010 and 2011. Bauer was also
general counsel to Obama's campaign organization, Obama for America, in 2008 and 2012.
Perkins Coie partners Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann each played critical roles and were the ones who hired Fusion GPS and Steele.
Sussmann
personally handled the alleged hack of the DNC server. He also transmitted information, likely from Steele and Fusion GPS, to
James Baker, then-chief counsel at the FBI, and to several members of the press.
Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann. Sussmann transmitted information to FBI chief counsel James Baker and several
journalists. (Courtesy Perkins Coie)
According to a
letter
dated Oct. 24, 2017, written by Matthew Gehringer, general counsel at Perkins Coie, the firm was approached by Fusion GPS founder
Glenn Simpson in early March 2016 regarding the possibility of hiring Fusion GPS to continue opposition research into the Trump campaign.
Simpson's overtures were successful, and in April 2016, Perkins Coie
hired
Fusion GPS on behalf of the DNC.
Sometime in April or May 2016, Fusion GPS
hired Christopher Steele. During
this same period, Fusion also reportedly
hired Nellie Ohr, the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr. Steele would complete his first memo on June 20, 2016,
and send it to Fusion via enciphered mail.
Perkins Coie appears to have also been acting as a conduit between the DNC and the FBI.
Documents suggest that Sussmann was feeding information to FBI general counsel James Baker and at least one journalist ahead
of the FBI's application for a FISA warrant on the Trump campaign.
The information provided by Sussmann may have been used by the FBI as "corroborating information."
Obama Administration
The Obama administration provided a simultaneous layer of protection and facilitation for the entire effort. One example is
provided by
Section
2.3 of Executive Order 12333 , also known as Obama's
data-sharing
order . With the passage of the order, agencies and individuals were able to ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance
simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that was useful to a particular mission.
Section 2.3 had been expected to be finalized by early to mid-2016. Instead, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn't
sign off on Section 2.3 until Dec. 15, 2016. The order was finalized when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed it on Jan. 3, 2017.
The reason for the delay could relate to the fact that while the executive order made it easier to share intelligence between
agencies, it also limited certain types of information from going to the White House.
An example of this was provided by Evelyn Farkas during a March 2, 2017,
MSNBC interview , where she detailed how the Obama administration
gathered and disseminated intelligence on the Trump team:
"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill 'Get as much information as you can. Get as
much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.'
"The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, [they] would try
to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. That's why you have the
leaking."
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia Evelyn Farkas on May 6, 2014. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Many of the Obama administration's efforts appear to have been structural in nature, such as establishing new procedures or creating
impediments to oversight that enabled much of the surveillance abuse to occur.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was appointed by Obama in 2011. From the very start, he found his duties throttled by the
attorney general's office. According to congressional
testimony by Horowitz:
"We got access to information up to 2010 in all of these categories. No law changed in 2010. No policy changed. It was simply
a decision by the General Counsel's Office in 2010 that they viewed, now, the law differently. And as a result, they weren't going
to give us that information."
These new restrictions were
put in place by Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole.
On Aug. 5, 2014, Horowitz and other inspectors general sent a
letter to Congress asking for unimpeded access to all records. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates responded on July 20, 2015,
with a 58-page
memorandum . The memo specifically denied the inspector general access to any information collected under Title III -- including
intercepted communications and national security letters.
The New York Times recently
disclosed that national security letters were used in the surveillance of the Trump campaign.
At other times, the Obama administration's efforts were more direct. The
Intelligence Community assessment was released
internally on Jan. 5, 2017. On this same day, Obama held an undisclosed White House meeting to discuss the dossier with national
security adviser Susan Rice, FBI Director James Comey, and Yates. Rice would later send herself an email
documenting
the meeting.
The following day, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey attached a written summary of the Steele dossier to the classified briefing they
gave Obama. Comey then met with President-elect Trump to inform him of the dossier. This meeting took place just hours after Comey,
Brennan, and Clapper formally briefed Obama on both the Intelligence Community assessment and the Steele dossier.
Comey would only inform Trump of the "salacious" details contained within the dossier. He later
explained on CNN in an April 2018 interview
why:
"Because that was the part that the leaders of the Intelligence Community agreed he needed to be told about."
Shortly after Comey's meeting with Trump, both the Trump–Comey meeting and the existence of the dossier were leaked to CNN. The
significance of the meeting was material, as Comey
noted in
a Jan. 7 memo he wrote:
"Media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write
that the FBI has the material."
Clapper leaked information to CNN, after which he publicly condemned the leaks. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The media had widely dismissed the dossier as unsubstantiated and, therefore, unreportable. It was only after learning that Comey
briefed Trump that
CNN reported
on the dossier. It was later
revealed that DNI James Clapper personally leaked Comey's meeting with Trump to CNN.
The Obama administration also directly participated in a series of
intelligence unmaskings
, the process whereby a U.S. citizen's identity is revealed from collected surveillance. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha
Power reportedly engaged in hundreds of unmasking requests. Rice has admitted to doing the same.
The Obama administration engaged in the ultimately successful effort to oust Trump's newly appointed national security adviser,
Gen. Michael Flynn. Yates, along with Mary McCord, head of the DOJ's National Security Division,
led that effort
.
Executive Order 13762
President Barack Obama issued a last-minute executive order on Jan. 13, 2017, that altered the line of succession within the DOJ.
The action was not done in consultation with the incoming Trump administration.
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired on Jan. 30, 2017, by a newly inaugurated President Trump for refusing to uphold
the president's executive order limiting travel from certain terror-prone countries. Yates was initially supposed to serve in her
position until Jeff Sessions was confirmed as attorney general.
Obama's executive order placed the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia next in line behind the department's senior leadership.
The attorney at the time was Channing Phillips.
Phillips was first hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder in 1994 for a position in the D.C. U.S. attorney's office. Phillips,
after serving as a senior adviser to Holder, stayed on after he was replaced by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
It appears the Obama administration was hoping the Russia investigation would default to Channing in the event Sessions was forced
to recuse himself from the investigation. Sessions, whose confirmation hearings began three days before the order, was already coming
under intense scrutiny.
The implementation of the order may also tie into Yates's efforts to remove Gen. Michael Flynn over his call with the Russian
ambassador.
Trump ignored the succession order, as he is legally allowed to do, and instead appointed Dana Boente, the U.S. attorney for the
Eastern District of Virginia, as acting attorney general on Jan. 30, 2017, the same day Yates was fired.
Trump issued a new executive order on Feb. 9, 2017, the same day Sessions was sworn in, reversing Obama's prior order.
On March 10, 2017, Trump fired 46 Obama-era U.S. attorneys, including Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan. These firings
appear to have been unexpected.
Media
In some respects, the media has played the most disingenuous of roles. Areas of investigation that historically would have proven
irresistible to reporters of the past have been steadfastly ignored. False narratives have been all-too-willingly promoted and facts
ignored. Fusion GPS personally made a
series of payments to several as-of-yet-
unnamed reporters .
The majority of the mainstream media has represented positions of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
Steele met with members of certain media with relative frequency. In
September 2016 ,
he met with a number of U.S. journalists for "The New York Times, the Washington Post, Yahoo! News, the New Yorker and CNN," according
to The Guardian. It was during this period that Steele met with Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News.
In mid-October
2016, Steele returned to New York and met with reporters again. Toward the end of October, Steele spoke via Skype with Mother
Jones reporter David Corn.
Leaking, including felony leaking of classified information, has been widespread. The Carter Page FISA warrant -- likely the
unredacted version -- has been in the possession of The Washington Post and The New York Times since March 2017. Traditionally, the
intelligence community leaked to The Washington Post while the DOJ leaked to sources within The New York Times. This was a historical
pattern that stood until this election. The leaking became so widespread, even this tradition was broken.
On April 3, 2017, BuzzFeed reporter Ali Watkins wrote the article "
A Former Trump Adviser Met With a Russian Spy ." In the article, she identified "Male-1," referred to in
court documents
relating to the case of Russian spy Evgeny Buryakov, as Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who had provided the FBI with assistance
in the case. Just over a week later, on April 11, 2017, a Washington Post article, "
FBI Obtained FISA Warrant to Monitor Former Trump Adviser Carter Page ," confirmed the existence of the October 2016 Page FISA
warrant.
The information contained within both articles likely came via felony leaks from James Wolfe, former director of security
for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who was arrested on June 7, 2018, and
charged with one count of lying
to the FBI. Wolfe's indictment
alleges that he was leaking classified information to multiple reporters over an extended period of time.
Reporter Ali Watkins likely received the undredacted FISA application on Carter Page from James Wolfe.
It appears probable that Wolfe leaked unredacted copies of the Page FISA application. According to the
indictment , Wolfe
exchanged 82 text messages with
Watkins on March 17, 2017. That same evening they engaged in a 28-minute phone call. The original Page FISA application is 83 pages
long, including one final signatory page.
In the public version of the application, there are 37 fully redacted pages. In addition to that, several other pages have redactions
for all but the header. There are only two pages in the entire document that contain no redactions.
Why would Wolfe bother to send 37 pages of complete redactions? It seems more than plausible that Wolfe took pictures of the original
unredacted FISA application and sent them by text to Watkins.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has repeatedly
stated that evidence within the FISA application
shows the counterintelligence agencies were abused by the Obama administration. Most of the mainstream media has known this.
Despite this, most major news organizations for over two years have promoted the Russia-collusion narrative. Despite ample evidence
having come out to the contrary, they have not admitted they were wrong, likely because doing so would mean they would have to admit
their complicity.
Foreign Intelligence
UK and Australian intelligence agencies also played meaningful roles during the 2016 presidential election.
Britain's GCHQ was involved in
collecting information regarding then-candidate Trump and transmitting it to the United States. In the summer of 2016, Robert
Hannigan, the head of GCHQ, flew from London to
meet personally
with then-CIA Director John Brennan, The Guardian reported.
Former GCHQ head Robert Hannigan in this file photo. Hannigan transmitted information regarding Donald Trump to John
Brennan in the summer of 2016. (Romeo Gacad/AFP/Getty Images)
Hannigan's meeting was noteworthy because Brennan wasn't Hannigan's counterpart. That position belonged to NSA Director Mike Rogers.
In the following year, Hannigan
abruptly announced
his retirement on Jan. 23, 2017 -- three days after Trump's inauguration.
As GCHQ was gathering intelligence, low-level Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos appears to have been targeted
after a series of highly coincidental meetings. Maltese professor Josef Mifsud, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, FBI informant
Stefan Halper, and officials from the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) all crossed paths with Papadopoulos -- some repeatedly
so.
Christopher Steele, who authored the dossier on Trump, was an MI6 agent while the agency was headed by Sir Richard Dearlove. Steele
retains close ties with Dearlove.
Dearlove has ties to most of the parties mentioned. It was he who advised Steele and his business partner, Chris Burrows, to
work with a top British government official to pass along information to the FBI in the fall of 2016. He also was a speaker at
the July 2016 Cambridge symposium that Halper invited Carter
Page to attend.
Dearlove knows Halper through their
mutual association at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar. Dearlove also knows Sir Iain Lobban, a former head of GCHQ, who is
an advisory board member at British strategic intelligence
and advisory firm Hakluyt , which was founded by former MI6 members and
retains close ties to UK intelligence services.
Halper has historical connections to Hakluyt through Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has
co-authored two books.
Downer, who
met Papadopoulos in a May 2016 meeting
established through a chain
of two intermediaries, served on the advisory board of Hakluyt
from 2008 to 2014. He reportedly still
maintains contact with Hakluyt officials. Information from his meeting with Papadopoulos was later used by the FBI to establish
the bureau's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. Downer has changed his version of events multiple times.
The Steele dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several different sources. One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the
former
British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood later
relayed information regarding the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who dispatched David Kramer, a fellow at the McCain Institute,
to London to meet with Steele in November 2016. McCain would later admit in a Jan. 11, 2017,
statement that he had personally passed on the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey.
Trump, after issuing an order for the declassification of documents and text messages related to the Russia-collusion investigations
-- including parts of the Carter Page FISA warrant application -- received phone calls from two U.S. allies saying, "Please, can
we talk." Those "allies" were almost certainly the UK and Australia.
In a Twitter post , Trump wrote that
the "key Allies called to ask not to release" the documents.
Questions to be asked are why is it that two of our allies would find themselves so opposed to the release of these classified
documents that a coordinated plea would be made directly to the president? And why would these same allies have even the slightest
idea of what was contained in these classified U.S. documents?
Britain and Australia appear to know full well what those documents contain, and their attempt to prevent their public release
appears to be because they don't want their role in events surrounding the 2016 presidential election to be made public.
Fusion GPS/Orbis/Christopher Steele
Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is co-founder of Fusion GPS, along with Peter Fritsch and Tom Catan. Fusion
was hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign through law firm Perkins Coie to produce and disseminate the Steele dossier used against
Trump. The dossier would later be the primary evidence used to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page on Oct. 21, 2016.
The company was hired by the Clinton campaign and the DNC–through law firm Perkins Coie–to produce the dossier on Trump.
Christopher Steele, who retains close ties to UK intelligence, worked for MI6 from 1987 until his retirement in 2009, when he
and his partner, Chris Burrows, founded Orbis Intelligence. Steele
maintains contact with British intelligence,
Sir Richard Dearlove
, and UK intelligence firm Hakluyt.
Steele appears to have been
represented
by lawyer Adam Waldman, who also represented Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. We know this from
texts sent by Waldman. On April 10, 2017, Waldman sent this to Sen. Mark Warner:
"Hi. Steele: would like to get a bi partisan letter from the committee; Assange: I convinced him to make serious and important
concessions and am discussing those w DOJ; Deripaska: willing to testify to congress but interested in state of play w Manafort.
I will be with him next tuesday for a week."
Steele also appears to have
lobbied on behalf of Deripaska, who was discussed in
emails between Bruce Ohr and Steele that were recently
disclosed by the Washington Examiner:
"Steele said he was 'circulating some recent sensitive Orbis reporting' on Deripaska that suggested Deripaska was not a 'tool'
of the Kremlin. Steele said he would send the reporting to a name that is redacted in the email."
Fusion GPS was also employed by Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in a previous case. Veselnitskaya was involved in litigation
pitting Russian firm Prevezon Holdings against British-American financier William Browder. Veselnitskaya hired U.S. law firm BakerHostetler,
who, in turn, hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Browder. Veselnitskaya was one of the participants at the June 2016 Trump Tower
meeting, at which she discussed the
Magnitsky Act .
Fox News reported on Nov. 9, 2017, that Simpson
met with Veselnitskaya immediately before and after the Trump Tower meeting.
A declassified top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court report released on April 26, 2017, revealed that government
agencies, including the FBI, CIA, and NSA, had improperly accessed Americans' communications. The FBI specifically provided outside
contractors with access to raw surveillance data on American citizens without proper oversight.
Communications and other data of members of the Trump campaign may have been accessed in this way.
Nellie Ohr, the wife of high-ranking DOJ official Bruce Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS to work on the dossier on Trump.
Bruce and Nellie Ohr have
known Simpson since at least 2010 and have known Steele since at least 2006. The Ohrs and Simpson worked together on a
DOJ report in 2010 . In that report, Nellie Ohr's biography
lists her as working for Open Source Works, which is part of the CIA. Simpson met with Bruce Ohr
before and after the 2016 election.
Bruce Ohr had been in
contact repeatedly with Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign -- while Steele was constructing his dossier. Ohr later
actively shared information he received from Steele with the FBI, after the agency had terminated Steele as a source. Interactions
between Ohr and Steele stretched for months into the first year of Trump's presidency and were documented in a number of FD-302s
-- memos that summarize interviews with him by the FBI.
Spy Traps
In an effort to put forth evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, it appears that several different spy traps
were set, with varying degrees of success. Many of these efforts appear to center around Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos
and involve London-based professor Joseph Mifsud, who has
ties to Western intelligence, particularly in the UK.
Papadopoulos and Mifsud
both worked
at the London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP). Mifsud appears to have joined LCILP around
November
2015 . Papadopoulos reportedly
joined
LCILP sometime in late February 2016 after leaving Ben Carson's presidential campaign. However, some
reports indicate Papadopoulos joined LCILP in November
or December of 2015. Mifsud and Papadopoulos reportedly never crossed paths
until March 14, 2016, in Italy.
Mifsud introduced Papadopoulos to several Russians, including Olga Polonskaya, whom Mifsud introduced as "Putin's niece," and
Ivan Timofeev, an official at a state-sponsored think tank called the Russian International Affairs Council. Both Papadopoulos and
Mifsud were interviewed by the FBI. Papadopoulos was ultimately charged with a process crime and was recently sentenced to 14 days
in prison for lying to the FBI. Mifsud was never charged by the FBI.
Throughout this period, Papadopoulos continuously pushed for meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russian contacts but
was ultimately unsuccessful in establishing any meetings.
Papadopoulos met with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer on May 10, 2016. The Papadopoulos–Downer meeting has been portrayed
as a
chance encounter in a bar. That does not appear to be the case.
Papadopoulos was introduced
to Downer through a chain of two intermediaries who said Downer wanted to meet with Papadopoulos. Another individual happened
to
be in London at exactly the same time: the FBI's head of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap. The purpose of Priestap's visit
remains unknown.
The Papadopoulos–Downer
meeting was later used to establish the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. It was repeatedly
reported that Papadopoulos told Downer that Russia had Hillary Clinton's emails. This is incorrect.
Foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign was approached by several individuals with ties to UK and U.S. intelligence
agencies. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
According to Downer, Papadopoulos at some point
mentioned the Russians had damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
"During that conversation, he [Papadopoulos] mentioned the Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the
lead-up to the election, which may be damaging,'' Downer told
The Australian about the Papadopoulos meeting in an April 2018 article. "He didn't say dirt, he said material that could be damaging
to her. No, he said it would be damaging. He didn't say what it was."
Downer, while serving as Australia's foreign minister, was
responsible for one of the largest foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation: $25 million from the Australian government.
Unconfirmed media reports, including a Jan. 12, 2017,
BBC article , have suggested that the FBI attempted
to obtain two FISA warrants in June and July 2016 that were denied by the FISA court. It's likely that Papadopoulos was an intended
target of these failed FISAs.
Interestingly, there is no mention of Papadopoulos in the Steele dossier. Paul Manafort, Carter Page, former Trump lawyer Michael
Cohen, Gen. Michael Flynn, and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski are all listed in the Steele dossier.
Papadopoulos may have started out assisting the FBI or CIA and later discovered that he was being set up for surveillance himself.
After failing to obtain a spy warrant on the Trump campaign using Papadopoulos, the FBI set its sights on campaign volunteer Carter
Page. By this time, the counterintelligence investigation was in the process of being established, and we know now that it was formalized
with no official intelligence. The FBI needed some sort of legal cover. They needed a retroactive warrant. And they got one on Oct.
21, 2016. The Page FISA warrant would be renewed three times and remain in force until September 2017.
Stefan Halper met with Page for the first time on July 11, 2016, at a
Cambridge symposium , just three days after Page's July 2016
Moscow trip. As noted previously, former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove was a speaker at the symposium. Halper and Dearlove have known
each other for years and maintain several mutual associations.
Page was already known to the FBI. The Page FISA warrant application references the Buryakov spy case and an FBI interview with
Page. Current information suggests there was only
one meeting between Page and the FBI in 2016. It happened on March 2, 2016. It was in relation to Victor Podobnyy, who was named
in the Buryakov case.
Page, who
cooperated with the FBI on the case, almost certainly was providing testimony or details against Podobnyy. Page had been contacted
by Podobnyy in 2013 and had previously provided information to the FBI. Buryakov
pleaded guilty on March 11, 2016 -- nine days after Page met with the FBI on the case -- and was
sentenced to 30 months in prison on May 25, 2016. On April 5, 2017, Buryakov was granted early release and was
deported to Russia.
FBI informant Stefan Halper approached Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes
said in August that exculpatory evidence
on Page exists that wasn't included by the DOJ and the FBI in the FISA application and subsequent renewals. The exculpatory evidence
likely relates specifically to Page's role in the Buryakov case.
If the FBI failed to disclose Page's cooperation with the bureau or materially misrepresented his involvement in its application
to the FISA Court, it means that the FBI's Woods procedures, which govern FISA applications, were violated.
Page has not been arrested or charged with any crime related to the investigation.
FISA Abuse
Admiral Mike Rogers, while director of the NSA, was personally responsible for
uncovering an unprecedented level of FISA abuse that would later be documented in a 99-page
unsealed FISA
court ruling . As the FISA court noted in the April 26, 2017, ruling, the abuses had been occurring since at least November 2015:
"The FBI had disclosed raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information, to private contractors.
"Private contractors had access to raw FISA information on FBI storage systems.
"Contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI's requests."
The FISA Court report is particularly focused on the FBI:
"The Court is concerned about the FBI's apparent disregard of minimization rules and whether the FBI may be engaging in similar
disclosures of raw Section 702 information that have not been reported."
The FISA Court
disclosed that illegal NSA database searches were endemic. Private contractors, employed by the FBI, were given full access to
the NSA database. Once in the contractors' possession, the data couldn't be traced.
In April 2016, after Rogers became aware of
improper
contractor access to raw FISA data on March 9, 2016, he
directed the NSA's Office
of Compliance to conduct a "fundamental baseline review of compliance associated with 702."
On April 18, 2016, Rogers shut down all outside contractor access to raw FISA information -- specifically outside contractors
working for the FBI.
Then-NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers on May 23, 2017. Rogers uncovered widespread abuse of FISA data by the FBI. (Saul
Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
DOJ National Security Division (NSD) head John Carlin filed the government's proposed
2016 Section 702 certifications on Sept. 26, 2016. Carlin knew the general status of compliance review by Rogers. The NSD was
part of the review. Carlin failed to disclose a critical Jan. 7, 2016,
report by the Office
of the Inspector General and associated FISA abuse to the FISA Court in his 2016 certification. Carlin also failed to disclose
Rogers's ongoing Section 702 compliance review.
The following day, on Sept. 27, 2016, Carlin
announced his resignation, effective Oct. 15, 2016.
After receiving a briefing by the NSA compliance officer on Oct. 20, 2016, detailing
numerous "about query"
violations from the 702 NSA compliance audit, Rogers shut down all "about query" activity the next day and
reported his findings
to the DOJ. "About queries" are searches based on communications containing a reference "about" a surveillance target but that are
not "to" or "from" the target.
On Oct. 21, 2016, the DOJ and the FBI sought and received a Title I FISA probable-cause order authorizing electronic surveillance
on Carter Page from the FISA Court.
At this point, the FISA Court was still unaware of the Section 702 violations.
On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally
informed
the FISA Court of his findings. On Oct. 26, 2016, Rogers appeared formally before the FISA Court and presented the written findings
of his audit.
The FISA Court had been unaware of the query violations until they were presented to the court by Rogers.
Carlin didn't disclose his knowledge of FISA abuse in the annual Section 702 certifications in order to avoid raising suspicions
at the FISA Court ahead of receiving the Page FISA warrant.
The FBI and the NSD were literally racing against Rogers's investigation in order to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page.
While all this was transpiring, DNI James Clapper and Defense Secretary Ash Carter submitted a
recommendation that Rogers be removed from his post as NSA director.
The move to fire Rogers, which ultimately failed, originated sometime in mid-October 2016 -- exactly when Rogers was preparing
to present his findings to the FISA Court.
The Insurance Policy
Ever since the release of FBI text messages revealing the existence of an "insurance policy," the term has been the subject of
wide speculation.
Some observers have suggested that the insurance policy was the FISA spy warrant used to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter
Page and, by extension, other members of the Trump campaign. This interpretation is too narrow and fails to capture the underlying
meaning of the text.
The insurance policy was the actual process of establishing the Trump–Russia collusion narrative.
It encompassed actions undertaken in late 2016 and early 2017, including the leaking of the Steele dossier and James Clapper's
leaks of James Comey's briefing to President Trump. The intent behind these actions was simple. The legitimization of the investigation
into the Trump campaign.
The strategy involved the recusal of Trump officials with the intent that Andrew McCabe would end up running the investigation.
The Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, served as the
foundation for the Russia narrative.
The intelligence community, led by CIA Director John Brennan and DNI James Clapper, used the dossier as a launching pad for creating
their Intelligence Community assessment.
This report, which was presented to Obama in December 2016, despite NSA Director Mike Rogers having only moderate confidence in
its assessment, became one of the core pieces of the narrative that Russia interfered with the 2016 elections.
Through intelligence community leaks, and in collusion with willing media outlets, the narrative that Russia helped Trump win
the elections was aggressively pushed throughout 2017.
Spygate
Spygate represents the biggest political scandal in our nation's history. A sitting administration actively colluded with a political
campaign to affect the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. Government agencies were weaponized and a complicit media spread
intelligence community leaks as facts.
But a larger question remains: How long has the United States been subject to interference from the intelligence community and
our political agencies? Was the 2016 presidential election a one-time aberration, or is this episode symptomatic of a larger pattern
extending back decades?
The intensity, scale, and coordination suggest something greater than overzealous actions taken during a single election. They
represent a unified reaction of the establishment to a threat posed by a true outsider -- a reaction that has come to be known as
Spygate.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
"... The bent cops at the FBI and the madmen like Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who treacherously used the government's forces against the Constitution, must be punished so severely as to make an example that will dissuade other midgets on horseback from making similar attempts to overturn the results of elections. ..."
"... At the bottom of the cauldron overflowing with political misdeeds shines the face of Hillary Clinton and the army of clever people who ran her 2016 campaign. They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever idea of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British intelligence channels by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. There must be retribution for this. ..."
"... I would be most interested if one of the legally competent members of this Committee – Robert Willman perhaps? – could give us us an idea of what charges could be leveled against Christopher Steele under U.S. law in relation to his clearly central role in this conspiracy. ..."
"... It also seems reasonably clear that he was not acting in isolation, and that there is a strong 'prima facie' case that senior figures in the British 'intelligence community' – notably Robert Hannigan and probably Sir Richard Dearlove – were involved, in which case the complicity is likely to have gone very much further. ..."
"... They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British intelligence channels, by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. ..."
"... Both sides were furiously engaged in throwing mud at each other. Situation normal. Then an odd thing happens. A particularly foolish piece of mud comes along. All that Golden Showers nonsense. Regard that as normal if we please. I expect worse comes along sometimes. Then it turns out that that piece of mud comes from an Intelligence source. Situation no longer normal. ..."
"... The coup may be over, but the witch hunt will continue; ..."
"... Col. Lang is absolutely correct that those involved in attempting to reverse the results of the 2016 election, de-legitimize an elected president, and remove him should be thoroughly pursued through all avenues and procedures of the civil and criminal law. ..."
"... It's a dirty business. If half this stuff is true, and not just layers of increasingly unbelievable cover stories (I mean, a tangential example, is the whole Skripal thing a weirdly, too obviously fake cover show for what was in reality a "witness protection" operation? A witness who could and would reveal much? On this matter even, perhaps. Such obvious deceptions are harmful to respect for authority and the law.) ..."
There were no major disagreements between Mueller and his managers at the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ).
The Russians who tried to interfere in the 2016 election were exposed and charged -- but no
American was charged with any effort to conspire with Moscow and hijack the election.
the "Steele dossier" that was the main FISA evidence was paid for with funds
from Hillary Clinton
's campaign and the Democratic Party;
Christopher Steele, the dossier's author, had told a senior DOJ official he was desperate to
defeat Trump;
most of the dossier was not verified before it was used as evidence of alleged Trump-Russia
collusion; and
agents collected statements from key defendants such as Papadopoulos and Carter Page during
interactions with an FBI informant that strongly suggested their innocence.
Such omissions are so glaring as to constitute defrauding a federal court. And each and
every participant to those omissions needs to be brought to justice.
An upcoming DOJ inspector general's report should trigger the beginning of that
accountability in a court of law, and President Trump can assist the effort by declassifying
all evidence of wrongdoing by FBI, CIA and DOJ officials. " The Hill
------------
Pilgrims, the seditious conspiracy to depose the elected president of the United States for
conspiracy to commit treason with the Government of the Russian Federation has been
defeated.
The bent cops at the FBI and the madmen like Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who treacherously
used the government's forces against the Constitution, must be punished so severely as to make
an example that will dissuade other midgets on horseback from making similar attempts to
overturn the results of elections.
At the bottom of the cauldron overflowing with political misdeeds shines the face of Hillary
Clinton and the army of clever people who ran her 2016 campaign. They devised the clever,
clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the
even more clever idea of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British
intelligence channels by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose
staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. There must be retribution for this.
The leftist press is already discounting the results of Mueller's investigation while
gloating over how long the Democratic held House of Representatives can continue to search
through Trump's life trying to find criminality.
AG Barr should stand Mueller up next to him at a press conference to make clear the results
of his report and to answer questions about it. After that the prosecutions should begin.
pl
I would be most interested if one of the legally competent members of this Committee –
Robert Willman perhaps? – could give us us an idea of what charges could be leveled
against Christopher Steele under U.S. law in relation to his clearly central role in this
conspiracy.
It also seems reasonably clear that he was not acting in isolation, and that there is a
strong 'prima facie' case that senior figures in the British 'intelligence community' –
notably Robert Hannigan and probably Sir Richard Dearlove – were involved, in which
case the complicity is likely to have gone very much further.
The argument that declassification of relevant documentation would harm the intelligence
relationship between the U.S. and U.K. has clearly been made with great emphasis from this
side.
In fact, it is pure bollocks. A serious investigation on your side, which could lead to
the kind of clean-out which should have happened when the scale of the corruption of
intelligence in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq became clear, might pave the way for us
to reconstruct reasonably functional intelligence services.
Doing this on both sides of the Atlantic might pave the way for a reconstruction of an
intelligence relationship which was actually beneficial to both countries, as in recent years
it patently has not been.
Whether there is a realistic prospect of people on your side opening the cans of worms on
ours, as well as your own, of course remains a moot point.
I'm glad the Steele affair has been examined at the American end -
"They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with
Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever of marketing it back into the US
political bloodstream through British intelligence channels, by feeding it to the erratic and
spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York.
"
What about the UK end? We're fussing over some little local difficulties in the UK at the
moment and at our end the questions still remain - Who in the UK authorised it and how high did it go?
The problem with criminal prosecution is one must cite a Brit or US law which was violated.
The only ones in US law that I am aware of stipulate that the plotting must be by means of
violence, "by force". All this appears to me to be only the propagation of rumors.
I think it might be more the investigation of the propagation of rumours. Think back to that election campaign, and to the period before the inauguration.
Both sides were furiously engaged in throwing mud at each other. Situation normal. Then an
odd thing happens. A particularly foolish piece of mud comes along. All that Golden Showers
nonsense. Regard that as normal if we please. I expect worse comes along sometimes. Then it
turns out that that piece of mud comes from an Intelligence source. Situation no longer normal.
With respect it is not propagating rumours to ask how that happened. As for my own
interest in the affair, it is not propagating rumours to ask how a senior UK ex-Intelligence
Officer comes to be mixed up in it all. I suppose I started to look on it as rather more than a prank or a few cogs slipping when
that senior UK ex-Intelligence Officer got whisked away to a safe house. We're a penny
pinching lot over here and we don't run to that sort of thing for nothing.
An investigation could certainly be predicated on the reasonable suspicion that Steele, et
al, conspired to defraud the United States, in this case a purposeful and knowing smear of a
candidate for office; also, another potential violation could be lying to the FBI, T 18 USC
1001.
The problem, as I see it, is sorting out the malignant from the merely incompetent. As I've
argued many times, the dossier should have been dismissed from the outset as a pile of
garbage, empty of actionable content, because the ultimate sources could not be vetted: the
information could not be said to be either credible or reliable. The information was acted on
by screening it behind the reliabilty and credibility, so called, of Steele. So it would be
necessary to show that Steele knew that the information, point by point, was false. This
could be difficult. Steele's first line of defense would be that he threw everything that he
heard from anyone at all into the mix in the expectation that the "professionals" would
figure it out.
Yes, they were all partisan, Steele, his sources, his bosses, the so called
professionals, and their partisanship would be easy to prove; and yes, almost assuredly their
partisanship contributed, perhaps even explained, their defective judgement as to how to
handle the scurrilous information, especially on the part of the so called professionals, but
proving they actually knew the materials to be false would be difficult.
They couldn't know
that it was false because they had no ability to run down the sources. The professionals
would defend themselves by saying they had no ability to vet the sources but the information
represented such a serious security threat that they had no alternative but to try to vet the
information by launching the investigation against the targets. This puts the cart before the
horse, represents an astonishing lack of judgement, especially considering the "exalted"
positions in the Intel Community the people exercising the bad judgement occupied, but there
it is - "we thought we were doing the right thing."
Perhaps this defense could be overcome by
demonstrating that people at such high and important heights of government could not possible
be so stupid... maybe.
And of course we have the orchestrated leaks to various media, the orchestrated unmaskings,
all of which kept the media frenzy fired up. All in all, it was the greatest political dirty
trick ever attempted in American Politics, and did devastating damage to both domestic
tranquility and national security. Trump survived, but the damage done is incalculable.
So It pains me greatly to think that the reckoning will likely have to be political rather
than criminal because the malice that can be demonstrated is so admixed and even overshadowed
by incompetence and judgement flaws; and even a political reckoning given the state of the
country is so uncertain.
I hope that I am wrong and that some kind of prosecution can be fashioned because of the
sheer enormity of violence that was done to our electoral system, surpassing by far the
chickenshit case Mueller brought against the Russian troll farm; but I fear that I am right.
It hurts to think that so much damage can be caused by scheming little political weasels and
that they all may well walk away scot free; and even be lionized by their political confreres
as having tried to do the right thing. This is the state of American politics today!!!
I see that some of the midgets on horseback are saying that they will bring Mueller before
congress to explain himself. Their knight in shining armor has failed to return with the holy
grail. A couple even suggested that perhaps Mueller has been influenced by the Russians or
somehow intimated by Trump.
The coup may be over, but the witch hunt will continue;
and that
+ all the crazy Marxism (social and economic), bad immigration policy and Green New Deal is
going to doom the Democrats in 2020. They look like they are jumping off a final sake fueled
banzai charge. Maybe they think the best defense is a good offense re; the prosecutions that
should happen. What is the chance that Mueller will pass *all* he has learned to help get the
criminal cases under way?
On 13 July 2018, when announcing the indictment of 12 Russian military officers by the
Mueller group for "conspiring to interfere" in the 2016 presidential election, Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein admitted that no "interference" actually happened. In this
video of his announcement, starting at 5 minutes, 52 seconds into it and ending at the 6
minute, 5 second mark, he says--
"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.
There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election
result."
Col. Lang is absolutely correct that those involved in attempting to reverse the results
of the 2016 election, de-legitimize an elected president, and remove him should be thoroughly
pursued through all avenues and procedures of the civil and criminal law.
However, I am concerned that the new attorney general, William Barr, will not do so based
on his past associations and work. I hope I am wrong about that, but I am not optimistic.
It's a dirty business. If half this stuff is true, and not just layers of increasingly
unbelievable cover stories (I mean, a tangential example, is the whole Skripal thing a
weirdly, too obviously fake cover show for what was in reality a "witness protection"
operation? A witness who could and would reveal much? On this matter even, perhaps. Such
obvious deceptions are harmful to respect for authority and the law.)
I'm wrestling with the idea that 'twas ever thus and now with the internet its workings
are revealed to a "lay" audience with no connection to the dark arts of the spy business. But
I am curious, with the good Colonel's indulgence, if the new tools of the trade have made
things which should be secret not possible to be kept secret?
Amen to the prosecutions. If there is seen to be no accountability for this fraud then we are
seriously damaging what's left of democracy. Who, in their right mind, is going to publicly
support and assist a political candidate who is not "Swamp approved" if they face the threat
of thereby triggering their own, and their family's destruction by the judicial system?
I suggest that even a pardon is not enough for those entrapped in this mess. There needs
to be restitution.
To put that another way, in my opinion, "birther" allegations could be passed off as
political tactics. Nobody got hurt. It is just good luck that Russiagate hasn't resulted in
suicide or worse - so far.
I certainly agree that consequences must be brought to bear: lying politicians without a
shred of evidence, nor did they offer any for their lies; press for their utter and complete
malfeasance and corruption without a shred of evidence, the doj/fbi corrupted and coup
plotting officials,and finally the shame to all who shrieked about "evil" putin, russia the
aggressor, etc. It has set our discourse back decades, forced any critics of this insanity
into the shadows, and completely killed any attempt at normal diplomacy between nations.
I noted one astute writer as equating this russiagate insanity to the lies surrounding wmd
and the destruction of iraq. Close. The damage from this criminality is incalculable!
Will the shrillest of all in the press lose their jobs? Nah, not a chance. Prob get raise
or promotion.Will the brennans, clintons, clappers, et al do the perp walk. Nah, not a
chance. High paid lawyers will tie the courts up for years if not decades.
And america has the institutional memory of a gnat. And of course, the question is as to
high up did this criminality go? I personally do not believe it is a question-it is obvious
to me. The major question for me is how high up the prosecution, if any, will go.
Problem is...who's going to do the prosecuting?
The DOJ - protector of the swamp - has become thoroughly corrupted as an arm of the
Democrat-media party.
Should (can) Trump appoint a special prosecutor as far as possible from the DOJ?
The president might use this and any Republican-led prosecutions as leverage to work out
deals that will allow him to achieve his agenda. I think he'll need to given how the
Democrats intend to use their house majority to launch investigations and hearings to find
something, anything to howl about and impede his agenda.
Still need to see the full report. I hope it is releasable. Otherwise the conspiracy theories
or leaks will never let up. The article cited is a partisan opinion piece, not a news report.
It accepts the fallback stance that yes, crimes were committed but collusion by Trump was not
among them. This actually seems possible if only in light of the chaotic condition of the
campaign.
That said, I would not be surprised to find collusion discounted. Not that the Russians
didn't interfere. That would be entirely in character. But I don't know any reason for
supposing that they would have a better understanding of American political dynamics than the
Americans who make good livings being the best in that arena. The Russians seem to have been
doing the same things as numerous other players. They shouldn't have been in that game, but
there is no strong reason for according them Superman status. Their strongest feature seems
to have been sheer quantity. Outrage over their actions often seems to flow from a poor grasp
of the real nature of normal political process.
"The Russians seem to have been doing the same things..."
Multiple members of the FBI and DOJ seem to have been interfering in the 2016 Presidential
election. How many other federal and state elections did they interfere with?
Can you cite a single piece of hard evidence, not simply allegation, that proves the Russians
interfered in the 2016 election? If so, please cite it, since I know of none. Thank you.
"... Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump president ..."
"... The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives, getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. Every component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of amounts to an attempted soft coup. ..."
"... It now appears that the world will see that the so-called "Russia Gate" investigation was nothing more than the pro-Clintonista BS that Trump always claimed it was. ..."
"... As for the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, they should be treated like the creeps they are: corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry. Like Typhoid Mary, they infect everything they touch ..."
"... I'm also convinced that Trump and Clinton colluded, but that they did so in order to get her elected. I don't think he really wanted the job. But still, Hillary can do nationalist, and the designs of the Empire would have proceeded either way. ..."
"... Trump is a crook who takes money wherever he can get it, from subcontractors foolish enough to work for him to bankers dumb enough to believe his financial statements. No doubt he has helped Russian crooks sanitize their booty, but that is apparently too difficult for Mueller to prove. ..."
"... It is not good news that this troglodyte was not indicted, but it is good news that Russia was not found guilty of electing him. Russiagate is an existential issue for the "national security" establishment and just another propaganda offensive designed to justify the largely useless & destructive activities of the Pentagon. ..."
"... It is time to build cooperation not continue the stupidity of US unilateralism and pursuit of global hegemony. Trump and his team have to be removed from office. Democrats don't need Russiagate to do it. The truth will work better. ..."
Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy
that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump
president. They did this fully aware that Trump was a repulsive, narcissistic ass clown who
bragged about "grabbing women by the pussy" and jabbered about building "a big, beautiful
wall" and making the Mexican government pay for it. They did this fully aware of the fact
that Donald Trump had zero experience in any political office whatsoever, was a loudmouth
bigot, and was possibly out of his gourd on amphetamines half the time. The American people
did not care. They were so disgusted with being conned by arrogant, two-faced, establishment
stooges like the Clintons, the Bushes, and Barack Obama that they chose to put Donald Trump
in office, because, fuck it, what did they have to lose?
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by
inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the
American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives,
getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote
this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to
conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. Every
component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence
agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to
remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of
amounts to an attempted soft coup.
It now appears that the world will see that the so-called "Russia Gate" investigation was
nothing more than the pro-Clintonista BS that Trump always claimed it was. The Clintons once
again, both Bill and Hillary, have managed to raise a vicious, loud mouthed thug in the White
House to the status of some kind of martyr. What a country America it is. One thing should be
clear however. Any politician or media pundit that towed the pro-Clintonista line should be
barred from public office or the media forever.
As for the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary,
they should be treated like the creeps they are: corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry.
Like Typhoid Mary, they infect everything they touch. There is one difference between Typhoid
Mary, and Bill and Hillary: Typhoid Mary didn't realize what she was doing, the Clintons did!
sorry to double post, but it just occurred to me that they pulled a classic DC move: if you
have something humiliating or horrible to admit, do it on a friday night.
i have to wonder if the entire western media is cynically praying for a (coincidentally
distracting) school shooting or terrorist attack within the next two days.
I have close friends that have been on the MSNBC/Maddow Kool-Ade for years. Constantly
declaring Mueller was on the verge of closing in on Trump and associates for treason with the
Russians. On Friday night after dinner at our home, the TV was tuned to MSNBC so they could
watch their spiritual leader Rachel Maddow....what a pitiful sight (both Maddow and friends).
No one was going to jail or be impeached for conspiring with Putin.....how on how could that
be true. Putin personally stole the election from Clinton and THEY are just going to let him
walk was the declaration a few feet from my chair. Normally, I would recommend grieve
counseling, but they are still my friends ... now they can go back to blaming Bernie for
Clinton's loss. Maybe I will recommend grieve counseling!
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Mar 23, 2019 2:27:18 PM |
link
@dltravers: Apart from the "goyim" you may be right.. But if you want to claim with that
Trumps opponents where under the pressure of the Zionists, you got it all wrong man.. ;) No
presidents been more under the Zionist thumb than DJT.
That ofc doesnt make Hillarys Saudi and Muslim brotherhood connections better.. ;)
Anyway, cheers to the end of this BS! And lets hope that Trump has now payed off his debts
with Adelson now that he secured Bibis reelection. But dont hold your breath.. ;)
"very politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed this
moronic load of bull spunk has officially discredited themselves for life".
I wish so, but that's not how the exceptional nation of US of A works, as demonstrated by
the Iraq WMD fiasco case. In fact, very politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit
(about Saddam's WMD" BS) is alive and well, spreading more BS. What is even more depressing
is that the huge chunk of this exceptional nation cannot have enough of the BS and is
chanting "give me more, give me more...".
The Dems were stupid to gin up the Russian collusion.
However some good things have come out of the investigation. It cost taxpayers 2 million
but recouped over 25 million from those convicted of fraud and tax evasion.
And its not over, Mueller has sent 5 to 7 referrals or evidence/witnesses to SDNY, EDNY, DC,
EDVA, plus the National Security and Criminal Divisions. These from information turned up
crimes unrelated to his Russia probe and allegedly concerning Trump or his family business, a
cadre of his advisers and associates. They are being conducted by officials from Los Angeles
to Brooklyn.
The bad news is it exposed how wide spread and corrupt the US has become...in private and
political circles.
The other bad news is most of the Trump lovers and Trump haters are too stupid to drop
their partisan and personal blinders and recognize that ....ITS THE CORRUPTION STUPID.
b you have repeatedly made the case that this whole thing was kicked off by the Steele
dossier. That is factually incorrect. The first investigation was already running before the
dossier ever materialized. That investigation spawned the special prosecutors investigation
when Trump fired Comey and then went on TV and said it was because of the Russia
investigation. The Russia investigation was originally kicked off by Papadopoulos drinking
with the the Australian ambassador and bragging about what the campaign was doing with
Russia. Remember the original evidence was presented to the leadership of both the House and
the Senate when they were both controlled by the Republican party and every one that was
briefed came out on camera and said the Justice dept was doing the right thing in pursuing
this.
I think the Democrats should lose Hillary down a deep hole and not let her near any of the
coming campaign events. But this came about because of the actions of the people around
Trump. Not because Hillary controls the US government from some secret bunker some where.
One could argue Russiagate was on the contrary quite a success. The Elites behind the scheme
never believed it would end up with Trump's impeachment. What they did accomplish though is a
deflection via "Fake News" from the Dem's election failures & shenanigans and refocus the
attention towards the DNC's emerging pedophilia scandals (Weiner, the Podesta's, Alefantis,
etc) & suspicious deaths (Seth Rich, etc) towards a dead-end with the added corollary of
preventing US/Ru rapprochement for more then half an administration..
Blooming Barricade , Mar 23, 2019 3:10:02 PM |
link
The deeply tragic thing about this for the media, the neocons, and the liberals is that they
brought it upon themselves by moving the goalposts continuously. If, after Hillary lost, they
had stuck to the "Russia hacked WikiLeaks" lie, then they probably have sufficient proof from
their perspective and the perspective of most of the public that Russia helped Trump win. In
this case it would be remembered by the Democrats like the stolen election of 2000 (albeit
the fact that it was a lie this time). They had multiple opportunities to jump off this
train. Even the ridiculous DNI report could have been their final play: "Russia helped
Trump." Instead of going with 2000 they went with 2001, aka 9-11, with the same neocon
fearmongers playing the pipe organ of lies. As soon as they accepted the Steele Dossier,
moving the focus to "collusion" they discredited themselves forever. Many of the lead
proponents were discredited Iraq war hawks. Except this time it was actually worse because
the whole media bought into it. This leaves an interesting conundrum: there were at least
some pro-Afghanistan anti-Iraq warmongers who rejected the Bush premise in the media, so they
took over the airwaves for about two years before the real swamp creatures returned. This
time, it will be harder to issue a mea culpa. They made this appear like 9-11, well, this
time the truthers have won, and they are doomed.
Societies collapse when their systems (institutions) become compromised. When they are no
longer capable of meeting the needs of the population, or of adapting to a changing world.
Societal systems become compromised when their decision making structures, which are
designed to ensure that decisions are taken in the best interest of the society as a whole,
are captured by people who have no legitimacy to make the decisions, and who make decisions
for the benefit of themselves, at the expense of society as a whole.
Russia-gate is a flagrant example of how the law enforcement and intelligence institutions
have been captured. Their top officials, no longer loyal to their country or their
institution, but rather to an international elite (including the likes of Soros, the
Clintons, and far beyond) have used these institutions in an attempt to delegitimize a
constitutionally elected president and to over turn an election. This is no less than treason
of the highest order.
Indeed, the actions much of the Washington establishment, as well as a number
international actors, since Trump was elected seems suspiciously like one of the 'Color
Revolutions' that are visited upon any country who's citizens did not 'vote right' the first
time. Over-throw the vote, one way or another, until the result that is wanted is achieved.
None of these 'Color Revolutions' has resulted in anything good for the country involved.
Rather they have resulted in the destruction of each country's institutions, and eventually
societal collapse.
In the U.S. the capturing of systems' decision making structures is not limited to
Russia-Gate and the overturning of the electoral system. Their are other prime examples:
- The capture of the Air Transport Safety System by Boeing that has resulted in the recent
737 Max crashes, and likely the destruction of the reputation of the U.S. aviation industry,
in an industry where reputation is everything.
- The capture of the Financial Regulatory System, by Wall Street, who in 1998 rewrote the
rules in their own favor, against the best interests of the population as a whole. The result
was the 2008 financial crisis and the inability of the U.S. economy to effectively recover
from that crisis.
- This capture is also seen in international diplomatic systems, where the U.S. is
systematically by-passing or subverting international law and international institutions,
(the U.N. I.C.J., I.N.F. treaty) etc., and in doing so is destroying these institutions and
the ability to maintain peace.
The result of system (institution) capture is difficult to see at first. But, in time, the
damage adds up, the ability of the systems to meet the needs of the population disappears,
and societal decline sets in.
It looks today like the the societal decline is acellerating. Russia-gate is just one of
many indicators.
Your comment on the BBC is on the mild side. I listen to it when I drive in in the morning
and also get annoyed sometimes. When it is reporting on the Westminster bubble it is
factually accurate as far as I can judge. Apart from that, and particularly in the case of
the BBC news, we're in information control territory.
But accept that and the BBC turns into quite a valuable resource. It's well staffed, has
good contacts, and picks up what the politicians want us to think with great accuracy.
In that respect it's better than the newspapers and better also than the American media.
Those news outlets have several masters of which the political elite is only one. The BBC has
just the one master, the political elite, and is as sensitive as a stethoscope to the
shifting currents within that political elite.
So I wouldn't despise the BBC entirely. It tells us how the politicians want us to think.
In telling us that it sometimes gives us a bearing on what the politicians et al are doing
and what they intend to do.
The never-Trumpers will never let their dreams die. Of course, they never oppose Trump on
substantive issues like attempting a coup in Venezuela, withdrawing from the INF treaty,
supporting the nazis in Ukraine, supporting Al Qaeda forces in Syria, etc. But somehow
they're totally against him and ready to haul out the latest stupid thing he said as their
daily fodder for conversation...
renfro @ 10 said;"The Dems were stupid to gin up the Russian collusion."
Uh no, just doing their job of distracting the public, while ignoring the real issues
the
American workers care about. You know, the things DJT promised the workers, but has never
delivered.(better health care for all, ending the useless wars overseas, an
infrastructure
plan to increase good paying jobs), to name just a few.
The corporate Dems( which is the lions share of them), are bought and paid for to
distract, and they've done it well.
The Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas, and most who have come before, are of the same
ilk.
Bend over workers and lube up, for more of the same in 2020...
I profoundly disagree with the notion that Russiagate had anything to do with Hillary's
collusion with the DNC. Gosh, that is naive at best.
1) Hillary didn't need to collude against Sanders - the additional money that she got from
doing so was small change compared the to overall amount she raised for her campaign.
2) Sanders was a long-time friend of the Clintons. He boasted that he's known Hillary
for over 25 years.
3) Sanders was a sheepdog meant to keep progressives in the Democratic Party. He was
never a real candidate. He refused to attack Hillary on character issues and remained loyal
even after Hillary-DNC collusion was revealed.
When Sanders had a chance to total disgrace Hillary, he refused to do so. Hillary
repeatedly said that she had NEVER changed for vote for money but Warren had proven that
she had: Hillary changed her vote on the Bankruptcy Bill for money from the credit card
industry.
4) Hillary didn't try to bury her collusion with the DNC (as might be expected), instead
she used it to alienate progressive voters by bring Debra Wasserman-Shultz into her
campaign.
5) Hillary also alienated or ignored other important constituencies: she wouldn't
support an increase in the minimum wage but accepted $750,000 from Goldman Sachs for a
speech; she took the black vote for granted and all-but berated a Black Lives Matters
activist; and she called whites "deplorables".
Hillary threw the race to her OTHER long-time friend in the race: Trump. The
Deep-State wanted a nationalist and that's just what they got.
6) Hillary and the DNC has shown NO REMORSE whatsoever about colluding with Sanders and
Sanders has shown no desire whatsoever to hold them accountable.
IMO Russiagate (Russian influence on Trump) and accusations of "Russian meddling" in the
election are part of the same McCarthyist psyop to direct hate at Russia and stamp out any
dissent. Trump probably knowingly, played into the Deep State's psyop by:
> hiring Manafort;
> calling on Russia to release Hillary's emails;
> talking about Putin in a admiring way.
And it accomplished much more than hating on Russia:
> served as excuse for Trump to do Deep State bidding;
> distracted from the real meddling in the 2016 election;
> served as a device for settling scores:
- Assange isolated
(Wikileaks was termed an "agent of a foreign power");
- Michael Flynn forced to resign
(because he spoke to the Russian ambassador).
hopehely , Mar 23, 2019 3:49:15 PM |
link The US owes Russia an official apology. And also Russia should get its stolen
buildings and the consulate back. And maybe to get paid some compensation for the injustice
and for damages suffered. Without that, the Russiagate is not really over.
If memory serves me correctly, the initial accusations of collusion between DJT's
presidential campaign and the Kremlin came from Crowdstrike, the cybersecurity company hired
by the Democratic National Committee to oversee the security of its computers and databases.
This was done to deflect attention away from Hillary Clinton's illegal use of a personal
server at home to conduct government business during her time as US State Secretary (2009 -
2013), business which among other things included plotting with the US embassy in Libya (and
the then US ambassador Chris Stevens) to overthrow Muammar Gaddhafi's government in 2011, and
conspiring also to overthrow the elected government in Honduras in 2010.
The business of Christopher Steele's dossier (part or even most of which could have been
written by Sergei Skripal, depending on who you read) and George Papadopoulos' conversation
with the half-wit Australian "diplomat" Alexander Downer in London were brought in to bolster
the Russiagate claims and make them look genuine.
As B says, Crowdstrike does indeed have a Ukrainian nationalist agenda: its founder and
head Dmitri Alperovich is a Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council (the folks who fund
Bellingcat's crapaganda) and which itself receives donations from Ukrainian oligarch Viktor
Pinchuk. Crowdstrike has some association with one of the Chalupa sisters (Alexandra or
Andrea - I can't be bothered dredging through DuckDuckGo to check which - but one of them was
employed by the DNC) who donated money to the Maidan campaign that overthrew Viktor
Yanukovych's government in Kiev in February 2014.
thanks b... i would like russiagate to be finished, but i tend to see it much like kadath
@2.. the link @2 is worth the read as a reminder of how far the usa has sunk in being a
nation of passive neocons... emptywheel can't say no to this as witnessed by her article
from today.. ) as a consequence, i agree with @14 dh-mtl's conclusion - "It looks today
like the the societal decline is acellerating. Russia-gate is just one of many indicators."
the irony for those of us who don't live in the usa, is we are going to have watch this
sad state of affairs continue to unravel, as the usa and the west continue to unravel in
tandem.. the msm as corporate mouthpiece is not going to be tell us anything of relevance..
instead it will be continued madcow, or maddow bullshit 24-7... amd as kadath notes @2 - if
any of them are to step up as a truth teller - they will be marginalized or silenced... so
long as the mainstream swallow what they are fed in the msm, the direction of the titanic is
still on track...
@19 hopehely... you can forget about anything like that happening..
What Difference Does it Make?
They don't really need Russia-gate anymore. It bought them time. As we speak nuclear bombers
make runs near Russian borders every day and Russian consulates get attacked with heavy
weaponry in the EU and no Russian outlet is even making a reference,while Israel is ready to
move heavy artillery in to Golan targeting Russia bases in Syria and China raking all their
deals for civilian projects in the Med.
Russia got stuffed in the corner getting all the punches.
What a horrible witch hunt, but the msm will keep on denying and keep creating new hoaxes
about Trump, Russia.
Heck the media even deny there was no collussion, they keep spinning it in different ways!
Thanks for citing Caitlin Johnstone's wonderful epitaph, b--Russiavape indeed!
During the fiasco, the Outlaw US Empire provided excellent proof to the world that it does
everything it accused Russia of doing and more, while Russia's cred has greatly risen.
Meanwhile, there're numerous other crimes Trump, his associates, Clinton, her
associates--like Pelosi--ought to be impeached, removed from office, arrested, then tried in
court, which is diametrically opposed to the current--false--narrative.
Scotch Bingeington , Mar 23, 2019 4:47:39 PM |
link
The people who steered us into two years of Russiavape insanity are the very last people
anyone should ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our world.
Yes, absolutely. And not just regarding the world's future, but even if you happen to be
in the same building with one of them and he/she bursts into your already smoke-filled room
yelling that the house is on fire.
Btw, whatever authority has ever ruled that "ex-MI6 dude" Steele (who doesn't remind me of
steel at all, but rather of a certain nondescript entity named Anthony Blair) is in fact
merely 'EX'? He himself? The organisation? The Queen perhaps?
Expose them at every opportunity, they should not get away with this like nothing
happend:
If you think a single Russiagate conspiracist is going to be held accountable for media
malpractice, you clearly haven't been awake the past 2 decades. No one will pay for being
wrong. This profession is as corrupt & rotten as the kleptocracy it serves
defeatism isn't the answer -- should remind & mock these hacks every opportunity.
Just need to be aware of the beast we're up against.
The establishment plays on peoples fears and so we all sink together as we all cling to
our "lesser evils", tribal allegiances, and try to avoid the embarrassment of being
wrong.
Although everyone is aware of the corruption and insider dealing, no one seems to want to
acknowledge the extent, or to think critically so as to reveal any more than we already
know.
It's almost as though corruption (the King's nudity) is a national treasure and revealing
it would be a national security breach in the exceptional nation.
And so to the Deep State cabal continues to rule unimpeded.
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by
inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the
American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives,
getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote
this story on a daily basis for nearly three years
Posted by: Ken | Mar 23, 2019 2:09:31 PM | 4
You people don't get it do you?
'The Plan' was to get rid of Turkey-Russia-Israel (and a few others) with one fell
swoop....
Russia gate was both a diversion from the real collusions (Russian Mafia , China and Israel)
and a clever ruse to allow Trump to back off from his campaign promise to improve relations
with Russia. US policy toward Russia is no different under Trump than it was during Obamas
administration. Exactly what the Russia Gaters wanted and Trump delivered.
That Mueller could find nothing more than some tax/money laundering/perjury charges in
which the culprits in the end get pardoned is hardly surprising given his history. Want
something covered up? Put Mueller on it.
To show how afraid Trump was of Mueller he appointed his long term friend Barr as AJ and
pretended he didn't know how close they were when it came out. There is no lie people wont
believe. Lol
Meanwhile Trumps Russian Mafia connections stay under the radar in MSM, Trump continues as
Bibi's sock puppet, the fake trade war with China continues as Ivanka is rolling in China
trademarks .
The Rothschild puppet that bailed out Trumps casinos as Commerce Secretary overseeing
negotiations that will open the doors for more US and EU (they willy piggy back on the deal
like hyenas) jobs to go to China (this time in financial/services) and stronger IPR
protections that will facilitate this transfer, and will provide companies more profits in
which to buyback stocks but wont bring manufacturing jobs back.
The collusion story has been hit badly and it will likely lose its momentum, but I wonder how
far reaching this loss of momentum is. There are many variants. The 'unwitting accomplice' is
an oxymoron which isn't finished yet. The Russians hacking the election: not over. The
Russians sowing discord and division. Not over. Credibility of the Russiagate champions
overall? Not clear. Some could take a serious hit. Brennan and other insiders who made it
onto cable tv?
It is possible that the whole groupthink about Russiagate changes drastically
and that 'the other claims' also lose their credibility but it's far from certain. After
years of building up tension Russia's policies are also changing. I think they have shown
restraint but their paranoia and aggressiveness is also increasing and some claims will
become true after all.
"Russiagate" has always been a meaningless political fraud.
When folks like Hillary Clinton sign on to something and give it a great deal of weight,
you really do know you are talking about an empty bag of tricks. She is a psychopathic liar,
one with a great deal of blood on her hands.
My problem with this official result is that it may tend to give Trump a boost, new
credibility.
The trouble with Trump has never been Russia - something only blind ideologues and people
with the minds of children believe - it is that he is genuinely ignorant and genuinely
arrogant and loud-mouthed - an extremely dangerous combination.
And in trying to defend himself, this genuine coward has completely surrendered American
foreign policy to its most dangerous enemies, the Neocons.
Blaming Russiagate on Hillary is very easy for those who hate her or hope that Trump will
deliver on his faux populist fake-agenda.
No one wants to contemplate the possibility that Hillary and Trump, and the duopoly they
lead, fixed the election and planned Russiagate in advance.
It seems a bridge too far, even for the smart skeptics at MoA.
So funny.
Trump has proven himself to be a neocon. He broke his campaign promise to investigate
Hillary within DAYS of being elected. He has brought allies of his supposed enemies into his
Administration.
Yet every one turns from the possibility that the election was fixed. LOL.
The horrible possibility that our "democracy" is managed is too horrible to contemplate.
Lets just blame it all on Hillary.
Those who have been holding their breath for two years can finally exhale. I guess the fever
of hysteria will have to be attended a while longer. A malady of this kind does not easily
die out overnight. Those who have been taken in, and duped for so long, can not so easily
recover. The weight of so much cognitive dissonance presses down on them like a boulder. The
dust of the stampeded herd behind Russiagate is enough paralyze the will of those who have
succumbed.
As Joseph Conrad once wrote, "The ways of human progress are inscrutable."
Russiagate is a pendulum, it reached the dead point, it would hange in the air for a moment,
then it would start swinging right backwards at full speed crashign everything in the way!
It would be revealed, it was Russia who paid Muller to start that hysteria and stole money
from American tax-payers and make America an international laughing stock. "Putin benefited
from it", highly likely!
Muller's investigation is paid for with Manafort's seized cash and property and Manafort
has made Yanukovich king of Ukraine, so Manafort is Putin's agent, so Muller is working of
Putin's money, so it was Putin's collusion everything that Muller is doing! Highly
likely.
There is no "Liberal Media". Those whom claim to be Liberal and yet support the Warmonger
Democratic Party (Republican lite) are frauds. Liberalism does not condone war and it most
certainly does not support wars of aggression - especially those wars waged against
defenseless nations. Neither can liberalism support trade sanctions or the subjugation of
Palestinians in the Apartheid State of ISreal.
We must be very careful with the words we choose, in order to paint the correct
conjuncture and not to throw the bathtub with the baby inside.
It's one thing to say Bernie Sanders is not a revolutionary; it's another completely
different thing to say he was in cahoots with the Clintons.
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary. Not only he chose to do so, but he only didn't win
because the DNC threw all its weight against him.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist. He's an imperialist who believes the
spoils of the empire should be also used to build a Scandinavian-style Welfare State for the
American people only. A cynic would tell you this would make him a Nazi without the race
theme, but you have to keep in mind societies move in a dialectical patern, not a linear one:
if you preach for "democratic socialism", you're bringing the whole package, not only the
bits you want.
I believe the rise of Bernie Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it
exists. Americans are more aware of their own contradictions (more enlightened) now than
before he disputed those faithful primaries of 2016. And the most important ingredient for
that, in my opinion, was the fact he was crushed by both parties; that the "establishment"
acted in unison not to let him get near the WH. That was a didactic moment for the American
people (or a signficant part of it).
But I agree Russiagate went well beyond just covering the Clintons' dirt in the DNC.
It may have be born like that, but, if that was the case, the elites quickly realized it
had other, ampler practical uses. The main one, in my opinion, was to drive a wedge between
Trump's Clash of Civilizations's doctrine -- which perceives China as the main long term
enemy, and Russia as a natural ally of the West -- and the public opinon. The thing is most
of the American elite is far too dependent on China's productive chain; Russia is not, and
can be balkanized.
There is a funny video compilation of the TV talking heads predicting the end of Trump, new
bombshells, impeachment, etc., over the last two years.
Unfortunately, the same sort of compilation could be made of sane people predicting "this new
information means the end of Russiagate" over the same time period.
The truth is that the truth doesn't matter, only the propaganda, and it has not stopped, only
spun onto new hysteria.
As others have said, hard core Russiagaters will likely not be convinced that they have been
wrong all along. They have too much emotional investment in the grand conspiracy theory to
simply let it go. Rather, they will forever point to what they believe are genuine bits of
evidence and curse Mueller for not following the leads. And the Dems in the House of
Representatives will waste more time and resources on pointless investigations in an effort
to keep the public sufficiently distracted from more important matters, such as the endless
wars and coups that they support. A pox on all their houses, both Democrats and
Republicans.
"...hard core Russiagaters will likely not be convinced that they have been wrong all along."
Wrong about what? There seems to be "narrative" operative here that there are only two
positions on this matter: the "right" one and the "wrong" one and nothing else.
Ben's and other comments might make this a little bit superfluous but it's short.
A case of divide and conquer against the population
This time it was a fabricated scandal.
Continued control over "facts" and narratives, the opportunity for efficient misdirection
and distraction, stealing and wasting other people's time and effort, spurious disagreements,
wearing down relations.
The illusion of choice, (false) opposition, blinded "oversight", and mythical claims
concerning a civilian government (in the case of the US: "of, for, and by" or something like
that).
Who knew or knows is irrelevant as long as the show goes on. There's nothing to prove
anything significant about who if anyone may or may not be behind the curtain and thus on
towards the next big or small scandal we go because people will be dissatisfied and hungry
and ready to bite as hard as possible on some other bait for or against something.
Maybe "Russiagate" was impeccably engineered or maybe it organically outcompeted other
distractions on offer that would ultimately also waste enormous amounts of time and
effort.
Management by crisis
The scandals, crises, "Science says" games and rubbish, outrage narratives, and any other
manipulations attempt and perhaps succeed at controlling the US and the world through
spam.
Jonathan @39: Of course it was fixed. That's what the Electoral College is for.
Well, you can say the same think about money-as-speech , gerrymandering, voter
suppression, etc. Despite all these, Americans believe that their democracy works.
I contend that what we witnessed in 2016 was a SHOW. Like American wrestling. It was
(mostly) fake. The proper term for this is kayfabe .
My advice to the yanks mourning Russiagate: move to the UK. The sick Brits will keep the
Russia hating cult alive even after they spend a decade puking over Brexit.
Jackrabbit @18
So, you don't think HRC qualifies as a nationalist? She can't fake populist, but she can do
nationalist.
I also think she is much too ambitious to have intentionally thrown the election. It was her
turn dammit! Take a look at her behavior as First Lady if you think she's the kind of
personality that is content to wield power from behind the scenes.
They didn't fall for the Steele dossier. I recall that emptywheel had discredited the dossier
during the election as it was known to have been rejected by major media outlets leading up
to the election. I think they merely fell behind the others as the outgoing administration,
the Democrats, the CIA, and the media chose to use the dossier to 'blackmail' Trump.
The most important fruit of russiagate, from the view of the establishment of the hegemon, is
that America has now taken a giant step towards full bore censorship.
We must be very careful ... and not to throw the bathtub with the baby
inside.
Don't we already have plenty of evidence that there is no precious democratic baby in the
bath? What do you think the Yellow Vests are doing every weekend?
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary.
Why not? Do you know him personally? Can you vouch for him?
Bernie referred to Hillary as "my friend" many times on the campaign trail. He told
Politico that he's known her for 25 years but they are not "best friends". That's Sander's
typical word judo. Like when he was asked about Zionism, his response: what's
that?
The fact is, Bernie is friendly with all the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him
and Schumer wouldn't allow funding for democratic candidates that opposed him.
Then there's other strangeness. Like Bernie's refusal to release his 2014 tax
returns. Bernie said his returns were "boring" but when his 2015 tax return was delayed the
press asked him to release his 2014 return (Hillary boasted that she had released 10 years of
returns). Bernie refused.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist.... I believe the rise of Bernie
Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it exists.
Really? LOL. Sanders REFUSED to lead a Movement for real change. That might've changed things
for the better Mi>- like the Yellow Vests are changing things for the better.
What have we seen from the Democratics since 2016? Bullshit like Russiagate,
meaningless astroturf activism around bathrooms and statues, and outlandish policies like
open borders. These things just irritate most Americans and will lead to more failure for the
Democrats and another 4 years for Trump.
Lastly, you said nothing about Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary on character
issues and to counter her assertion that she NEVER changed her vote for money. Other
examples: Bernie refused to discuss Hillary's home email server, never mentioned Hillary's
well known work to squash investigations of Bill Clinton for abusing women (Jennifer
Flowers), and didn't talk about other scandals like Benghazi ("What difference does it make")
and her glee at the overthrow of Quadaffi ("we came, we saw, we kicked his ass").
And what of Trump? He was the ONLY republican populist in a field of 19. Do you find
that even a little bit strange?
We must be very careful ... and not to throw the bathtub with the baby
inside.
Don't we already have plenty of evidence that there is no precious democratic baby in the
bath? What do you think the Yellow Vests are doing every weekend?
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary.
Why not? Do you know him personally? Can you vouch for him?
Bernie referred to Hillary as "my friend" many times on the campaign trail. He told
Politico that he's known her for 25 years but they are not "best friends". That's Sander's
typical word judo. Like when he was asked about Zionism, his response: what's that?
The fact is, Bernie is friendly with all the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him and
Schumer wouldn't allow funding for democratic candidates that opposed him.
Then there's other strangeness. Like Bernie's refusal to release his 2014 tax returns.
Bernie said his returns were "boring" but when his 2015 tax return was delayed the press
asked him to release his 2014 return (Hillary boasted that she had released 10 years of
returns) . Bernie refused.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist.... I believe the rise of Bernie
Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it exists.
Really? LOL. Sanders REFUSED to lead a Movement for real change. That might've changed things
for the better Mi>- like the Yellow Vests are changing things for the better.
What have we seen from the Democratics since 2016? Bullshit like Russiagate, meaningless
astroturf activism around bathrooms and statues, and outlandish policies like open borders.
These things just irritate most Americans and will lead to more failure for the Democrats and
another 4 years for Trump.
Lastly, you said nothing about Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary on character issues and
to counter her assertion that she NEVER changed her vote for money. Other examples: Bernie
refused to discuss Hillary's home email server, never mentioned Hillary's well known work to
squash investigations of Bill Clinton for abusing women (Jennifer Flowers), and didn't talk
about other scandals like Benghazi ("What difference does it make") and her glee at the
overthrow of Quadaffi ("we came, we saw, we kicked his ass").
And what of Trump? He was the ONLY republican populist in a field of 19. Do you find that
even a little bit strange?
mourning dove @57: Exactly! It's the Electoral College that decides elections, not
voters.
Do you think Hillary didn't know that? She refused to campaign in the three mid-western
states that would've won her the electoral college. Each of the states were won by Trump by a
thin margin.
Gosh and Blimey!
Comment #56 in a thread about an utterly corrupt political system and no-one has mentioned
the pro-"Israel" Lobby?
Words fail me. So I'll use someone else's...
From Xymphora March 21, 2019.
"Truth or Trope?" (Sailer):
"Of the top 50 political donors to either party at the federal level in 2018, 52 percent
were Jewish and 48 percent were gentile. Individuals who identify as Jewish are usually
estimated to make up perhaps 2.2 percent of the population.
Of the $675 million given by the top 50 donors, 66 percent of the money came from Jews and 34
percent from gentiles.
Of the $297 million that GOP candidates and conservative causes received from the top 50
donors, 56 percent was from Jewish individuals.
Of the $361 million Democratic politicians and liberal causes received, 76 percent came from
Jewish givers.
So it turns out that Rep. Omar and Gov. LePage appear to have been correct, at least about
the biggest 2018 donors. But you can also see why Pelosi wanted Omar to just shut up about
it: 76 percent is a lot."
Next up another false flag operation. The thing is, it would have be non-trivial and
involving the harming of people to jolt the narrative back to that favoring the deep state.
And taking off the proverbial media table, that Mueller found no collusion. Yes, election in
2016 no collusion, but Putin was behind the latest horrific false flag, "oh look, Trump is
not confronting Putin"...
Not even getting into the "treason", "putin's c*ckholster", "what's the time on Moscow,
troll!" crap we've been subjected to for 3 years, please enjoy this mashup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjUvfZj-Fm0.
I've said before that she's a terrible strategist and she ran a terrible campaign and she's
terribly out of touch. I think she expected a cake walk and was relying on Trump being so
distasteful to voters that they'd have no other option.
I think Trump legitimately won the election and I don't believe for a second that she won the
popular vote. There were so many problems with the election but since they were on the losing
side, nobody cares. In 2012 I didn't know anyone else who was voting for Jill Stein, way too
many people were still in love with Obama. She got .4% of the vote. In 2016 most of the
people I knew were voting for Jill Stein, she drew a large crowd from DemExit, but they say
she got .4% of the vote. Total bullshit. There was also ballot stuffing and lots of other
problems, but it still wasn't enough.
I'm also convinced that Trump and Clinton colluded, but that they did so in order to get her
elected. I don't think he really wanted the job. But still, Hillary can do nationalist, and
the designs of the Empire would have proceeded either way.
Trump is a crook who takes money wherever he can get it, from subcontractors foolish enough
to work for him to bankers dumb enough to believe his financial statements. No doubt he has
helped Russian crooks sanitize their booty, but that is apparently too difficult for Mueller
to prove.
It is not good news that this troglodyte was not indicted, but it is good news that
Russia was not found guilty of electing him. Russiagate is an existential issue for the
"national security" establishment and just another propaganda offensive designed to justify
the largely useless & destructive activities of the Pentagon.
It is time to build
cooperation not continue the stupidity of US unilateralism and pursuit of global hegemony.
Trump and his team have to be removed from office. Democrats don't need Russiagate to do it.
The truth will work better.
"... RussiaGate was never a sustainable narrative. It was ludicrous from the beginning. And now that it has ended with a whimper there are a lot of angry, confused and scared people out there. ..."
"... And now his report is in. There are no new indictments. And by doing so he is saving his reputation for the future. And that is your biggest tell that Hillary's blackmail is now worthless. ..."
"... They don't fear her anymore because RussiaGate outed her as the architect. Anything else she has is irrelevant in the face of trying to oust a sitting president from power. ..."
"... The Deep State and The Davos Crowd stand revealed and reviled. If they don't do something dramatic then the anger from the rest of the country will also be palpable come election time. Justice is not done simply by saying, "No evidence of collusion." ..."
"... It's clear that RussiaGate is a failure of monumental proportions. Heads will have to roll. But who will be willing to fall on their sword at this point? Comey? No. McCabe? No. ..."
"... If there is no collusion, if RussiaGate is a scam, then all roads lead back to Hillary as the sacrificial lamb. ..."
"... If there is any hope of salvaging the center of this country for the Democrats, the ones that voted against Hillary in 2016, then there is no reason anymore not to indict Hillary as the architect of RussiaGate. ..."
"... And hope that is enough bread and circuses to distract from the real storm ahead of us. ..."
"... Hillary is the epitome of evil. ..."
"... I don't think Hillary is enough. I want McCabe, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch, Obama, Lois Lerner, Blasey Ford, Brennan, Clapper, Abedin, Weiner, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice, Strzok, Page, Sally Yates, all of the phony FISA cohort brought to justice. ..."
"... Her DNC cabal cooked in less than 24 hours from the election defeat a conspiracy of Russian meddling and now, when more information became available, HCR is involved in two separate cases of foreign collusion, The Steele dossier, with Russo-Anglo meddling and another a Ukrainian one, which is now under investigation and the purpose was getting their help for becoming elected. ..."
"... Without a doubt the Russian collusion is the most serious one, because it deliberately sabotaged diplomatic relations with Russia and lead into to a new cold war era. This also raised substantially risks for a direct confrontation with catastrophic consequences. The damage from these treacherous acts is huge and the felony bears pretty much all hallmarks of treason. Se deliberately undermined her own nation´s interests and rather risked even a war simply, because she is a psychopath, who refused to concede the defeat in due elections and instead wanted to hide real reasons for her loss to any cost for everybody else, "because it was her turn to get elected". ..."
"... HIS NAME WAS SETH RICH ..."
"... It is clear that from the beginning, fraudulent FISA warrants, that it was a case of Obama's administration digging dirt on Trump believing that when Hillary wins there will be nobody to hold them responsible ..."
"... When Hillary lost there was only one way out for them to justify that kind of abuse, to find something, anything on Trump so they can say that they were right. Worse than Watergate by orders of magnitude, involving FBI, DOJ and WH itself. ..."
During most of the RussiaGate investigation against Donald Trump I kept saying that all
roads lead to Hillary Clinton.
Anyone with three working brain cells knew this, including
'Miss' Maddow, whose tears of disappointment are particularly delicious.
Robert Mueller's investigation was designed from the beginning to create something out of
nothing. It did this admirably.
It was so effective it paralyzed the country for more than two years, just like Europe has
been held hostage by Brexit. And all of this because, in the end, the elites I call The Davos
Crowd refused to accept that the people no longer believed their lies about the benefits of
their neoliberal, globalist agenda.
Hillary Clinton's ascension to the Presidency was to be their apotheosis along with the
Brexit vote. These were meant to lay to rest, once and for all time, the vaguely libertarian
notion that people should rule themselves and not be ruled by philosopher kings in some distant
land.
Hillary's failure was enormous. And the RussiaGate gambit to destroy Trump served a laundry
list of purposes to cover it:
Undermine his legitimacy before he even takes office.
Accuse him of what Hillary actually did: collude with Russians and Ukrainians to effect
the outcome of the election
Paralyze Trump on his foreign policy desires to scale back the Empire
Give aid and comfort to hurting progressives and radicalize them further undermining our
political system
Polarize the electorate over the false choice of Trump's guilt.
Paralyze the Dept. of Justice and Congress so that they would not uncover the massive
corruption in the intelligence agencies in the U.S. and the U.K.
Isolate Trump and take away every ally or potential ally he could have by turning them
against him through prosecutor overreach.
Hillary should have been thrown to the wolves after she failed. When you fail the people she
failed and cost them the money she cost them, you lose more than just your funding. What this
tells you is that Hillary has so much dirt on everyone involved, once this thing started
everyone went along with it lest she burn them down as well.
Burnin' Down da House
Hillary is the epitome of envy. Envy is the destructive sin of coveting someone else's life
so much they are obsessed with destroying it. It's the sin of Cain. She envies what Trump has,
the Presidency. And she was willing to tear it down to keep him from having it no matter how
much damage it would do. She's worse than the Joker from The Dark Knight.
Because while the Joker is unfathomable to someone with a conscience there's little stopping
us from excising him from the community completely., even though Batman refuses.
Hillary hates us for who we are and what we won't give her. And that animus drove her to
blackmail the world while putting on the face of its savior.
And that's what makes what comes next so obvious to me. RussiaGate was never a sustainable
narrative. It was ludicrous from the beginning. And now that it has ended with a whimper there
are a lot of angry, confused and scared people out there.
Mueller thought all he had to do was lean on corrupt people and threaten them with
everything. They would turn on Trump. He would resign in disgrace from the public outcry. It
didn't work. In the end Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and Roger Stone all held their ground or
perjured themselves into the whole thing falling apart.
Andrew Weissman's resignation last month was your tell there was nothing. Mueller would
pursue this to the limit of his personal reputation and no further. Just like so many other
politicians.
Vote Your Pocketbook
With respect to Brexit I've been convinced that it would come down to reputations. Would the
British MP's vote against their own personal best interests to do the bidding of the EU? Would
Theresa May eventually realize her historical reputation would be destroyed if she caves to
Brussels and betrays Brexit in the end? Always bet on the fecklessness of politicians. They
will always act selfishly when put to the test. While leading RussiaGate, Mueller was always
headed here if he couldn't get someone to betray Trump.
And now his report is in. There are no new indictments. And by doing so he is saving his
reputation for the future. And that is your biggest tell that Hillary's blackmail is now
worthless.
They don't fear her anymore because RussiaGate outed her as the architect. Anything else she
has is irrelevant in the face of trying to oust a sitting president from power. The
progressives that were convinced of Trump's treason are bereft; their false hope stripped away
like standing in front of a sandblaster. They will be raw, angry and looking for blood after
they get over their denial.
Everyone else who was blackmailed into going along with this lunacy will begin cutting deals
to save their skins. The outrage over this will not end. Trump will be President when he stands
for re-election.
The Wolves Beckon
The Democrats do not have a chance against him as of right now. When he was caving on
everything back in December it looked like he was done. That there was enough meat on the
RussiaGate bones to make Nancy Pelosi brave. Then she backed off on impeachment talk.
Oops....
... ... ...
The Deep State and The Davos Crowd stand revealed and reviled. If they don't do something
dramatic then the anger from the rest of the country will also be palpable come election time.
Justice is not done simply by saying, "No evidence of collusion."
It's clear that RussiaGate is
a failure of monumental proportions. Heads will have to roll. But who will be willing to fall
on their sword at this point? Comey? No. McCabe? No. There is only one answer. And Obama's
people are still in place to protect him. I said last fall that " Hillary would
indict herself. " And I meant it. Eventually her blackmail and drive to burn it all down
led to this moment.
The circumstances are different than I expected back then, Trump didn't win the mid-terms.
But the end result was always the same. If there is no collusion, if RussiaGate is a scam, then
all roads lead back to Hillary as the sacrificial lamb.
Because the bigger project, the erection of a transnational superstate, is bigger than any
one person. Hillary is expendable. Lies are expensive to maintain. The truth is cheap to
defend. Think of the billions in opportunity costs associated with this. Once the costs rise
above the benefits, change happens fast. If there is any hope of salvaging the center of this
country for the Democrats, the ones that voted against Hillary in 2016, then there is no reason
anymore not to indict Hillary as the architect of RussiaGate.
We all know it's the truth. So, the cheapest way out of this mess for them is to give the
MAGApedes what they want, Hillary.
And hope that is enough bread and circuses to distract from the real storm ahead of us.
I don't think Hillary is enough. I want McCabe, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch,
Obama, Lois Lerner, Blasey Ford, Brennan, Clapper, Abedin, Weiner, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice,
Strzok, Page, Sally Yates, all of the phony FISA cohort brought to justice. Think of the
taxpayer money wasted on this ridiculous Mueller investigation! The Roger Stone arrest was an
outrage. Who tipped off CNN? Who ordered it? What was with the attack dogs and machine guns?
And now we have Nadler trying to destroy anyone and everyone who ever did business with
Trump. All those 80 people who got letters from him asking for documents will now be
bankrupted by legal fees.
According to Scott Adams, one recipient is refusing to
cooperate -- he's saying "I can't afford for me and family to be destroyed." He put the request
for documents in a drawer. He has no money for lawyers.
This insanity and abuse of power has
got to stop. Meanwhile, nothing gets done in Congress. We're all looking at censorship,
tilted search engines, de-monetization, being beat up on campus for trying to express an
opinion, being accosted in a restaurant (or, VP Pence, from the stage ("Hamilton"), getting
sucker-punched for wearing a MAGA hat, having elections stolen through myriad Dem cheating
methods, and NOTHING is being done.
Her DNC cabal cooked in less than 24 hours from the election defeat a conspiracy of Russian
meddling and now, when more information became available, HCR is involved in two separate
cases of foreign collusion, The Steele dossier, with Russo-Anglo meddling and another a
Ukrainian one, which is now under investigation and the purpose was getting their help for
becoming elected.
Without a doubt the Russian collusion is the most serious one, because it deliberately
sabotaged diplomatic relations with Russia and lead into to a new cold war era. This also
raised substantially risks for a direct confrontation with catastrophic consequences. The
damage from these treacherous acts is huge and the felony bears pretty much all hallmarks of
treason. Se deliberately undermined her own nation´s interests and rather risked even a
war simply, because she is a psychopath, who refused to concede the defeat in due elections
and instead wanted to hide real reasons for her loss to any cost for everybody else, "because
it was her turn to get elected".
It is clear that from the beginning, fraudulent FISA warrants, that it was a case of
Obama's administration digging dirt on Trump believing that when Hillary wins there will be
nobody to hold them responsible.
When Hillary lost there was only one way out for them to
justify that kind of abuse, to find something, anything on Trump so they can say that they
were right. Worse than Watergate by orders of magnitude, involving FBI, DOJ and WH itself.
But Clintons are mobsters in disguise, so what's the difference. Jared Kushner father is as close to a mobster as one can get (hiring a prostitute to compromise relative is one of his tricks)
Notable quotes:
"... Don't ever think the Democratic establishment is your friend. They want you to die in foreign wars and your children to work in starvation-wage service jobs until they're 70 so that the top 0.1% can buy their kids' way into Yale ..."
Don't ever think the Democratic establishment is your friend. They want you to die in foreign wars and your children to
work in starvation-wage service jobs until they're 70 so that the top 0.1% can buy their kids' way into Yale
Navi 9:50 AM - 22 Mar 2019
"It's already happening" while the DCCC is trying their best to stop primary challenges is a little shortsighted no? If you
don't call out what is wrong what are you really 'fixing'? We can walk and chew gum at the same time!
Right now the title should "Can Trump happen again?" ;-)
But this is from 2016 and Professor Stiglitz missed the foreign policy and neoliberal globalization aspects of "Hillary vs
Trump" battle. A vote for Hillary was a vote for continuation of wars of expansion of neoliberal empire.
It is unclear where is political force that can reverse neoliberal deregulation and neoliberal tax cuts. for example full set of
taxes on all kind of income might help (so that dividends owners should pay Social security tax too) but currently is politically unfeasible,
as control of Washington is in the hands of financial oligarchy which will not relinquish its power without a fight.
Notable quotes:
"... reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization – have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both). ..."
"... Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so. ..."
"... Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government. ..."
"... The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth. ..."
"... The interests that have secured control of the US government -- again, the legislative and executive at the federal and state levels, in particular -- will not easily or readily let go of the power they have amassed, vis-à-vis their control over the writing and execution of laws and regulations lesser mortals must live under but from which the elites are exempt (cf, banking crisis). ..."
"... Either we find a TR and FDR -- and the modern-day equivalent of their allies in Congress -- or our society will continue to erode. ..."
"... the balance of global power likely will continue to shift to the more pragmatic and less constrained Hobbesian forms of societal organization -- most likely some variant of strongman rule, with China at the vanguard, if Xi Jinping (or a competitor) is able to successfully consolidate power. ..."
"... we still lack the details and a roadmap towards a new economy. ..."
"... The vehicle for shifting the fruits of that growth has more to do with our free trade agreements than tax cuts. Corporations were just as greedy before we had free trade agreements but tariffs prevented the enrichment free trade opens up. That GDP increase would have happened without free trade as workers enjoyed higher wages. Which makes Trump correct after all. ..."
"... From shortly after the end of the War of 1812 until the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions in 1967 the United States was the most tariff protected nation on earth. ..."
"... How is it possible that two powerful families (Bush and Clinton) are nearly have a monopoly on becoming US presidents. ..."
"... Just twenty five years ago Mr. Robert McNamara came to Matsue, a Japanese city near where I live, to attend a US-Japanese conference. I was appalled to hear, as he said and I was in the audience, that the income of the American middle-class had not risen at all for the past twenty or so years. His words were less an explanation of what had been going on in the American economy and more a warning of what was going to happen in the Japanese economy. The rules need to be rewritten. ..."
"... The Americans shall be voting Trump for the same reasons they voted Bush Jr. The democratic [neoliberal] establishment failed miserably ..."
But several underlying factors also appear to have contributed to the closeness of the race. For starters, many Americans are
economically worse off than they were a quarter-century ago. The median income of full-time male employees is lower than it was 42
years ago, and it is increasingly difficult for those with limited education to get a full-time job that pays decent wages.
Indeed, real (inflation-adjusted) wages at the bottom of the income distribution are roughly where they were 60 years ago. So
it is no surprise that Trump finds a large, receptive audience when he says the state of the economy is rotten. But Trump is wrong
both about the diagnosis and the prescription. The US economy as a whole has done well for the last six decades: GDP has increased
nearly six-fold. But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top – people like Trump, owing partly to massive
tax cuts that he would extend and deepen.
At the same time, reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization
– have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion:
America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both).
Trump wants to blame all of America's problems on trade and immigration. He's wrong. The US would have faced deindustrialization
even without freer trade: global employment in manufacturing has been declining, with productivity gains exceeding demand growth.
Where the trade agreements failed, it was not because the US was outsmarted by its trading partners; it was because the US trade
agenda was shaped by corporate interests. America's companies have done well, and it is the Republicans who have blocked efforts
to ensure that Americans made worse off by trade agreements would share the benefits.
Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing
assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called
into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich
bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans
who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so.
Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government.
But Trump's proposed policies would make a bad situation much worse. Surely, another dose of trickle-down economics of the kind he
promises, with tax cuts aimed almost entirely at rich Americans and corporations, would produce results no better than the last time
they were tried.
In fact, launching a trade war with China, Mexico, and other US trading partners, as Trump promises, would make all Americans
poorer and create new impediments to the global cooperation needed to address critical global problems like the Islamic State, global
terrorism, and climate change. Using money that could be invested in technology, education, or infrastructure to build a wall between
the US and Mexico is a twofer in terms of wasting resources.
There are two messages US political elites should be hearing. The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that
have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring
inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which
rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality,
but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth.
This leads to the second message: we need to rewrite the rules of the economy once again, this time to ensure that ordinary citizens
benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore this lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump
phenomenon – and more than a few similar political developments in Europe – has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing
to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined, and economies weakened.
markets aurelius OCT 15, 2016
I've yet to see such a succinct or well-presented analysis on the rise of Trump and the far-left and -right in Europe. Thank
you.
Where I disagree with Prof. Stiglitz, however, is in the second point of his conclusion; to wit, "... we need to rewrite the
rules of the economy once again, this time to ensure that ordinary citizens benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore
this lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump phenomenon – and more than a few similar political developments
in Europe – has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined,
and economies weakened." A political solution is impossible at this point in the USA since the legislative and executive branches
of the have been completely captured by cartels, just as Hayek warned back in the '40s.
It took centuries of war -- civil and foreign -- to evolve the English common law and representative government from which
America derived is greatest strengths. Included in that are the quaint cultural memes of civility and "fair play," which permeated
all levels of society, not just sports; these norms were violated at great personal expense, in that it was difficult to gain
the trust of one's fellow citizens if one violated them. However, it is not an immutable fact of nature such a system will persist
throughout history. Truth be told, it is an outlier in the history of the world. Typically, and to this day outside the Anglosphere,
most societies are spoils systems, in which the strong impose their will on the weak, and take the larger share of everything
their societies produce. Some operate artfully (e.g., Mediterranean Europe), while others are just ham-handed (e.g., Russia, the
Middle East). The ordering described by Hobbes more appropriately captures the state of affairs to a greater or lesser degree
in these states.
It took a revolution, a civil war, and a century-long struggle post-civil war to evolve the US society to its modern, yet-to-be-fully-formed
state. The interests that have secured control of the US government -- again, the legislative and executive at the federal
and state levels, in particular -- will not easily or readily let go of the power they have amassed, vis-à-vis their control over
the writing and execution of laws and regulations lesser mortals must live under but from which the elites are exempt (cf, banking
crisis).
Either we find a TR and FDR -- and the modern-day equivalent of their allies in Congress -- or our society will continue
to erode. Either we fade into history as much of Europe did during the Dark Ages or we have another revolution.
While that's going on, the balance of global power likely will continue to shift to the more pragmatic and less constrained
Hobbesian forms of societal organization -- most likely some variant of strongman rule, with China at the vanguard, if Xi Jinping
(or a competitor) is able to successfully consolidate power.
Daniel Esmond OCT 15, 2016
I agree with nearly everything in Prof Stiglitz' analysis. However, I would like some details about the new 'rules of the economy'.
There is a realisation in many circles that something has to change and the solutions advanced by the new populists are unworkable.
But we still lack the details and a roadmap towards a new economy. While analysis like this one about how we got here
are useful and enlightening, we need (desperately!) to move on and do something. I really would like to see a follow up of this
article with Prof Stigliz outlining his plans for a new economic order.
James Murphy OCT 15, 2016
"But Trump is wrong both about the diagnosis and the prescription. The US economy as a whole has done well for the last
six decades: GDP has increased nearly six-fold. But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top.."
The vehicle for shifting the fruits of that growth has more to do with our free trade agreements than tax cuts. Corporations
were just as greedy before we had free trade agreements but tariffs prevented the enrichment free trade opens up. That GDP increase
would have happened without free trade as workers enjoyed higher wages. Which makes Trump correct after all.
We are a trade deficient nation. As such the only way we lose a trade war is not to fight one. Aside from the short transition
harm the American people would be better off with tariff protection as they were in the past.
From shortly after the end of the War of 1812 until the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions in 1967 the United States was
the most tariff protected nation on earth. During that time absolutely none of the bad things you postulate actually happened.
Free trade is an Ivory Tower theory that has never worked in the real world experience of the United States. We have more free
trade today than we have ever had. Where are the blessings of those free trade deals? We abandoned free trade in 1967 and the
real wages of blue collar workers peaked 5 years later never to come back.
Simon Barnard OCT 14, 2016
Rules of the economy do need to be rewritten and also do the rules of economic measurement.
Growth of GDP is not a valid measurement of whether or not an economy is healthy (or indeed growing). Should vast inequalities
be created, that in turn cause social unrest, that in turn lead to a disintegration of society, this society may find it necessary
to build a lot of prisons. The capital expenditure on these prisons will contribute to the GDP. Is it really healthier? Is this
what is happening in the US? - it could be going that way.
So is it any wonder that people are looking for an alternative to the status quo, of which Hilary Clinton is certainly part
of? NO.
Is Trump an alternative? DEFINITELY NO.
As Joseph Stiglitz put very well, he would make things still worse.
So I feel sorry for the USA having such a poor choice and I hope that soon we can change from the neo-liberal hegemony and
develop a new one that will allow a progressive new choice to make itself available.
Vicky Lavendel OCT 14, 2016
The true questions is: How is it possible that two powerful families (Bush and Clinton) are nearly have a monopoly on becoming
US presidents. And furthermore all presidential candidates who want to have a chance must be ultra rich (like Trump) or must
have very wealthy donors (like Obama). Is this still a democracy or already an oligarchy? That Stieglitz doesnt ask this question
might be a hint that he is part of this wealthy establishment as well.
Yoshimichi Moriyama OCT 14, 2016
The word liberalization is so dazzling that we are captured and made by it to be unable to see the reality; we are often duped
by it. When we hear or see the word, we need to be very careful of what the speaker or writer actually means by it. Corporate
and financial interests have made an extensive use of it to camouflage and promote their selfishness.
Just twenty five years ago Mr. Robert McNamara came to Matsue, a Japanese city near where I live, to attend a US-Japanese
conference. I was appalled to hear, as he said and I was in the audience, that the income of the American middle-class had not
risen at all for the past twenty or so years. His words were less an explanation of what had been going on in the American economy
and more a warning of what was going to happen in the Japanese economy.
The rules need to be rewritten.
M M OCT 14, 2016
The Americans shall be voting Trump for the same reasons they voted Bush Jr. The democratic [neoliberal] establishment failed
miserably. They had eight years to put things right and what did they do, not only maintaining the status quo which made
inequality worse but created mayhem everywhere and the Clintons were part of it throughout the Obama tenure. So Mr. "Yes We Can"
not only managed to increase inequality, re-introduce slavery (albeit in many new forms), help spread terrorism all over the place
and this to state just a few examples.
Clinton Democrats (DemoRats) are so close to neocons that the current re-alliance is only natural and only partially caused by
Trump. Under Obama some of leading figures of his administration were undistinguishable from neocons (Samantha Power is a good
example here -- she was as crazy as Niki Haley, if not more). There is only one "war party in the USA which
continently consists of two wings: Repugs and DemoRats.
Notable quotes:
"... Both GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham , one of the country's most reliable war supporters, and Hillary Clinton , who repeatedly criticized former President Barack Obama for insufficient hawkishness, condemned Trump's decision in very similar terms, invoking standard war on terror jargon. ..."
"... That's not surprising given that Americans by a similarly large plurality agree with the proposition that "the U.S. has been engaged in too many military conflicts in places such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for too long and should prioritize getting Americans out of harm's way" ..."
"... But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in 2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent. ..."
"... This case is even more stark since Obama ran in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in Afghanistan and bring all troops home. Throughout the Obama years, polling data consistently showed that huge majorities of Democrats favored a withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan ..."
"... While Democrats were more or less evenly divided early last year on whether the U.S. should continue to intervene in Syria, all that changed once Trump announced his intention to withdraw, which provoked a huge surge in Democratic support for remaining ..."
"... At the same time, Democratic policy elites in Washington are once again formally aligning with neoconservatives , even to the point of creating joint foreign policy advocacy groups (a reunion that predated Trump ). The leading Democratic Party think tank, the Center for American Progress, donated $200,000 to the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and has multilevel alliances with warmongering institutions. ..."
"... By far the most influential [neo]liberal media outlet, MSNBC, is stuffed full of former Bush-Cheney officials, security state operatives, and agents , while even the liberal stars are notably hawkish (a decade ago, long before she went as far down the pro-war and Cold Warrior rabbit hole that she now occupies, Rachel Maddow heralded herself as a "national security liberal" who was "all about counterterrorism"). ..."
"... All of this has resulted in a new generation of Democrats, politically engaged for the first time as a result of fears over Trump, being inculcated with values of militarism and imperialism, trained to view once-discredited, war-loving neocons such as Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and David Frum, and former CIA and FBI leaders as noble experts and trusted voices of conscience. It's inevitable that all of these trends would produce a party that is increasingly pro-war and militaristic, and polling data now leaves little doubt that this transformation -- which will endure long after Trump is gone -- is well under way. ..."
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S December 18 announcement that he intends to withdraw all U.S.
troops from Syria produced some isolated support in the
anti-war wings of bothparties , but largely provoked
bipartisan outrage among in Washington's reflexively pro-war establishment.
Both
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the country's most reliable war supporters, and Hillary
Clinton, who repeatedly criticized former President Barack Obama for insufficient
hawkishness, condemned Trump's decision in very similar terms, invoking standard war on terror
jargon.
But while official Washington united in opposition, new polling data from
Morning Consult/Politico shows that a large plurality of Americans support Trump's Syria
withdrawal announcement: 49 percent support to 33 percent opposition.
That's not surprising given that Americans by a similarly large plurality agree with the
proposition that "the U.S. has been engaged in too many military conflicts in places such as
Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for too long and should prioritize getting Americans out of harm's
way" far more than they agree with the pro-war view that "the U.S. needs to keep troops in
places such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to help support our allies fight terrorism and
maintain our foreign policy interests in the region."
But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support
for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents
overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in
2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump
voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent.
A similar gap is seen among those who voted Democrat in the 2018 midterm elections (28
percent support withdrawal while 54 percent oppose it), as opposed to the widespread support
for withdrawal among 2018 GOP voters: 74 percent to 18 percent.
Identical trends can be seen on the question of Trump's announced intention to withdraw half
of the U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan, where Democrats are far more supportive of keeping
troops there than Republicans and independents.
This case is even more stark since Obama ran in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in
Afghanistan and bring all troops home. Throughout the Obama years, polling data
consistently showed that huge majorities of Democrats favored a withdrawal of all
troops from Afghanistan:
With Trump rather than Obama now advocating troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, all of this
has changed. The new polling data shows far more support for troop withdrawal among Republicans
and independents, while Democrats are now split or even opposed . Among 2016 Trump voters,
there is massive support for withdrawal: 81 percent to 11 percent; Clinton voters, however,
oppose the removal of troops from Afghanistan by a margin of 37 percent in favor and 47 percent
opposed.
This latest poll is far from aberrational. As the Huffington Post's Ariel Edwards-Levy
documented early this week , separate polling shows a similar reversal by Democrats on
questions of war and militarism in the Trump era.
While Democrats were more or less evenly divided early last year on whether the U.S. should
continue to intervene in Syria, all that changed once Trump announced his intention to
withdraw, which provoked a huge surge in Democratic support for remaining. "Those who voted for
Democrat Clinton now said by a 42-point margin that the U.S. had a responsibility to do
something about the fighting in Syria involving ISIS," Edwards-Levy wrote, "while Trump voters
said by a 16-point margin that the nation had no such responsibility." (Similar trends can be
seen among GOP voters, whose support for intervention in Syria has steadily declined as Trump
has moved away from his posture of the last two years --
escalating bombings in both Syria and Iraq and killing far more civilians , as he
repeatedly vowed to do during the campaign -- to his return to his other campaign pledge to
remove troops from the region.)
This is, of course, not the first time that Democratic voters have wildly shifted their
"beliefs" based on the party affiliation of the person occupying the Oval Office. The party's
base spent the Bush-Cheney years denouncing war on terror policies, such as assassinations,
drones, and Guantánamo as moral atrocities and war crimes, only to suddenly support those
policies once they
became hallmarks of the Obama presidency .
But what's happening here is far more insidious. A core ethos of the anti-Trump #Resistance
has become militarism, jingoism, and neoconservatism. Trump is frequently attacked by Democrats
using longstanding Cold War scripts wielded for decades against them by the far right: Trump is
insufficiently belligerent with U.S. enemies; he's willing to allow the Bad Countries to take
over by bringing home U.S. soldiers; his efforts to establish less hostile relations with
adversary countries is indicative of weakness or even treason.
By far the most influential [neo]liberal media outlet,
MSNBC, is
stuffed full of former Bush-Cheney officials, security state operatives, and agents , while
even the liberal stars are notably hawkish (a decade ago, long before she went as far down the
pro-war and Cold Warrior rabbit hole that she now occupies, Rachel Maddow heralded herself as a
"national security liberal" who was "all about counterterrorism").
All of this has resulted in a new generation of Democrats, politically engaged for the first
time as a result of fears over Trump, being inculcated with values of militarism and
imperialism, trained to view once-discredited, war-loving neocons such as Bill Kristol, Max
Boot, and David Frum, and former CIA and FBI leaders as noble experts and trusted voices of
conscience. It's inevitable that all of these trends would produce a party that is increasingly
pro-war and militaristic, and polling data now leaves little doubt that this transformation --
which will endure long after Trump is gone -- is well under way.
"... Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble, which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible without 2008 events. ..."
Barkley insists on a left-right split for his analysis of political parties and their attachment to vague policy tendencies
and that insistence makes a mess of the central issue: why the rise of right-wing populism in a "successful" economy?
Naomi Klein's book is about how and why centrist neoliberals got control of policy. The rise of right-wing populism is often
supposed (see Mark Blyth) to be about the dissatisfaction bred by the long-term shortcomings of or blowback from neoliberal policy.
Barkley Rosser treats neoliberal policy as implicitly successful and, therefore, the reaction from the populist right appears
mysterious, something to investigate. His thesis regarding neoliberal success in Poland is predicated on policy being less severe,
less "shocky".
In his left-right division of Polish politics, the centrist neoliberals -- in the 21st century, Civic Platform -- seem to disappear
into the background even though I think they are still the second largest Party in Parliament, though some seem to think they
will sink in elections this year.
Electoral participation is another factor that receives little attention in this analysis. Politics is shaped in part by the
people who do NOT show up. And, in Poland that has sometimes been a lot of people, indeed.
Finally, there's the matter of the neoliberal straitjacket -- the flip-side of the shock in the one-two punch of "there's no
alternative". What the policy options for a Party representing the interests of the angry and dissatisfied? If you make policy
impossible for a party of the left, of course that breeds parties of the right. duh.
Likbez,
Bruce,
Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming. I would consider the current situation in the USA as the starting point of this
"slow-motion collapse of the neoliberal garbage truck against the wall." Neoliberalism like Bolshevism in 1945 has no future,
only the past. That does not mean that it will not limp forward in zombie (and pretty bloodthirsty ) stage for another 50 years.
But it is doomed, notwithstanding recently staged revenge in countries like Ukraine, Argentina, and Brazil.
Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble,
which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible
without 2008 events.
At least half of Americans now hate soft neoliberals of Democratic Party (Clinton wing of Bought by Wall Street technocrats),
as well as hard neoliberal of Republican Party, which created the " crisis of confidence" toward governing neoliberal elite in
countries like the USA, GB, and France. And that probably why the intelligence agencies became the prominent political players
and staged the color revolution against Trump (aka Russiagate ) in the USA.
The situation with the support of neoliberalism now is very different than in 1994 when Bill Clinton came to power. Of course,
as Otto von Bismarck once quipped "God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America." and another
turn of the technological spiral might well save the USA. But the danger of never-ending secular stagnation is substantial and
growing. This fact was admitted even by such dyed- in-the-wool neoliberals as Summers.
This illusion that advances in statistics gave neoliberal access to such fine-grained and timely economic data, that now it
is possible to regulate economy indirectly, by strictly monetary means is pure religious hubris. Milton Friedman would now be
laughed out the room if he tried to repeat his monetarist junk science now. Actually he himself discarded his monetarist illusions
before he died.
We probably need to the return of strong direct investments in the economy by the state and nationalization of some assets,
if we want to survive and compete with China. Australian politicians are already openly discussing this, we still are lagging
because of "walking dead" neoliberals in Congress like Pelosi, Schumer, and company.
But we have another huge problem, which Australia and other countries (other than GB) do not have: neoliberalism in the USA
is the state religion which completely displaced Christianity (and is hostile to Christianity), so it might be that the lemming
will go off the cliff. I hope not.
The only thing that still keeps neoliberalism from being thrown out to the garbage bin of history is that it is unclear what
would the alternative. And that means that like in 1920th far-right nationalism and fascism have a fighting chance against decadent
neoliberal oligarchy.
Previously financial oligarchy was in many minds associated with Jewish bankers. Now people are more educated and probably
can hang from the lampposts Anglo-Saxon and bankers of other nationalities as well ;-)
I think that in some countries neoliberal oligarchs might soon feel very uncomfortable, much like Soros in Hungary.
As far as I understood the level of animosity and suppressed anger toward financial oligarchy and their stooges including some
professors in economics departments of the major universities might soon be approaching the level which existed in the Weimar
Republic. And as Lenin noted, " the ideas could become a material force if they got mass support." This is true about anger as
well.
Obama strategy in Syria was replica of Clinton strategy in Yugoslavia during the Balkan Wars. Divide everybody up by ethnicity
or religion (Croats are Catholics, Serbians are Orthodox not to mention the various Muslims and Albanians lurking about), arm
them, create false flags to set them at each other's throats. Enjoy the results.
Obama like Clinton before him was a real wolve in sheep's clothing
Notable quotes:
"... Jackrabbit, I agree with Bevin. Obama was really useful to the deep state because, as the "First Black President" he was widely popular, not just inside the US but outside it as well. Before the 2016 election, there was a widespread hope inside the US elite that Hillary Clinton, as the "First Woman President" would be able to serve a similar function in giving US imperialism a pleasing face. ..."
"... Trump, by contrast, hurts the US deep state because his true nature as a greedy, incompetent egotist is just too blatantly obvious to too many people. And he won't follow a script, the way GW Bush usually did. That's why we see major sections of the US deep state going out of their way to be publically hostile towards Trump. ..."
But the notion that it is part of a complex and tightly scripted conspiracy in which he
plays his public part and the deep state play theirs, pretending to be at odds with each
other, is bizarre.
I would've agreed with you before Obama. I followed the criticisms of Obama from true
progressives closely. It was clear within 2 or 3 years that Obama was betraying his 'base'.
His lofty rhetoric didn't match his actions. His Nobel Peace Prize can only be viewed
today as a ruse. He talked of peace and fairness but worked behind the scenes to further the
establishment.
Fast forward to the 2016 election where Sanders was a sheepdog and Hillary ran a terrible
campaign. It's difficult to look back and not be at least somewhat suspicious of the 2016
election. A populist nationalist was what the Deep State NEEDED to face the threat from
Russia and China to their NWO project. And that is what they got. After recognizing the
threat in 2013-14 (when Russia countered the Empire in Syria and Ukraine).
Similar excuses are made for both Obama and Trump. We are told that they were FORCED to
succumb to Deep State scheming and political power. But a much more logical view is that
these "populists" know exactly what they are doing: they know what their 'job' is to serve
the establishment and act as the leader of the Deep State's political arm. In return they get
financial gain, social standing, and life long protection. Sweet.
Obama 'turned the page' on the Bush Administration's warmongering. He promised a more
peaceful USA. But he conducted covert wars and bragged of his drone targeting.
Trump 'turned the page' on Obama's deceitfulness. He promised to put 'America First' but
within months attacked Syria with missiles "for the babies". Evidence that his first attack
was prompted by a false flag didn't deter him from attacking AGAIN - also based on a false
flag. Trump is still helping the Saudis in Yemen. And he's not doing what's necessary to get
peace in Korea.
Obama promised 'transparency' ("Sunlight is the best disinfectant") but 'no drama' Obama
protected CIA torturers, NSA spies, and bankers. Trump promised to "drain the swamp" but has
welcomed oligarchs and neocons into his Administration.
How much sly BS do we have to see before people connect the dots? A real populist will
NEVER be elected in USA unless there is a revolution; USA political elites are fully
committed to a neoliberal economics that make society neofeudal, and a neoconservative-driven
foreign policy that demands full spectrum dominance that brooks no opposition to its NWO
goals.
Anyone who believes otherwise has drunk the Kool-Aid, an addictive, saccharine concoction,
provided without charge and in abundance.
Glenn Brown | Jan 5, 2019 10:27:14 PM |
39@ 10 17
Jackrabbit, I agree with Bevin. Obama was really useful to the deep state because, as the "First Black President" he
was widely popular, not just inside the US but outside it as well. Before the 2016 election, there was a widespread hope
inside the US elite that Hillary Clinton, as the "First Woman President" would be able to serve a similar function in giving
US imperialism a pleasing face.
Trump, by contrast, hurts the US deep state because his true nature as a greedy, incompetent egotist is just too
blatantly obvious to too many people. And he won't follow a script, the way GW Bush usually did. That's why we see major
sections of the US deep state going out of their way to be publically hostile towards Trump.
Yes, their public rejection of Trump is partly motivated by the need to be able to claim that Trump is an aberration from
all previous US Presidents, as opposed to Trump and his policies being just a particularly explicit continuation of the same
underlying trends.
But I see no reason to doubt that the US elites really wish they had someone as President who was better at supplying the
right propaganda and less obviously an incompetent fool. So I don't understand why you think the US oligarchy and deep state
would have thought they needed someone like Trump, or would have greatly preferred him to Hillary Clinton.
After Democratic party was co-opted by neoliberals there is no way back. And since Obama the trend of Democratic Party is
toward strengthening the wing of CIA-democratic notthe wing of the party friendly to workers. Bought by Wall Street leadership is
uncable of intruting any change that undermine thier current neoliberal platform. that's why they criminally derailed Sanders.
Notable quotes:
"... When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism, would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism. ..."
"... To quote Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!" ..."
"... "Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad." ..."
"... "It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent upon the Democratic Party." ..."
"... "And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting the Democrats ..."
"... It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of their class. ..."
"... First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious! ..."
"... from Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game https://www.salon.com/2010/... ..."
they literally ripped this out of the 2016 Green Party platform. Jill Stein spoke repeatedly
about the same exact kind of Green New Deal, a full-employment, transition-to-100%-renewables
program that would supposedly solve all the world's problems.
When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address
the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism,
would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non
threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism.
In 2016, when the Greens made
this their central economic policy proposal, the Democrats responded by calling that platform
irresponsible and dangerous ("even if it's a good idea, you can't actually vote for a
non-two-party candidate!"). Why would they suddenly find a green new deal appealing now
except for its true purpose: left cover for the very system destroying the planet.
To quote
Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!"
"Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to
everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions
currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad."
Their political position not only lacks seriousness, unserious is their political
position.
"It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent
upon the Democratic Party."
For subjective-idealists, what you want to believe, think and feel is just so much more
convincing than objective reality. Especially when it covers over single-minded class
interests at play.
"And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical
policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and
exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth
face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of
world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting
the Democrats
It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically
fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient
facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of
establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with
delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of
their class.
First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the
Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back
into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious!
Only an International Socialist program led by Workers can truly lead a "green revolution" by
expropriating the billionaire oil barons of their capital and redirecting that wealth into
the socialist reconstruction of the entire economy.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" is a nice laugh. Really, it sure is funny hearing
these lies given any credence at all. This showmanship belongs in a fantasy book, not in real
life. The Democratic Party as a force for good social change Now that's a laugh!
Lies, empty promises, meaningless tautologies and morality plays, qualified and conditional
declarations to be backpedalled pending appropriate political expediencies, devoid any
practical content that is what AOC, card carrying member of DSA, and in fact young energetic
political apparatchik of calcified political body of Dems establishment, duty engulfs. And
working for socialist revolution is no one of them.
What kind of socialist would reject socialist revolution, class struggle and class
emancipation and choose, as a suppose socialist path, accommodation with oligarchic ruling
elite via political, not revolutionary process that would have necessarily overthrown ruling
elite.
What socialist would acquiesce to legalized exploitation of people for profit, legalized
greed and inequality and would negotiate away fundamental principle of egalitarianism and
working people self rule?
Only National Socialist would; and that is exactly what AOC campaign turned out to be all
about.
National Socialism with imperial flavor is her affiliation and what her praises for
Pelosi, wife of a billionaire and dead warmonger McCain proved.
Now she is peddling magical thinking about global change and plunge herself into falacy of
entrepreneurship, Market solution to the very problem that the market solutions were designed
to create and aggravate namely horrific inequality that is robbing people from their own
opportunities to mitigate devastating effects of global change.
The insidiousness of phony socialists expresses itself in the fact that they lie that any
social problem can be fixed by current of future technical means, namely via so called
technological revolution instead by socialist revolution they deem unnecessary or
detrimental.
The technical means for achieving socialism has existed since the late 19th century, with the
telegraph, the coal-powered factory, and modern fertilizer. The improvements since then have
only made socialism even more streamlined and efficient, if such technologies could only be
liberated from capital! The idea that "we need a new technological revolution just to achieve
socialism" reflects the indoctrination in capitalism by many "socialist" theorists because it
is only in capitalism where "technological growth" is essential simply to maintain the
system. It is only in capitalism (especially America, the most advanced capitalist nation,
and thus, the one where capitalism is actually closest towards total crisis) where the dogma
of a technological savior is most entrenched because America cannot offer any other kind of
palliative to the more literate and productive sections of its population. Religion will not
convince most and any attempt at a sociological or economic understanding would inevitably
prove the truth of socialism.
CIA democrats of which Obama is a prominent example (and Hillary is another one) are are Werewolfs, very dangerous political beasts,
probably more dangerous to the world then Republicans like George W Bush. But in case of Ukraine, it was easily pushed into Baltic orbit,
because it has all the preconditions for that. So Nuland has an relatively easy, albeit dirty task. Also all this
probably that "in five years we will be living like French" was pretty effective. Now the population faces
consequences of its own stupidity. This is just neoliberal business as usual or neocolonialism.
Notable quotes:
"... populists on the right ..."
"... hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties ..."
"... Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment ..."
Let's recap what Obama's coup
in Ukraine has led to shall we? Maybe installing and blatantly backing Neo Nazis in Ukraine might have something to do with the
rise of " populists on the right " that is spreading through Europe and this country, Hillary.
America's criminal 'news' media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama regime began
planning for
a coup in Ukraine . And that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it
inside the
U.S. Embassy there . And that they hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties , Right
Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change
it to Freedom Party, or "Svoboda" instead). And that in February 2014 they did it (and here's the
4 February 2014 phone call instructing the U.S. Ambassador
whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations
that the Embassy organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. 'news' media misrepresented as
'democracy demonstrations ,' though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption, even more than today's U.S. does,
and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end Ukraine's corruption -- which instead actually soared after his coup there).
But wait there's more .... Remember
that caravan of refugees making their way through Mexico? Guess where a number of them came from? Honduras. Yep. Another coup that
happened during Obama's and Hillary's tenure.
In a recent op-ed in The Washington Post, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
used a review of Henry Kissinger's latest book, "World Order ," to lay out her vision for "sustaining America's leadership
in the world." In the midst of numerous global crises, she called for return to a foreign policy with purpose, strategy and pragmatism.
She also highlighted some of these policy choices in her memoir "Hard Choices" and how they contributed to the challenges that
Barack Obama's administration now faces.
**
The chapter on Latin America, particularly the section on Honduras, a major source of the child migrants currently pouring into
the United States, has gone largely unnoticed. In letters to Clinton and her successor, John Kerry, more than 100 members of Congress
have repeatedly warned about the deteriorating security situation in Honduras, especially since the 2009 military coup that ousted
the country's democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. As Honduran scholar Dana Frank points out in Foreign Affairs, the
U.S.-backed post-coup government "rewarded coup loyalists with top ministries," opening the door for further "violence and anarchy."
The homicide rate in Honduras, already the highest in the world, increased by 50 percent from 2008 to 2011; political repression,
the murder of opposition political candidates, peasant organizers and LGBT activists increased and continue to this day. Femicides
skyrocketed. The violence and insecurity were exacerbated by a generalized institutional collapse. Drug-related violence has worsened
amid allegations of rampant corruption in Honduras' police and government. While the gangs are responsible for much of the violence,
Honduran security forces have engaged in a wave of killings and other human rights crimes with impunity.
Despite this, however, both under Clinton and Kerry, the State Department's response to the violence and military and police
impunity has largely been silence, along with continued U.S. aid to Honduran security forces. In "Hard Choices," Clinton describes
her role in the aftermath of the coup that brought about this dire situation. Her firsthand account is significant both for the
confession of an important truth and for a crucial false testimony.
First, the confession: Clinton admits that she used the power of her office to make sure that Zelaya would not return to office.
"In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa
in Mexico," Clinton writes. "We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could
be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot."
Clinton's position on Latin America in her bid for the presidency is another example of how the far right exerts disproportionate
influence on US foreign policy in the hemisphere. up 24 users have voted. --
Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment
@snoopydawg@snoopydawg
Obama, Hillary and the rest of that administration knew it was a coup because that was the goal.
"..4. (C) In our view, none of the above arguments has any substantive validity under the Honduran constitution. Some are outright
false. Others are mere supposition or ex-post rationalizations of a patently illegal act. Essentially: --
the military had no authority to remove Zelaya from the country;
-- Congress has no constitutional authority to remove a Honduran president;
-- Congress and the judiciary removed Zelaya on the basis of a hasty, ad-hoc, extralegal, secret, 48-hour process;
-- the purported "resignation" letter was a fabrication and was not even the basis for Congress's action of June 28; and
-- Zelaya's arrest and forced removal from the country violated multiple constitutional guarantees, including the prohibition
on expatriation, presumption of innocence and right to due process. " https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TEGUCIGALPA645_a.html
That evil woman thinks she has the right to preach to others about how to handle the very fallout from the horrific disasters
that she HERself created? Hillary, look in the mirror, you evil woman.
Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met "a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do, and
where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.
" The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king or
other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don't want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to be told
what to do and where to go and how to live and only given one version of reality.
"I don't know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it's a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic
institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we've got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to combat
it."
This arrogance of looking down on the populace is very part and parcel of the neoliberal attitude of the ruling class takes
to the rest of us peons. They created this unreality for the American people and have suppressed our right to know what is really
happening in the world. Obama destroyed the Occupy Movement with violent police attacks and kettling. And then disgustingly, Clinton
comes out with her hubristic victim blaming.
The Clintons are nearly single handedly responsible for much of the destruction of the American middle class and the repression
of poor and black people under Bill and the violent destruction of many countries under Hillary. And yet neither Clinton is willing
to own up for all the human misery that they have caused wherever they go. Unfortunately, the one place they refuse to go is just
away forever.
The belief that HRC & her circle are principled & progressive is just as fictitious as the belief that they lost to a reality
TV host because of stolen emails, social media trolls, & a (fictitious) conspiracy between the reality TV host & the Kremlin:
https://t.co/iyTC1M6uws
Clinton says Europe should make clear that "we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge & support." Isn't this
the attitude we denounce Trump for? Speaking of irony, Clinton's regime wars in Libya & Syria (& Iraq, indirectly) fueled the
migration she wants to stop. https://t.co/CIkkGRRKNd
This ego-maniac sees the world's problems - which she had a huge hand in creating - only through the lens of her electability.
Apparently, the only problems the world has are the one's that keep her from sitting in the Oval Office. Everything else is
fine. She is deplorable.
That evil woman thinks she has the right to preach to others about how to handle the very fallout from the horrific disasters
that she HERself created? Hillary, look in the mirror, you evil woman.
Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met "a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do,
and where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.
" The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king
or other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don't want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to
be told what to do and where to go and how to live and only given one version of reality.
"I don't know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it's a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic
institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we've got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to
combat it."
This arrogance of looking down on the populace is very part and parcel of the neoliberal attitude of the ruling class takes
to the rest of us peons. They created this unreality for the American people and have suppressed our right to know what is
really happening in the world. Obama destroyed the Occupy Movement with violent police attacks and kettling. And then disgustingly,
Clinton comes out with her hubristic victim blaming.
The Clintons are nearly single handedly responsible for much of the destruction of the American middle class and the repression
of poor and black people under Bill and the violent destruction of many countries under Hillary. And yet neither Clinton is
willing to own up for all the human misery that they have caused wherever they go. Unfortunately, the one place they refuse
to go is just away forever.
@gulfgal98 Because they just HAVE to get a rich, far-right, patriarchal white woman elected at any cost for the sake
of 'making history'. If these idiots really wanted to make history, they'd work like hell to put someone in charge who actually
had the balls to hang the pigs and their collaborators for their crimes.
The belief that HRC & her circle are principled & progressive is just as fictitious as the belief that they lost to a
reality TV host because of stolen emails, social media trolls, & a (fictitious) conspiracy between the reality TV host &
the Kremlin: https://t.co/iyTC1M6uws
Clinton says Europe should make clear that "we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge & support." Isn't
this the attitude we denounce Trump for? Speaking of irony, Clinton's regime wars in Libya & Syria (& Iraq, indirectly)
fueled the migration she wants to stop. https://t.co/CIkkGRRKNd
This ego-maniac sees the world's problems - which she had a huge hand in creating - only through the lens of her electability.
Apparently, the only problems the world has are the one's that keep her from sitting in the Oval Office. Everything else
is fine. She is deplorable.
"... "a group called CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project" a group that has received funding from Soros, to Pueblo Sin Fronteras through a person named 'Alex Mensing' who works both for CARA and as "an on-the ground coordinator in Mexico for the Pueblo Sin Fronteras". ..."
"... ..A vital part of that expansion has involved money: major donations from some of the nation's wealthiest liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Open Society Foundations of the financier George Soros, and the Atlantic Philanthropies. Over the past decade those donors have invested more than $300 million in immigrant organizations, including many fighting for a pathway to citizenship for immigrants here illegally.... ..."
"... US based groups or cutouts are the organizers of the caravan. ..."
"... The list of Democratic Party-connected organizations that might have originated the idea of a caravan from Central America is small. I surmise Clinton Global Initiative because they would have the requisite connections and blaming Soros seems to easy and convenient. But Soros is also rumored to be behind support for European migrants so it's certainly possible. ..."
How did this group of thousands come together to walk to US were Trump has vowed to keep
illegals out. People like this would naturally come together if they were catching a ship, or
at some sort of aid post refugee camp ect.
After a search on caravan starting point, I found this at the Guardian.
"Who organized the caravan?
In interviews, Honduran members of the group said that they learned about the caravan from
Facebook posts, and a report on the local HCH television station, which erroneously suggested
that a former congressman and radio host would cover the costs of the journey.
After that, rumours spread quickly, including the mistaken promise that any member would be
given asylum in the US. Darwin Ramos, 30, said he was desperate to flee threats from a local
drug gang, and when news of the caravan reached his neighbourhood, he seized on it as his
best chance to escape."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/24/caravan-migrants-what-is-it-where-from-guatemala-honduras-immigrants-mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Sin_Fronteras
"Pueblo Sin Fronteras (en: People without Borders) is an immigration rights group known for
organizing several high profile migrant caravans in Mexico and Central America. The
organization's efforts to facilitate immigration and calls for open borders attracted
considerable amounts of coverage in the Mexican and American media."
Pueblo Sin Fronteras website. Zero information there other than the have bases or offices
in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Tijuana in Mexico. https://www.pueblosinfronteras.org/commitees.html
No information on who they are or who funds them. Very much a political organization.
On two caravans like this have occurred, both organized by this shadowy group.
Slow moving lots of press coverage that can last for weeks so long as the peasant suckers
stay suckers and don't pull out. Very much an anti Trump political show put on by whoever
funds and controls this Pueblo Sin Fronteras organisation.
Centro Sin Fronteras is the parent group to Pueblo Sin Fronteras. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/centro-sin-fronteras/
"Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, former fugitive from U.S. immigration
authorities, and activist for illegal immigrants in the U.S., formed the activist group La
Familia Latina Unida ("The United Latin Family") as an expansion of the Centro Sin Fronteras.
[7] La Familia Latina Unida runs Pueblo Sin Fronteras ("People Without Borders"), a group
that organizes "migrant caravans" from Mexico and Latin America to cross the U.S. border
illegally"
The majority of people in the caravan may be leaving their own countries due to violence
poverty ect, but the caravan itself is a manufactured political event. left to their own
devices, some may have moved towards the US in small groups, others would have been deterred
due to Trumps immigration policy, but they have joined this so called caravan on false
promises made by the organisers. Nothing better than kids, women and oldies doing it tough or
better yet dying for political media coverage.
As for the politically organized caravan, the peasants have officially been offered a home
in Mexico, but the organizers prefer them to go on to the US. As they have been offered a
place in mexico, they are now economic migrants wanting greener pastures in the US rather
than refugees.
The peasants themselves, I think are mostly genuine though organizers are mixed through
the group. The peasants are no more than consumables in a political action.
. ..A vital part of that expansion has involved money: major donations from some of
the nation's wealthiest liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie
Corporation of New York, the Open Society Foundations of the financier George Soros, and the
Atlantic Philanthropies. Over the past decade those donors have invested more than $300
million in immigrant organizations, including many fighting for a pathway to citizenship for
immigrants here illegally.... https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/obama-immigration-policy-changes.html
How can people not see this caravan march as the obvious false flag it is to influence the
election. The actors are being paid and busses have been mobilized and paid for to move them
forward. The right says Soros money might be behind it and they may be right. Surprised the
left has not blamed Putin. Which proves my point that the left is actively conspiring with
the right the keep them in power. Why wouldnt they care?. As Caitlin Johnstone says, after I
said it, they get paid the same no matter what. As part of a 2 party monopoly,with 2 parties
the minimum to serve the illusion of a representative Democracy,the oiligarchs will continue
to throw money to the loser.
This has been scripted well in advance. Republicans need to maintain both houses for the
2nd stage of Trumps destruction of America (credibility and finance), especially its
government and middle class as the elite will be protected from the damage. Democrats are
standing on the sidelines rambling about Russia Gate or Khashoggi Gate or mobilizing their
forces to support gay marriages and transgender access to bathrooms. And to boot they bring
out Hillary and Obama at the last moment to bash Trump to galvanize the rights voters even
more. No other purpose for doing so.
To be sure, a Democratic win means nothing except perhaps as a poor proxy for a lack of
support for Trump. 40% of their candidates come from the military or intelligence services.
They are owned by the oligarchs as much as tbe Republicans. The only difference in the
parties is the costumes they wear and the rhetoric the speak
Or perhaps its as simple as not wanting to share responsibility for what is to come as
their best shot to win in 2020
Frankly the best outcome would be the decimation of the Democrat Party and its subsequent
dissolution. Lets end the farce of a Democracy. One party for all. Hail Trump or whomever he
appoints as his successor, or just let the elites vote and announce who they voted for every
4 years. Thats pretty much what the constitution meant for us to be doing anyways. The idea
of a Direct vote by all citizens for President and Senate would have horrified them. Seeing
the results of elections these past 40 years I have concluded they are right.
Invaders or Dupes? Have the caravan migrants been misled?
While it's true that anyone can request asylum, the caravan migrants appear to be under
the impression that they have a legitimate claim to asylum in USA because they are fleeing
gang violence in their home country. That is very likely to be untrue.
Such a claim MIGHT be valid in countries that have signed the Cartagena Declaration
and ratified it into law - but the US has not. The Declaration expands the definition of
refugees to include:
"persons who have fled their country because their lives, security or freedom have been
threatened by generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive
violation of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public
order".
FYI
The 1951 UN Convention as amended defines a refugee as someone with a "well-founded fear
of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular
social group or political opinion" . The caravan stories I have heard are unlikely to
qualify under this definition.
Some countries that have loads of asylum seekers have set up camps to hold them. Some,
like Australia, even have camps in foreign countries. Trump's talk of setting up tents
implies that USA will also establish such camps. Life in these camps is likely to be
uncomfortable and unproductive. Only those will genuine asylum claims would tough it out.
How telling it is that when we disagree on the nature of the Caravan, we fall into an
either-or choice between 2 absolutes. Either it is a complete hoax from the ground up, or
it's a completely authentic grass-roots happening.
But we have seen enough color revolutions to understand that there is always an authentic
component to each one. I have commented several times on how delicately the CIA and other
organizers of color revolutions symbiotically fuse with good and authentic people who have a
noble cause. How these bad people can merge with such good people is a wonder to me.
But this itself is the fact that must demolish the partisan thinking of "one side or the
other". It's clear that the people who run things and their henchmen who arrange things are
marvelously nuanced when it comes to good and evil. They'll be good when it suits them and
evil for the same reason, and treat people well and badly, all depending on the exigencies of
the mission.
In simple words, there undoubtedly is a core heart to the population of the caravan that
is good, hopeful, enterprising and industrious, and that hopes to receive just one little
break from the world, and a sliver of social justice. This radiating core of goodness and
humanity, which would break open the hearts of ordinary people like you and me, to the
organizers and their fixers is simply the perfect place to hide, concealed by superb
protective coloration.
Take a look at the Maidan in Ukraine, and see how many good people thought they were
fighting to create a wonderful new world, until the snipers fired on both sides and brought
off the color revolution with superb skill and complete amoral ruthlessness - all as a result
of long planning and preparation, not to mention the cash to hire mercenaries and provide the
best logistics.
So I personally will stand by my thought that we will see what this is when the shooters
begin to provoke the violence. And if that happens, then sadly, it will be the innocents who
again, as always, are massacred.
But if the US handles it well, and permits controlled entry under the supervision of the
border authorities, and there are no shooters and no provocations coming either from the
Caravan people - or from some other force off to the side that doesn't seem to belong to
anyone, but which seems to be the cause of death to both sides - then this will all fizzle
out as another political skirmish of short duration, and the Democrats and Republicans will
move on to their next diversions.
You wrote: "Either it is a complete hoax from the ground up, or it's a completely
authentic grass-roots happening."
I am inclined to believe that it is both, to wit an authentic grass-roots happening that
has been hijacked (like so many others) by interested parties for their own ends.
Grieved 97
That's the way I'm seeing it. "But we have seen enough color revolutions to understand that
there is always an authentic component to each one. I have commented several times on how
delicately the CIA and other organizers of color revolutions symbiotically fuse with good and
authentic people who have a noble cause. How these bad people can merge with such good people
is a wonder to me."
Well put, not only the above paragragh but the whole comment. Not much most of us can do
to help the naive perhaps desperate people sucked in to the US political caravan but we
should at least be exposing those who are exploiting and furthingf their misery for political
purposes.
Requirement for any President or political leader is to be a good actor. I believe they
simply follow a script prepared by the real rulers operating in the shadows. Maybe I am
wrong. Its like fake wrestling as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. You have to be a good actor
and pretend to care while actually making sure you qlose if the script calls for it
Jackrabbit@100
Its true they have been duped but the point is that desparate and poor people rarely work
together spontaneously in an organized fashion and a caravan such as this must be organized
and paid for. Someone is feeding them. The timing is too good to be true. Obviously they have
been promised something, asylum, money or whatever and assured of their safety. To determine
who is behind it you simply need to look at who benefits.
When discussing this caravan "false flag", many people will dismiss "conspiracy theories"
that involve paid actors.
RJPJR @98 thought the caravan an an "authentic grass-roots happening that has been
hi-jacked" . But that theory is also unsatisfying. As you point out (Pft), it is strange
that ordinary people organize themselves to make a march like the caravan.
The best explanation is that people were organized to make the march by local groups
[connected to Clinton Global Initiative?] which got PAID to do so. These trusted local groups
then told the marchers that: 1) they would get support along the way, and 2) that they have a
good/great chance of actually getting asylum.
Organizers would not want a member of the caravan to tell a reporter that the march was
fake, or that they are paid. But it has been reported that "well wishers" have given the
marchers food and money. And the press has not questioned that support. And the marchers seem
to have a genuine belief that they qualify for asylum. Such a belief would be easy to instill
in poor, uneducated people who can be easily duped into believing that an international
treaty like the Cartegena Declaration applies to all countries.
Jackrabbit, in my post @67 I linked the Pueblo Sin Fronteras website. When I found out about
this group I looked for their website which I was able to access, and although information
was sparse on this shadowy group, they proudly advertised their work on this caravan.
Since posting a link here I am now censored from that website - security exceptions blah
blah.
Not local globalist groups but US based groups or cutouts are the organizers of the
caravan.
But my hunch is that the trail ends with a one or more local groups that are known to
people in the area. These poor people basically had to be sold a 'bill of goods'. That's
difficult unless you are known/trusted (have a "brand" like Coca-Cola).
There would be several intermediary groups. Maybe a large in-country charity with US
connections? And one or more groups outside the country (US, Mexico, even EU) that are
connected to / get funding and direction from a major US group.
Let's face it, whoever was behind this would not want the caravan to be connected to back
to group with US political connections. And it's probably unlikely that we will find any
'smoking gun' that does that.
The list of Democratic Party-connected organizations that might have originated the
idea of a caravan from Central America is small. I surmise Clinton Global Initiative because
they would have the requisite connections and blaming Soros seems to easy and convenient. But
Soros is also rumored to be behind support for European migrants so it's certainly
possible.
It really the same reasoning that led b to suspect that it was CIA/MI6 that foiled
assassination plot in Denmark, not Mossad.
"... The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed. ..."
"... the Republicans are being forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.) ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court, where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift, new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual depravity in higher education. ..."
"... I hope that the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. ..."
Back in the last century, when this was a different country, the Democrats were the "smart"
party and the Republicans were the "stupid" party.
How did that work?
Well, back then the Democrats represented a broad middle class, with a base of factory
workers, many of them unionized, and the party had to be smart, especially in the courts, to
overcome the natural advantages of the owner class.
In contrast, the Republicans looked like a claque of country club drunks who staggered
home at night to sleep on their moneybags. Bad optics, as we say nowadays.
The Democrats also occupied the moral high ground as the champion of the little guy. If not
for the Dems, factory workers would be laboring twelve hours a day and children would still be
maimed in the machinery. Once the relationship between business and labor was settled in the
1950s, the party moved on to a new crusade on even loftier moral high ground: civil rights,
aiming to correct arrant and long-lived injustices against downtrodden black Americans. That
was a natural move, considering America's self-proclaimed post-war status as the world's Beacon
of Liberty. It had to be done and a political consensus that included Republicans got it done.
Consensus was still possible.
The Dems built their fortress on that high ground and fifty years later they find themselves
prisoners in it. The factory jobs all vamoosed overseas. The middle class has been pounded into
penury and addiction.
The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons
seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the
permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual
minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group
that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of
them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed.
The Republican Party has, at least, sobered up some after getting blindsided by Trump and
Trumpism. Like a drunk out of rehab, it's attempting to get a life. Two years in, the party
marvels at Mr. Trump's audacity, despite his obvious lack of savoir faire. And despite a
longstanding lack of political will to face the country's problems,the Republicans are being
forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration
policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of
medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on
thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.)
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting
with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an
unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even
more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no
Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling
them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court,
where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift,
new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual
depravity in higher education.
I hope that Democrats lose as many congressional and senate seats as possible.I hope that
the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding
dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. If
there is anything to salvage in this organization, I hope it discovers aims and principles that
are unrecognizable from its current agenda of perpetual hysteria. But if the party actually
blows up and disappears, as the Whigs did a hundred and fifty years ago, I will be content. Out
of the terrible turbulence, maybe something better will be born.
Or, there's the possibility that the dregs of a defeated Democratic Party will just go
batshit crazy and use the last of its mojo to incite actual sedition. Of course, there's also a
distinct possibility that the Dems will take over congress, in which case they'll ramp up an
even more horrific three-ring-circus of political hysteria and persecution that will make the
Spanish Inquisition look like a backyard barbeque. That will happen as the US enters the most
punishing financial train wreck in our history, an interesting recipe for epic political
upheaval.
"... Yet last year, notably without success, the Clinton campaign devoted plenty of its messaging to the Trump-Russia theme. As the "Shattered" book notes, "Hillary would raise the issue herself repeatedly in debates" with Trump. For example, in one of those debates she said: "We have seventeen – seventeen ..."
"... In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summed up the post-election approach neatly in a Washington Post ..."
"... The inability of top Clinton operatives to identify with the non-wealthy is so tenacious that they still want to assume "the public will be with us" the more they talk about Russia Russia Russia. Imagine sitting at a kitchen table with average-income voters who are worried sick about their financial futures – and explaining to them that the biggest threat they face is from the Kremlin rather than from US government policies that benefit the rich and corporate America at their expense ..."
"... One of the most promising progressives to arrive in Congress this year, Rep. Jamie Raskin from the Maryland suburbs of D.C., promptly drank what might be called the "Klinton Kremlin Kool-Aid." His official website features an article about a town-hall meeting that quotes him describing Trump as a "hoax perpetrated by the Russians on the United States of America. ..."
"... Like hundreds of other Democrats on Capitol Hill, Raskin is on message with talking points from the party leadership. That came across in an email that he recently sent to supporters for a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser. It said: "We pull the curtain back further each day on the Russian Connection, forcing National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to resign, Attorney General Sessions to recuse, and America to reflect on who's calling the shots in Washington. ..."
A new book about Hillary Clinton's last campaign for president – Shattered
, by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes – has gotten a lot of publicity since it appeared two weeks ago. But major
media have ignored a revealing passage near the end of the book.
Soon after Clinton's defeat, top strategists decided where to place the blame. "Within 24 hours of her concession speech," the
authors report, campaign manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta "assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters
to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering
the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of
the argument."
Six months later, that centerpiece of the argument is rampant – with claims often lurching from unsubstantiated overreach to outright
demagoguery.
A lavishly-funded example is the "Moscow Project," a mega-spin effort that surfaced in midwinter as a project of the Center for
American Progress Action Fund. It's led by Neera Tanden, a
self-described "loyal soldier" for Clinton
who also runs the Center for American Progress (where she succeeded Podesta as president). The Center's board includes several billionaires.
The "Moscow Project" is expressly inclined to go over the top, aiming to help normalize ultra-partisan conjectures as supposedly
factual. And so, the homepage of the "Moscow Project" prominently
declares: "Given Trump's obedience to Vladimir Putin and the deep ties between his advisers and the Kremlin, Russia's actions are
a significant and ongoing cause for concern."
Let's freeze-frame how that sentence begins: "Given Trump's obedience to Vladimir Putin." It's a jaw-dropping claim; a preposterous
smear.
Echoes of such tactics can be heard from many Democrats in Congress and from allied media. Along the way, no outlet has been more
in sync than MSNBC, and no one on the network has been more promotional of the Russia-runs-Trump meme than Rachel Maddow,
tirelessly promoting the line and sometimes connecting dots in
Glenn Beck fashion
to the point of journalistic malpractice.
Yet last year, notably without success, the Clinton campaign devoted plenty of its messaging to the Trump-Russia theme. As
the "Shattered" book notes, "Hillary would raise the issue herself repeatedly in debates" with Trump. For example, in one of those
debates she said: "We have seventeen – seventeen – intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded
that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence
our election ."
After Trump's election triumph, the top tier of Clinton strategists quickly moved to seize as much of the narrative as they could,
surely mindful of what George Orwell observed: "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the
past." After all, they hardly wanted the public discourse to dwell on Clinton's lack of voter appeal because of her deep ties to
Wall Street. Political recriminations would be much better focused on the Russian government.
In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summed up
the post-election approach neatly in a Washington Post opinion
article : "If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with
us. And the more we talk about it, the more they'll be with us."
The inability of top Clinton operatives to identify with the non-wealthy is so tenacious that they still want to assume "the public
will be with us" the more they talk about Russia Russia Russia. Imagine sitting at a kitchen table with average-income voters who
are worried sick about their financial futures – and explaining to them that the biggest threat they face is from the Kremlin rather
than from US government policies that benefit the rich and corporate America at their expense.
Tone deaf hardly describes the severe political impairment of those who insist that denouncing Russia will be key to the Democratic
Party's political fortunes in 2018 and 2020. But the top-down pressure for conformity among elected Democrats is enormous and effective.
One of the most promising progressives to arrive in Congress this year, Rep. Jamie Raskin from the Maryland suburbs of D.C.,
promptly drank what might be called the "Klinton Kremlin Kool-Aid." His official website features an
article about a town-hall meeting that quotes him describing Trump as a "hoax perpetrated by the Russians on the United States
of America. "
Like hundreds of other Democrats on Capitol Hill, Raskin is on message with talking points from the party leadership. That
came across in an email that he recently sent to supporters for a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser. It said:
"We pull the curtain back further each day on the Russian Connection, forcing National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to resign,
Attorney General Sessions to recuse, and America to reflect on who's calling the shots in Washington. "
You might think that Wall Street, big banks, hugely funded lobbyists, fat-check campaign contributors, the fossil fuel industry,
insurance companies, military contractors and the like are calling the shots in Washington. Maybe you didn't get the memo.
What Hillary Knew
Hillary Clinton once tweeted that "every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard,
believed, and supported." What about Juanita Broaddrick?
"... "a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse ... shared values and consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power and swag remained." ..."
"... If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines. ..."
"... If we consider the state of the nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of profound political disunity within the elites pop out: ..."
"... Psychopaths with no moral principles. The nation's elites are not just divided--they're exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown : disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies. ..."
"... A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats: such rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation together. The public sees the value system at the top is maximize my personal profit by whatever means are available , i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and rentier rackets , and they follow suit by pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on. ..."
"... But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens the already yawning fissures in the body politic. ..."
"... As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there's no one left to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security. ..."
"... The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity. I have characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center. ..."
"a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse ...
shared values and consensus
which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power
and swag remained."
If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand
the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines.
If we consider the state of the
nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of
profound political disunity within the elites
pop out:
The overt politicization of the central state's law enforcement and intelligence agencies: it is now
commonplace to find former top officials of the CIA et al. accusing a sitting president of treason in the
mainstream media. What was supposed to be above politics is now nothing but politics.
The overt politicization of the centralized (corporate) media: evidence that would stand up in a court of
law is essentially non-existent but the interpretations and exaggerations that fit the chosen narrative are
ceaselessly promoted--the classic definition of desperate propaganda by those who have lost the consent of the
governed.
Psychopaths with no moral principles.
The nation's elites are not just divided--they're exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown
:
disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies.
It's impossible to understand the
divided Deep State
unless we situate it in the larger
context of
profound political disunity
, a concept I learned from historian Michael Grant, whose
slim but insightful volume
The
Fall of the Roman Empire
I have been recommending since 2009.
As I noted in my 2009 book
Survival+
,
this was a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse.
The shared values and
consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for
what power and swag remained.
A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats:
such
rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation
together. The public sees the value system at the top is
maximize my personal profit by whatever means are
available
, i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and
rentier rackets
, and they follow suit by
pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the
disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on.
But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding
wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens
the already yawning fissures in the body politic.
Meanwhile, diverting the national income into a few power centers is also destabilizing
, as
Central Planning and Market Manipulation (a.k.a. the Federal Reserve) are intrinsically unstable as price can no
longer be discovered by unfettered markets. As a result, imbalances grow until some seemingly tiny incident or
disruption triggers a cascading collapse, a.k.a. a phase shift or system re-set.
As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there's no one left
to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been
co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security.
The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity.
I have
characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant
public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is
trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in
the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and
the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center.
What few observers seem to understand is that concentrating power in centralized nodes is intrinsically
unstable.
Contrast a system in which power, control and wealth is extremely concentrated in a few nodes
(the current U.S. Imperial Project) and a decentralized network of numerous dynamic nodes.
The disruption of any of the few centralized nodes quickly destabilizes the entire system
because
each centralized node is highly dependent on the others. This is in effect what happened in the 2008-09 Financial
Meltdown: the Wall Street node failed and that quickly imperiled the entire economy and thus the entire political
order, up to and including the Global Imperial Project.
Historian Peter Turchin has proposed that the dynamics of profound political disunity (i.e. social, financial
and political disintegration) can be quantified in a Political Stress Index, a concept he describes in his new
book
Ages
of Discord
.
If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we
understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines.
There is no other possible
output of a system of highly concentrated nodes of power, wealth and control and the competing rentier rackets of
these dependent, increasingly fragile centralized nodes.
"... "Let us linger over the perversity," he writes in "Why Millions of Ordinary Americans Support Donald Trump," one of the seventeen component essays in Rendezvous with Oblivion : "Let us linger over the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America -- one of our two monopoly parties -- chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a 'creative class' that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps ..."
"... And the real bad news is not that this Creative Class, this Expert Class, this Meritocratic Class, this Professional Class -- this Liberal Class, with all its techno-ecstasy and virtue-questing and unleashing of innovation -- is so deeply narcissistic and hypocritical, but rather that it is so self-interestedly parasitical and predatory. ..."
Thomas Frank's new collection of essays: Rendezvous with Oblivion: Reports from a
Sinking Society (Metropolitan Books 2018) and Listen, Liberal; or,Whatever
Happened to the Party of the People? (ibid. 2016)
To hang out with Thomas Frank for a couple of hours is to be reminded that, going back to
1607, say, or to 1620, for a period of about three hundred and fifty years, the most archetypal
of American characters was, arguably, the hard-working, earnest, self-controlled, dependable
white Protestant guy, last presented without irony a generation or two -- or three -- ago in
the television personas of men like Ward Cleaver and Mister Rogers.
Thomas Frank, who grew up in Kansas and earned his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, who
at age 53 has the vibe of a happy eager college nerd, not only glows with authentic Midwestern
Nice (and sometimes his face turns red when he laughs, which is often), he actually lives in
suburbia, just outside of D.C., in Bethesda, where, he told me, he takes pleasure in mowing the
lawn and doing some auto repair and fixing dinner for his wife and two children. (Until I met
him, I had always assumed it was impossible for a serious intellectual to live in suburbia and
stay sane, but Thomas Frank has proven me quite wrong on this.)
Frank is sincerely worried about the possibility of offending friends and acquaintances by
the topics he chooses to write about. He told me that he was a B oy Scout back in Kansas, but
didn't make Eagle. He told me that he was perhaps a little too harsh on Hillary Clinton in his
brilliantly perspicacious "Liberal Gilt [ sic ]" chapter at the end of Listen,
Liberal . His piercing insight into and fascination with the moral rot and the hypocrisy
that lies in the American soul brings, well, Nathaniel Hawthorne to mind, yet he refuses to say
anything (and I tried so hard to bait him!) mean about anyone, no matter how culpable he or she
is in the ongoing dissolving and crumbling and sinking -- all his
metaphors -- of our society. And with such metaphors Frank describes the "one essential story"
he is telling in Rendezvous with Oblivion : "This is what a society looks like when the
glue that holds it together starts to dissolve. This is the way ordinary citizens react when
they learn that the structure beneath them is crumbling. And this is the thrill that pulses
through the veins of the well-to-do when they discover that there is no longer any limit on
their power to accumulate" ( Thomas Frank in NYC on book tour https://youtu.be/DBNthCKtc1Y ).
And I believe that Frank's self-restraint, his refusal to indulge in bitter satire even as
he parses our every national lie, makes him unique as social critic. "You will notice," he
writes in the introduction to Rendezvous with Oblivion, "that I describe [these
disasters] with a certain amount of levity. I do that because that's the only way to confront
the issues of our time without sinking into debilitating gloom" (p. 8). And so rather than
succumbing to an existential nausea, Frank descends into the abyss with a dependable flashlight
and a ca. 1956 sitcom-dad chuckle.
"Let us linger over the perversity," he writes in "Why Millions of Ordinary Americans
Support Donald Trump," one of the seventeen component essays in Rendezvous with Oblivion
: "Let us linger over the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the
fortunes of working people. But our left party in America -- one of our two monopoly parties --
chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the
tribune of the enlightened professional class, a 'creative class' that makes innovative things
like derivative securities and smartphone apps " (p. 178).
And it is his analysis of this "Creative Class" -- he usually refers to it as the "Liberal
Class" and sometimes as the "Meritocratic Class" in Listen, Liberal (while Barbara
Ehrenreich uses the term " Professional Managerial Class ,"and Matthew Stewart recently
published an article entitled "The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy" in the
Atlantic ) -- that makes it clear that Frank's work is a continuation of the profound
sociological critique that goes back to Thorstein Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class
(1899) and, more recently, to Christopher Lasch's The Revolt of the Elites (1994).
Unlike Veblen and Lasch, however, Frank is able to deliver the harshest news without any
hauteur or irascibility, but rather with a deftness and tranquillity of mind, for he is both in
and of the Creative Class; he abides among those afflicted by the epidemic which he diagnoses:
"Today we live in a world of predatory bankers, predatory educators, even predatory health care
providers, all of them out for themselves . Liberalism itself has changed to accommodate its
new constituents' technocratic views. Today, liberalism is the philosophy not of the sons of
toil but of the 'knowledge economy' and, specifically, of the knowledge economy's winners: the
Silicon Valley chieftains, the big university systems, and the Wall Street titans who gave so
much to Barack Obama's 2008 campaign . They are a 'learning class' that truly gets the power of
education. They are a 'creative class' that naturally rebels against fakeness and conformity.
They are an ' innovation class ' that just can't stop coming up with awesome new stuff" (
Listen, Liberal , pp. 27-29).
And the real bad news is not that this Creative Class, this Expert Class, this
Meritocratic Class, this Professional Class -- this Liberal Class, with all its
techno-ecstasy and virtue-questing and unleashing of innovation -- is so deeply narcissistic
and hypocritical, but rather that it is so self-interestedly parasitical and
predatory.
The class that now runs the so-called Party of the People is impoverishing the people; the
genius value-creators at Amazon and Google and Uber are Robber Barons, although, one must
grant, hipper, cooler, and oh so much more innovative than their historical predecessors. "In
reality," Frank writes in Listen, Liberal ,
.there is little new about this stuff except the software, the convenience, and the
spying. Each of the innovations I have mentioned merely updates or digitizes some business
strategy that Americans learned long ago to be wary of. Amazon updates the practices of
Wal-Mart, for example, while Google has dusted off corporate behavior from the days of the
Robber Barons. What Uber does has been compared to the every-man-for-himself hiring
procedures of the pre-union shipping docks . Together, as Robert Reich has written, all these
developments are 'the logical culmination of a process that began thirty years ago when
corporations began turning over full-time jobs to temporary workers, independent contractors,
free-lancers, and consultants.' This is atavism, not innovation . And if we keep going in
this direction, it will one day reduce all of us to day laborers, standing around like the
guys outside the local hardware store, hoping for work. (p. 215).
And who gets this message? The YouTube patriot/comedian Jimmy Dore, Chicago-born,
ex-Catholic, son of a cop, does for one. "If you read this b ook, " Dore said while
interviewing Frank back in January of 2017, "it'll make y ou a radical" (Frank Interview Part 4
https://youtu.be/JONbGkQaq8Q ).
But to what extent, on the other hand, is Frank being actively excluded from our elite media
outlets? He's certainly not on TV or radio or in print as much as he used to be. So is he a
prophet without honor in his own country? Frank, of course, is too self-restrained to speculate
about the motives of these Creative Class decision-makers and influencers. "But it is ironic
and worth mentioning," he told me, "that most of my writing for the last few years has been in
a British publication, The Guardian and (in translation) in Le Monde Diplomatique
. The way to put it, I think, is to describe me as an ex-pundit."
Frank was, nevertheless, happy to tell me in vivid detail about how his most fundamental
observation about America, viz. that the Party of the People has become hostile to the
people , was for years effectively discredited in the Creative Class media -- among the
bien-pensants , that is -- and about what he learned from their denialism.
JS: Going all the way back to your 2004 book What's the Matter with Kansas? -- I
just looked at Larry Bartels's attack on it, "What's the Matter with What's the Matter with
Kansas?" -- and I saw that his first objection to your book was, Well, Thomas Frank says the
working class is alienated from the Democrats, but I have the math to show that that's false.
How out of touch does that sound now?
TCF: [laughs merrily] I know.
JS: I remember at the time that was considered a serious objection to your
thesis.
TCF: Yeah. Well, he was a professor at Princeton. And he had numbers. So it looked
real. And I actually wrote a response to
that in which I pointed out that there were other statistical ways of looking at it, and he
had chosen the one that makes his point.
JS: Well, what did Mark Twain say?
TCF: Mark Twain?
JS: There are lies, damned lies --
TCF: [laughs merrily] -- and statistics! Yeah. Well, anyhow, Bartels's take became
the common sense of the highly educated -- there needs to be a term for these people by the
way, in France they're called the bien-pensants -- the "right-thinking," the people who
read The Atlantic, The New York Times op-ed page, The Washington Post op-ed page,
and who all agree with each other on everything -- there's this tight little circle of
unanimity. And they all agreed that Bartels was right about that, and that was a costly
mistake. For example, Paul Krugman, a guy whom I admire in a lot of ways, he referenced this
four or five times.
He agreed with it . No, the Democrats are not losing the white working class outside the
South -- they were not going over to the Republicans. The suggestion was that there is
nothing to worry about. Yes. And there were people saying this right up to the 2016
election. But it was a mistake.
JS: I remember being perplexed at the time. I had thought you had written this brilliant
book, and you weren't being taken seriously -- because somebody at Princeton had run some
software -- as if that had proven you wrong.
TCF: Yeah, that's correct . That was a very widespread take on it. And Bartels was
incorrect, and I am right, and [laughs merrily] that's that.
JS: So do you think Russiagate is a way of saying, Oh no no no no, Hillary didn't really
lose?
TCF: Well, she did win the popular vote -- but there's a whole set of pathologies out
there right now that all stem from Hillary Denialism. And I don't want to say that Russiagate
is one of them, because we don't know the answer to that yet.
JS: Um, ok.
TCF: Well, there are all kinds of questionable reactions to 2016 out there, and what
they all have in common is the faith that Democrats did nothing wrong. For example, this same
circle of the bien-pensants have decided that the only acceptable explanation for
Trump's victory is the racism of his supporters. Racism can be the only explanation for the
behavior of Trump voters. But that just seems odd to me because, while it's true of course that
there's lots of racism in this country, and while Trump is clearly a bigot and clearly won the
bigot vote, racism is just one of several factors that went into what happened in 2016. Those
who focus on this as the only possible answer are implying that all Trump voters are
irredeemable, lost forever.
And it comes back to the same point that was made by all those people who denied what was
happening with the white working class, which is: The Democratic Party needs to do nothing
differently . All the post-election arguments come back to this same point. So a couple
years ago they were saying about the white working class -- we don't have to worry about them
-- they're not leaving the Democratic Party, they're totally loyal, especially in the northern
states, or whatever the hell it was. And now they say, well, Those people are racists, and
therefore they're lost to us forever. What is the common theme of these two arguments? It's
always that there's nothing the Democratic Party needs to do differently. First, you haven't
lost them; now you have lost them and they're irretrievable: Either way -- you see what I'm
getting at? -- you don't have to do anything differently to win them.
JS: Yes, I do.
TCF: The argument in What's the Matter with Kansas? was that this is a
long-term process, the movement of the white working class away from the Democratic Party. This
has been going on for a long time. It begins in the '60s, and the response of the Democrats by
and large has been to mock those people, deride those people, and to move away from organized
labor, to move away from class issues -- working class issues -- and so their response has been
to make this situation worse, and it gets worse, and it gets worse, and it gets worse, and it
gets worse! And there's really no excuse for them not seeing it. But they say, believe,
rationalize, you know, come up with anything that gets then off the hook for this, that allows
them to ignore this change. Anything. They will say or believe whatever it takes.
JS: Yes.
TCF: By the way, these are the smartest people! These are tenured professors at Ivy
League institutions, these are people with Nobel Prizes, people with foundation grants, people
with, you know, chairs at prestigious universities, people who work at our most prestigious
media outlets -- that's who's wrong about all this stuff.
JS: [quoting the title of David Halberstam's 1972 book, an excerpt from which Frank uses
as an epigraph for Listen, Liberal ] The best and the brightest!
TCF: [laughing merrily] Exactly. Isn't it fascinating?
JS: But this gets to the irony of the thing. [locates highlighted passage in book] I'm
going to ask you one of the questions you ask in Rendezvous with Oblivion: "Why are
worshippers of competence so often incompetent?" (p. 165). That's a huge question.
TCF: That's one of the big mysteries. Look. Take a step back. I had met Barack Obama.
He was a professor at the University of Chicago, and I'd been a student there. And he was super
smart. Anyhow, I met him and was really impressed by him. All the liberals in Hyde Park --
that's the neighborhood we lived in -- loved him, and I was one of them, and I loved him too.
And I was so happy when he got elected.
Anyhow, I knew one thing he would do for sure, and that is he would end the reign of
cronyism and incompetence that marked the Bush administration and before them the Reagan
administration. These were administrations that actively promoted incompetent people. And I
knew Obama wouldn't do that, and I knew Obama would bring in the smartest people, and he'd get
the best economists. Remember, when he got elected we were in the pit of the crisis -- we were
at this terrible moment -- and here comes exactly the right man to solve the problem. He did
exactly what I just described: He brought in [pause] Larry Summers, the former president of
Harvard, considered the greatest economist of his generation -- and, you know, go down the
list: He had Nobel Prize winners, he had people who'd won genius grants, he had The Best and
the Brightest . And they didn't really deal with the problem. They let the Wall Street
perpetrators off the hook -- in a catastrophic way, I would argue. They come up with a health
care system that was half-baked. Anyhow, the question becomes -- after watching the great
disappointments of the Obama years -- the question becomes: Why did government-by-expert
fail?
JS: So how did this happen? Why?
TCF: The answer is understanding experts not as individual geniuses but as members
of a class . This is the great missing link in all of our talk about expertise. Experts
aren't just experts: They are members of a class. And they act like a class. They have loyalty
to one another; they have a disdain for others, people who aren't like them, who they perceive
as being lower than them, and there's this whole hierarchy of status that they are at the
pinnacle of.
And once you understand this, then everything falls into place! So why did they let the Wall
Street bankers off the hook? Because these people were them. These people are their peers. Why
did they refuse to do what obviously needed to be done with the health care system? Because
they didn't want to do that to their friends in Big Pharma. Why didn't Obama get tough with
Google and Facebook? They obviously have this kind of scary monopoly power that we haven't seen
in a long time. Instead, he brought them into the White House, he identified with them. Again,
it's the same thing. Once you understand this, you say: Wait a minute -- so the Democratic
Party is a vehicle of this particular social class! It all makes sense. And all of a sudden all
of these screw-ups make sense. And, you know, all of their rhetoric makes sense. And the way
they treat working class people makes sense. And they way they treat so many other demographic
groups makes sense -- all of the old-time elements of the Democratic Party: unions, minorities,
et cetera. They all get to ride in back. It's the professionals -- you know, the professional
class -- that sits up front and has its hands on the steering wheel.
* * *
It is, given Frank's persona, not surprising that he is able to conclude Listen,
Liberal with a certain hopefulness, and so let me end by quoting some of his final
words:
What I saw in Kansas eleven years ago is now everywhere . It is time to face the obvious:
that the direction the Democrats have chosen to follow for the last few decades has been a
failure for both the nation and for their own partisan health . The Democrats posture as the
'party of the people' even as they dedicate themselves ever more resolutely to serving and
glorifying the professional class. Worse: they combine self-righteousness and class privilege
in a way that Americans find stomach-turning . The Democrats have no interest in reforming
themselves in a more egalitarian way . What we can do is strip away the Democrats' precious
sense of their own moral probity -- to make liberals live without the comforting knowledge
that righteousness is always on their side . Once that smooth, seamless sense of liberal
virtue has been cracked, anything becomes possible. (pp. 256-257).
Clinton has been using her "dehydration" story for years. This time it won't work.
219
The media is already working
around the clock
to hush up questions about Hillary's rapidly deteriorating health. She
overheated
has
allergies
pneumonia! She'll be back on her feet soon, citizen. End of discussion. Anyone who says otherwise
is a Looney Tune. (Remember that just a week ago the media
shamed
anyone who even
suggested
that Hillary Clinton might be sick.)
We don't buy it
. Commenting on Clinton's latest "medical episode", Dr. Zuhdi Jasser M.D.
observed
: "What she had was a syncopal episode. She passed out. That's either cardiovascular or neurologic.
Now, her team wants us to believe it is dehydration. She didn't appear to be dehydrated and that doesn't get fixed
in 90 minutes."
The Parkinson's theory has been floating around for quite some time, but in our humble opinion, Dr. Ted Noel, a
physician who worked for 32 years in clinical medicine, makes the most compelling case that Clinton is suffering
from this very serious neurological condition. We want to emphasize that Dr. Noel made this video on
August 29
,
long before Hillary's "medical episode" on September 11:
In his video analysis, Dr. Noel makes the following points:
Leaked e-mails show that Clinton's aides researched medication used to treat Parkinson's.
Clinton has suffered from fainting spells as early as 2005, when she lost
consciousness while making a speech. In 2009 she fell and broke her elbow. In 2012 she suffered a concussion
after fainting and striking her head. All of these falls can be explained by Parkinson's, which affects the
motor system. (Team Hillary blames dehydration.)
Hillary's personal aide Huma Abedin wrote in an e-mail that Clinton is "often confused." Again, this would
be consistent with Parkinson's, which in its advanced stages can even lead to dementia.
Numerous documented cases where Clinton needed physical assistance, whether it's using
a chair as a support while giving a stump speech, or requiring help climbing stairs. Again, Parkinson's
severely impedes motor functions.
During a roundtable discussion in April, Hillary nodded her head for an extended period -- one estimate
puts the number of nods at 400; it looks odd, but it makes perfect sense if she has Parkinson's: It's a
head-nodding tremor. (Go to 5:45 in the video. Truly bizarre behavior.)
Clinton has also shown signs of "pin-rolling" tremors, as well as unnatural (and even
painful) finger positions.
The now-famous video of Hillary's head bobbing uncontrollably while speaking with the press was not a
"seizure" (or a result of "iced chai"): It's a very common side-effect of Levadopa, a common and effective
treatment for Parkinson's. However, visual stimulus, or anxiety, can cause unnatural reactions. Which brings
Dr. Noel to his next point:
It's been nearly 300 days since Hillary Clinton has held a press conference. No one
has offered a rational reason for this. But here's an easy explanation: It's because Hillary's condition makes
it very difficult for her to handle stressful situations in which she is bombarded with multiple questions and
requests at the same time. Furthermore:
This also explains her frankly bizarre facial expressions during her nomination. (Go to 9:38 in the video,
because you can't do this point justice without watching the video.)
In response to a protestor at a rally, Clinton literally freezes. She's unable to
move, let alone speak. An aide rushes up to her and says "It's okay. We're still here. Keep talking." We urge
everyone to watch Dr. Noel's analysis of this event, which begins at the 11:14 mark.
Her coughing fits are evidence of a swallowing disorder -- common in those who suffer from Parkinson's. It
could even be a symptom of pneumonia, which is also quite common among those with Parkinson's. (NOTE: Dr. Noel
made this observation more than a week before Hillary was "diagnosed" with pneumonia.)
Hillary's doctor claims that Clinton's behavior on September 11 was due to "dehydration", the excuse used
every time
Clinton has a "medical episode". Here you really have to watch the video to fully
appreciate how unbelievable this claim is -- and how often it's been used.
Clinton is wearing blue-tinted glasses, which are used to help stabilize motor
functions in those suffering from Parkinson's.
When Clinton begins to fall, as shown in the video, she doesn't attempt to hold out her arms or protect her
face. She's frozen into a board-like rigidity. Again, common for someone with Parkinson's.
It's obvious that Clinton's condition is serious -- but instead of going to the hospital, she is taken
(against protocol) to Chelsea's apartment. The only way this makes sense is if Clinton's team already knew what
was wrong.
Pneumonia cannot explain much of Clinton's behavior. Parkinson's, on the other hand, would explain all of
it.
The image shows Hillary grasping the woman's fingers with her
fist, which is a classic motor neuron test to determine abnormalities in the nervous system.
"Test the patient's grip by having the patient hold the
examiner's fingers in their fist tightly and instructing them not to let go while the examiner attempts to
remove them. Normally the examiner cannot remove their fingers. This tests the forearm flexors and the
intrinsic hand muscles. Compare the hands for strength asymmetry."
This is precisely what appears to be taking place in the image
above. So why would Hillary be receiving a motor neuron test if she was only suffering from pneumonia, as her
campaign claimed?
Taken as separate, isolated incidents, one could easily dismiss any of the points made by Dr. Noel. But when
examined as a whole, Clinton's "odd behavior" and "accidents due to dehydration" over the last ten years are much
harder to dismiss as benign or symptoms of pneumonia.
There's a very good reason why Hillary Clinton hasn't held a press conference for nearly 300 days: Her physical
and neurological condition simply won't allow for it. She can't even take softball questions from her list of
pre-approved journalsts
without
breaking into a coughing fit
.
Clinton is scheduled to debate Trump in two weeks. The pneumonia cover story will likely disintegrate long
before then.
The DNC should find a new candidate before it's too late. The game is up.
I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton
campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn't hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked. If you follow the money a
lot of what happened during the election and afterwards in regards to Russia and Trump start to make sense. Could it be that we
are finally witnessing the removal the last layers of the center of the onion?
"... In my article for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic Stefan Halper. ..."
"... I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had connections to British intelligence. ..."
"... As this article in Zerohedge says, all roads in Russiagate lead to London, not, be it noted, Moscow. ..."
Britain alarmed as John Bolton travels to Moscow to prepare summit...
Days after I discussed rumours of an imminent
Trump-Putin summit , seeming confirmation that such a summit is indeed in the works has been provided with the Kremlin's confirmation
that President Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton is travelling to Moscow next week apparently to discuss preparations
for the summit.
As far as we know, such a visit is going to take place. This is all we can say for now.
Further suggestions that some sort of easing of tensions between Washington and Moscow may be in the works has been provided by
confirmation that a group of US Republican Senators will shortly be visiting Moscow.
It seems that a combination of the collapse in the credibility of the Russiagate collusion allegations – which I suspect no Republican
member of the House or Senate any longer believes – unease in the US at Russia's breakthrough in hypersonic weapons technology (recently
discussed by Alex Christoforou and myself in this video
), and the failure of the recent sanctions the US Treasury announced against Rusal, has concentrated minds in Washington, and is
giving President Trump the political space he needs to push for the easing of tensions with Russia which he is known to have long
favoured.
One important European capital cannot conceal its dismay.
In a recent article for Consortium News I discussed the
obsessive
quality of the British establishment's paranoia about Russia , and not surprisingly in light of it an article has appeared today
in The Times of London which made clear the British government's alarm as the prospect of a Trump-Putin summit looms.
As is often the way with articles in The Times of London, this article has now been "updated" beyond recognition. However it still
contains comments like these
Mr Trump called for Russia to be readmitted to the G8 this month, wrecking Mrs May's efforts to further isolate Mr Putin after
the Salisbury poisonings. Mr Trump then linked US funding of Nato to the trade dispute with the EU, singling out Germany for special
criticism.
The prospect of a meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Putin appalls British officials. "It's unclear if this meeting is after or
before Nato and the UK visit," a Whitehall official said. "Obviously after would be better for us. It adds another dynamic to
an already colourful week." .
A senior western diplomatic source said that a Trump-Putin meeting before the Nato summit would cause "dismay and alarm", adding:
"It would be a highly negative thing to do."
Nato is due to discuss an escalation of measures to deter Russian aggression. "Everyone is perturbed by what is going on and
is fearing for the future of the alliance," a Whitehall source said.
I will here express my view that the Russiagate scandal was at least in part an attempt by some people in Britain to prevent a
rapprochement between the US and Russia once it became clear that achieving such a rapprochement was a policy priority for Donald
Trump.
In my
article
for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various
British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former
chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic
Stefan Halper.
I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also
had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had
connections to British intelligence.
A summit meeting between the US and Russian Presidents inaugurated an improvement in relations between the US and Russia is exactly
the opposite outcome which some people in London want.
The dramatic rise fo the number of CIA-democrats as candidates from Democratic Party is not assedental. As regular clintonites
are discredited those guys can still appeal to patriotism to get elected.
Notable quotes:
"... Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests! ..."
"... Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries. ..."
"... After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire. ..."
"... It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate voters and steal the popular vote. ..."
"... This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq. ..."
During the 2016 Democratic party primaries we wrote that
what Bernie achieved, is to bring back the real political discussion in America, at least concerning the Democratic camp. Bernie
smartly "drags" his primary rival, Hillary Clinton, into the heart of the politics. Up until a few years ago, you could not observe
too much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, who were just following the pro-establishment "politics as usual",
probably with a few, occasional exceptions. The "politics as usual" so far, was "you can't touch the Wall Street", for example.
Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard
to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear
at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational
argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests!
Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was
forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries.
After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported
mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is
a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire.
It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from
the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate
voters and steal the popular vote.
Eric Draitser gives us valuable information for such a type of candidate. Key points:
One candidate currently generating some buzz in the race is Jeff Beals, a self-identified "Bernie democrat" whose campaign website
homepage describes him as a " local teacher and former U.S. diplomat endorsed by the national organization of former Bernie Sanders
staffers, the Justice Democrats. " And indeed, Beals centers his progressive bona fides to brand himself as one of the inheritors
of the progressive torch lit by Sanders in 2016. A smart political move, to be sure. But is it true?
Beals describes himself as a "former U.S. diplomat," touting his expertise on international issues born of his experience overseas.
In an email interview with CounterPunch, Beals describes his campaign as a " movement for diplomacy and peace in foreign affairs
and an end to militarism my experience as a U.S. diplomat is what drives it and gives this movement such force. " OK, sounds
good, a very progressive sounding answer. But what did Beals actually do during his time overseas?
By his own admission, Beals' overseas career began as an intelligence officer with the CIA. His fluency in Arabic and knowledge
of the region made him an obvious choice to be an intelligence spook during the latter stages of the Clinton Administration.
Beals shrewdly attempts to portray himself as an opponent of neocon imperialism in Iraq. In his interview with CounterPunch, Beals
argued that " The State Department was sidelined as the Bush administration and a neoconservative cabal plunged America into the
tragic Iraq War. As a U.S. diplomat fluent in Arabic and posted in Jerusalem at the time, I was called over a year into the war to
help our country find a way out. "
This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted
into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration
in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq.
Moreover, no one who knows anything about the Iraq War could possibly swallow the tripe that CIA/State Department officials in
Iraq were " looking to help our country find a way out " a year into the war. A year into the war, the bloodletting was only
just beginning, and Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the other corporate vultures had yet to fully exploit the country and make billions
off it. So, unfortunately for Beals, the historical memory of the anti-war Left is not that short.
It is self-evident that Beals has a laundry list of things in his past that he must answer for. For those of us, especially Millennials,
who cut our activist teeth demonstrating and organizing against the Iraq War, Beals' distortions about his role in Iraq go down like
hemlock tea. But it is the associations Beals maintains today that really should give any progressive serious pause.
When asked by CounterPunch whether he has any connections to either Bernie Sanders and his surrogates or Hillary Clinton and hers,
Beals responded by stating: " I am endorsed by Justice Democrats, a group of former Bernie Sanders staffers who are pledged to
electing progressives nationwide. I am also endorsed for the Greene County chapter of the New York Progressive Action Network, formerly
the Bernie Sanders network. My first hire was a former Sanders field coordinator who worked here in NY-19. "
However, conveniently missing from that response is the fact that Beals' campaign has been, and continues to be, directly managed
in nearly every respect by Bennett Ratcliff, a longtime friend and ally of Hillary Clinton. Ratcliff is not mentioned in any publicly
available documents as a campaign manager, though the most recent FEC filings show that as of April 1, 2018, Ratcliff was still on
the payroll of the Beals campaign. And in the video of Beals' campaign kickoff rally, Ratcliff introduces Beals, while only being
described as a member of the Onteora School Board in Ulster County . This is sort of like referring to Donald Trump as an avid
golfer.
Beals has studiously, and rather intelligently, avoided mentioning Ratcliff, or the presence of Clinton's inner circle on his
campaign. However, according to internal campaign documents and emails obtained by CounterPunch, Ratcliff manages nearly every aspect
of the campaign, acting as a sort of éminence grise behind the artifice of a progressive campaign fronted by a highly educated and
photogenic political novice.
By his own admission, Ratcliff's role on the campaign is strategy, message, and management. Sounds like a rather textbook description
of a campaign manager. Indeed, Ratcliff has been intimately involved in "guiding" Beals on nearly every important campaign decision,
especially those involving fundraising .
And it is in the realm of fundraising that Ratcliff really shines, but not in the way one would traditionally think. Rather than
focusing on large donations and powerful interests, Ratcliff is using the Beals campaign as a laboratory for his strategy of winning
elections without raising millions of dollars.
In fact, leaked campaign documents show that Ratcliff has explicitly instructed Beals and his staffers not to spend money on
food, decorations, and other standard campaign expenses in hopes of presenting the illusion of a grassroots, people-powered campaign
with no connections to big time donors or financial elites .
It seems that Ratcliff is the wizard behind the curtain, leveraging his decades of contact building and close ties to the Democratic
Party establishment while at the same time manufacturing an astroturfed progressive campaign using a front man in Beals .
One of Ratcliff's most infamous, and indefensible, acts of fealty to the Clinton machine came in 2009 when he and longtime Clinton
attorney and lobbyist, Lanny Davis, stumped around Washington to garner support for the illegal right-wing coup in Honduras, which
ousted the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in favor of the right-wing oligarchs who control the country today. Although
the UN, and even U.S. diplomats on the ground in Honduras, openly stated that the coup was illegal, Clinton was adamant to actively
keep Zelaya out.
Essentially then, Ratcliff is a chief architect of the right-wing government in Honduras – the same government assassinating feminist
and indigenous activists like Berta Cáceres, Margarita Murillo, and others, and forcibly displacing and ethnically cleansing Afro-indigenous
communities to make way for Carribbean resorts and golf courses.
And this Washington insider lobbyist and apologist for war criminals and crimes against humanity is the guy who's on a crusade
to reform campaign finance and fix Washington? This is the guy masquerading as a progressive? This is the guy working to elect an
"anti-war progressive"?
In a twisted way it makes sense. Ratcliff has the blood of tens of thousands of Hondurans (among others) on his hands, while Beals
is a creature of Langley, a CIA boy whose exceptional work in the service of Bush and Clinton administration war criminals is touted
as some kind of merit badge on his resume.
What also becomes clear after establishing the Ratcliff-Beals connection is the fact that Ratcliff's purported concern with
campaign financing and "taking back the Republic" is really just a pretext for attempting to provide a "proof of concept," as it
were, that neoliberal Democrats shouldn't fear and subvert the progressive wing of the party, but rather that they should co-opt
it with a phony grassroots facade all while maintaining links to U.S. intelligence, Wall Street, and the power brokers of the Democratic
Party .
"... Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said ."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created." ..."
"... The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served . ..."
"... What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with taking such major liberties with the law. ..."
"... None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to win. ..."
"... Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the polls." ..."
"... The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very tall body that houses an outsized ego. ..."
"... "Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law, but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either. ..."
"... there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign. ..."
"... We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out ..."
"... The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep state. ..."
"... Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor. Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails. ..."
"... I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought up the so-called "dossier" ..."
"... Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his cups. ..."
"... Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.) ..."
"... Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed bin-Talal's bagman. ..."
Wednesday's criminal referral by 11 House Republicans of former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton as well as several former and serving top FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials
is a giant step toward a Constitutional crisis.
Named in the referral to the DOJ for possible violations of federal law are: Clinton, former
FBI Director James Comey; former Attorney General Loretta Lynch; former Acting FBI Director
Andrew McCabe; FBI Agent Peter Strzok; FBI Counsel Lisa Page; and those DOJ and FBI personnel
"connected to" work on the "Steele Dossier," including former Acting Attorney General Sally
Yates and former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente.
With no attention from corporate media, the referral was sent to Attorney General Jeff
Sessions, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah John Huber.
Sessions appointed Huber months ago to assist DOJ Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz. By
most accounts, Horowitz is doing a thoroughly professional job. As IG, however, Horowitz lacks
the authority to prosecute; he needs a U.S. Attorney for that. And this has to be disturbing to
the alleged perps.
This is no law-school case-study exercise, no arcane disputation over the fine points of
this or that law. Rather, as we say in the inner-city, "It has now hit the fan." Criminal
referrals can lead to serious jail time. Granted, the upper-crust luminaries criminally
"referred" enjoy very powerful support. And that will come especially from the mainstream
media, which will find it hard to retool and switch from Russia-gate to the much more delicate
and much less welcome "FBI-gate."
As of this writing, a full day has gone by since the letter/referral was reported, with
total silence so far from T he New York Times and The Washington Post and other
big media as they grapple with how to spin this major development. News of the criminal
referral also slipped by Amy Goodman's non-mainstream DemocracyNow!, as well as many
alternative websites.
The 11 House members chose to include the following egalitarian observation in the first
paragraph of the
letter conveying the criminal referral: "Because we believe that those in positions of high
authority should be treated the same as every other American, we want to be sure that the
potential violations of law outlined below are vetted appropriately." If this uncommon attitude
is allowed to prevail at DOJ, it would, in effect, revoke the de facto "David Petraeus
exemption" for the be-riboned, be-medaled, and well-heeled.
Stonewalling
Meanwhile, the patience of the chairmen of House committees investigating abuses at DOJ and
the FBI is wearing thin at the slow-rolling they are encountering in response to requests for
key documents from the FBI. This in-your-face intransigence is all the more odd, since several
committee members have already had access to the documents in question, and are hardly likely
to forget the content of those they know about. (Moreover, there seems to be a good chance that
a patriotic whistleblower or two will tip them off to key documents being withheld.)
The DOJ IG, whose purview includes the FBI, has been cooperative in responding to committee
requests for information, but those requests can hardly include documents of which the
committees are unaware.
Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes
(R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who
misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and
his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots
to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said
."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created."
Whether the House will succeed in overcoming the resistance of those criminally referred and
their many accomplices and will prove able to exercise its Constitutional prerogative of
oversight is, of course, another matter -- a matter that matters.
And Nothing Matters More Than the Media
The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of
Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted
headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an
article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded
fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served
.
Nor is the Post above issuing transparently clever warnings -- like this one in a
lead
article on March 17: "Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting
the FBI. 'This is open, all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going
to torch him.'" [sic]
Mind-Boggling Criminal Activity
What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety
of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have
been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with
taking such major liberties with the law.
None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities
directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind
that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which
point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not
prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to
win.
But she lost.
Comey himself gives this away in the embarrassingly puerile book he has been hawking, "A
Higher Loyalty" -- which
amounts to a pre-emptive move motivated mostly by loyalty-to-self, in order to obtain a
Stay-Out-of-Jail card. Hat tip to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone for a key observation, in his
recent article
, "James Comey, the Would-Be J. Edgar Hoover," about what Taibbi deems the book's most damning
passage, where Comey discusses his decision to make public the re-opening of the Hillary
Clinton email investigation.
Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an
environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making
her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight
than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the
polls."
The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the
next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally
referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very
tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very
tall body that houses an outsized ego.
I think it can be said that readers of Consortiumnews.com may be unusually well equipped to
understand the anatomy of FBI-gate as well as Russia-gate. Listed below chronologically are
several links that might be viewed as a kind of "whiteboard" to refresh memories. You may wish
to refer them to any friends who may still be confused.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and
then a CIA analyst for a total of 30 years. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
A weird country, the USA.
Reading the article I'm reminded of the 1946 Senate investigation into Pearl Harbour, where,
in my opinion, the truth was unearthed.
At the same time, this truth hardly ever reached the wider public, no articles, the book, ed.
Harry Elmer Barnes, never reviewed.
Will McCabe wind up in jail? Will Comey? Will Hillary face justice? Fingers crossed!
The short answer is NO. McCabe might, but not Comey and the Killer Queen, they've both served Satan, uh I mean the
Deep State too long and too well.Satan and the banksters–who really run the show–take care of their own and
apex predators like Hillary won't go to jail. But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
"Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning
constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law,
but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have
had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either.
Consortium News many sops tossed to 'realpolitik' where false narrative is attacked with
alternative false narrative, example given, drunk Ukrainian soldiers supposedly downing MH 17
with a BUK as opposed to Kiev's Interior Ministry behind the Ukrainian combat jet that
actually brought down MH 17, poisons everything (trust issues) spewed from that news
service.
The realpolitik 'face saving' exit/offer implied in the Consortium News narrative where
Russia doesn't have to confront the West with Ukraine's (and by implication the western
intelligence agencies) premeditated murder of 300 innocents does truth no favors.
Time to grow up and face reality. Realpolitik is dead; the caliber of 'statesman' required
for these finessed geopolitical lies to function no longer exist on the Western side, and the
Russians (I believe) are beginning to understand there is no agreement can be made behind
closed doors that will hold up; as opposed to experiencing a backstabbing (like NATO not
moving east.)
Back on topic; the National Security Act of 1947 and the USA's constitution are mutually
exclusive concepts, where you have a Chief Justice appoints members of our FISA Court, er,
nix that, let's call a spade a spade, it's a Star Chamber. There is no constitution to
uphold, no matter well intended self deceits. There will be no constitutional crisis, only a
workaround to pretend a constitution still exists:
To comprehend the internal machinations s of US politics one needs a mind capable of high
level yoga or of squaring a circle.
On the one hand there is a multimillion, full throttle investigation into – at best
– nebulus, inconsequential links between trump/ his campaign & Russia.
On the other there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the
primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies
conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign.
Naturally, its this 2nd conspiracy which is retarded.
Imagine, a mere agency of a dept, the FBI, is widely considered untouchable by The President
! Indeed, they will "torch" him. AND the "the third estate" ie: the msm will support them the
whole way!
As a script the "The Twilight Zone" would have rejected all this as too ludicrous, too
psychotic for even its broad minded viewers.
And that will come especially from the mainstream media
I quit reading right there. Use of that term indicates mental laziness at best. What's mainstream about it? Please
refer to corporate media in proper terms, such as PCR's "presstitute" media. Speaking of PCR, it's too bad he doesn't allow comments.
The MSM is controlled by Zionists as is the U.S. gov and the banks, so it is no surprise that
the MSM protects the ones destroying America, this is what they do. Nothing of consequence will be done to any of the ones involved, it will all be covered
up, as usual.
What utter nonsense. These people are ALL actors, no one will go to jail, because everything
they do is contrived, no consequence for doing as your Zionist owners command.
There is no there there. This is nothing but another distraction, something o feed the
dual narratives, that Clinton and her ilk are out to get Trump, and the "liberal media" will
cover it up. This narrative feeds very nicely into the primary goal of driving
Republicans/conservatives to support Trump, even as Trump does everything they elected him
NOT TO DO!
We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a
Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out
Yet even while Obama did the work of the Zionist money machine, the media played up the
fake battle between those who thought he was not born in America, "birthers" and his blind
supporters.
Nothing came of any of it, just like Monica Lewinsky, nothing but theater, fill the air
waves, divide the people, while America is driven insane.
The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the
weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep
state. It's seriously way pass time for Jeff Sessions to grow a pair, put on his big boy
pants, unrecuse himself from the Russian collusion bullshit case, fire Rosenstein and Mueller
and end the case once and for all. These two traitors are in danger of completely derailing
the Trump agenda and toppling the Republican majority in November, yet Jeff Sessions is still
busy arresting people for marijuana, talk about missing the forest for the trees.
As far as where this referral will go from here, my guess is, nowhere. Not as long as Jeff
Sessions the pussy is the AG. It's good to hear that Giuliani has now been recruited by Trump
to be on his legal team. What Trump really needs to do is replace Jeff Sessions with
Giuliani, or even Chris Christie, and let them do what a real AG should be doing, which is
clean house in the DOJ, and prosecute the Clintons for their pay-to-play scheme with their
foundation. Not only is the Clinton corruption case the biggest corruption case in US
history, but this might be the only way to save the GOP from losing their majority in
November.
But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
Sadly I think you're right. Things might be different if we had a real AG, but Jeff
Sessions is not the man I thought he was. He's been swallowed by the deep state just like
Trump. At least Trump is putting up a fight, Sessions just threw in the towel and recused
himself from Day 1. Truly pathetic. Some patriot he is.
" He's ferreted out more than a few and probably has a lot better idea who his friends are
he certainly knows the enemies by now."
He failed to ferret out Haley, Pompeo, or Sessions and he just recently appointed John
Bolton, so I don't agree with your assessment. If his friends include those three, that says
enough about Trump to make any of his earlier supporters drop him.
Anyway, not having a ready made team, or at least a solid short list of key appointees
shows that he was just too clueless to have even been a serious candidate. It looks more as
though Trump is doing now what he intended to do all along. That means he was bullshitting
everybody during his campaign.
So, maybe the neocons really have been his friends all along.
" America is a very crooked country, nothing suprises me".
Every country on this insane planet is "crooked" to a greater or lesser degree, when to a
lesser degree, this is simply because they, the PTB, have not yet figured out how to
accelerate, how to increase their corruption and thereby how to increase their unearned
monetary holdings.
Money is the most potent singular factor which causes humans to lose their minds, and all
of their ethics and decency.
And within the confines of a "socialist" system, "money" is replaced by rubber-stamps, which
then wield, exactly in the manner of "wealth", the power of life or death, over the unwashed
masses.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz
musician.
BTW Jeff Sessions is a fraternal brother of Pence (a member of the same club, same
[recently deceased] guru) and is no friend of Trump.
That would explain why Sessions reclused himself from the start, and refused to appoint a
special council to investigate the Clintons. He's in on this with Pence.
Just as it looks like the Comey memos will further exonerate Trump, we now have this farce
extended by the DNC with this latest lawsuit on the "Trump campaign". The Democrats are now
the most pathetic sore losers in history, they are hell bent on dragging the whole country
down the pit of hell just because they can't handle a loss.
Wishful thinking that anything will come of this, just like when the Nunes memo was released.
Nothing will happen as long as Jeff Sessions is AG. Trump needs to fire either Sessions or
Rosenstein ASAP, before he gets dragged down by this whole Russian collusion bullshit case.
Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against
Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor.
Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's
true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could
be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was
revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails.
John Podesta, in addition to being a top Democrat/DC lobbyist and a criminal deviant, is
also a long-time CIA asset running a blackmail/influence operation that utilized his
deviancy: the sexual exploitation of children.
What kind of "physical proof" could Assange have? A thumb drive that was provably
American, or something? Rohrabacher only got Red Pilled on Russia because he had one very
determined (and well heeled) constituent. But he did cosponsor one of Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop
Funding Terrorists" bills, which he figured out on his own. Nevertheless, a bit of a loose
cannon and an eff'd up hawk on Iran He's probably an 'ISIS now, Assad later' on Syria.
I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought
up the so-called "dossier". Anyone could see it was absurd but he played his hand with it,
pretending it was being looked at. I would say Trump could see through this sleazy game Comey
was trying to play and sized him up. Comey is about as slimy as they get even as he parades
around trying to look noble. What a corrupt bunch.
"The culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain "
[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined Robert Mueller's Questionable Past
that appeared yesterday on the American Free Press website:]
During his tenure with the Justice Department under President George H W Bush, Mueller
supervised the prosecutions of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, the Lockerbie bombing (Pan
Am Flight 103) case, and Gambino crime boss John Gotti. In the Noriega case, Mueller ignored
the ties to the Bush family that Victor Thorn illustrated in Hillary (and Bill): The Drugs
Volume: Part Two of the Clinton Trilogy. Noriega had long been associated with CIA operations
that involved drug smuggling, money laundering, and arms running. Thorn significantly links
Noriega to Bush family involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Regarding Pan Am Flight 103, the culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain.
Pro-Palestinian activists, Libyans, and Iranians have all officially been blamed when US
intelligence and the mainstream mass media needed to paint each as the antagonist to American
freedom. Mueller toed the line, publicly ignoring rumors that agents onboard were said to
have learned that a CIA drug-smuggling operation was afoot in conjunction with Pan Am
flights. According to the theory, the agents were going to take their questions to Congress
upon landing. The flight blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.
There has been some former high flyers going to jail recently. Sarkozy is facing a hard
time at the moment. If it can happen to a former president of France it can happen to
Hillary.
Am I a Christian? Well, no. I had some exposure to Christianity but it never took hold. On
the other hand, I do believe there was a historical Jesus that was a remarkable man, but
there is a world (or universe) of difference between the man and the mythology. Here's some
of my thoughts on the matter:
Nothing uncanny about it. There's a frenetic Democratic cottage industry inferring magical
emotional charisma powers that explain the outsized influence of those three. The fact is
very simple. All three are CIA nomenklatura.
(1.) Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his
cups.
(2.) Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that
the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has
conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.)
(3.) Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed
bin-Talal's bagman. While he was vocationally wet behind the ears he not only got into
Pakistan, no mean feat at the time, but he went to a falconry outing with the future acting
president of Pakistan. And is there anyone alive who wasn't flabbergasted at the instant
universal acclaim for some empty suit who made a speech at the convention? Like Bill Clinton,
successor to DCI Bush, Obama was blatantly, derisively installed in the president slot of the
CIA org chart.
Excellent post and quite accurate information, however my point being that the irrational
fear harbored by the individuals who could actually begin to rope these scumbags in, is just
that : Irrational, as they seem to think or have been lead/brainwashed to believe that these
dissolute turds are somehow endowed with supernatural, otherworldy powers and options, and
that they are capable of unholy , merciless vengeance : VF, SR, etc.
And the truth is as soon as they finally start to go after them they, they will fall apart at
the seams, such as with all cowards, and this is the bottom line : They, the BC/HC/BO clique,
they are nothing more than consumate cowards, who can only operate in such perfidious manners
when left unchallenged.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz
artist.
Now the color revolution against Trump just does not make any sense. We got to the point
where Trump=Hillary. Muller should embrace and kiss Trump and go home... Nobody care if Trump is impeached anymore.
Donald Trump's far-right loyal fans must be really pissed off right now after permanently
switching himself to pro-war mode with that evil,
warmongering triplet in charge and the second bombing against Syria. Even worse,
this time he has done it together with Theresa May and the neoliberal globalist Emmanuel
Macron.
We can tell that by watching the mind-blowing reactions of one of his most fanatic alt-right
media supporters: Alex Jones. Jones nearly cried(!) in front of the camera, feeling betrayed
from his 'anti-establishment', 'anti-interventionist' idol and declared that he won't support
Trump anymore. Well, what did you expect, Alex? expect, Alex?
A
year before the 2016 US national elections, the blog already warned that Trump is a pure
product of the neoliberal barbarism , stating that the rhetoric of extreme cynicism
used by Trump goes back to the Thatcherian cynicism and the division of people between
"capable" and "useless".
Right after the elections, we supported that the US
establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in
power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat:
Bernie Sanders. Right after the elections, we supported that the US
establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in
power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat:
Bernie Sanders.
The only hope that has been left, was to resist against starting a war with Russia, as the US
deep state (and Hillary of course) wanted. Well, it was proven to be only a hope too. Last
year, Trump bombed Syria under the same pretext resembling the lies that led us to the Iraq war
disaster. Despite the fact that the US Tomahawk missile attack had zero value in operational
level (the United States allegedly warned Russia and Syria, while the targeted airport was
operating normally just hours after the attack), Trump sent a clear message to the US deep
state that he is prepared to meet all its demands - and especially the escalation of
confrontation with Russia. Indeed, a year later, Trump already built a pro-war team that
includes the most bloodthirsty, hawkish triplet.
And then, Donnie ordered a second airstrike against Syria, together with his neo-colonial
friends.
It seems that neither this strike was a serious attempt against the Syrian army and its allies.
Yet, Donnie probably won't dare to escalate tension in the Syrian battlefield before the next
US national elections. That's because many of his supporters are already pissed off with him
and therefore, he wants to go with good chances for a second term.
Although we really hope that we are are wrong this time, we guess that, surrounded by all these
warmongering hawks, Donnie, in a potential second term, will be pushed to open another war
front in Syria and probably in Iran, defying the Russians and the consequent danger for a
WWIII.
Poor Alex et al: we told you about Trump from the beginning. You didn't listen ...
In reality Trump proved again that POTUS does not matter and presidential elections matter very little. In was he is like
drunk Obama, reckelss and jingoistic to the extreme. Both foreign and domestic policy is determined by forces, and are outside POTUS control, with very little input
possible. But the "deep state"
fully control the POTUS, no matter who he/she are.
Notable quotes:
"... To Trump apologists: Trump is the Republican Obama. The follow the same model of government: faux populist leader dogged by crazy critics that want to derail a righteous agenda. ..."
"... Obamabots gave similar excuses. Real populists simply don't get have a chance of being elected in US money-driven elections. ..."
"... Why was there only two populists running for President in 2016? Sanders, Hillay's sheepdog, destroyed the movement that would been the best check on the establishment and the rush to war. That movement was never going to be allowed to take root. Trump, a friend of the Clinton's was probably meant to prevail. ..."
To Trump apologists: Trump is the Republican Obama. The follow the same model of government: faux populist leader
dogged by crazy critics that want to derail a righteous agenda.
Obamabots gave similar excuses. Real populists simply don't get have a chance of being
elected in US money-driven elections.
Why was there only two populists running for President in 2016? Sanders, Hillay's sheepdog, destroyed the movement that would been the best check on the
establishment and the rush to war. That movement was never going to be allowed to take root.
Trump, a friend of the Clinton's was probably meant to prevail.
Rome had bread and circuses. We've got crumbs and tweets.
"... Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of Wall Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the "lying neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. ..."
"... Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise to win elections. ..."
"... Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. ..."
"... one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary ..."
"... Misgivings of major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate ..."
"... Of course, Bill and Hillary helped trail-blaze that plutocratic "New Democrat" turn in Arkansas during the late 1970s and 1980s. The rest, as they say, was history – an ugly corporate-neoliberal, imperial, and racist history that I and others have written about at great length. ..."
"... My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency ..."
"... Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton ..."
"... The Condemnation of Little B: New Age Racism in America ..."
"... Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten" American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. ..."
"... Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache ..."
"... "In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added). ..."
"... "What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016 or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races, but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the party at large." ..."
"... "In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million. ..."
"... Peter Theil contributed more than a million dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at Cisco Systems. ..."
"... Among those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began with the Convention but turned into a torrent " ..."
"... The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist "populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning, Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the Democratic "base" vote ..."
"... Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." ..."
"... An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S. corporate and right-wing cyber forces: ..."
"... By 2016, the Republican right had developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale quite on its own. ..."
"... Breitbart and other organizations were in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or the Drudge Report ." ..."
"... no support from Big Business ..."
"... Sanders pushed Hillary the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor "socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as "without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ." ..."
"... American Oligarchy ..."
"... teleSur English ..."
"... we had no great electoral democracy to subvert in 2016 ..."
"... Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial analysis of their constituent elements." ..."
"... Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S. policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't like ..."
"... Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. ..."
"... Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. " deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself (though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos." ..."
"... His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and (last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is recklessly encouraging. ..."
On the Friday after the Chicago Cubs won the World Series and prior to the Tuesday on which
the vicious racist and sexist Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, Bernie
Sanders spoke to a surprisingly small crowd in Iowa City on behalf of Hillary Clinton. As I
learned months later, Sanders told one of his Iowa City friends that day that Mrs. Clinton was
in trouble. The reason, Sanders reported, was that Hillary wasn't discussing issues or
advancing real solutions. "She doesn't have any policy positions," Sanders said.
The first time I heard this, I found it hard to believe. How, I wondered, could anyone run
seriously for the presidency without putting issues and policy front and center? Wouldn't any
serious campaign want a strong set of issue and policy positions to attract voters and fall
back on in case and times of adversity?
Sanders wasn't lying. As the esteemed political scientist and money-politics expert Thomas
Ferguson and his colleagues Paul Jorgensen and Jie Chen note in an important study released by
the Institute for New Economic Thinking two months ago, the Clinton campaign "emphasized
candidate and personal issues and avoided policy discussions to a degree without precedent in
any previous election for which measurements exist .it stressed candidate qualifications [and]
deliberately deemphasized issues in favor of concentrating on what the campaign regarded as
[Donald] Trump's obvious personal weaknesses as a candidate."
Strange as it might have seemed, the reality television star and presidential pre-apprentice
Donald Trump had a lot more to say about policy than the former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a wonkish Yale Law graduate.
"Courting the Undecideds in Business, not in the Electorate"
What was that about? My first suspicion was that Hillary's policy silence was about the
money. It must have reflected her success in building a Wall Street-filled campaign funding
war-chest so daunting that she saw little reason to raise capitalist election investor concerns
by giving voice to the standard fake-progressive "hope" and "change" campaign and policy
rhetoric Democratic presidential contenders typically deploy against their One Percent
Republican opponents. Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election
prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of
Wall
Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading
Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the
"lying
neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes
to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. She would cruise into the White
House with no hurt plutocrat feelings simply by playing up the ill-prepared awfulness of her
Republican opponent.
If Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen (hereafter "JFC") are right, I was on to something but not
the whole money and politics story. Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers
have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism
in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise
to win elections. Sophisticated funders get it that the Democratic candidates' need to
manipulate the electorate with phony pledges of democratic transformation. The big
money backers know it's "just politics" on the part of candidates who can be trusted to
serve elite interests (like Bill
Clinton 1993-2001 and Barack
Obama 2009-2017 ) after they gain office.
What stopped Hillary from playing the usual game – the "manipulation of populism by
elitism" that Christopher
Hitchens once called "the essence of American politics" – in 2016, a year when the
electorate was in a particularly angry and populist mood? FJC's study is titled "
Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games : Donald Trump and the
2016 Presidential Election." It performs heroic empirical work with difficult campaign finance
data to show that Hillary's campaign funding success went beyond her party's usual corporate
and financial backers to include normally Republican-affiliated capitalist sectors less
disposed than their more liberal counterparts to abide the standard progressive-sounding policy
rhetoric of Democratic Party candidates. FJC hypothesize that (along with the determination
that Trump was too weak to be taken all that seriously) Hillary's desire get and keep on board
normally Republican election investors led her to keep quiet on issues and policy concerns that
mattered to everyday people. As FJC note:
"Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a
lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. For
Clinton's campaign the temptation was irresistible: Over time it slipped into a variant of
the strategy [Democrat] Lyndon Johnson pursued in 1964 in the face of another [Republican]
candidate [Barry Goldwater] who seemed too far out of the mainstream to win: Go for a grand
coalition with most of big business . one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so
many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of
public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to
rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary . Misgivings of
major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for
ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within
business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate
" (emphasis added). Hillary
Happened
FJC may well be right that a wish not to antagonize off right-wing campaign funders is what
led Hillary to muzzle herself on important policy matters, but who really knows? An alternative
theory I would not rule out is that Mrs. Clinton's own deep inner conservatism was sufficient
to spark her to gladly dispense with the usual progressive-sounding campaign boilerplate. Since
FJC bring up the Johnson-Goldwater election, it is perhaps worth mentioning that 18-year old
Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl" who worked for the arch-reactionary Republican presidential
candidate in 1964. Asked about that episode on National
Public Radio (NPR) in 1996 , then First Lady Hillary said "That's right. And I feel like my
political beliefs are rooted in the conservatism that I was raised with. I don't recognize this
new brand of Republicanism that is afoot now, which I consider to be very reactionary, not
conservative in many respects. I am very proud that I was a Goldwater girl."
It was a revealing reflection. The right-wing Democrat Hillary acknowledged that her
ideological world view was still rooted in the conservatism of her family of origin. Her
problem with the reactionary Republicanism afoot in the U.S. during the middle 1990s was that
it was "not conservative in many respects." Her problem with the far-right Republican
Congressional leaders Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay was that they were betraying true
conservatism – "the conservatism [Hillary] was raised with." This was worse even than the
language of the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC) – the right-wing Eisenhower
Republican (at leftmost) tendency that worked to push the Democratic Party further to the Big
Business-friendly right and away from its working-class and progressive base.
What happened? Horrid corporate Hillary happened. And she's still happening. The "lying
neoliberal warmonger" recently went to India to double down on her
"progressive neoliberal" contempt for the "basket of deplorables" (more on that phrase
below) that considers poor stupid and backwards middle America to be by
saying this : "If you look at the map of the United States, there's all that red in the
middle where Trump won. I win the coasts. But what the map doesn't show you is that I won the
places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product (GDP). So I won the places
that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward" (emphasis added).
That was Hillary Goldman Sachs-Council on Foreign Relations-Clinton saying "go to Hell" to
working- and middle-class people in Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri,
Indiana, and West Virginia. It was a raised middle and oligarchic finger from a super-wealthy
arch-global-corporatist to all the supposedly pessimistic, slow-witted, and retrograde losers
stuck between those glorious enclaves (led by Wall Street, Yale, and Harvard on the East coast
and Silicon Valley and Hollywood on the West coast) of human progress and variety (and GDP!) on
the imperial shorelines. Senate Minority Leader Dick
Durbin had to go on television to say that Hillary was "wrong" to write off most of the
nation as a festering cesspool of pathetic, ass-backwards, lottery-playing, and opioid-addicted
white-trash has-beens. It's hard for the Inauthentic Opposition Party (as the late Sheldon Wolin reasonably called
the Democrats ) to pose as an authentic opposition party when its' last big-money
presidential candidate goes off-fake-progressive script with an openly elitist rant like
that.
Historic Mistakes
Whatever the source of her strange policy silence in the 2016 campaign, that hush was "a
miscalculation of historic proportion" (FJC). It was a critical mistake given what Ferguson and
his colleagues call the "Hunger Games" misery and insecurity imposed on tens of millions of
ordinary working- and middle-class middle-Americans by decades of neoliberal capitalist
austerity , deeply exacerbated by the Wall Street-instigated Great Recession and the weak
Obama recovery. The electorate was in a populist, anti-establishment mood – hardly a
state of mind favorable to a wooden, richly globalist, Goldman-gilded candidate, a long-time
Washington-Wall Street establishment ("swamp") creature like Hillary Clinton.
In the end, FJC note, the billionaire Trump's ironic, fake-populist "outreach to blue collar
workers" would help him win "more than half of all voters with a high school education or less
(including 61% of white women with no college), almost two thirds of those who believed life
for the next generation of Americans would be worse than now, and seventy-seven percent of
voters who reported their personal financial situation had worsened since four years ago."
Trump's popularity with "heartland" rural and working-class whites even provoked Hillary
into a major campaign mistake: getting caught on video telling elite Manhattan election
investors that half of Trump's supporters were a "basket
of deplorables." There was a hauntingly strong parallel between Wall Street Hillary's
"deplorables" blooper and the super-rich Republican candidate Mitt Romney's
infamous 2012 gaffe : telling his own affluent backers saying that 47% of the population
were a bunch of lazy welfare cheats. This time, though, it was the Democrat – with a
campaign finance profile closer to Romney's than Obama's in 2012 – and not the Republican
making the ugly plutocratic and establishment faux pas .
"A Frontal Assault on the American Establishment"
Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate
Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic
nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of
Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq,
rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten"
American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. As FJC
explain:
"In 2016 the Republicans nominated yet another super-rich candidate – indeed,
someone on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans. Like legions of conservative
Republicans before him, he trash-talked Hispanics, immigrants, and women virtually non-stop,
though with a verve uniquely his own. He laced his campaign with barely coded racial appeals
and in the final days, ran an ad widely denounced as subtly anti-Semitic. But in striking
contrast to every other Republican presidential nominee since 1936, he attacked
globalization, free trade, international financiers, Wall Street, and even Goldman Sachs. '
Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it
has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache . When
subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the
politicians do nothing. For years, they watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our
communities were plunged into depression-level unemployment.'"
"In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer
proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass
destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP
orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized
the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added).
Big Dark Money and Trump: His Own and Others'
This cost Trump much of the corporate and Wall Street financial support that Republican
presidential candidates usually get. The thing was, however, that much of Trump's "populist"
rhetoric was popular with a big part of the Republican electorate, thanks to the "Hunger Games"
insecurity of the transparently bipartisan New Gilded Age. And Trump's personal fortune
permitted him to tap that popular anger while leaping insultingly over the heads of his less
wealthy if corporate and Wall Street-backed competitors ("low energy" Jeb Bush and "little
Marco" Rubio most notably) in the crowded Republican primary race.
A Republican candidate
dependent on the usual elite bankrollers would never have been able to get away with Trump's
crowd-pleasing (and CNN and FOX News rating-boosting) antics. Thanks to his own wealth, the
faux-populist anti-establishment Trump was ironically inoculated against pre-emption in the
Republican primaries by the American campaign finance "wealth
primary," which renders electorally unviable candidates who lack vast financial resources
or access to them.
Things were different after Trump won the Republican nomination, however. He could no longer
go it alone after the primaries. During the Republican National Convention and "then again in
the late summer of 2016," FJC show, Trump's "solo campaign had to be rescued by major
industries plainly hoping for tariff relief, waves of other billionaires from the far, far
right of the already far right Republican Party, and the most disruption-exalting corners of
Wall Street." By FJC's account:
"What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave
of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016
or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian
Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business
interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races,
but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the
party at large."
"The run up to the Convention brought in substantial new money, including, for the first
time, significant contributions from big business. Mining, especially coal mining; Big Pharma
(which was certainly worried by tough talk from the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton,
about regulating drug prices); tobacco, chemical companies, and oil (including substantial
sums from executives at Chevron, Exxon, and many medium sized firms); and telecommunications
(notably AT&T, which had a major merge merger pending) all weighed in. Money from
executives at the big banks also began streaming in, including Bank of America, J. P. Morgan
Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. Parts of Silicon Valley also started coming in from
the cold."
"In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that
appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies
making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from
some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many
others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now
delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his
Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million.
Peter Theil contributed more than a million
dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost
two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at
Cisco Systems. A wave of new money swept in from large private equity firms, the part of Wall
Street which had long championed hostile takeovers as a way of disciplining what they mocked
as bloated and inefficient 'big business.' Virtual pariahs to main-line firms in the Business
Roundtable and the rest of Wall Street, some of these figures had actually gotten their start
working with Drexel Burnham Lambert and that firm's dominant partner, Michael Milkin.
Among
those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now
made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a
handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments
of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump
was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began
with the Convention but turned into a torrent "
The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its
direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist
"populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning,
Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated
working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and
professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency
and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the
Democratic "base" vote. Along with the racist voter suppression carried out by Republican
state governments (JFC rightly chide Russia-obsessed political reporters and commentators for
absurdly ignoring this important factor) and (JFC intriguingly suggest) major anti-union
offensives conducted by employers in some battleground states, this major late-season influx of
big right-wing political money tilted the election Trump's way.
The Myth of Potent Russian Cyber-Subversion
As FJC show, there is little empirical evidence to support the Clinton and corporate
Democrats' self-interested and diversionary efforts to explain Mrs. Clinton's epic fail and
Trump's jaw-dropping upset victory as the result of (i) Russian interference, (ii), then FBI
Director James Comey's October Surprise revelation that his agency was not done investigating
Hillary's emails, and/or (iii) some imagined big wave of white working-class racism, nativism,
and sexism brought to the surface by the noxious Orange Hulk. The impacts of both (i) and (ii)
were infinitesimal in comparison to the role that big campaign money played both in silencing
Hillary and funding Trump.
The blame-the-deplorable-racist-white-working-class narrative is
belied by basic underlying continuities in white working class voting patterns. As FJC note: "
Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different
from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the
pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." It was about the money – the big
establishment money that the Clinton campaign took (as FJC at least plausibly argue) to
recommend policy silence and the different, right-wing big money that approved Trump's
comparative right-populist policy boisterousness.
An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the
pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media
allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that
Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S.
corporate and right-wing cyber forces:
"The real masters of these black arts are American or Anglo-American firms. These compete
directly with Silicon Valley and leading advertising firms for programmers and personnel.
They rely almost entirely on data purchased from Google, Facebook, or other suppliers,
not Russia . American regulators do next to nothing to protect the privacy of voters
and citizens, and, as we have shown in several studies, leading telecom firms are major
political actors and giant political contributors. As a result, data on the habits and
preferences of individual internet users are commercially available in astounding detail and
quantities for relatively modest prices – even details of individual credit card
purchases. The American giants for sure harbor abundant data on the constellation of bots,
I.P. addresses, and messages that streamed to the electorate "
" stories hyping 'the sophistication of an influence campaign slickly crafted to mimic and
infiltrate U.S. political discourse while also seeking to heighten tensions between groups
already wary of one another by the Russians miss the mark.' By 2016, the Republican right had
developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale
quite on its own. Large numbers of conservative websites, including many that that tolerated
or actively encouraged white supremacy and contempt for immigrants, African-Americans,
Hispanics, Jews, or the aspirations of women had been hard at work for years stoking up
'tensions between groups already wary of one another.' Breitbart and other organizations were
in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded
groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value
to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or
the Drudge Report ."
" the evidence revealed thus far does not support strong claims about the likely success
of Russian efforts, though of course the public outrage at outside meddling is easy to
understand. The speculative character of many accounts even in the mainstream media is
obvious. Several, such as widely circulated declaration by the Department of Homeland
Security that 21 state election systems had been hacked during the election, have collapsed
within days of being put forward when state electoral officials strongly disputed them,
though some mainstream press accounts continue to repeat them. Other tales about Macedonian
troll factories churning out stories at the instigation of the Kremlin, are clearly
exaggerated."
The Sanders Tease: "He Couldn't Have Done a Thing"
Perhaps the most remarkable finding in FJC's study is that Sanders came tantalizingly close
to winning the Democratic presidential nomination against the corporately super-funded Clinton
campaign with no support from Big Business . Running explicitly against the "Hunger
Games" economy and the corporate-financial plutocracy that created it, Sanders pushed Hillary
the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing
her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor
"socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as
"without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the
whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly
competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ."
Sanders pulled this off, FJC might have added, by running in (imagine) accord with
majority-progressive left-of-center U.S. public opinion. But for the Clintons' corrupt advance-
control of the Democratic National Committee and convention delegates, Ferguson et al might
further have noted, Sanders might well have been the Democratic presidential nominee, curiously
enough in the arch-state-capitalist and oligarchic United States
Could Sanders have defeated the billionaire and right-wing billionaire-backed Trump in the
general election? There's no way to know, of course. Sanders consistently out-performed Hillary
Clinton in one-on-one match -up polls vis a vis Donald Trump during the primary season, but
much of the big money (and, perhaps much of the corporate media) that backed Hillary would have
gone over to Trump had the supposedly
"radical" Sanders been the Democratic nominee.
Even if Sanders has been elected president, moreover, Noam Chomsky is certainly correct in
his recent judgement that Sanders would have been able to achieve very little in the White
House. As Chomsky told Lynn Parramore two weeks ago, in
an interview conducted for the Institute for New Economic Thinking, the same think-tank
that published FJC's remarkable study:
"His campaign [was] a break with over a century of American political history. No
corporate support, no financial wealth, he was unknown, no media support. The media simply
either ignored or denigrated him. And he came pretty close -- he probably could have won the
nomination, maybe the election. But suppose he'd been elected? He couldn't have done a thing.
Nobody in Congress, no governors, no legislatures, none of the big economic powers, which
have an enormous effect on policy. All opposed to him. In order for him to do anything, he
would have to have a substantial, functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from
the grass roots. It would have to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local
levels, state levels, Congress, the bureaucracy -- you have to build the whole system from
the bottom."
As Chomsky might have added, Sanders oligarchy-imposed "failures" would have been great
fodder for the disparagement and smearing of "socialism" and progressive, majority-backed
policy change. "See? We tried all that and it was a disaster!"
I would note further that the Sanders phenomenon's policy promise was plagued by its
standard bearer's persistent loyalty to the giant and absurdly expensive U.S.-imperial Pentagon
System, which each year eats up hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars required to implement
the progressive, majority-supported policy agenda that Bernie F-35 Sanders ran
on.
"A Very Destructive Ideology"
The Sanders challenge was equally afflicted by its candidate-centered electoralism. This
diverted energy away from the real and more urgent politics of building people's movements
– grassroots power to shake the society to its foundations and change policy from the
bottom up (Dr. Martin Luther King's preferred strategy at the end of his life just barely short
of 50 years ago, on April 4 th , 1968) – and into the narrow, rigidly
time-staggered grooves of a party and spectacle-elections crafted by and for the wealthy Few
and the American
Oligarchy 's "permanent political class" (historian Ron Formisano). As Chomsky explained on the eve of the 2004
elections:
"Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the
political arena. Essentially the election is a method of marginalizing the population. A huge
propaganda campaign is mounted to get people to focus on these personalized quadrennial
extravaganzas and to think, 'That's politics.' But it isn't. It's only a small part of
politics The urgency is for popular progressive groups to grow and become strong enough so
that centers of power can't ignore them. Forces for change that have come up from the grass
roots and shaken the society to its core include the labor movement, the civil rights
movement, the peace movement, the women's movement and others, cultivated by steady,
dedicated work at all levels, every day, not just once every four years sensible [electoral]
choices have to be made. But they are secondary to serious political action."
"The only thing that's going to ever bring about any meaningful change," Chomsky told Abby Martin on teleSur
English in the fall of 2015, "is ongoing, dedicated, popular movements that don't pay
attention to the election cycle." Under the American religion of voting,
Chomsky told Dan Falcone and Saul Isaacson in the spring of 2016, "Citizenship means every
four years you put a mark somewhere and you go home and let other guys run the world. It's a
very destructive ideology basically, a way of making people passive, submissive objects [we]
ought to teach kids that elections take place but that's not politics."
For all his talk of standing atop a great "movement" for "revolution," Sanders was and
remains all about this stunted and crippling definition of citizenship and politics as making
some marks on ballots and then returning to our domiciles while rich people and their
agents (not just any "other guys") "run [ruin?-P.S.] the world [into the ground-P.S.]."
It will take much more in the way of Dr. King's politics of "who' sitting in the streets,"
not "who's sitting in the White House" (to use Howard Zinn's
excellent dichotomy ), to get us an elections and party system worthy of passionate citizen
engagement. We don't have such a system in the U.S. today, which is why the number of eligible
voters who passively boycotted the 2016 presidential election is larger than both the number
who voted for big money Hillary and the number who voted for big money Trump.
(If U.S. progressives really want to consider undertaking the epic lift involved in passing
a U.S. Constitutional Amendment, they might want to focus on this instead of calling for a
repeal of the Second Amendment. I'd recommend starting with a positive Democracy Amendment that
fundamentally overhauls the nation's political and elections set-up in accord with elementary
principles and practices of popular sovereignty. Clauses would include but not be limited to
full public financing of elections and the introduction of proportional representation for
legislative races – not to mention the abolition of the Electoral College, Senate
apportionment on the basis of total state population, and the outlawing of gerrymandering.)
Ecocide Trumped by Russia
Meanwhile, back in real history, we have the remarkable continuation of a bizarre
right-wing, pre-fascist presidency not in normal ruling-class hands, subject to the weird whims
and tweets of a malignant narcissist who doesn't read memorandums or intelligence briefings.
Wild policy zig-zags and record-setting White House personnel turnover are par for the course
under the dodgy reign of the orange-tinted beast's latest brain spasms. Orange Caligula spends
his mornings getting his information from FOX News and his evenings complaining to and seeking
advice from a small club of right-wing American oligarchs.
Trump poses grave environmental and nuclear risks to human survival. A consistent Trump
belief is that climate change is not a problem and that it's perfectly fine – "great" and
"amazing," in fact – for the White House to do everything it can to escalate the
Greenhouse Gassing-to-Death of Life on Earth. The nuclear threat is rising now that he has
appointed a frothing right-wing uber-warmonger – a longtime advocate of bombing Iran and
North Korea who led the charge for the arch-criminal U.S. invasion of Iraq – as his top
"National Security" adviser and as he been convinced to expel dozens of Russian diplomats.
Thanks, liberal and other Democratic Party RussiaGaters!
The Clinton-Obama neoliberal Democrats have spent more than a year running with the
preposterous narrative that Trump is a Kremlin puppet who owes his presence in the White House
to Russia's subversion of our democratic elections. The climate crisis holds little
for the Trump and Russia-obsessed corporate media. The fact that the world stands at the eve of
the ecological self-destruction, with the Trump White House in the lead, elicits barely a
whisper in the reigning commercial news media. Unlike Stormy Daniels, for example, that little
story – the biggest issue of our or any time – is not good for television ratings
and newspaper sales.
Sanders, by the way, is curiously invisible in the dominant commercial media, despite his
quiet survey status as the nation's "most popular politician." That is precisely what you would
expect in a corporate and financial oligarchy buttressed by a powerful corporate, so-called
"mainstream" media oligopoly.
Political Parties as "Bank Accounts"
One of the many problems with the obsessive Blame-Russia narrative that a fair portion of
the dominant U.S. media is running with is that we had no great electoral democracy to
subvert in 2016 . Saying that Russia has "undermined [U.S.-] American democracy" is like
me – middle-aged, five-foot nine, and unblessed with jumping ability – saying that
the Brooklyn Nets' Russian-born center Timofy Mozgof subverted my career as a starting player
in the National Basketball Association. In state-capitalist societies marked by the toxic and
interrelated combination of weak popular organization, expensive politics, and highly
concentrated wealth – all highly evident in the New Gilded Age United States –
electoral contests and outcomes boil down above all and in the end to big investor class cash.
As Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues explain:
"Where investment and organization by average citizens is weak, however, power passes by
default to major investor groups, which can far more easily bear the costs of contending for
control of the state. In most modern market-dominated societies (those celebrated recently as
enjoying the 'end of History'), levels of effective popular organization are generally low,
while the costs of political action, in terms of both information and transactional
obstacles, are high. The result is that conflicts within the business community normally
dominate contests within and between political parties – the exact opposite of what
many earlier social theorists expected, who imagined 'business' and 'labor' confronting each
other in separate parties Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented
to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one
must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of
the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial
analysis of their constituent elements."
Here Ferguson might have said "corporate-dominated" instead of "market-dominated" for the
modern managerial corporations emerged as the "visible hand" master of the "free market" more
than a century ago.
We get to vote? Big deal.
People get to vote in Rwanda, Russia, the Congo and countless
other autocratic states as well. Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S.
policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the
assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't
like, which includes any country that dares to "question the basic principle that the United
States effectively owns the world by right and is by definition a force for good" ( Chomsky,
2016 ).
Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. The
list of interrelated and mutually reinforcing culprits behind this oligarchic defeat of popular
sentiment in the U.S. is extensive. It includes but is not limited to: the campaign finance,
candidate-selection, lobbying, and policy agenda-setting power of wealthy individuals,
corporations, and interest groups; the special primary election influence of full-time party
activists; the disproportionately affluent, white, and older composition of the active (voting)
electorate; the manipulation of voter turnout; the widespread dissemination of false,
confusing, distracting, and misleading information; absurdly and explicitly unrepresentative
political institutions like the Electoral College, the unelected Supreme Court, the
over-representation of the predominantly white rural population in the U.S. Senate; one-party
rule in the House of "Representatives"; the fragmentation of authority in government; and
corporate ownership of the reigning media, which frames current events in accord with the
wishes and world view of the nation's real owners.
Yes, we get to vote. Super. Big deal. Mammon reigns nonetheless in the United States, where,
as the leading liberal
political scientists Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens find , "government policy reflects the
wishes of those with money, not the wishes of the millions of ordinary citizens who turn out
every two years to choose among the preapproved, money-vetted candidates for federal office."
Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an
empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. "
deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been
trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself
(though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos."
He is a
homegrown capitalist oligarch nonetheless, a real estate mogul of vast and parasitic wealth who
is no more likely to fulfill his populist-sounding campaign pledges than any previous POTUS of
the neoliberal era.
His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and
(last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial
oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and
homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy
would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion
that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to
oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is
recklessly encouraging.
"... is an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review. ..."
I wonder how Rex Tillerson feels about being the first high-level federal official to be fired publically and online, in one brutal
tweet. I'm sure he expected the hammer to come down on him, but not like that. And I wonder if he will come forward to describe what
led up to it. Unlikely, as he's an extremely wealthy and still influential corporate player who would have little to gain from telling
all. Still, some intrepid journalist should take Rex to lunch and encourage him to cry in his beer.
The events unfurled in typical chaotic Trumpian fashion.
According
to The Atlantic,
The White House said Tuesday that Tillerson was informed last Friday that he would be replaced as secretary of state. But the
statement released Tuesday by Steve Goldstein, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, suggested Tillerson did not see
it coming until he saw the president's tweet Tuesday morning that he would be replaced by Mike Pompeo, the CIA director. Goldstein
himself has been fired since making the statement.
Chief of Staff John Kelly claimed to have informed Tillerson three days previously that a tweet would be forthcoming, and let
it hang. That's how long it took for the triumvirate behind the throne (Kelly, DoD Secretary James Mattis, and National Security
Advisor H.R. McMaster) to line up a B team. These military officers have become Trump's minders, nudging him toward decisions that
implement deep state war plans. John Grant writes in
CounterPunch :
The ex-Nixon dirty trickster Roger Stone, who Kelly blocked from Trump access, is cited in Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside
the Trump White House as telling people, "Mattis, McMaster and Kelly had agreed that no military action would ever be taken unless
the three were in accord -- and that at least one of them would always remain in Washington if the others were away."
And so, here we have a junta minding the store whose collective wisdom had determined that State under Tilllerson wasn't accommodating
US bellicosity as enthusiastically as it should. Their solution? Elevate CIA Chief Mike Pompeo to replace Tillerson. Pompeo, whom
NPR glowingly
described as having "an extraordinary résumé. He graduated at the top of his class at West Point. He served as a tank officer
in Europe. He went to Harvard Law School." He's also a bombastic Tea-Party Republican and a national security hawk who takes a hard
line no matter what crisis is at hand. I'm sure that résumé will be useful in convincing North Korea to disarm and Putin to back
off from Syria. At least, that seems to be the troika's current calculus. Trump seems amenable to their choice: "With Mike, we've
had a very good chemistry from the beginning," he told reporters. And Pompeo says he's equally chill with the Tweeter-in-Chief: "We
have a half-hour, 40 minutes every day. He asks lots of hard questions as any good intelligence consumer would. He's very engaged."
Before that hammer hit Tillerson, they had already cleared the way to replace Pompeo with seasoned spook Gina Haspel, who proved
her loyalty to the Company by destroying evidence of systematic torture. "She ran the 'black site' prison in Thailand where al-Qaida
suspect Abu Zabaydah was waterboarded 83 times," NPR
reported last winter. "Those sessions were videotaped but the tapes were destroyed in 2005, two years after a member of Congress
called on the CIA to preserve such tapes." Who ordered or at least expedited their destruction? Gina Haspel herself. Running a torture
center was a "dirty job," John Bennett, the chief of the CIA's clandestine service at the time later told NPR, but Gina bravely stepped
up to do it. " it was not only legal but necessary for the safety of the country. And they did it – Gina did it – because they felt
it was their duty."
Obama apparently felt that way, since he declined to prosecute any CIA officials for engaging in torture. Had he had the guts
to go after them, Gina might be wearing a jumpsuit now instead of a business suit. As Dexter Filkins
wrote in the New
Yorker last year after Trump named Haspel Deputy Director,
When Obama took office, in 2009, he declared that he would not prosecute anyone involved in the C.I.A.'s interrogation programs,
not even senior officers, among whom Haspel was one. At the time, Obama said he wanted to look forward and not back. But the past,
as Obama well knows, never goes away. With the prospect of American torture looming again, I wonder if Obama regrets his decision.
After all, people like Haspel, quite plausibly, could have gone to prison.
When Edward Snowden heard of her advancement, he tweeted (
March 13, 2018 )
Interesting: The new CIA Director Haspel, who "tortured some folks," probably can't travel to the EU to meet other spy chiefs
without facing arrest due to an @ECCHRBerlin
complaint to Germany's federal prosecutor. Details: https://t.co/7q4euQKtm7
Such team spirit clearly deserves a promotion. A round of applause, then, for Gina Haspel, someone who has known no calling besides
black ops, winner of the George H. W. Bush Award for excellence in counterterrorism, and the first of her sex to crash through CIA's
bulletproof glass ceiling to the Director's office. Her résumé implies she must have been born at Langley HQ. There's no paper trail
for her prior to 1985, when she joined the agency.
The one bright spot is that both Pompeo and Haspel will have to testify before Congress votes of on their appointments. John McCain
and Ron Wyden are already on record as being opposed to Haspel's appointment. Intense public pressure may help to drag skeltons of
torture victims out of the agency's closet, but don't expect it to matter. The deep state is used to getting what it wants and doesn't
let things like due process get in the way.
Now that the Department of State is to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the CIA, America can rest easy. No more mister nice guy.
Diplomacy is for wimps. Let's show all those upstart nations and that upstart commander-in-chief who's boss.
Join the debate on Facebook More articles
by: Geoff Dutton
Geoff Duttonis an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of
reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in
Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review.
" Democracy is not under stress – it's under aggressive attack, as
unconstrained financial greed overrides public accountability ."
I request a lessatorium* on the term 'democracy', because there aren't any democracies.
Rather than redefine the term, why not use a more accurate one, like 'plutocracy', or
'corporatocracy'.
-- -- -- -
* It's like a moratorium, you just do less of it.
"... ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
Then Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, would be president of the United States, but the
Senate, probably, and the House of Representatives, certainly, would have remained under
Republican control.
In other words, had Hillary won, we would now have pretty much what we had when Barack Obama
was president – but with the executive branch less competently led and more packed with
Clintonite (neoliberal, liberal imperialist, shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later) officials,
and with a Congress run by obstinate Republican troglodytes running roughshod over feckless,
slightly less retrograde Democrats.
Radical impulses would, of course, continue to stir throughout the general population but
notwithstanding widespread and deep popular support, to even less avail than before.
A Clinton presidency wouldn't make the blood of high-minded people boil, the way the Trump
presidency has done, though, for anyone with the courage to face reality squarely, it would be
nearly as painful to endure.
That pain would be much less constructive than the pain that is now so widely felt. Instead
of sparking anodyne "resistance," it would be drowned out in a sea of acquiescence.
In a word, Clinton's first term would be what a third Obama term would have been –
ratcheted down a few notches in the squelched "hope" and "change" departments.
By being African American, Obama stirred up plenty of hope and change illusions, especially
at first, in many, maybe most, sectors of the population. In other sectors, Obama's race
brought barely suppressed prejudices and resentments out into the open.
Because it soon became clear – not to everybody, but to everybody not willfully blind
– that, under Obama, little, if any, good would come, Obamaphilia eventually faded away;
the racism and nativism Obama's election boosted proved more durable.
Hillary, on the other hand, was anything but a beacon of hope – except perhaps to
those of her supporters whose highest priority was electing a woman president. Hardly anyone
else ever expected much good to come from her calling the shots.
In comparison with Obama, she wasn't even good at what she did. Despite a constant barrage
of public relations babble about how experienced and competent she is, this was widely
understood, even if seldom conceded.
She hadn't been much of a First Lady or Senator; among other things, she helped set the
cause of health insurance reform back a generation, and she supported the Afghanistan and Iraq
Wars.
Then, as Secretary of State, she was at least partly responsible for devastating levels of
disorder and mayhem throughout North Africa (Libya especially), the Greater Middle East (not
just Syria), and elsewhere (Honduras, for example). But for her tenure at Foggy Bottom, there
would be many fewer refugees in the world today.
It is therefore a good bet that were she president now, Obama would be sorely missed –
notwithstanding his fondness for terrorizing civilians with weaponized drones, and for
deporting Hispanics and others with a zeal exceeding George Bush's.
Inasmuch as he did break a color line that seemed infrangible, it was impossible for persons
of good will not to root for the man. That would be like not rooting for Jackie Robinson. But
the fact remains: except in comparison to his rivals and to Trump, he was no prize.
Because it was clear to nearly everybody outside the Clinton propaganda circuit that, by
2016, there really was no "glass ceiling" holding women back, Hillary had nothing like that
going for her.
There were and are plenty of people of all ages and genders who would have liked to see a
woman elected president; the time for that is long past due. But, by the time Clinton became
the Democratic standard bearer, hardly anyone could truly believe that patriarchal attitudes or
rampant misogyny were significant factors standing in her way.
To be sure, the lingering effects of attitudes in place years ago have diminished the pool
of plausible female candidates. But then so too did the idea that Clinton was somehow entitled
to the office. Because that attitude was so deeply entrenched, few women wanted to cross
her.
Nevertheless, there are women who, running on the Democratic line, could surely have
defeated Trump. An obvious example is Elizabeth Warren.
I am not alone in thinking that had the Democratic National Committee not rigged the
nomination process in Clinton's favor, Bernie Sanders would have become the party's nominee and
then gone on to defeat Trump. Warren's chances of winning the election were better still
– precisely because, she is a woman.
Clinton's problem was not her gender; it was her politics.
Even so, we would be a lot better off now had she won in 2016 -- not just because the evil
we know (too well!) is easier to deal with than the blooming buzzing confusion we ended up with
instead, but also because, despite her Russophobia and fondness for "military solutions," the
likelihood that the United States would blunder into a nuclear Armageddon would now be
significantly less.
Too bad therefore that she flubbed even more egregiously than those of us who saw through
the public relations myths about her accomplishments and competence thought possible.
Needless to say, in the alternative universe that Democrats and their media flacks have
concocted, they explain the election outcome differently. In their view, Hillary lost because
"the Russians" subverted our democratic institutions.
Or was it because James Comey, then the Director of the FBI, tipped that election to Trump
by refocusing attention on Clinton's emails as Election Day approached?
One would think that it would faze Democratic confabulators that, shortly after the election
was over, Comey rose to the top of Donald Trump's shit list – and was unceremoniously
fired. They really should get their story straight.
While they are sorting that out, they might also make an effort to be a tad less besotted
with the FBI. It is, to say the least, unseemly, even for faux-progressives, to cozy up to the
perennial scourge of every progressive tendency in the American body politic.
And it isn't just the FBI – Democrats nowadays are smitten with the entire national
security state apparatus, including the CIA and the NSA.
Democrats have always been that way to some extent, but, in the pre-Trump era, Republicans
were generally the more gung ho of our two semi-established parties.
For decades, Cold War anti-Communist paranoia endeared the FBI and the others to wide
swathes of the general public and to Republicans and Democrats alike. When a dearth of real
world Communists made that story line impossible to maintain, "Islamic terrorists" were on hand
to take their place.
These obsessions pair well with the right's passion for law and order – in other
words, for keeping the poor generally, and persons of color especially, down.
And so, being the more rightwing of the duopoly parties, Republicans, before Trump, were
especially besotted with the forces of order – from local police (for whom, black lives
don't really matter) on up (or is it down?).
Democrats have never had any real quarrel with any of this, but, being the "nicer" and more
reasonable of the duopoly parties, they were less inclined to go overboard.
It grieves me to say anything good about Donald Trump, but, to his credit, he did force
Republicans onto a less unreasonable track – not in general, but towards Russia, a
country with a nuclear arsenal so formidable that only maniacs would want to mess with it
unnecessarily.
In all likelihood, Trump's reasons are venal or otherwise nefarious, and have little if
anything to do with common sense. But anything that holds back the Doomsday Clock is
welcome.
It is likely, though, that, before long, Republicans will revert back to their old ways.
Indeed, this is already happening: witness Trump's new "defense strategy" – aimed at
the old Cold War bugaboos, Russia and China.
The scare quotes are in order because there is no strategy there, and what Trump is
proposing has nothing to do with defense. It has everything to do, however, with giving free
rein to the Pentagon to squander monies that could be otherwise spent in socially useful ways,
and with stuffing the pockets of death merchants ("defense contractors") and those who feed off
the taxpayer money our political class throws their way.
***
Despite even this, Democrats remain the less odious duopoly party. On nearly all "issues,"
just about any Republican is worse than any Democrat; and the attitudes and instincts
Republicans evince are more execrable by far.
It should be born in mind, however, that the Democratic Party is, if anything, even more
responsible for Trump than the Republicans are.
Insofar as he has set political views and attitudes, they were forged in New York City,
under the aegis of Democratic Party politicians. And the Clintonite (neoliberal) turn in the
larger political culture created the conditions for the possibility of Trump, or someone like
him, rising to national prominence.
Democrats pulled this off by malignly neglecting the working class – and therefore
less well-off white voters, among others – and by euthanizing nascent left oppositions
that showed promise of challenging the economic supremacy and political power of the so-called
"donor class" and of capitalists generally.
Neoliberalism shifts power and resources from the state sector to private capital, it
encourages the globalization of trade, and it facilitates the free flow of capital around the
world.
Its nostrums are integral to a form of class struggle aimed at weakening working class
opposition – largely, but not exclusively, by attacks on the labor movement.
The classical fascism of the interwar years took aim at workers' economic and political
organizations too – more directly, through violent frontal assaults. Neoliberalism works
more gently, through protracted wars of attrition. The consequences, however, are much the
same.
The Clintons and Tony Blair and their counterparts in other countries make a show of their
progressivism – limiting their efforts, however, to cultural issues that do not
materially harm capitalists' interests.
Around election times, they even make nice with union leaders -- because they need the
resources and manpower they can still provide. But it is all a ruse, as workers and others know
well.
Real fascists set out to intimidate workers' organizations; they liked bloodying noses.
Neoliberals take aim at workers' power in such subtle but far-reaching ways that they often
don't even realize that they have been had.
In the early days of the Regan era, Bertram Gross famously introduced the notion of
"friendly fascism." The GOP used to be the friendly fascist's natural home. These days,
however, Republicans are a lot nastier than they were in Reagan's time.
In recent years, the Tea Party and then Trump and the miscreants he has empowered have
accentuated the GOP's racist, nativist, and authoritarian side. It is not a fascist party in
the traditional sense, but the resemblances are more than a little worrisome.
And so, Reagan-style friendly fascism has largely disappeared from the Republican fold. But
for what has taken its place, this would be a reason to celebrate.
Meanwhile, the spirit of the "Reagan revolution" lives on in the other duopoly party
–where, thanks to the Clintons and others like them, efforts to keep "the donor class up"
and everyone else down continue in a seemingly more benign way.
The electoral consequences are predictable. The kinds of working class people whom Trump
derides – basically, everyone who is not white, male and straight – are, of course,
more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans. But they are more likely still not to vote
at all.
Why would they when they have nothing to vote for ?
And, in large (mainly rural) swathes of the country, white working class men and the women
who stand by them will vote for anyone, even an obviously incompetent billionaire buffoon whose
policies will do nothing for them materially, provided only that he channels their resentments
at Clintonite policies and people.
However, malign neglect of an important segment of the working class is only partly
responsible for Trump. The absence of a genuine left is of far greater importance.
The reasons for its absence are many, and go far beyond the Democratic Party. Even so,
Democrats have a lot to answer for.
As it became increasingly clear that the Bush-Cheney wars launched after 9/11 were
responsible for enormous harm to people and to geopolitical stability, a peace movement took
shape that, by 2006, had become a force to be reckoned with.
At the same time, in anticipation of the 2008 election, the leadership of the Democratic
Party did its best to keep dissent in bounds. Their aim was to get Hillary Clinton elected
president, and they feared that political turbulence would upset their plans.
At the very least, with the House back under Democratic control in 2006, Democrats could
have initiated impeachment proceedings against George Bush; they had more than ample grounds.
Whether or not he would then have been removed from office, he and his subordinates would have
been impeded to some extent from doing at least some of the harm they went on to do.
But Nancy Pelosi and her co-thinkers in Congress put the kibosh on that idea. Their efforts
did not stifle the growing peace movement entirely, but it did take some of the wind out its
sails.
When it turned out that Obama was a stronger candidate than Clinton, and that the nomination
would go his way, leading Democrats adapted. Hillary was their favorite, but Obama had been
thoroughly vetted for corporate-friendliness and passed all the tests with flying colors. That
was good enough for them.
And so it fell to the Nobel laureate to put the peace movement definitively down, even as he
continued – temporarily even escalating -- the Bush-Cheney wars.
For too long and against too much contrary evidence, liberals took it for granted that Obama
was on the side of the angels. They therefore let pass the murder and mayhem he was responsible
for.
After eight years of that, what little semblance of a genuine left there had been within the
Democratic Party's ambit found itself narcotized into oblivion.
An appetite for real opposition, even rebellion, existed within the general public; under
the pressure of events it was growing all the time. But, with our debilitating duopoly party
system in place, there was no political way out of the status quo.
Had Hillary won, that sad state of affairs would have continued, while the underlying
maladies that Trump exploited for the benefit of himself and his class would have continued to
fester.
And we would now likely be on the brink of even more appalling electoral outcomes than we
suffered through in 2010 and 2014, and in 2016, when the Trump phenomenon defied all
expectations.
Paradoxically, though, with Trump's victory, the prospects for a better mainstream politics
actually improved. Trump is so manifestly unfit for the job he holds that his hold over the
White House and the Republican Party actually harms the right more than it helps it.
His ever expanding docket of impeachable offenses and his crude misogyny are doing the work
an organized left opposition would be doing, if only one existed -- creating space for popular
movements to develop.
It started with the Women's March, immediately after Inauguration Day, and has been growing
ever since; with women – black, brown, and white – leading the surge.
With midterm elections looming, the danger of cooptation is great -- Democrats, their media
in tow, are working overtime to make that happen. But thanks to Trump, things have gone too far
by now to be squelched entirely.
What Obama's victory did to the peace movement after 2008, a Hillary victory in 2016 would
have done ten times over to the several (mainly woman-led) insurgencies that were beginning to
take shape during the campaign.
With Trump in the White House, progressive women remain in the forefront of struggles to
change the world for the better. With Clinton there instead, their best efforts would be
swamped by anodyne campaigns led by well-meaning liberals of the kind that understandably rile
up the Trump base.
All things considered, it would have been better (less catastrophically awful) had Hillary
won. Even so, there is some reason to be grateful that she did not. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Andrew Levine
ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and
POLITICAL KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most
recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong
With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College
Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and
the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).
"... Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way. ..."
"... And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. ..."
"... Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him. But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map where I live. ..."
I was raised by Democrats, and used to vote for them. But these days, I think heck would
freeze over before I'd vote Democrat again. From my point of view, Bernie tried to pull them
back to sanity. But the hard core Clinton-corporate-corrupt Democrats have declared war on
any movement for reform within the Democratic Party. And there is no way that I'm voting for
any of these corrupt-corporate Democrats ever again.
Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been
around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way
forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way.
We saw the way the corrupt-corporate Democrats colluded and rigged the last Presidential
Primaries so that Corrupt-Corporate-Clinton was guaranteed the corrupt-corporate Democrat
nomination. That's a loud and clear message to anyone who thinks they can achieve change
within the corrupt-corporate-colluding-rigged Democratic Party.
Since I've always been anti-war, I've been forced to follow what anti-war movement there
is over to the Republicans. And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the
Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous
primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. That never happened, and by 2012 I was
convinced that even the fake-reformers within the corrupt-corporate Democrats were fakes who
only wanted fund-raising but didn't really fight for reform.
Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to
voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the
only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the
Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the
loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him.
But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in
primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map
where I live.
Neither party is on our side. The establishment in both parties is crooked and corrupt.
Someone needs to fight them. And I sure as heck won't vote for the corrupt and the crooked.
Since the Democrats are doubling down on corrupt and crooked and telling such big lies that
even Goebbels would blush, it doesn't look like I'll ever vote Dem0crat again.
"... The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved senior FBI officials who played key roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing evidence that some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's presidency. ..."
"... As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American "deep state" exists and that it has maneuvered to remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveal how two high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as protecting the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as unfit as Trump. ..."
"... In the text messages, Strzok also expressed visceral contempt for working-class Trump voters, for instance, writing on Aug. 26, 2016, "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support. it's scary real down here." ..."
"... Another text message suggested that other senior government officials – alarmed at the possibility of a Trump presidency – joined the discussion. In an apparent reference to an August 2016 meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok wrote to Page on Aug. 15, 2016, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." ..."
"... The scheme involved having some Democratic electors vote for former Secretary of State Colin Powell (which did happen), making him the third-place vote-getter in the Electoral College and thus eligible for selection by the House. But the plan fizzled when enough of Trump's electors stayed loyal to their candidate to officially make him President. ..."
"... After that, Trump's opponents turned to the Russia-gate investigation as the vehicle to create the conditions for somehow nullifying the election, impeaching Trump, or at least weakening him sufficiently so he could not take steps to improve relations with Russia. ..."
"... And, the new revelations of high-level FBI bias puts Clapper's statement about "hand-picked" analysts in sharper perspective, since any intelligence veteran will tell you that if you hand-pick the analysts you are effectively hand-picking the analysis. ..."
"... Although it has not yet been spelled out exactly what role Strzok and Page may have had in the Jan. 6 report, I was told by one source that Strzok had a direct hand in writing it. Whether that is indeed the case, Strzok, as a senior FBI counterintelligence official, would almost surely have had input into the selection of the FBI analysts and thus into the substance of the report itself. [For challenges from intelligence experts to the Jan. 6 report, see Consortiumnews.com's " More Holes in the Russia-gate Narrative. "] ..."
"... If the FBI contributors to the Jan. 6 report shared Strzok's contempt for Trump, it could explain why claims from an unverified dossier of Democratic-financed "dirt" on Trump, including salacious charges that Russian intelligence operatives videotaped Trump being urinated on by prostitutes in a five-star Moscow hotel, was added as a classified appendix to the report and presented personally to President-elect Trump. ..."
"... That discovery helped ensnare another senior Justice Department official, Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who talked with Steele during the campaign and had a post-election meeting with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson. Recently, Simpson has acknowledged that Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS last year to investigate Trump. ..."
"... But the story soon collapsed when it turned out that the date on the email was actually Sept. 14, 2016, i.e., the day after ..."
"... Yet, despite the cascade of errors and grudging corrections, including some belated admissions that there was no "17-intelligence-agency consensus" on Russian "hacking" – The New York Times made a preemptive strike against the new documentary evidence that the Russia-gate investigation was riddled with conflicts of interest. ..."
"... Pursuing the truth can be a fascinating hobby, that leads to a person awakening. Make it interesting, awaken your friend's curiosity. ..."
"... Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed to pay former MI6 agent and Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could verify the claims contained within the dossier – which relied on the cooperation of two senior Kremlin officials. (One more time for you, Walter Devine -- "if he [Steele] could verify the claims"). When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI wouldn't pay him according to the New York Times. ..."
"... Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier, Peter Strzok used it to launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team. Steele was ultimately paid $168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier. ..."
"... Of interest to me is why the Republicans did not hammer Hillary for placing an ambassador in what was essentially a CIA compound in the first place. My guess and I can only guess is that they no objection to its being a ratline to ship Libya's stolen armaments to head-chopping jihadists (with USA blessing) fighting Assad. So to raise the issue of why putting an ambassador there would have opened the door to sensitive questions -- if the press would ask them, of course. ..."
"... That's the real Benghazi story the MSM won't talk about. Although I suspect the armaments were given to the head choppers by the CIA, and then they rebelled at having them transferred to the head choppers in Syria after they had succeeded in killing Ghaddafi. ..."
"... "Madame Secretary, WHY was it necessary to destroy Libya?" No republican asked THAT question. ..."
"... Hello Skip, nice to read your good comments again and to exchange info. Here is an article which talks about the weapons ratline in Syria. Within four days, the powerful anti-tank missiles that CIA bought in Bulgaria and (supposedly) delivered to "moderate" rebels, ended up in ISIS hands. The only problem with the article's narrative is that it is still drawing the official line that the lack of oversight is to blame for such, whilst it was clearly a deliberate action to supply weapons to ISIS wrapped up in plausible deniability of passing them through the hands of some poor inept souls serving as intermediaries. ..."
"... Starting a grand-scale investigation on the basis of allegations of conspiracy with another government and treason is rather dubious when these allegations from dirty campaign tactics are not based on any tangible facts. It is true that the Muller team does not leak as much to the press as the intelligence services did previously. This investigation still plays an important role for the media propaganda that still pushes the Russiagate conspiracy theory even though there had never been any factual basis for it and no evidence has been found in over a year. Since there is still this investigation is going on, they can use it for justifying their daily minutes of hate against Russia, their calls for censorship and denounciation of any political position that diverges from the neoconservative and neoliberal ideology. ..."
"... the most dubious thing was, of course, the lobbying related to a UN security council resolution vote, but that might at best hint at colluding with Israel, it certainly does not fit the Russiagate conspiracy theory ..."
"... So, if we judge the Muller investigation by its results, it is not going anywhere. Obviously, that is what should be expected when a commission is set up for investigating a conspiracy theory for which there had never been any evidence to begin with. I suppose the result would be similar if the Illuminati, the Elders of Zion, or reptiloids were officially investigated. ..."
"... It seems that the Muller team wants to delay that moment when they have to confess that the conspiracy theory has broken down, but that won't necessarily make it easier, either. ..."
"... Think you nailed it. The bankster regime changers already tried once to structurally adjust Russia into being a US puppet state in the 90s under Clinton. Russia was robbed blind while Yeltzin drank himself into a stupor. Putin is the one who put a stop to the looting. That is his crime against the western oligarchs and why he is enemy #1. ..."
"... There's no 'lack of discussion about what they have uncovered' which has basically amounted to a pile of dirt. Have not read from the VIPS and William Binney? Uncovering shady business with oligarchs doesn't show collusion, but the dossier oppo does, but it's business as usual. Denying the FBI-DNC server subpoena was odd don't you think? ..."
"... "Fusion GPS appears to be in the center of a web of corruption. Who hired Fusion GPS to ramp up its opposition research against Trump? Hillary Clinton and the DNC. the wife of Justice Department official Bruce G. Ohr worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 presidential election. Nellie Ohr is listed as working for the CIA's Open Source Works department in a 2010 DOJ report." Look how the CIA, FBI, and DNC have found each other and made a friendship forever. ..."
"... Also, do you personally have any concern about the murder of Seth Rich? -- Donna Brazil has become afraid of being Seth-Riched. How come? What kind of scum the Democratic apparatus has become? -- Guess Tony Podesta and Bill Clinton and madame "we came, we saw, he died ha, ha, ha " are the composite face of the Democratic Party today. ..."
"... Have at it Walter. What exactly have they uncovered? The "process" lost credibility long ago. The "intelligence" report of January 6th was garbage and it's been all downhill since. ..."
"... Obama's expulsion of the Russian diplomats after Trump's election, with no reason based on fact/danger to the USA gave a good start to the Russophobia encouraged by the Clinton losers and leading on to the ludicrous extreme situation still going on. ..."
"... Since the whole Guccifer 2.0 operation appears to be an attempt to falsely smear WikiLeaks as a Russian agent (by publicly claiming to be a hacker associated with WikiLeaks and then being "caught" releasing documents (the ones of June 15, 2016) with "Russian fingerprints"), perhaps his uploading files (Sept 13, 2016) to a server with (past) ties to someone associated with WikiLeaks (Kim Dot Com) would have been part of the same effort. ..."
"... Such a reversal of evidence and conclusion bespeaks deliberate deception. The motive is unclear, as the failed Newsweek is said to have been revived in 2013 by a Korean-American Christian fundamentalist David Jang formerly of Moon's Unification Church, whose followers consider him the Second Coming of JC, according to the linked source. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/ ..."
"... It's been a year and a half since Hillary Clinton first accused Donald Trump of being a Putin puppet and in collusion with the Kremlin. Any fool should be able to understand that if there existed any real evidence to support this accusation the world would have seen it under banner headlines long ago. ..."
"... Thank you for your spot-on analysis! The motives of the deep state – including FBI operatives, NY Times and WAPO – is crystal clear. They do not want Trump to be president, and are determined to either remove him or handcuff him indefinitely. But why? Why has the establishment gone crazy? Is it simply political, or something deeper and darker? ..."
"... The real "deep" reason is the PNAC plot to make sure that the USA remains the sole super power that can impose its will anywhere in the world. Trump's campaign position of seeking detente with Russia would have led us into a multi-polar world giving Russia a sphere of influence. That is unacceptable to the empire. ..."
"... RussiaGate is an attempt to remove Trump from power, or at a minimum make it impossible for him to seek detente. I am no Trump apologist, but I do think our only hope for a future in this nuclear age is to seek peace and cooperation in a multi-polar world that respects national sovereignty and the rule of law. I suspect Trump will continue to be brought to heel, with or without the success of RussiaGate. And there is always the JFK solution as a last resort. ..."
"... Where is William Binney's "Thin String" signals intelligence (SIGINT) software when it's needed? Wouldn't it be lovely to focus it on the communications of our own government? Binney says applying it after 9/11 to the pre-9/11 communications streams did successfully predict the 9/11 attacks. If only we had stored all communications of government officials dating back to . hey, let's say 1774 or so, what truths might we now know, and what proofs might we now have? What would FDR's communications prior to Pearl Harbor reveal? What about the JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X assassinations? ..."
Exclusive: Taking on water from revealed FBI conflicts of interest, the foundering
Russia-gate probe – and its mainstream media promoters – are resorting to insults
against people who note the listing ship, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved
senior FBI officials who played key roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the
supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing evidence that
some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's
presidency.
Peter Strzok, who served as a Deputy Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, second in command of counterintelligence.
As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American "deep state"
exists and that it has maneuvered to remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior
FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveal how two
high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as
protecting the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as
unfit as Trump.
In one Aug. 6, 2016 text exchange, Page told Strzok: "Maybe you're meant to stay where you
are because you're meant to protect the country from that menace." At the end of that text, she
sent Strzok a link to a David Brooks
column in The New York Times, which concludes with the clarion call: "There comes a time
when neutrality and laying low become dishonorable. If you're not in revolt, you're in cahoots.
When this period and your name are mentioned, decades hence, your grandkids will look away in
shame."
Apparently after reading that stirring advice, Strzok replied, "And of course I'll try and
approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many
levels, not sure if that helps."
At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, criticized
Strzok's boast that "I can protect our country at many levels." Jordan said: "this guy thought
he was super-agent James Bond at the FBI [deciding] there's no way we can let the American
people make Donald Trump the next president."
In the text messages, Strzok also expressed visceral contempt for working-class Trump
voters, for instance, writing on Aug. 26, 2016, "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I
could SMELL the Trump support. it's scary real down here."
Another text message suggested that other senior government officials – alarmed at
the possibility of a Trump presidency – joined the discussion. In an apparent reference
to an August 2016 meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok wrote to Page on Aug.
15, 2016, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that
there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk."
Strzok added, "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before
you're 40."
It's unclear what strategy these FBI officials were contemplating to ensure Trump's defeat,
but the comments mesh with what an intelligence source told me after the 2016 election, that
there was a plan among senior Obama administration officials to use the allegations about
Russian meddling to block Trump's momentum with the voters and -- if elected -- to persuade
members of the Electoral College to deny Trump a majority of votes and thus throw the selection
of a new president into the House of Representatives under the rules of the Twelfth
Amendment .
The scheme involved having some Democratic electors vote for former Secretary of State
Colin Powell (which did happen), making him the third-place vote-getter in the Electoral
College and thus eligible for selection by the House. But the plan fizzled when enough of
Trump's electors stayed loyal to their candidate to officially make him President.
After that, Trump's opponents turned to the Russia-gate investigation as the vehicle to
create the conditions for somehow nullifying the election, impeaching Trump, or at least
weakening him sufficiently so he could not take steps to improve relations with
Russia.
In one of her text messages to Strzok, Page made reference to a possible Watergate-style
ouster of Trump, writing: "Bought all the president's men. Figure I needed to brush up on
watergate."
As a key feature in this oust-Trump effort, Democrats have continued to lie by claiming that
"all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred" in the assessment that Russia hacked the
Democratic emails last year on orders from President Vladimir Putin and then slipped them to
WikiLeaks to undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign.
That canard was used in the early months of the Russia-gate imbroglio to silence any
skepticism about the "hacking" accusation, and the falsehood was repeated again by a Democratic
congressman during Wednesday's hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
But the "consensus" claim was never true. In May 2017 testimony ,
President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged that the Jan. 6
"Intelligence Community Assessment" was put together by "hand-picked" analysts from only three
agencies: the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
Biased at the Creation
And, the new revelations of high-level FBI bias puts Clapper's statement about
"hand-picked" analysts in sharper perspective, since any intelligence veteran will tell you
that if you hand-pick the analysts you are effectively hand-picking the analysis.
Although it has not yet been spelled out exactly what role Strzok and Page may have had
in the Jan. 6 report, I was told by one source that Strzok had a direct hand in writing it.
Whether that is indeed the case, Strzok, as a senior FBI counterintelligence official, would
almost surely have had input into the selection of the FBI analysts and thus into the substance
of the report itself. [For challenges from intelligence experts to the Jan. 6 report, see
Consortiumnews.com's " More Holes in the
Russia-gate Narrative. "]
If the FBI contributors to the Jan. 6 report shared Strzok's contempt for Trump, it
could explain why claims from an unverified
dossier of Democratic-financed "dirt" on Trump, including salacious charges that Russian
intelligence operatives videotaped Trump being urinated on by prostitutes in a five-star Moscow
hotel, was added as a
classified appendix to the report and presented personally to President-elect
Trump.
Though Democrats and the Clinton campaign long denied financing the dossier – prepared
by ex-British spy Christopher Steele who claimed to rely on second- and third-hand information
from anonymous Russian contacts – it was revealed in
October 2017 that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign shared in the
costs, with the payments going to the "oppo" research firm, Fusion GPS, through the Democrats'
law firm, Perkins Coie.
That discovery helped ensnare another senior Justice Department official, Associate
Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who
talked with Steele during the campaign and had a post-election meeting with Fusion GPS
co-founder Glenn Simpson. Recently, Simpson has
acknowledged that Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS last year to investigate
Trump.
Bruce Ohr has since been demoted and Strzok was quietly removed from the Russia-gate
investigation last July although the reasons for these moves were not publicly explained at the
time.
Still, the drive for "another Watergate" to oust an unpopular – and to many insiders,
unfit – President remains at the center of the thinking among the top mainstream news
organizations as they have scrambled for Russia-gate "scoops" over the past year even
at the cost of making serious reporting errors .
For instance, last Friday, CNN -- and then CBS News and MSNBC -- trumpeted an email
supposedly sent from someone named Michael J. Erickson on Sept. 4, 2016, to Donald Trump Jr.
that involved WikiLeaks offering the Trump campaign pre-publication access to purloined
Democratic National Committee emails that WikiLeaks published on Sept. 13, nine days later.
Grasping for Confirmation
Since the Jan. 6 report alleged that WikiLeaks received the "hacked" emails from Russia -- a
claim that WikiLeaks and Russia deny -- the story seemed to finally tie together the notion
that the Trump campaign had at least indirectly colluded with Russia.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at
Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix, Arizona. March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)
This new "evidence" spread like wildfire across social media. As The Intercept's Glenn
Greenwald
wrote in an article critical of the media's performance, some Russia-gate enthusiasts
heralded the revelation with graphics of cannons booming and nukes exploding.
But the story soon collapsed when it turned out that the date on the email was actually
Sept. 14, 2016, i.e., the day after WikiLeaks released the batch of DNC emails, not
Sept. 4. It appeared that "Erickson" – whoever he was – had simply alerted the
Trump campaign to the public existence of the WikiLeaks disclosure.
Greenwald
noted , "So numerous are the false stories about Russia and Trump over the last year that I
literally cannot list them all."
Yet, despite the cascade of errors and grudging corrections, including some belated
admissions that there was no
"17-intelligence-agency consensus" on Russian "hacking" – The New York Times made a
preemptive strike against the new documentary evidence that the Russia-gate investigation was
riddled with conflicts of interest.
The Times'
lead editorial on Wednesday mocked reporters at Fox News for living in an "alternate
universe" where the Russia-gate "investigation is 'illegitimate and corrupt,' or so says Gregg
Jarrett, a legal analyst who appears regularly on [Sean] Hannity's nightly exercise in
presidential ego-stroking."
Though briefly mentioning the situation with Strzok's text messages, the Times offered no
details or context for the concerns, instead just heaping ridicule on anyone who questions the
Russia-gate narrative.
"To put it mildly, this is insane," the Times declared. "The primary purpose of Mr.
Mueller's investigation is not to take down Mr. Trump. It's to protect America's national
security and the integrity of its elections by determining whether a presidential campaign
conspired with a foreign adversary to influence the 2016 election – a proposition that
grows more plausible every day."
The Times fumed that "roughly three-quarters of Republicans still refuse to accept that
Russia interfered in the 2016 election – a fact that is glaringly obvious to everyone
else, including the nation's intelligence community." (There we go again with the false
suggestion of a consensus within the intelligence community.)
The Times also took to task Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, for seeking "a Special
Counsel to investigate ALL THINGS 2016 – not just Trump and Russia." The Times insisted
that "None of these attacks or insinuations are grounded in good faith."
But what are the Times editors so afraid of? As much as they try to insult and intimidate
anyone who demands serious evidence about the Russia-gate allegations, why shouldn't the
American people be informed about how Washington insiders manipulate elite opinion in pursuit
of reversing "mistaken" judgments by the unwashed masses?
Do the Times editors really believe in democracy – a process that historically has had
its share of warts and mistakes – or are they just elitists who think they know best and
turn away their noses from the smell of working-class people at Walmart?
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The
Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
mike k , December 13, 2017 at 9:54 pm
The NYT is just another tool of the multi-billionaire oligarchs who rule this USA from the
shadows. They fear nothing more than the light. When that investigative light gets strong
enough, more and more ordinary folks will begin to awake to the massive fraud that has been
perpetrated at their expense. And when that happens, we will finally see the Oligarchy begin
to crumble under the pressure of the 99%. The truth will out, then heads will roll ..
mike k , December 13, 2017 at 10:00 pm
Keep up the pressure – get your friends interested, tell them about CN,
Counterpunch, Strategic-Culture, Chris Hedges, etc. Pursuing the truth can be a fascinating
hobby, that leads to a person awakening. Make it interesting, awaken your friend's
curiosity.
incontinent reader , December 14, 2017 at 12:04 am
How about also including RT in your list? It's a news and commentary site with strong
journalistic values and credibility, notwithstanding what the Administration or the MSM may
say or imply.
T.J , December 14, 2017 at 8:45 am
If RT didn't have the qualities you describe, attempts by the Administration and the MSM
to discredit it would have been successful. However they will attempt to silence it by other
means.
Adam Kraft , December 14, 2017 at 11:59 am
Very true TJ. I found counterpunch when wapo / propornot blacklisted them. Gave 'em creds
imo. I also like mint press, occupy, naked capitalism, **world socialist website**,
disobedient media, truthout, some of Glenns work on the Intercept and my youtube subs
include: wearechange, **anonymous Scandinavia**, **the jimmy dore show**, RT America, TeleSUR
English*, Zoon Politikon, **democracy at work**, HA Goodman, theRealNews*, mintpressnews,
watching the hawks, secular talk, laura kinhtlinger, judicial watch, empire files, redacted
tonight, TBTV, a little from Julian Assange's twitter.
tina , December 14, 2017 at 11:06 pm
what about Al-Jazeera?
Erik G , December 14, 2017 at 8:03 am
Good suggestion; in such persuasion, one must respectfully suggest better sources and
avoid any conflict.
Mr. Parry has well summarized for beginners these essential counterpoints to the mass
media propaganda.
I like this use of "awakened," in contrast to the establishment culture's fascination with
"woke." People don't need to get woke. They need to become awakened. Thanks to Robert
Parry.
Walter Devine , December 13, 2017 at 10:15 pm
I thought we were waiting to hear what the evidence is found. The lack of discussion about
what they have uncovered seems to me to speak of a professional operation. Once they are done
and present what they have found, then everyone can get on their soap boxes and let loose. As
for Bias, that exists in everyone to some extent or another, where was the moral outrage from
the Republicans charging this today when the Benghazi investigation was being conducted by
folks with known axes to grind themselves? It is the Washington hypocrisy machine at its most
obvious. As for the media, print or otherwise, they are just preaching to their choirs in
order to sell whatever their particular consumers are buying. Frankly I have come to expect
more from you than this article Mr. Parry, here's hoping
Robert Gardner , December 13, 2017 at 10:45 pm
I've been skeptical out the Russian conspiracy so far, but I agree with what Walter Devine
wrote.
tina , December 13, 2017 at 11:42 pm
I am still waiting . Mr. Parry can ride on his story back in the 1980's. We are in 2017,
The internet is good. What did those people in Washington do today? get rid of net
neutrality? Love you all people on CN, Happy Hanukah Merry Christmas, and Kwanzaa, And the
winter solstice. Peace to all. Love, tina everyone is going to believe that they want to
believe.
incontinent reader , December 14, 2017 at 12:08 am
Are you kidding about Benghazi? Obviously you have still not informed yourself about the
egregious security breakdown of the Administration or how the Benghazi facility factored into
the CIA's proxy war in Syria. (And, btw, where was Hillary "Rod up her Hiney" Clinton when
that '3AM call' came in at 4pm?
"By placing the interests of the Obama administration over the public's interests, the order
is yet another data point highlighting the politicization of the FBI: After the September 11,
2012 attack against U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, the Obama administration
peddled a lie, telling the public that the attack was related to Muslims who had become
enraged at an anti-Islam YouTube video, and not a planned act of terrorism – despite
Hillary Clinton emailing Chelsea Clinton from her unsecure @clintonemail.com server the night
of the attack to say exactly that."
In 2016, [the FBI] received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" The "dossier" was a
compendium of allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled
by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House
investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee.
Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed
to pay former MI6 agent and Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could
verify the claims contained within the dossier – which relied on the cooperation of two
senior Kremlin officials. (One more time for you, Walter Devine -- "if he [Steele] could
verify the claims"). When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI
wouldn't pay him according to the New York Times.
Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier, Peter Strzok used it to
launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team. Steele was ultimately
paid $168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier.
-- Have you noticed the numbers for payments? The bank records? The names? -- these are the
evidence. Or you believe that there a Bias against the miserable Steele?
bobzz , December 14, 2017 at 3:06 pm
Of interest to me is why the Republicans did not hammer Hillary for placing an ambassador
in what was essentially a CIA compound in the first place. My guess and I can only guess is
that they no objection to its being a ratline to ship Libya's stolen armaments to
head-chopping jihadists (with USA blessing) fighting Assad. So to raise the issue of why
putting an ambassador there would have opened the door to sensitive questions -- if the press
would ask them, of course.
Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 4:28 pm
That's the real Benghazi story the MSM won't talk about. Although I suspect the armaments
were given to the head choppers by the CIA, and then they rebelled at having them transferred
to the head choppers in Syria after they had succeeded in killing Ghaddafi.
Jon Adams , December 14, 2017 at 6:17 pm
"Madame Secretary, WHY was it necessary to destroy Libya?" No republican asked THAT
question.
Kiza , December 14, 2017 at 7:16 pm
Hello Skip, nice to read your good comments again and to exchange info. Here is an article
which talks about the weapons ratline in Syria. Within four days, the powerful anti-tank
missiles that CIA bought in Bulgaria and (supposedly) delivered to "moderate" rebels, ended
up in ISIS hands. The only problem with the article's narrative is that it is still drawing
the official line that the lack of oversight is to blame for such, whilst it was clearly a
deliberate action to supply weapons to ISIS wrapped up in plausible deniability of passing
them through the hands of some poor inept souls serving as intermediaries.
Thus, the CIA kept being surprised that its powerful weapons kept ending up in ISIS hands but
kept doing the same over and over: oops an oversight mistake, oops and another one, oops one
more, and another one, . the two hundredth one
Starting a grand-scale investigation on the basis of allegations of conspiracy with
another government and treason is rather dubious when these allegations from dirty campaign
tactics are not based on any tangible facts. It is true that the Muller team does not leak as
much to the press as the intelligence services did previously. This investigation still plays
an important role for the media propaganda that still pushes the Russiagate conspiracy theory
even though there had never been any factual basis for it and no evidence has been found in
over a year. Since there is still this investigation is going on, they can use it for
justifying their daily minutes of hate against Russia, their calls for censorship and
denounciation of any political position that diverges from the neoconservative and neoliberal
ideology.
I wonder how long this can go on. So far, the indictments of the Muller team have had
nothing to do with the Russiagate conspiracy theory. Paul Manafort was indicted for tax
evasion related to lobbying business with Ukraine, mostly years ago. Michael Flynn was
indicted because when he reported a call from his holidays to the Russian ambassador to the
FBI more than three weeks later, he left out two elements (the FBI had the recordings from
the NSA, anyway, so they wouldn't have had to ask him about the telephone call). There was
nothing illegal about the contents of the telephone call (the most dubious thing was, of
course, the lobbying related to a UN security council resolution vote, but that might at best
hint at colluding with Israel, it certainly does not fit the Russiagate conspiracy theory).
It seems quite plausible that Flynn just forgot these two elements of a telephone call in
which quite a large number of points was raised and that he pleaded guilty because of a plea
deal (otherwise he might have been indicted in connection with his lobbying work for Turkey).
Superficially, the closest to the idea of Russiagate is the indictment of Papadopoulos,
someone who played a minor role in the Trump campaign and was looking for contacts with
Russians, but, as it seems did not get very far (for some reasons he seemed to think a
Russian woman he was talking with was a relative of Putin). His actions may have been
naïve or misguided, but nothing about them was illegal, like in the case of Michael
Flynn, he is only accused of lying to the FBI about normal, legal actions.
So, if we judge the Muller investigation by its results, it is not going anywhere.
Obviously, that is what should be expected when a commission is set up for investigating a
conspiracy theory for which there had never been any evidence to begin with. I suppose the
result would be similar if the Illuminati, the Elders of Zion, or reptiloids were officially
investigated.
The question is how they will wind down. If they just say that apart from things like
Manafort's possible tax evation and Flynn's lobbying for Israel, they have not found anything
– certainly nothing that confirms the Russiagate conspiracy theory -, that will be
quite difficult, people will demand that it is investigated how it came about that such a
conspiracy was spread and played such an influential role in political discourse for some
time. It seems that the Muller team wants to delay that moment when they have to confess that
the conspiracy theory has broken down, but that won't necessarily make it easier, either.
Antiwar7 , December 14, 2017 at 7:24 am
How long should we wait until we hear of ONE, that's right, ONE piece of evidence backing
these claims up? Please answer: 2 years? 10 years? The only evidence so far amounts to "trust
us".
And that's ignoring the monumental number of pieces of false evidence that have been put
forward. That in itself makes the whole "investigation" suspicious. On top of the long,
documented history of the CIA planting false stories in the press.
bobzz , December 14, 2017 at 3:09 pm
I don't know. How long did it take the Dutch to cook the evidence to condemn Russian
partisans for the downing of the Malaysian airliner -- with Ukraine holding a gun to their
heads.
Dunno , December 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm
Dear Mr. 7, I have come to the grudging conclusion that Russia-gate is and has always been
more about Russia and Putin than about the crooked Don. If we stop to think about it, Trump
has succumbed to the deep control of the Deep-State colossus. Russia evil; Israel good! Got
it? When the pathetic wiener & crotch-grabber isn't bitchin' for Bibi and doing little
pooch tricks for Israel, he is being programmed by the pentagon and the Deep State, and
making sure that the super-rich get super richer. His own SOS Tillerson called him an effin'
moron. Enough said!
Therefore, 7, Russia-gate is all about keeping the pot boiling for the presidential
election in Russia next year. Demonizing Putin and Russia is the new great game of our era.
The NWO Nebula lusts after Russia's geostrategic location and its abundant resources. It's
1905-1925 all over again. Read the book, "Wall Street and the Russian Revolution 1905-1925"
by Richard B. Spence and also take a gander at Trine Day books' website of suppressed books.
The deep-state Plutocrats and their secret societies hatch their evil little plots, while
trying to keep the rest of us in the dark. Right now, Trump is a convenient platform for
anti-Russian propaganda.
Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 8:24 pm
Think you nailed it. The bankster regime changers already tried once to structurally
adjust Russia into being a US puppet state in the 90s under Clinton. Russia was robbed blind
while Yeltzin drank himself into a stupor. Putin is the one who put a stop to the looting.
That is his crime against the western oligarchs and why he is enemy #1.
Sam F , December 14, 2017 at 8:10 am
Once more the standard troll line about being a prior supporter, which plainly "Devine" is
not.
We are well over a year into this matter with nothing but speculation and manufactured
claims.
It is clear that Russia-gate = Israel-gate, a diversion from zionist control of the DNC.
Where is the concern of "Devine" for the lack of investigation of control of elections and
mass media by Israel?
Why does he seek to cover up the complete destruction of democracy by the foreign power
Israel?
Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 8:43 pm
Oliver Stone had this to say on the matter on FaceBook. If you're on FB, here is the
link.
facts don't show bias walt. yeah, media sells to the public, but they're also selling (or
trading narratives for access) to the gov't. Wikileaks exposed the MSM – DNC collusion
and we've witnessed the leaks and anonymous sources from the IC. Trust the CIA?
There's no 'lack of discussion about what they have uncovered' which has basically
amounted to a pile of dirt. Have not read from the VIPS and William Binney? Uncovering shady
business with oligarchs doesn't show collusion, but the dossier oppo does, but it's business
as usual. Denying the FBI-DNC server subpoena was odd don't you think?
I personally believe that progressive hope dies at the DNC and exposing the party's lies
(their private and public views) and undemocratic practices (preliminary process,
fundraising) is the best thing for the country. It brings us one step closer to potentially
building a third party that represents the proletariat and petty bourgeois classes.
Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 8:49 pm
I agree with your sentiment, but I'm finding it disturbing how many so called progressives
are convinced beyond any doubt, despite the evidence I produce to instill doubt, that Russia
interfered in "our democracy."
They have come unglued to the point of idiocy over Trump. They are firmly in the clutches
of the CIA Deep State apparatus.
"Fusion GPS appears to be in the center of a web of corruption. Who hired Fusion GPS to ramp
up its opposition research against Trump? Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
the wife of Justice Department official Bruce G. Ohr worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016
presidential election. Nellie Ohr is listed as working for the CIA's Open Source Works
department in a 2010 DOJ report."
Look how the CIA, FBI, and DNC have found each other and made a friendship forever.
Also, do you personally have any concern about the murder of Seth Rich? -- Donna Brazil has
become afraid of being Seth-Riched. How come? What kind of scum the Democratic apparatus has
become? -- Guess Tony Podesta and Bill Clinton and madame "we came, we saw, he died ha, ha,
ha " are the composite face of the Democratic Party today.
@ Walter Devine: "Once they are done and present what they have found, then everyone can
get on their soap boxes and let loose."
But overlook that the Democrats and mainstream media are doing the opposite? It seems to
me that this is precisely the point that Mr. Parry's reporting has been aimed at, that the
Democrats and mainstream media are jumping enormously to RussiaGate conclusions without
disclosing any evidence to back up their incredibly dangerous claims and that there *is* very
strong evidence of ulterior motives.
Gregory Herr , December 14, 2017 at 8:22 pm
Have at it Walter. What exactly have they uncovered? The "process" lost credibility long
ago. The "intelligence" report of January 6th was garbage and it's been all downhill
since.
Peter de Klerk , December 14, 2017 at 8:53 pm
I had great respect Parry's earlier writing which had a healthy dose of MSM skepticism
(albeit largely for personal reasons). This whole business of jumping to conclusions on the
Russia meddling has put me off him totally. All the reporting seems to be in service of
defending a forgone conclusion. I wonder if this has anything to do with fundraising.
This whole Russia ate my lunch has entered the realm of alternate truth. The MSM are now
actually stating that the Russian hacking the 2016 election as fact. Just like all the other
false and fabricated statements of world events in the last 20 years . Fro Yugoslavia,
Milosovic exonerated for the falsely laid charges of genocide . How convenient after his
death . Qadaffi murdering and slaughtering his own people hence RPL interventionist and voila
the highest standard of living in the African continent is now reduced to takfiri heaven for
the NATO proxy army recruiting centre. MH17 disaster is still being paroled as Russian
deliberate murder. No facts no evidence that would stand even in a Stalinist show trial.
Assad gassing his own people. More than debunked by multiple sources and US academics to boot
no still being paroled as fact by western MSM.
The whole charade post 9/11 has gone into this Orwellian nightmare that just keep on growing
and news and information has become pure Hollwoodian fantasy that the sheeple are sleep
walking into this futuristic hell hole that these vile masters of the universe will not be
able to back track without losing face and without causing the populace to stand up and be
counted and kick tjhese vile players out for good.
john wilson , December 14, 2017 at 6:00 am
Take heart Falcemartello, its not all bad. Over here in the Britain RT has its own free to
view TV channel which sits next to the BBC news and the parliament programme. It is now
widely watched by the public and has millions of viewers with many using RT as their main
news source. The fact that the American deep state criminals have made things difficult for
RT America in the US, is a clear indication that the fake news masters otherwise known as the
MSN, and their handlers in the deep state are rattled by the ever growing alternative voice.
Its up to you, me and the rest of the posters on CN to tell our friends colleagues and others
about CN, RT etc. If only one percent take a look then alternative opinion will start to
filter through and more importantly, show the public what liars and criminals are in charge
of their country.
Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 8:15 am
Thanks for the info John. I am really glad that at least Britain has a reasonable degree
of freedom of the press. If it spreads across Europe, the USA may eventually find itself so
isolated by its own propaganda that the whole evil empire scheme will implode, and we will
have to learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. That is my Christmas wish.
BobS , December 14, 2017 at 11:36 am
It's not difficult to get RT in the US- I watch it regularly on Dish Network. Youtube is
another option- I'm guessing it's big and rich enough to survive any changes in net
neutrality that will result from the Trump/Pai FCC (of course, Obama and Clinton were just as
bad, DEEP STATE!!!!, etc.).
If you're going to tout conspiracies, get your facts straight.
rosemerry , December 14, 2017 at 4:48 pm
John Pilger has an article in counterpunch explaining the importance of documentaries (not
just his!). It is notable that his first one, on Cambodia, in 1970, was shown free to air on
TV in the UK and thirity other countries, with huge audience impact, but refused by PBS as
too disturbing!!
The free press in the USA is in tune with the ptb.
rosemerry , December 14, 2017 at 5:06 pm
I see the Pilger article is here on consortiumnews. It is worth a read, like the rest
here!
Kiza , December 14, 2017 at 7:58 pm
What you wrote john wilson is simply not the complete truth, although I wish it was. It is
true that RT UK has its own terrestrial digital TV channel. It appears that Margarita
Simonyan bid for such channel at an auction when Britain was converting from analogue to
digital TV and got it. Thus, the British TV viewers can now see RT without any subscription
or special equipment, "next to BBC" as you optimistically say.
What you did not mention john wilson is that the British Government regulator Ofcom is
putting severe pressure on RT because their news offered an alternative view to the British
propaganda. They rinse and repeat the same biased-news allegations almost every year, keeping
RT UK under constant threat of the loss of its broadcasting licence due to "breach of truth
standards" = "fake news". They even banned the lightbox, radio and other media advertising
campaign of RT in Britain, the so called "RT is the second opinion", only because the
campaign claimed that if RT existed before UK attack on Iraq in 2003, Tony Blair may have not
been successful in passing the war resolutions through the parliament.
What most people do not appreciate is that the methods of suppression are not the same in
all Western countries, and why should they be? Simonyan got a terrestrial TV channel and the
broadcasting licence because of the British propaganda hubris – the British still
believed that their post-imperial propaganda is the best in the World, just because it was
the best in the world during the empire. They simply never expected the Russians to be so
successful, just the same as US.
In summary:
US => force RT to register as a foreign agent to force reporting of every little detail of
its operations; refuse journalistic credentials to Congress etc to disadvantage its
reporting
UK => keep constant threat of the loss of broadcasting licence to skew the reporting
towards the British Government version of the news
I post the links relevant to what I wrote here separately to avoid being put on hold.
Philip Giraldi writes about a shift occurring over at the CIA in Trump's favor, Politico's
interview with a somewhat repentant Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't
that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled with a discovery of
FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital?
Just say'n.
rosemerry , December 14, 2017 at 4:52 pm
Obama's expulsion of the Russian diplomats after Trump's election, with no reason based on
fact/danger to the USA gave a good start to the Russophobia encouraged by the Clinton losers
and leading on to the ludicrous extreme situation still going on.
Spot on Bob, the unfortunate and idealistic Mr Seth Rich became the DNC's bottom line, the
shining example of its "anything goes as long as we have friends in the right places" (FBI,
DOJ, CIA, etc etc).
Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 9:04 pm
Agreed. Let's not forget Process Server for the DNC Fraud Lawsuit Shawn Lucas who died
mysteriously 2 weeks after serving the DNC either.
I never would have believed the rot in the Democratic Party establishment would rival the
Republicans, but here we are.
Anon , December 14, 2017 at 8:23 am
"Tina" is a troll assigned to CN to claim extremism, and never presents evidence or
argument.
Steven A , December 13, 2017 at 11:16 pm
This is another great review by Robert Parry. However, he again uses the formulation that
"WikiLeaks published" and "WikiLeaks released" purloined DNC emails on September 13, 2016.
Greenwald and the Washington Post have stated, more carefully, that WikiLeaks "promoted" the
data source of these emails by means of a Tweet on that date.
Adam Carter noted in a comment under Parry's previous article that the DNC emails in
question are the NGP/VAN files associated with Guccifer 2.0's pre-announced "hack" on July 5,
2016 and reportedly released by him on Sept 13, 2016.
In fact, they are certainly not part of WikiLeak's official archive. One can see from
their website that they published nothing between the times of the DNC emails release of July
22, 2016 and the Podesta emails release of October 7. So "published" is clearly the wrong
word.
Whether or in what sense it may fairly be stated that WikiLeaks "released", "promoted" or
"uploaded" (as according to the Erickson email, which probably represents nothing more than
an outsider's impression) the September 13 files needs to be cautiously assessed. Their Tweet
did include an access key, as did the Erickson email, and the address for the file given in
the latter was a "mega.nz" address. I assume that this address is associated with Kim Dot
Com, who also claims to have been involved with WikiLeaks.
Did Guccifer 2.0 himself upload the files to mega.nz? Did he play Kim Dot Com to use the
latter's association with Wikileaks to get Wikileaks itself to put out the Sept 13 Tweet
advertising the data release? I'm not sure how this all worked, but it seems that it is
misleading to simply refer to this set of emails as having been "published" by Wikileaks.
incontinent reader , December 14, 2017 at 12:12 am
Didn't you read the VIPS analyses of the DNC leaks?
Steven A , December 14, 2017 at 8:21 am
Yes, I did, but not while writing my comment above. Do they say anything relevant to the
question of whether it is accurate to correct the false media report that the Trump campaign
was given access to the NGP/VAN DNC emails before WikiLeaks published them with a "corrected"
statement that the Trump campaign was notified (but may never have noticed) of a link to
those files by a random member of the public _after WikiLeaks had already published them_? As
I recall, the original VIPS memo was itself somewhat confused about the distinction between
the NGP/VAN material and the five DNC documents made public by "Guccifer 2.0" on June 15,
2016, so I'm not sure one will find anything relevant to my question there.
While it is true that the "correction" here is _much_ closer to the truth than the
original misinformation, the underlined part at the end of my question still seems misleading
in that the "publication" is attributed to WikiLeaks without qualification. And it seems
Parry is not the only one to make this mistake. As Adam Carter pointed out two days ago, he
was very surprised that almost no one has been noticing that the files in question came from
"Guccifer 2.0" and not from WikiLeaks. While Parry's attribution misleading, I am still not
clear in my own mind about precisely what did happen, i.e. how WikiLeaks came to "promote"
the release of the files and whether in some loose or indirect sense WikiLeaks did "release"
them.
mike k , December 14, 2017 at 11:08 am
Is there really any other purpose in your involved questioning but seeking to cloud and
confuse the obvious issues in the "Russia hacked" affair?
Steven A , December 14, 2017 at 2:05 pm
How is it clouding the issue to suggest, as Adam Carter did, that one element in Parry's
(and others') description of the facts in an otherwise excellent article seems to be
misleading?
@ "the address for the file given in the latter was a "mega.nz" address. I assume that
this address is associated with Kim Dot Com, who also claims to have been involved with
WikiLeaks."
These are the sort of details I haven't been familiar with and about which I was hoping to
learn more – so thanks! I was relying on a vague impression from memory when I made the
link between the "mega.nz" address seen in the email from Erickson and Kim Dot Com.
Since the whole Guccifer 2.0 operation appears to be an attempt to falsely smear WikiLeaks
as a Russian agent (by publicly claiming to be a hacker associated with WikiLeaks and then
being "caught" releasing documents (the ones of June 15, 2016) with "Russian fingerprints"),
perhaps his uploading files (Sept 13, 2016) to a server with (past) ties to someone
associated with WikiLeaks (Kim Dot Com) would have been part of the same effort.
Thus the statement that "WikiLeaks published" the files in question (repeated by Parry,
Justin Raimondo and others) appears to be false. I share the surprise expressed by Adam
Carter (under Parry's previous piece) that few appear to have noticed or bothered to correct
this error – even though they were on target in exposing the main part of the latest
MSM lie.
Those of us who live within the Outlaw US Empire have been seduced by lies Big and small
since we could understand language. RussiaGate is an example of a Big Lie, just as the Outlaw
US Empire being a democracy is a Big Lie–both are indoctrinational. Santa Claus, Tooth
Fairy, Easter Bunny, Great Pumpkin, Sand Man, Cupid, et al are other excellent examples of
indoctrinational Big Lies. One of the most severe is the maxim delivered from parents: You
must share and play nice, when the real world acts in the exact opposite fashion. What's
more, RussiaGate serves as a cover-up for several major crimes–some by Clinton, some by
DNC, some by FBI, some by Justice Department, and some by CIA: None of them are being
actively investigated despite there being lots of evidence existing in the public domain,
which is why we know those crimes occurred.
"A Russian hacker accused of stealing from Russian banks reportedly confessed in court
that he hacked the U.S. Democratic National Committee (DNC) and stole Hillary Clinton's
emails under the direction of agents from Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB)"
PUTIN ORDERED THEFT OF CLINTON'S EMAILS FROM DNC, RUSSIAN HACKER CONFESSES
BY CRISTINA MAZA ON 12/12/17
in which she stated that not only did Putin 'annex Crimea' but also invaded Ukraine,
among other things. None of her statements were backed up by any facts, which
apparently are irrelevant anymore. Wikipedia has an interesting bio on her.
Bob Van Noy , December 14, 2017 at 9:57 am
Thank you irina for that "catch". I'm a long time reader of "The Atlantic Magazine" well
aware of its long, liberal history and was surprised to find David Frum reporting there.
David was a speech writer for W. Bush and apparently came up with the infamous "Axis of Evil"
tag for President Bush's State Of The Union speech. I'll link the Wikipedia page below for
those interested. I'm concerned that propaganda has spread far and wide
Despite its extremely conclusive title and substance, the Newsweek article later admits
the extremely suspect nature of the accusation, and the lack of any evidence whatsoever:
"Andrei Soldatov an expert on Russian cybersecurity, said he believes Kozlovsky invented
the story about his direction from the FSB for personal gain. 'I've been communicating with
[Kozlovsky] for four months, and he has failed to give me any proof or answer my questions,"
Soldatov told Newsweek .'He was put in jail by these guys so it could be out of revenge, or
he wanted to make a deal with the FSB,'"
Such a reversal of evidence and conclusion bespeaks deliberate deception. The motive is
unclear, as the failed Newsweek is said to have been revived in 2013 by a Korean-American
Christian fundamentalist David Jang formerly of Moon's Unification Church, whose followers
consider him the Second Coming of JC, according to the linked source. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/
Perhaps another quasi-religious CIA front like Fethullah Gulen's madrassas in Turkey and
across central Asia.
exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:13 pm
They keep publishing the same horseshit just like Pravda did in the Soviet era and just
like the Voelkischer Beobachter and Stuermer did during the Nazi era. I guess the uninformed
hoi polloi get so used to it in these situations that they accept the situation, like ducks
and frogs accept watery ponds as their environments.
Manfred Whimplebottem , December 14, 2017 at 9:20 pm
I think I heard a similar story from newsweek months ago, looks like someone took the
deal(?).
FBI Probe Into Clinton Emails Prompted Offer of Cash, Citizenship for Confession, Russian
Hacker Claims
"On October 5, 2016, days before U.S. intelligence publicly accused Russia of endorsing an
infiltration of Democratic Party officials' emails, Nikulin was arrested in Prague at the
request of the U.S. on separate hacking charges. Now, Nikulin claims U.S. authorities tried
to pin the email scandal on him."
"ikulin's lawyer, Martin Sadilek, [claims] that the FBI visited him at least a couple of
times, offering to drop the charges and grant him U.S. citizenship as well as cash and an
apartment in the U.S. if the Russian national confessed to participating in the 2016 hacks of
Clinton campaign chief John Podesta's emails in July."
"[They told me:] you will have to confess to breaking into Clinton's inbox for [U.S.
President Donald Trump] on behalf of [Russian President Vladimir Putin]," Nikulin wrote"
At that time, it wasn't known why Mr. Strzok was transferred/whatever from
counter-intelligence, but since then it has been revealed that Mr. Mueller did so for his (
Strzok) political opinions. That would seem a fair thing to do. What's the problem? Might be
right-wing fear.
Marko , December 14, 2017 at 4:43 am
" What's the problem? "
C'mon , man. Given Strzok's position and his influence on Russiagate AND the earlier
Hillarygate investigations , the fact that he was transferred in July is of little comfort.
Any damage he could do he'd already done by then. Jim Jordan will explain it to you , in six minutes :
exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:16 pm
The problem is that when that story first appeared, nothing else was disclosed. The
damning material took months to emerge, as did Strzok's links to the Clinton coverups and the
links to the fake dossier and the FBI's "anti-Trump" insurance policy. Those who want to
believe the regime's falsehoods can always come up with rationales such as "I guess the
government people know best" which was typical of the answers to sceptics against the Viet
Nam war in the mid '60s.
Realist , December 14, 2017 at 2:43 am
It's been a year and a half since Hillary Clinton first accused Donald Trump of being a
Putin puppet and in collusion with the Kremlin. Any fool should be able to understand that if
there existed any real evidence to support this accusation the world would have seen it under
banner headlines long ago. Instead, we get nothing but one set of sensational fake headlines
unsupported by any actual facts time and again, all in an attempt to fool the
mentally-challenged public. Yet the NYT and the rest of the yellow press continue to insist
that the evidence continues to mount against Trump. What a laugh. Moreover, these deceivers
are the people that want what they define as "fake news" to be systematically rooted out and
stricken from the public record so no thinking person can ever see it. And, they tell us this
is a free and democratic country. Got any more jokes?
Homina , December 14, 2017 at 3:48 am
Totally agree. And it reminds me of some reality "quest" shows about finding Bigfoot or
the Oak Island treasure, etc.
If those were actually found, it would be reported a day or two later, unless every single
one of the producers, actors, workers, etc. were under an NDA enough to wait until some
season finale a year or two later. Ridiculous. If Bigfoot exists that will come to us on
news, and big news, international. It won't come on a 4th season of some Bigfoot-finding
show.
So yeah, season two of the Trump-Russia whatever.
Maddow/MSNBC and the likes have gone utterly insane. Bigfoot behind every door. Scant or
zero facts, who cares. This isn't like Benghazi or White Water or Bush's air service this is
24/7 inane terrible journalism from nearly every journalist publisher in the US.
exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:30 am
I think that the new evidence discussed provides Trump the cover to pull the plug on the
whole Mueller operation despite the Alabama debacle. Sure the media talkers would compare it
to the Saturday Night Massacre, but the proven falsity of the whole absurd circus renders
risible such comparisons. While I don't expect much out of Trump, the championing of this
absurd theory by the mainstream democrats renders them an existential threat to civilization
itself based on the fact that enmity with Russia seems to be their be-all and end-all. It is
all not only criminal but profoundly stupid.
Homina , December 14, 2017 at 3:40 am
"The primary purpose of Mr. Mueller's investigation is not to take down Mr. Trump. It's to
protect America's national security and the integrity of its elections by determining whether
a presidential campaign conspired with a foreign adversary to influence the 2016 election
– a proposition that grows more plausible every day."
1. How is Russia an "adversary"? And even if Russia is, that's weasel-words and
subjective. Is Turkey a foreign adversary? Is Israel? China? Mexico?
2. Why wasn't there decades ago a special Election Panel looking into foreign influence? I
guess it just started to happen in this last election though .Only with Putin!
3. "more plausible" .this fucking idiot. After a year of headlines of "this is what will
finally take down Trump" and such, all with zero reasons, zero facts .Is naught more
plausible than naught?
4. I detest Trump. I more detest hypocrites and idiots.
But sure, "blah blah more possible take trump down" says some idiot or collective NYT
idiocy. Bore me more your next op-ed, you partisan morons.
Sam F , December 14, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Yes, the NYT is mere propaganda. We already know that "a presidential campaign conspired
with a foreign adversary to influence the 2016 election" because Clinton's top ten donors
were all Zionists, and she supported all wars for Israel.
Rich Monahan , December 14, 2017 at 3:57 am
Thank you for your spot-on analysis! The motives of the deep state – including FBI
operatives, NY Times and WAPO – is crystal clear. They do not want Trump to be
president, and are determined to either remove him or handcuff him indefinitely. But why? Why
has the establishment gone crazy? Is it simply political, or something deeper and darker?
Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 8:59 am
The real "deep" reason is the PNAC plot to make sure that the USA remains the sole super
power that can impose its will anywhere in the world. Trump's campaign position of seeking
detente with Russia would have led us into a multi-polar world giving Russia a sphere of
influence. That is unacceptable to the empire.
RussiaGate is an attempt to remove Trump from
power, or at a minimum make it impossible for him to seek detente. I am no Trump apologist,
but I do think our only hope for a future in this nuclear age is to seek peace and
cooperation in a multi-polar world that respects national sovereignty and the rule of law. I
suspect Trump will continue to be brought to heel, with or without the success of RussiaGate.
And there is always the JFK solution as a last resort.
M C Martin , December 14, 2017 at 6:08 am
Where is William Binney's "Thin String" signals intelligence (SIGINT) software when it's
needed? Wouldn't it be lovely to focus it on the communications of our own government? Binney
says applying it after 9/11 to the pre-9/11 communications streams did successfully predict
the 9/11 attacks. If only we had stored all communications of government officials dating
back to . hey, let's say 1774 or so, what truths might we now know, and what proofs might we
now have? What would FDR's communications prior to Pearl Harbor reveal? What about the JFK,
Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X assassinations?
While I can't endorse our government's illegal and immoral collection and storing of
virtually all communications among people, if the store is there and is used against petty
criminals, why couldn't or shouldn't it be used to detect and prove the illegal acts of our
government power brokers?
"... William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus urged Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany. ..."
"... A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts at 2:07 .) ..."
"... So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside bombs." ..."
"... The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark. ..."
"... The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his piece in the first place. ..."
"... The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency." ..."
"... ancien régime, ..."
"... With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway. ..."
"... Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive, 400,000 Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad. ..."
"... So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore up the status quo turns out to be undermining it. ..."
"... It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee defended or at least apologized for. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
"... I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them. ..."
"... The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5 years. ..."
"... Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington don't want peace at any price because its bad for business. ..."
"... It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the people! ..."
"... The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S. politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC. ..."
"... This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will end. ..."
"... Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive toys are falling out of the sky in droves. ..."
"... On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives. ..."
"... The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in Syria. ..."
"... Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and Saudis coordinate their activities. ..."
"... An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq, which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena." ..."
"... The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)." ..."
"... To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime." ..."
"... The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply lines. ..."
"... The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started working overtime. ..."
"... The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians. ..."
"... In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision." ..."
"... Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making ..."
"... General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the covert program in Syria. ..."
"... The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection. ..."
"... That it conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course, there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions". ..."
"... The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces. ..."
"... I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the Salafist Islamic state with alarm ..."
"... Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. ..."
"... Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take much to see why he was targeted. ..."
"... The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on 9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" – covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic. ..."
"... Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US, who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union. ..."
"... All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in destroying life on Earth. ..."
"... There is a volume of evidence that the war criminals in our midst were arming and training "jihadists." See link below. http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html ..."
"... Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg. ..."
"... The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well. Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. ..."
"... The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large collection of links for compiled evidence: http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292 ..."
"... This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without question, in the face of many unanswered questions ..."
"... Bin Laden (CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a "conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated ..."
"... So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war. It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not posting any comments here, either. ..."
"... From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy for the Realm". ..."
"... For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack all who disagree. ..."
"... I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No! US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private profit. ..."
"... Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking. The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic consequences. ..."
"... I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan, with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r? ..."
"... Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived for the zionists. Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had to be opposed. The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists for Mideast wars. ..."
"... Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total destruction. Easy. ..."
"... Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and 'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total disgrace? ..."
When a Department of Defense intelligence
report about the Syrian rebel movement became public in May 2015, lots of people didn't
know what to make of it. After all, what the report said was unthinkable – not only that
Al Qaeda had dominated the so-called democratic revolt against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
for years, but that the West continued to support the jihadis regardless, even to the point of
backing their goal of creating a Sunni Salafist principality in the eastern deserts.
Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative in
August 2014.
The United States lining up behind Sunni terrorism – how could this be? How could a
nice liberal like Barack Obama team up with the same people who had brought down the World
Trade Center?
It was impossible, which perhaps explains why the report remained a non-story long after it
was released courtesy of a Judicial Watch freedom-of-information
lawsuit . The New York Times didn't mention it until
six months later while the Washington Post waited more than a year before
dismissing it as "loopy" and "relatively unimportant." With ISIS rampaging across much of
Syria and Iraq, no one wanted to admit that U.S. attitudes were ever anything other than
hostile.
But three years earlier, when the Defense Intelligence Agency was compiling the report,
attitudes were different. Jihadis were heroes rather than terrorists, and all the experts
agreed that they were a low-risk, high-yield way of removing Assad from office.
After spending five days with a Syrian rebel unit, for instance, New York Times reporter
C.J. Chivers
wrote that the group "mixes paramilitary discipline, civilian policing, Islamic law, and
the harsh demands of necessity with battlefield coldness and outright cunning."
Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut,
assured the Washington Post that "al Qaeda is a fringe element" among the rebels, while,
not to be outdone, the gossip site Buzzfeed published a
pin-up of a "ridiculously photogenic" jihadi toting an RPG.
"Hey girl," said the subhead. "Nothing sexier than fighting the oppression of tyranny."
And then there was Foreign Policy, the magazine founded by neocon guru Samuel P. Huntington,
which was most enthusiastic of all. Gary Gambill's " Two Cheers for Syrian
Islamists ," which ran on the FP web site just a couple of weeks after the DIA report was
completed, didn't distort the facts or make stuff up in any obvious way. Nonetheless, it is a
classic of U.S. propaganda. Its subhead glibly observed: "So the rebels aren't secular
Jeffersonians. As far as America is concerned, it doesn't much matter."
Assessing the Damage
Five years later, it's worth a second look to see how Washington uses self-serving logic to
reduce an entire nation to rubble.
First a bit of background. After displacing France and Britain as the region's prime
imperial overlord during the 1956 Suez Crisis and then breaking with Egyptian President Gamal
Abdel Nasser a few years later, the United States committed itself to the goal of defeating
Arab nationalism and Soviet Communism, two sides of the same coin as far as Washington was
concerned. Over the next half-century, this would mean steering Egypt to the right with
assistance from the Saudis, isolating Libyan strong man Muammar Gaddafi, and doing what it
could to undermine the Syrian Baathist regime as well.
William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus
urged
Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of
Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to
playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany.
A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department
memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries
in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts
at 2:07 .)
Since the United States didn't like what such governments were doing, the solution was to
install more pliable ones in their place. Hence Washington's joy when the Arab Spring struck
Syria in March 2011 and it appeared that protesters would soon topple the Baathists on their
own.
Even when lofty democratic rhetoric gave way to ominous sectarian
chants of "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the coffin," U.S. enthusiasm remained strong.
With Sunnis accounting for perhaps 60 percent of the population, strategists figured that there
was no way Assad could hold out against religious outrage welling up from below.
Enter Gambill and the FP. The big news, his article began, is that secularists are no longer
in command of the burgeoning Syrian rebel movement and that Sunni Islamists are taking the lead
instead. As unfortunate as this might seem, he argued that such a development was both
unavoidable and far from entirely negative.
"Islamist political ascendancy is inevitable in a majority Sunni Muslim country brutalized
for more than four decades by a secular minoritarian dictatorship," he wrote in reference to
the Baathists. "Moreover, enormous financial resources are pouring in from the Arab-Islamic
world to promote explicitly Islamist resistance to Assad's Alawite-dominated, Iranian-backed
regime."
So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist
surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver
linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than
their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside
bombs."
The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic
defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the
seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark.
"So long as Syrian jihadis are committed to fighting Iran and its Arab proxies," the article
concluded, "we should quietly root for them – while keeping our distance from a conflict
that is going to get very ugly before the smoke clears. There will be plenty of time to tame
the beast after Iran's regional hegemonic ambitions have gone down in flames."
Deals with the Devil
The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The
good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not
have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the
viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his
piece in the first place.The Islamists were something America could employ to their advantage and then throw away
like a squeezed lemon. A few Syrians would suffer, but America would win, and that's all that
counts.
The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the
opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim
Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency."
Where Gambill predicted that "Assad and his minions will likely retreat to northwestern
Syria," the DIA speculated that the jihadis might establish "a declared or undeclared Salafist
principality" at the other end of the country near cities like Hasaka and Der Zor (also known
as Deir ez-Zor).
Where the FP said that the ultimate aim was to roll back Iranian influence and undermine
Shi'ite rule, the DIA said that a Salafist principality "is exactly what the supporting powers
to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic
depth of Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
Bottle up the Shi'ites in northwestern Syria, in other words, while encouraging Sunni
extremists to establish a base in the east so as to put pressure on Shi'ite-influenced Iraq and
Shi'ite-ruled Iran.
As Gambill put it: "Whatever misfortunes Sunni Islamists may visit upon the Syrian people,
any government they form will be strategically preferable to the Assad regime, for
three reasons: A new government in Damascus will find continuing the alliance with Tehran
unthinkable, it won't have to distract Syrians from its minority status with foreign policy
adventurism like the ancien régime, and it will be flush with petrodollars from
Arab Gulf states (relatively) friendly to Washington."
With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway.
Disastrous Thinking
Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is
hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive,
400,000
Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million
displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad.
U.S.-backed Syrian "moderate" rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy
(left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot
from the YouTube video] War-time destruction totals around $250
billion , according to U.N. estimates, a staggering sum for a country of 18.8 million
people where per-capita income prior to the outbreak of violence was under $3,000. From Syria,
the specter of sectarian violence has spread across Asia and Africa and into Europe and North
America as well. Political leaders throughout the advanced industrial world are still
struggling to contain the populist fury that the Middle East refugee crisis, the result of
U.S.-instituted regime change, helped set off.
So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East
is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian
influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now
seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is
lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore
up the status quo turns out to be undermining it.
It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy
establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has
moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder
and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee
defended or at least apologized for.
The forum is particularly well known for its Campus Watch program, which targets academic
critics of Israel, Islamists, and – despite Gambill's kind words about "suicide bombings
and roadside bombs" – anyone it considers the least bit apologetic about Islamic
terrorism.
Double your standard, double the fun. Terrorism, it seems, is only terrorism when others do
it to the U.S., not when the U.S. does it to others.
Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the
Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
Babyl-on , December 8, 2017 at 5:26 pm
I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming
the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that
peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of
central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US
and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will
slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them.
The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day
now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has
already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5
years. When that happens the world will return to the gold standard + Bitcoin possibly and US
dollar hegemony will end. After that the trillion dollar a year military and the 20 trillion
debt take on a different meaning. Before that slaughter non-stop will continue.
john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:31 am
Really, Baby-lon, your first short paragraph sums this piece by Lazare perfectly and makes
the rest of his blog seem rather pointless. Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't
think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and
stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington
don't want peace at any price because its bad for business.
Babyl-on and John Wilson: you have nailed it. The last thing the US (gov't.) wants is
peace. War is big business; casualties are of no concern (3 million Koreans died in the
Korean War; 3 million Vietnamese in that war; 100's of thousands in Iraq [including Clinton's
sanctions] and Afghanistan). The US has used jihadi proxies since the mujahedeen in 1980's
Afghanistan and Contras in Nicaragua. To the US (gov't.), a Salafist dictatorship (such as
Saudi Arabia) is highly preferable to a secular, nationalist ruler (such as Egypt's Nasser,
Libya's Gaddafi, Syria's Assad).
So the cover story of the jjihadi's has changed – first they are freedom fighters, then
terrorists. What does not change is that in either case they are pawns of the US (gov't.)
goal of hegemony.
(Incidentally, Drew Hunkins must be responding to a different article.)
Exactly Baby right on, Either USA strategists are extremely ignorant or they are attempting
to create chaos, probably both.
Perhaps not continuously but surely frequently the USA has promoted war prior to the last 73
years. Native Genocide , Mexican Wars, Spanish War, WWI ( USA banker repayment war)
Richard , December 9, 2017 at 5:24 pm
Exactly Babylon! Looks like consortiumnews is turning into another propaganda rag. Assad
was allied with Russia and Iran – that's why the U.S. wanted him removed. Israel said
that they would preferred ISIS in power over Assad. The U.S. would have happily wiped out 90%
of the population using its terrorist proxies if it thought it could have got what it
wanted.
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:50 am
CN tends to make moderate statements so as to communicate with those most in need of
them.
One must start with the understandings of the audience and show them that the evidence leads
further.
Richard , December 10, 2017 at 10:27 am
Sam F, no, it's a DELIBERATE lie in support of U.S. foreign policy. The guy wrote: "the
NAIVE belief that jihadist proxies could be used to TRANSFORM THE REGION FOR THE BETTER." It
could have been written as: "the stated justification by the president that he wanted to
transform the region for the better, even though there are often ulterior motives."
It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always
presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war
INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what
state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let
alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first
Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his
military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion
in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to
rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the
U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the
people!
Either Robert Parry or the author wrote that introduction. I suspect Mr Parry – he
always portrays the president as having a heart of gold, but, always, sadly, misinformed;
being a professional journalist, he knows full well that people often only read the start and
end of an article.
Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 5:31 pm
What we have occurring right now in the United States is a rare divergence of interests
within our ruling class. The elites are currently made up of Zionist-militarists. What we're
now witnessing is a rare conflict between the two factions. This particular internecine
battle has reared its head in the past, the Dubai armaments deal comes to mind off the top of
my head.
Trump started the Jerusalem imbroglio because he's concerned about Mueller's witch
hunt.
The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures
towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain
to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S.
politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they
easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber
rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the
careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making
peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC.
Since Trump's concerned about 1.) Mueller's witch hunt (he definitely should be deeply
concerned, this is an out of control prosecutor on mission creep), and 2.) the almost total
negative coverage the press has given him over the last two years, he's made a deal with the
Zionist Power Configuration; Trump, effectively saying to them: "I'll give you Jerusalem, you
use your immense influence in the American mass media to tamp down the relentlessly hostile
coverage toward me, and perhaps smear Mueller's witch hunt a bit ".
This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being
reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will
end.
How this all eventually plays out is anyone's guess indeed. Let's just make sure it
doesn't end with mushroom clouds over Tehran, Saint Petersburg, Paris, Chicago, London, NYC,
Washington and Berlin.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm
Trump's purported deviation from foreign policy orthodoxy regarding both Russia and Israel
was a propaganda scam engineered by the pro-Israel Lobby from the very beginning. As Russia-gate fiction is progressively deconstructed, the Israel-gate reality becomes
ever more despicably obvious.
The shamelessly Israel-pandering Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions
to US-Israel relations at a 3 February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New
York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news.
After the event, Trump did not renew his television contract for The Apprentice, which
raised speculation about a Trump bid for the presidency. Trump announced his candidacy in
June 2015.
Trump's purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's commitment to peace,
calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusal to call for
Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, were all stage-managed for the campaign.
Cheap theatrics notwithstanding, the Netanyahu regime in Israel has "1000 percent" support
from the Trump regime.
Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 8:10 pm
If Trump were totally and completely subservient to Netanyahu he would have bombed
Damascus to remove Assad and would have bombed Tehran to obliterate Iran. Of course thus far
he has done neither. Don't get me wrong, Trump is essentially part and parcel of the Zionist
cabal, but I don't quite think he's 1,000% under their thumb (not yet?).
I don't think the Zionist Power Configuration concocted Trump's policy of relative peace
with the Kremlin. Yes, the ZPC is extremely powerful in America, but Trump's position of
detente with Moscow seemed to be genuine. He caught way too much heat from the mass media for
it to be a stunt, it's almost torpedoed his presidency, and may eventually do just that. It
was actually one of the very few things Trump got right; peace with Russia, cordial relations
with the Kremlin are a no-brainer. A no-brainer to everyone but the
military-industrial-complex.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 10:59 pm
Russian. Missiles. Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to
fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive
toys are falling out of the sky in droves.
Whether it was "bird strike" or something more technological that recently grounded the
"mighty" Israeli F-35I, it's clear that America isn't eager to have those "Inherent Resolve"
jets, so busily not bombing ISIS, painted with Russian SAM radar.
Russia made it clear that Trump's Tomahawk Tweet in April 2017 was not only under totally
false pretenses. It had posed a threat to Russian troops and Moscow took extra measures to
protect them.
Russian deployment of the advanced S-400 system on the Syrian coast in Latakia also
impacts Israel's regional air superiority. The S-400 can track and shoot down targets some
400 kilometers (250 miles) away. That range encompasses half of Israel's airspace, including
Ben Gurion International Airport. In addition to surface-to-air missiles installations, Russian aircraft in Syria are
equipped with air-to-air missiles. Those weapons are part of an calculus of Israeli aggression in the region.
Of course, there's much more to say about this subject.
Surely, Drew, even the brain washed sheep otherwise known as the American public can't
seriously believe that their government armed head choppers in a bid to bring peace to the
region, can they?
Drew Hunkins , December 9, 2017 at 1:34 pm
Yup Mr. Wilson. It's too much cognitive dissonance for them to process. After all, we're
the exceptional nation, the beacon on the hill, the country that ONLY intervenes abroad when
there is a 'right to protect!' or it's a 'humanitarian intervention.' As Ken Burns would say:
Washington only acts "with good intentions. They're just sometimes misplaced." That's all.
The biggest global empire the world has ever seen is completely out of the picture.
mike k , December 8, 2017 at 5:34 pm
When evil people with evil intentions set out to do something in the world, the result is
evil. Like Libya, or Iraq, or Syria. Why do I call these people who killed millions for their
own selfish greed for power evil? If you have to ask that, then you just don't understand
what evil is – and you have a lot of company, because many people believe that evil
does not even exist! Such sheeple become the perfect victims of the evil ones, who are
destroying our world.
john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:36 am
Correction, Mike. The public do believe that evil exists but they sincerely think that
Putin and Russia are the evil ones'
mike k , December 9, 2017 at 5:41 pm
One of the ways to avoid recognizing evil is to ascribe it to inappropriate, incorrect
sources usually as a result of believing misleading propaganda. Another common maneuver is to
deny evil's presence in oneself, and believe it is always "out there". Or one can feel that
"evil" is an outmoded religious concept that is only used to hit at those one does not
like.
Mild - ly Facetious , December 8, 2017 at 6:22 pm
Oh Jerusalem: Requiem for the two-state solution (Gas masks required)
On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked
intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria
were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which
has now claimed half a million lives.
Marked "Top Secret" the NSA memo focuses on events that unfolded outside Damascus in March
of 2013.
The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct
role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and
civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in
Syria.
Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and
Saudis coordinate their activities.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 6:27 pm
An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya
to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist
groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the
insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq,
which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence
would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world
entering into Iraqi Arena."
The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a
declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this
is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian
regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought
the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and
Iran support the regime."
The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and
Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality"
(State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and
specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply
channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged
through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of
Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply
lines.
The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against
Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started
working overtime.
The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical
incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First
Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians.
Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:26 pm
In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence
Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA
report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as
Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision."
Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head
program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the
rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the
result of conscious decision making:
Hasan: "You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups
were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't
listening?"
Flynn: "I think the administration."
Hasan: "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"
Flynn: "I don't know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it
was a willful decision."
Hasan: "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the
Muslim Brotherhood?"
Flynn: "It was a willful decision to do what they're doing."
Holding up a paper copy of the 2012 DIA report declassified through FOIA, Hasan read aloud
key passages such as, "there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared
Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the
opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."
Rather than downplay the importance of the document and these startling passages, as did
the State Department soon after its release, Flynn did the opposite: he confirmed that while
acting DIA chief he "paid very close attention" to this report in particular and later added
that "the intelligence was very clear."
Lt. Gen. Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, is the highest ranking intelligence
official to go on record saying the United States and other state sponsors of rebels in Syria
knowingly gave political backing and shipped weapons to Al-Qaeda in order to put pressure on
the Syrian regime:
Hasan: "In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups
[Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you're
worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?"
Flynn: "I hate to say it's not my job but that my job was to was to to ensure that the
accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be."
Flynn unambiguously confirmed that the 2012 DIA document served as source material in his
own discussions over Syria policy with the White House. Flynn served as Director of Intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC)
during a time when its prime global mission was dismantling Al-Qaeda.
Flynn's admission that the White House was in fact arming and bolstering Al-Qaeda linked
groups in Syria is especially shocking given his stature. The Pentagon's former highest ranking intelligence officer in charge of the hunt for Osama
bin Laden confessed that the United States directly aided the Al Qaeda terrorist legions of
Ayman al-Zawahiri beginning in at least 2012 in Syria.
Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:44 pm
Mehdi Hasan goes Head to Head with Michael Flynn, former head of the US Defense
Intelligence Agency
"Flynn would later tell the New York Times that this 2012 intelligence report in
particular was seen at the White House where it was 'disregarded' because it 'didn't meet the
narrative' on the war in Syria. He would further confirm to investigative journalist Seymour
Hersh that Defense Department (DoD) officials and DIA intelligence in particular, were loudly
warning the administration that jihadists were leading the opposition in Syria -- warnings
which were met with 'enormous pushback.' Instead of walking back his Al Jazeera comments,
General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were
producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative
report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the
covert program in Syria.
"In a personal exchange on his blog Sic Semper Tyrannis, legendary DoD intelligence
officer and former presidential briefer Pat Lang explained [ ] that the DIA memo was used as
a 'warning shot across the [administration's] bow.' Lang has elsewhere stated that DIA
Director Flynn had 'tried to persuade people in the Obama Administration not to provide
assistance to the Nusra group.' It must be remembered that in 2012 what would eventually
emerge as distinct 'ISIS' and 'Nusra' (AQ in Syria) groups was at that time a singular entity
desiring a unified 'Islamic State.' The nascent ISIS organization (referenced in the memo as
'ISI' or Islamic State in Iraq) was still one among many insurgent groups fighting to topple
Assad.
"In fact, only one year after the DIA memo was produced (dated August 12, 2012) a
coalition of rebels fighting under the US-backed Revolutionary Military Council of Aleppo
were busy celebrating their most strategic victory to date, which served to open an
opposition corridor in Northern Syria. The seizure of the Syrian government's Menagh Airbase
in August 2013 was only accomplished with the military prowess of fighters identifying
themselves in front of cameras and to reporters on the ground as the Islamic State of Iraq
and al-Sham.
"Public embarrassment came for Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford who reluctantly confirmed
that in fact, yes, the US-funded and supplied FSA commander on the ground had personally led
ISIS and Nusra fighters in the attack (Ford himself was previously filmed alongside the
commander). This after the New York Times publicized unambiguous video proof of the fact.
Even the future high commander of Islamic State's military operations, Omar al-Shishani,
himself played a leading role in the US sponsored FSA operation."
"one first needs to understand what has happened in Syria and other Middle Eastern
countries in recent years. The original plan of the US and Saudi Arabia (behind whom stood an
invisible Israel) was the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad and his replacement with Islamic
fundamentalists or takfiris (Daesh, al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra).
"The plan involved the following steps:
sweep away a strong secular Arab state with a political culture, armed forces and
security services;
generate total chaos and horror in Syria that would justify the creation of Israel's
'security zone', not only in Golan Heights, but also further north;
start a civil war in Lebanon and incite takfiri violence against Hezbollah, leading
to them both bleeding to death and then create a "security zone", this time in Lebanon;
prevent the creation of a "Shiite axis" of Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon;
continue the division of Syria along ethnic and religious lines, establish an
independent Kurdistan and then to use them against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
give Israel the opportunity to become the unquestioned major player in the region and
force Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and everyone else to apply for permission from Israel
in order to implement any oil and gas projects;
gradually isolate, threaten, undermine and ultimately attack Iran with a wide
regional coalition, removing all Shiite centers of power in the middle East.
"It was an ambitious plan, and the Israelis were completely convinced that the United
States would provide all the necessary resources to see it through. But the Syrian government
has survived thanks to military intervention by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Daesh is almost
defeated and Iran and Hezbollah are so firmly entrenched in Syria that it has driven the
Israelis into a state of fear bordering on panic. Lebanon remains stable, and even the recent
attempt by the Saudis to abduct Prime Minister Saad Hariri failed.
"As a result, Saudi Arabia and Israel have developed a new plan: force the US to attack
Iran. To this end, the 'axis of good"' (USA-Israel-Saudi Arabia) was created, although this
is nothing new. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab States in the Persian Gulf have in the past
spoken in favor of intervention in Syria. It is well known that the Saudis invaded Bahrain,
are occupying it de facto, and are now at war in Yemen.
"The Israelis will participate in any plan that will finally split the Sunnis and Shiites,
turning the region into rubble. It was not by chance that, having failed in Lebanon, they are
now trying to do the same in Yemen after the murder of Ali Abdullah Saleh.
"For the Saudis and Israelis, the problem lies in the fact that they have rather weak
armed forces; expensive and high-tech, but when it comes to full-scale hostilities,
especially against a really strong opponent such as the Iranians or Hezbollah, the
'Israel/Wahhabis' have no chance and they know it, even if they do not admit it. So, one
simply needs to think up some kind of plan to force the Shiites to pay a high price.
"So they developed a new plan. Firstly, the goal is now not the defeat of Hezbollah or
Iran. For all their rhetoric, the Israelis know that neither they nor especially the Saudis
are able to seriously threaten Iran or even Hezbollah. Their plan is much more basic:
initiate a serious conflict and then force the US to intervene. Only today, the armed forces
of the United States have no way of winning a war with Iran, and this may be a problem. The
US military knows this and they are doing everything to tell the neo-cons 'sorry, we just
can't.' This is the only reason why a US attack on Iran has not already taken place. From the
Israeli point of view this is totally unacceptable and the solution is simple: just force the
US to participate in a war they do not really need. As for the Iranians, the Israeli goal of
provoking an attack on Iran by the US is not to defeat Iran, but just to bring about
destruction – a lot of destruction [ ]
"You would need to be crazy to attack Iran. The problem, however, is that the Saudis and
the Israelis are close to this state. And they have proved it many times. So it just remains
to hope that Israel and the KSA are 'crazy', but 'not that crazy'."
The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to
Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the
suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no
one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection.
That it
conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no
dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's
comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course,
there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to
dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions".
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:24 pm
There WAS dissension within the Pentagon, not only about being in a coalition with the
Gulf States and Turkey in support of terrorist forces, but about allowing ISIS to invade
Ramadi, which CENTCOM exposed by making public that US forces watched it happen and did
nothing. In addition, CENTCOM and SOCOM publicly opposed switching sides in Yemen.
A senior commander at Central Command (CENTCOM), speaking on condition of anonymity,
scoffed at that argument. "The reason the Saudis didn't inform us of their plans," he said,
"is because they knew we would have told them exactly what we think -- that it was a bad
idea.
Military sources said that a number of regional special forces officers and officers at
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) argued strenuously against supporting the Saudi-led
intervention because the target of the intervention, the Shia Houthi movement -- which has
taken over much of Yemen and which Riyadh accuses of being a proxy for Tehran -- has been
an effective counter to Al-Qaeda.
The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That
is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the
CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to
AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has
been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces.
Thanks, I never read anything about it in the MSM (perhaps Aljazeera was an exception?).
However, this doesn't explain Gen. Flynn's tight relationship with Turkey's Erdogan who
clearly backed the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels to the point of shooting down a Russian jet
over Syria.
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:57 am
The fighter shoot-down incident was before Erdogan's reversals in Syria policy.
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:28 pm
I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the
Salafist Islamic state with alarm.
B. THE SALAFIST, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE
INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.
C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA, AND
IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.
C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR
UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY
WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME,
WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN).
D. THE DETERIORATION OF THE SITUATION HAS DIRE CONSEQUENCES ON THE IRAQI SITUATION AND
ARE AS FOLLOWS:
–1. THIS CREATES THE IDEAL ATMOSPHERE FOR AQI TO RETURN TO ITS OLD POCKETS IN
MOSUL AND RAMADI, AND WILL PROVIDE A RENEWED MOMENTUM UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF UNIFYING THE
JIHAD AMONG SUNNI IRAQ AND SYRIA ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION
WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN
REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY
Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed
that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian
leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in
control of the opposition. Turkey wasn't doing enough to stop the smuggling of foreign
fighters and weapons across the border. 'If the American public saw the intelligence we
were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic,' Flynn told me.
'We understood Isis's long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the
fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State
inside Syria.' The DIA's reporting, he said, 'got enormous pushback' from the Obama
administration. 'I felt that they did not want to hear the truth.'
j. D. D. , December 9, 2017 at 8:33 am
Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take
much to see why he was targeted. Ironically, the MSM is now going bananas over his support
for nuclear power in the region, which he had tied to desalination of sea water, toward
alleviating that crucial source of conflict in the area.
Abbybwood , December 9, 2017 at 11:24 pm
I believe Wesley Clark told Amy Goodman that he was handed the classified memo regarding
the U.S. overthrowing seven countries in five years starting with Iraq and ending with Iran,
in 2001, not 2006. He said it was right after 9/11 when he visited the Pentagon and Joint
Chief of Staff's office and was handed the memo.
jaycee , December 8, 2017 at 7:19 pm
The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back
to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on
9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of
Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" –
covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is
highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic.
One disturbing common feature across the years have been US sponsored airlifts of Islamist
fighters facing defeat, as seen in Afghanistan in late 2001 and just recently in eastern
Syria. In 2001, some of those fighters were relocated to North Africa, specifically Mali
– the roots of the Islamist insurgency which has destabilized that country over the
past few years. Where exactly the ISIS rebels assisted some weeks ago were relocated is yet
unknown.
turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:03 pm
Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the
marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create
internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US,
who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist
including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union.
Hence the birth of the Mujaheddin and Bin Laden, the rest is history.
j. D. D. , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm
The article does not support the sub-headline. There is no evidence provided, nor is there
any evidence to be found, that Washington's policy in the region was motivated by anything
other than geopolitical objectives.
David G , December 9, 2017 at 7:25 am
I think that phrasing may point to the hand of editor Robert Parry. The incredible value
of CN notwithstanding, Parry in his own pieces (erroneously in my eyes) maintains a belief
that Obama somehow meant well. Hence the imputation of some "naïve" but ultimately
benevolent motive on the part of the U.S. genocidaires, as the whole Syria catastrophe got
going on Obama's watch.
Anon , December 9, 2017 at 9:14 am
The imputation of naivete works to avoid accusation of a specific strategy without
sufficient evidence.
Skip Scott , December 9, 2017 at 9:45 am
Although I am no fan of Obama, and most especially the continuation of the warmongering
for his 8 years, he did balk at the "Red line" when he found out he was being set up, and it
wasn't Assad who used chemical weapons. I don't think he "meant well" so much as he knew the
exact length of his leash. His bragging about going against "The Washington playbook" was of
course laughable; just as his whole hopey/changey thing was laughable with Citigroup picking
his cabinet.
All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no
business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of
humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in
destroying life on Earth.
"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the
naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better,
explains Daniel Lazare." What a load of old rubbish, naïve belief indeed. it is difficult to believe that
anyone could write this stuff with a straight face.
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:37 pm
Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that
trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the
industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg.
Zachary Smith , December 8, 2017 at 11:37 pm
That Gary Gambill character "outed" himself as a Zionist on September 4 of this year. He
appears to have mastered the propaganda associated with the breed. At the link see if
you can find any mention of the murders, thefts, ethnic cleansing, or apartheid of his
adopted nation. Blaming the victim may be this fellow's specialty. Sample:
The well-intentioned flocked in droves to the belief that Israeli- Palestinian peace was
achievable provided Israel made the requisite concessions, and that this would liberate the
Arab-Islamic world from a host of other problems allegedly arising from it: bloated
military budgets, intolerance of dissent, Islamic extremism, you name it.
Why tackle each of these problems head on when they can be alleviated all at once when
Israel is brought to heel? Twenty years later, the Middle East is suffering the
consequences of this conspiracy of silence.
The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars
and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate
people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have
been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well.
Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to
think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long
enough and it becomes the truth.
It takes courage to go against the flow of course and one can only hope that the Americans
are what they think they are: courageous and strong enough to hear their cherished truths
smashed, allow the scales before their eyes to fall and practise free speech and free
thought.
Theo , December 9, 2017 at 6:35 am
Thanks for this article and many others on this site.In Europe and in Germany you hardly
hear,read or see any of these facts and their connections.It seems to be only of marginal
interest.
The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major
incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large
collection of links for compiled evidence:
http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292
triekc , December 9, 2017 at 8:27 am
This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda
news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy
of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global
hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without
question, in the face of many unanswered questions.
Beginning in the 1990's, neocons who
would become W's cabinet, wrote detailed plans of military regime change in Middle East, but
stating they needed a "strong external shock to the United States -- a latter-day 'Pearl
Harbor", to get US sheeple to support increased militarism and global war. Few months after W
took office, and had appointed those war mongering neocons to positions of power, Bin Laden
(CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi
Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We
accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who
attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire
would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a
"conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated
Joe Tedesky , December 9, 2017 at 11:27 am
You commented on what I was thinking, and that was, 'remember when al Queda was our enemy
on 911'? So now that bin Laden is dead, and his al Queda now fights on our side, shouldn't
the war be over? And, just for the record who did attack us on 911?
So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of
money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war.
It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In
fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not
posting any comments here, either.
Knowing the Pentagon mentality they probably have an 'al Queda combat medal' to pin on the
terrorists chest. Sarcasm I know, but seriously is anything not within the realm of
believable when it comes to this MIC establishment?
Christene Bartels , December 9, 2017 at 8:53 am
Great article and spot on as far as the author takes it. But the world is hurtling towards
Armageddon so I'd like to back things up about one hundred years and get down to brass
tacks.
The fact of the matter is, the M.E. has never been at total peace but it has been nothing
but one colossal FUBAR since the Ottoman Empire was defeated after WWI and the Allied Forces
got their grubby, greedy mitts on its M.E. territories and all of that luscious black gold.
First up was the British Empire and France and then it really went nuclear (literally) in
1946 when Truman and the U.S. joined in the fun and decided to figure out how we could carve
out that ancient prime piece of real estate and resurrect Israel. By 1948 ..violà
..there she was.
So now here we sit as the hundred year delusion that we knew what the hell we were doing
comes crashing down around us. Seriously, whoever the people have been who thought that a
country with the historical perspective of a toddler was going to be able to successfully
manage and manipulate a region filled with people who are still tribal in perspective and are
still holding grudges and settling scores from five thousand years ago were complete and
total arrogant morons. Every single one of them. Up to the present moment.
Which gets me down to those brass tacks I alluded to at the beginning of my comment.
Delusional crusades lead by arrogant morons always, always, always end up as ash heaps. So, I
would suggest we all prepare for that rapidly approaching conclusion accordingly. For me,
that means hitting my knees.
Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 1:00 pm
Middle Eastern people are no more "tribal" or prone to holding grudges than any other
people. Middle Eastern people have exhibited and practiced peaceful and tolerant living
arrangements within several different contexts over the centuries. Iraq had a fairly thriving
middle class and the Syrians are a cultured and educated people.
Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 10:07 pm
Syrian society is constructed very much within the construct of close family ties and a
sense of a Syrian homeland. It is solely the business of the Syrian people to decide whether
the socialist Ba'ath government functions according to their own sense of realities and
standards. Some of those realities may include aspects of a necessitated national security
state (necessitated by CIA and Israeli subterfuge) that prompts shills to immediately
characterize the Assad government as "an authoritarian regime" and of course that's all you
need to know. Part of what pisses the West off about the Syrians is that they are so
competent, and that includes their intelligence and security services. One of the other parts
is the socialist example of government functioning in interests of the general population,
not selling out to vultures.
It bothers me that Mr. Lazare wrote: "Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in
this affair." Really? Well the Syrian government can hardly be blamed for the vile strategy
of using terrorist mercenaries to take or destroy a people's homeland–killing horrific
numbers of fathers, mothers, and children on the way to establish some kind of Wild West
control over Damascus that can then be manipulated for the typical elite deviances. What was
purposely planned and visited upon the Syrian people has had human consequences that were
known and disregarded by the planners. It has been and continues to be a grave crime against
our common humanity that should be raised to the roof of objection! People like Gambill
should be excoriated for their crass appraisal of human costs .and for their contrived and
twisted rationalizations and deceits. President Assad recently gave an interview to teleSUR
that is worth a listen. He talks about human costs with understanding for what he is talking
about. Gambill doesn't give a damn.
BASLE , December 9, 2017 at 10:46 am
From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in
the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy
for the Realm".
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:08 am
Yes, Israel is the cut-out or fence for US politicians stealing campaign money from the
federal budget.
US policy is that of the bribery sources and nothing else. And it believes that to be
professional competence.
For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack
all who disagree.
"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the
naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better,
explains Daniel Lazare."
Lazare makes the case very well about our amoral foreign policy but I think he errs in
saying our aim was to "transform the region for the better." Recent history, going back to
Afghanistan shows a very different goal, to defeat our enemies and the enemies of our allies
with little concern for the aftermath. Just observing what has happened to the people where
we supported extremists is evidence enough.
Peace on Earth, Goodwill toward men. We hope the conscience of our nation is bothered by
our behavior but we know that is not true, and we sleep very well, thank you.
Marilyn Vogt-Downey , December 9, 2017 at 11:18 am
I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US
imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy
entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand
that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the
next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No!
US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate
the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private
profit.
There is ample evidence–see the Brookings Institute study among many
others–that the Gulf monarchies–flunkies of US imperialism–who "host"
dozens of US military bases in the region, some of them central to US war
strategy–initiated and nourished and armed and financed the "jihadi armies" in Syria
AND Libya AND elsewhere; they did not do this on their own. The US government–the
executive committee of the US ruling class–does not naively support the Gulf monarchies
because it doesn't know any better! Washington (following British imperialism) organized,
established and backed these flunky regimes. They are autocratic, antediluvian regimes,
allowing virtually civil rights, with no local proletariat to speak of, no popular base. They
are no more than sheriffs for imperialism in that region of the world, along with the Zionist
state of Israel, helping imperialism do the really dirty work.
Look at the evidence. Stop the totally foolish assessment that the US government spends
all this money on a war machine just to "naively" blunder into wars that level entire
nations–and is not taking on destruction of the entire continent of Africa to eliminate
any obstacles to its domination.
No! That is foolish and destructive. Unless we look in the face what is going on–the
US government since its "secret" intervention in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s, has
recruited, trained, armed, funded and relied on jihadi armies to unseat regimes and
destabilize and destroy populations and regimes the US government wants to overthrow, and
destroy, any that could potentially develop into an alternative model of nationalist,
bourgeois industrial development on any level.
Wake up!!! The evidence is there. There is no reason to bumble and bungle along as if we
are in the dark.
Randal Marlin , December 9, 2017 at 11:26 am
Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government
to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's
enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy
states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria
and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking.
The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic
consequences.
Behind all this is the thinking that the survival of Israel outweighs anything else in any
global ethical calculus.
Those who don't accept this moral premise but who believe in supporting the survival of
Israel have their work cut out for them.
This work would be made easier if the U.S. population saw clearly what was going on, instead
of being preoccupied with salacious sexual misconduct stories or other distractions.
Zachary Smith , December 9, 2017 at 2:43 pm
A Russian interceptor has been scrambled to stop a rogue US fighter jet from actively
interfering with an anti-terrorist operation, the Russian Defense Ministry said. It also
accused the US of provoking close encounters with the Russian jets in Syria.
A US F-22 fighter was preventing two Russian Su-25 strike aircraft from bombing an
Islamic State (IS, former ISIS) base to the west of the Euphrates November 23, according to
the ministry. The ministry's spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov described the
episode as yet another example of US aircraft attempts to prevent Russian forces from
carrying out strikes against Islamic State.
"The F-22 launched decoy flares and used airbrakes while constantly maneuvering [near
the Russian strike jets], imitating an air fight," Konashenkov said. He added that the US
jet ceased its dangerous maneuvers only after a Russian Su-35S fighter jet joined the two
strike planes.
If this story is true, then it illustrates a number of things. First, the US is still
providing ISIS air cover. Second, either the F-22 pilot or his commander is dumber than dirt.
The F-22 may be a fine airplane, but getting into a contest with an equally fine non-stealth
airplane at eyeball distances means throwing away every advantage of the super-expensive
stealth.
Israel obtained operational nuclear weapons capability by 1967, with the mass production
of nuclear warheads occurring immediately after the Six-Day War. In addition to the Israeli
nuclear arsenal, Israel has offensive chemical and biological warfare stockpiles.
Israel, the Middle East's sole nuclear power, is not a signatory to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In 2015, the US-based Institute for Science and International Security estimated that
Israel had 115 nuclear warheads. Outside estimates of Israel's nuclear arsenal range up to
400 nuclear weapons.
Israeli nuclear weapons delivery mechanisms include Jericho 3 missiles, with a range of
4,800 km to 6,500 km (though a 2004 source estimated its range at up to 11,500 km), as well
as regional coverage from road mobile Jericho 2 IRBMs.
Additionally, Israel is believed to have an offshore nuclear capability using
submarine-launched nuclear-capable cruise missiles, which can be launched from the Israeli
Navy's Dolphin-class submarines.
The Israeli Air Force has F-15I and F-16I Sufa fighter aircraft are capable of delivering
tactical and strategic nuclear weapons at long distances using conformal fuel tanks and
supported by their aerial refueling fleet of modified Boeing 707's.
In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Dimona, fled to the United Kingdom and
revealed to the media some evidence of Israel's nuclear program and explained the purposes of
each building, also revealing a top-secret underground facility directly below the
installation.
The Mossad, Israel's secret service, sent a female agent who lured Vanunu to Italy, where
he was kidnapped by Mossad agents and smuggled to Israel aboard a freighter. An Israeli court
then tried him in secret on charges of treason and espionage, and sentenced him to eighteen
years imprisonment.
At the time of Vanunu's kidnapping, The Times reported that Israel had material for
approximately 20 hydrogen bombs and 200 fission bombs by 1986. In the spring of 2004, Vanunu
was released from prison, and placed under several strict restrictions, such as the denial of
a passport, freedom of movement limitations and restrictions on communications with the
press. Since his release, he has been rearrested and charged multiple times for violations of
the terms of his release.
Safety concerns about this 40-year-old reactor have been reported. In 2004, as a
preventive measure, Israeli authorities distributed potassium iodide anti-radiation tablets
to thousands of residents living nearby. Local residents have raised concerns regarding
serious threats to health from living near the reactor.
According to a lawsuit filed in Be'er Sheva Labor Tribunal, workers at the center were
subjected to human experimentation in 1998. According to Julius Malick, the worker who
submitted the lawsuit, they were given drinks containing uranium without medical supervision
and without obtaining written consent or warning them about risks of side effects.
In April 2016 the U.S. National Security Archive declassified dozens of documents from
1960 to 1970, which detail what American intelligence viewed as Israel's attempts to
obfuscate the purpose and details of its nuclear program. The Americans involved in
discussions with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and other Israelis believed the country was
providing "untruthful cover" about intentions to build nuclear weapons.
mike k , December 9, 2017 at 6:38 pm
The machinations of those seeking to gain advantages for themselves by hurting others, are
truly appalling. If we fail to name evil for what it is, then we fail as human beings.Those
who look the other way as their country engages in an organized reign of terror, are
complicit in that enormous crime.
Den Lille Abe , December 9, 2017 at 8:54 pm
The path the US has chosen since the end of WWII has been over dead bodies. In the name of
"security", bringing "Freedom" and "Democracy" and complete unconstrained greed it has
trampled countless nations into piles of rubble.
To say it is despised or loathed is an overwhelming understatement. It is almost universally
hated in the third world. Rightly.
Bringing this monstrosity to a halt is a difficult task, and probably cannot be done
militarily without a nuclear war, economically could in the end have the same outcome, then
how?
Easy! Ruin its population. This process has started, long ago.
The decline in the US of health, general wealth, nutrition, production, education, equality,
ethics and morals is already showing as cracks in the fabrics of the US.
A population of incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies, armed to teeth with guns, in a
country with a crumbling infrastructure, full of environmental disasters is 21 st century for
most Americans.
In all the areas I mentioned the US is going backwards compared to most other countries.
So the monster will come down.
turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:20 pm
I think you are being a little hard on the incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies,
armed to teeth with guns
I am not sure who is more loathsome the evangelicals who were supporting the Bush / Cheney
cabal murderous wars until the bitter end or the liberal intelligentsia careerist
cheerleaders for Obama and Hilary's Wars in Iraq and Syria, who also dont give a damn about
another Arab country being destroyed and sold into slavery as long as Hillary gets elected.
At least with the former group, you can chalk it up to a lack of education.
Linda Wood , December 10, 2017 at 1:52 am
This is possibly the most intelligent and hopeful discussion I have read since 9/11. It
says that at least some Americans do see that we have a fascist cell in our government. That
is the first step in finding a way to unplug it. Best wishes to all of you who have written
here. We will find a way to put war out of business.
Barbara van der Wal-Kylstra , December 10, 2017 at 2:46 am
I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan,
with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to
attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame
the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r?
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:18 am
Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived
for the zionists.
Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had
to be opposed.
The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists
for Mideast wars.
Luutzen , December 10, 2017 at 9:15 am
Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian
pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total
destruction. Easy.
mike k , December 10, 2017 at 11:05 am
The US Military is part of the largest terrorist organization on Earth. For the super rich
and powerful rulers of that US Mafia, the ignorant religious fanatics and other tools of
Empire are just pawns in their game of world domination and universal slavery for all but
themselves. These monsters of evil delight in profiting from the destruction of others; but
their insatiable greed for more power will never be satisfied, and will become the cause of
the annihilation of every living thing – including themselves. But like other sold out
human addicts, at this point they don't really care, and will blindly pursue their nightmare
quest to the very end – and perhaps they secretly hope that that final end of
everything will at last quench their burning appetite for blood and gold.
Joe Tedesky , December 10, 2017 at 11:12 am
I'm leaving a link to a very long David Swanson article, where Mr Swanson goes into quite
a lot of detail to how the U.S. wages war.
What's interesting of course is how not just Washington, but much of the 'left' also
cheered on the jihadists.
Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and
'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant
Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has
been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just
like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total
disgrace?
"... The agreement -- signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to [DNC lawyer] Marc Elias -- specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. ..."
"... A second difference in substance: Let's remember that for Clinton, the JFA enabled her campaign to circumvent contribution limits for large donors (Brazile: "Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400"). The Sanders campaign , by contrast, had no issue with maxed out donors: "During fall '15, 99.8% of Bernie donors could give again" (because it's awful hard to max out $27 at a time). ..."
"... That's pretty amazing, isn't it? Personnel is policy, as they say, and the Clinton campaign has made sure that the DNC's Communications Director and new hires in the senior staff in the communications, technology, and research departments will be acceptable to it. The Clinton campaign will also review all mass email and communcations (which explains why Brazile, as interim DNC chair, couldn't send out a press release without checking with Brooklyn. Since the notorious debate schedule was already controlled by Wasserman Schultz, there was no point messing about with it, I assume.) There is one place in this passage where the general election is mentioned, so let's look at it: ..."
"... Second, the DNC itself does not ..."
"... But I'd like to know how far up the editorial totem poles the fix went and how it was achieved. ..."
"... It has been a while since I handled a criminal defense case, but I am not sure that the agreement is not in fact, criminal. When the Sanders for President campaign signed an agreement and paid money in consideration of getting access to the voter file and when the state parties agreed to merge their fundraising efforts with the DNC and HFA, the commercial fraud laws applied to that relationship. Since the fundraising was done using interstate phone calls, letters, and emails and the voter file access was provided by electronic transmissions from servers in DC to end users in Burlington, Vermont that includes 18 USC 1341, 1343 and 1346 (mail, wire and honest services fraud). These laws do not just ban outright lying, but also the concealment of material facts that one has a duty to disclose. ..."
"... The DNC got into the position of selling themselves to the Clintons as they were $20 million in debt, right? I have read that the major reason for these debts was that the DNC had not shrunk itself since the last campaign and was paying out a ton of money for consultants doing Christ knows what. In fact, Obama also used the DNC to support a stack of his consultants as well as grifters gotta grift, right? ..."
"... My question is whether this was a deliberate ploy on Obama and the Clinton factions to put the DNC into such a vulnerable position before 2016 came along that when the time came, they had to take up an offer that they could not refuse. I have not heard if Obama has made any comments on this fiasco that took place on his watch and it seems nobody wants to call him out on it. In the Brazile case, it is not a matter of following the money but following the lack of money. ..."
"... "Both sides in the Democratic Party's current faction fight, as I see it, are in denial about the true nature and scope of the problem "Both responses are essentially utopian: They rest on the premise that the Democratic Party is still a functioning political organization and that the United States is still a functioning democracy." ..."
Long-time Democratic[1] operative Donna Brazile, interim chair of the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) after Debbie Wasserman Schultz was defenestrated[2], has, like two otherparticipants in
the 2016 Presidential election and at least one set of
observers , written a book, Hacked , and published a long excerpt from it four
days ago, in Politico
. Here is the key passage, in which Brazile paraphrases and quotes a conversation with Gary
Gensler, former of Goldman Sachs and the CFTC, and then the chief financial officer of the
Clinton campaign:
[Gensler] described the party as fully under the control of Hillary's campaign
, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life
support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using
the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a
maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for
contributions to state parties and a party's national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write
an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund -- that figure
represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states' parties who were part of the Victory Fund
agreement -- $320,000 -- and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states
first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states
usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the
DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
Yes, you read that right. Although the Hillary Victory Fund was billed as aiding the states,
in fact the states were simply pass-throughs, and the money went to the Clinton campaign. (This
is not news;
Politico covered the Victory Fun in 2016 : "The Democratic front-runner says she's raising
big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60
million raised.")
"Wait," I said. "That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the
state party races. You're telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she
got the nomination?"
Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
"That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie," he explained, referring to campaign
manager Robby Mook. "It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from
September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election."
After some research, Brazile finds a document ("the agreement") that spells out what "fully
under the control of Hillary's campaign" meant operationally:
The agreement -- signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a
copy to [DNC lawyer] Marc Elias -- specified that in exchange for raising money and investing
in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised.
Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and
it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult
with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
I had been wondering why it was that I couldn't write a press release without passing it
by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.
(Importantly, Gensler has not disputed this account, of which, assuming he's not vacationing
Antarctica, he must have been aware of, given the media uproar. We can therefore assume its
accurate). Note two aspects of this passage, which I'm quoting at such length to ensure we know
what Brazile actually charged. I've helpfully underlined them: (1) Brazile leads with the
money; that is, the Clinton Victory Fund, and (2) Brazile describes the DNC as "fully under the
control" of the Clinton campaign.
Predictably, an enormous controversy erupted, much of it over the weekend just passed, but
I'm not going to do a blow-by-blow of the talking points. (Glenn Greenwald provides an
excellent media critique in
"Four Viral Claims Spread by Journalists on Twitter in the Last Week Alone That Are False
"; all four have to do with this controversy[3].) I think the following three quotes are key,
the first two being oft-repeated talking points by Clinton loyalists:
"The joint fundraising agreements were the same for each campaign except for
the treasurer, and our understanding was that the DNC offered all of the presidential
campaigns the opportunity to set up a JFA and work with the DNC to coordinate on how those
funds were used to best prepare for the general election."
Question: Were the agreements "the same" for each campaign? (Perez focuses only on the JFA,
but that omits a separate Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the DNC and the Clinton
campaign, as we shall see below.)
Second, from 2005-9 DNC chair Howard Dean:
Question: Did the agreement apply only to the general election, and not the primary? (Dean
says "this memo," but he also omits the distinction between the MOU and the JFA.)
"We learned today from the former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile
that the Clinton campaign, in her view, did rig the presidential nominating process by
entering into an agreement to control day-to-day operations at the DNC," Tapper said,
continuing on to describe specific arms of the DNC the Clinton camp had a say over, including
strategy and staffing, noting that the agreement was "entered into in August of 2015," months
before Clinton won the nomination .
Tapper then asked, "Do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?" And
Warren responded simply: "Yes."
Question: Can we say that the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged? (Tapper uses the word
"rigged," and Warren adopts it, but a careful reading of Brazile's article shows that although
she uses the word, she does not actually make the claim.[4])
In this post, I'm going to answer each of these three questions by looking at the documents,
plural, in question (Spoiler: My answers are "No," "No," and "Yes," respectively.) Here is a
timeline of the documents:
8/27/2015 (
reported ): The Clinton-DNC Joint Fundraising Agreement (JFA).
Available for download at
WikiLeaks, hilariously enough.
8/26/2015 (signed): The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU, or "memo").
Available for
download at MSNBC. The MOU
characterized by NBC as a "side deal," specifies how the JFA is to be implemented. Hence,
"the agreement" comprises both documents; the JFA cannot be understood without the MOU, and
vice versa.
11/5/2105 (
reported
): The Sanders-DNC Joint Fundraising Agreement. I can't find a copy online, but it's
described by ABC here . If there is an MOU that accompanies the Sanders JFA, it has not
come to light, and presumably, by this point, it would have.
In summary, the Clinton JFA set up the Hillary Victory Fund scam , the MOU gave
Clinton control of (much of) the DNC apparatus, and (
according to Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver ) the Sanders JFA bought their campaign
access to the DNC voter list, and was never used for fundraising because the DNC never asked
the campaign to do any. So to answer the our first question, we'll look at the JFA. To answer
the second, we'll look at the MOU. And to answer the third, we'll see how all the evidence
balances out.
Were the Agreements "the Same" for Each Campaign?
Perez is wrong. The agreements were not at all the same, either formally or
substantively.
Formally, the agreements were not the same because the Clinton JFA had an MOU (the "side
deal") and the Sanders JFA did not.
ABC :
[T]he Clinton campaign Friday afternoon confirmed the existence of a memo between the DNC
and their campaign, which specifically outlines an expanded scope and interpretation of their
funding agreement . [R]epresentatives from Sanders' former campaign say they only signed a
basic, formulaic fundraising agreement that did not include any additional language about
joint messaging or staffing decision-making [as does the MOU].
Substantively, the agreements weren't the same either. The substance of the JFA was a scheme
enable the Hillary Victory Fund to collect "big checks" (as Politico puts it), supposedly
behalf of the state parties, but in reality treating them as conduits to the coffers of the
Clinton campaign. Page 3:
From time to time and in compliance with FECA, after expenses have been deducted from the
gross proceeds, the Victory Fund will transfer the net proceeds to the Committees according
to the Allocation Formula, as modified by any reallocation required.
"[T]he Committees" being the state party political committees, into whose accounts the
contributions were deposited, only to be immediately removed and transferred to the Clinton
campaign (at least for the states that signed entered into the agreement; a few did not).
However, the Sanders campaign wasn't in the business of collecting "big checks," being
small-donor driven. Hence the substance of the agreement could not have been the same.
ABC once more :
Former Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told ABC News Friday night that the campaign
entered the agreement with the party in November 2015 to facilitate the campaign's access to
the party's voter rolls. Weaver claims the DNC offered to credit any fundraising the senator
did for the party against the costs of access to the party's data costs, priced at $250,000.
But, Weaver continued, the party did not follow up about fundraising appearances for the
independent senator.
Instead, the Sanders campaign raised the $250,000 from small donors.
WaPo :
Weaver said the Sanders campaign decided early on to ignore the joint fundraising program
and raise small dollars on its own to pay for access to the voter file. "Who are the wealthy
people Bernie was going to bring to a fundraiser?" Weaver asked. "We had to buy the voter
file right before the primaries."
A second difference in substance: Let's remember that for Clinton, the JFA enabled her
campaign to circumvent contribution limits for large donors (Brazile: "Individuals who had
maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for
$353,400"). The Sanders campaign , by
contrast, had no issue with maxed out donors: "During fall '15, 99.8% of Bernie donors could
give again" (because it's awful hard to max out $27 at a time).
Suppose you were comparing two mortgages on different houses: One mortgage has a side deal
attached, the other does not. One is for a lavish facility and demands a complex financing
arrangement involving a third party. The other is for a fixer-upper and a lump sum is paid in
cash. Would you say those two mortgages are "the same," or not? Even if they both had the word
"Mortage" at the top of page one?
Did the Agreement Apply Only to the General Election, and not the Primary?
We now turn our attention to the MOU. Howard Dean,
sadly , is wrong. The MOU contains two key passages; the first describes the relationship
between Hillary for America (HFA; the Clinton campaign) and the DNC (Brazile: "fully under the
control of Hillary's campaign"), and the second is language on the general election. Let's take
each in turn. On control, pages 1 and 2:
With respect to the hiring of a DNC Communications Director , the DNC agrees
that no later than September 11, 2015 it will hire one of two candidates previously
identified as acceptable to HFA.
2. With respect to the hiring of future DNC senior staff in the communications,
technology, and research departments , in the case of vacancy, the DNC will maintain
the authority to make the final decision as between candidates acceptable to HFA. 3.
Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over
strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election
related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research. The DNC will provide HFA
advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a
particular Democratic primary candidate . This does not include any communications
related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. The DNC
will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a
particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature .
That's pretty amazing, isn't it? Personnel is policy, as they say, and the Clinton campaign
has made sure that the DNC's Communications Director and new hires in the senior staff in the
communications, technology, and research departments will be acceptable to it. The Clinton
campaign will also review all mass email and communcations (which explains why Brazile, as
interim DNC chair, couldn't send out a press release without checking with Brooklyn. Since the
notorious debate schedule was already controlled by Wasserman Schultz, there was no point
messing about with it, I assume.) There is one place in this passage where the general election
is mentioned, so let's look at it:
Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over
strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general
election[-]related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research.
At the most generous reading, the Clinton campaign has "joint authority" with the DNC over
"strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures." At the narrowest reading, given
that the "general-election[-]related qualifier applies only to "communications," the joint
authority applies to "strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and data,
technology, analytics, and research." And given that the Clinton campaign is writing the checks
that keep the DNC afloat, who do you think will have the whip hand in that "joint authority"
relationship?
Now to the clause that supposedly says the agreement (JFA + MOU) applies only to the general
election. Here it is, from page 3:
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of
impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed
under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and
not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with
other candidates
(Pause for hollow laughter, given Wasserman Schultz's defenestration, Brazile passing debate
questions to the Clinton campaign, etc.). First, even though Hoho seems to think it's
exculpatory, the clause is an obvious fig leaf.
Glenn Greenwald explains :
DNC and Clinton allies pointed to the fact that the agreement contained self-justifying
lawyer language claiming that it is "focused exclusively on preparations for the General,"
but
as Fischer noted that passage "is contradicted by the rest of the agreement." This would
be like creating a contract to explicitly bribe an elected official ("A will pay Politician B
to vote YES on Bill X"), then adding a throwaway paragraph with a legalistic disclaimer that
"nothing in this agreement is intended to constitute a bribe," and then have journalists cite
that paragraph to proclaim that no bribe happened even though the agreement on its face
explicitly says the opposite.
Second, the DNC itself does not believe that it has any "obligation of impartiality
and neutrality" whatever. From Wilding et al. v. DNC Services Corporation, D/B/A Democratic
National Committee and Deborah "Debbie" Wasserman Schultz (as cited
in Naked Capitalism here ), the DNC's lawyer, Mr. Spiva:
MR. SPIVA: [W}here you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our
standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are
voluntarily deciding, we could have -- and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look,
we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that
way . That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also
been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party
politics to answer those questions.
Third, look at the institutional realities from point one on control. The Clinton campaign
had control over the Communications Director slot and major strategic decisions from
the moment the agreement was signed. Are we really to believe that they were behaving as
neutral parties? (One obvious way to have shown that would have been to release the MOU either
when it was signed.)
Can We Say that the 2016 Democratic Primary Was Rigged?
I found no evidence, none whatsoever. 'The only thing I found, which I said, I've found
the cancer but I'm not killing the patient,' was this memorandum that prevented the DNC from
running its own operation," Brazile added
I think Brazile is either overly charitable, or overly legalistic (perhaps confusing
"rigged" with "fixed," where only in the latter case is the outcome absolutely determined). I
also think she's wrong. The
dictionary definition of rigged is:
to manipulate fraudulently
There's ample evidence of rigging in both the JFA and the MOU. The JFA enabled the Hillary
Victory Fund, which was a fraudulent scheme to allow big donors to contribute to the Clinton
campaign by using the states as passthroughs. And the MOU enabled to Clinton campaign to
fraudulently manipulate the public and the press into the belief that the DNC was an
independent entity, when in fact it was a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the Clinton
campaign.
Conclusion
I know
we're not supposed to "relitigate" the 2016 campaign ; we're supposed to look forward and
not back. However, the demand not to "relitigate" assumes that the case is closed; as Brazile
shows, we're hardly through with the depositions, let alone prepared to render judgment. So,
when you hear "relitigate," think "silencing tactic," and ask yourself who and what silence
serves. And perhaps this post will provide a basis for further discussion. 119
comments
Likewise, confirms my decision to wash my hands of the party. If, by some miracle, a
candidate acceptable to my priorities is nominated, I will still vote for him/her, but the
party isn't getting any default support or any $.
People need to stop conflating the DNC with the Democratic Party. I realized I was doing
so and stopped.
The DNC is an organization for raising money to support Democratic Party candidates for US
President; its subsidiaries are, of course, the DCCC and the DSCC. The only reason they have
power to dictate to the actual party is because they hold the purse strings. That
Bernie and others have run successful campaigns, to one degree or another, without their
"help" is one of the reasons they're fighting so hard to maintain the status quo. If they're
shown to be redundant, the power of those who currently run it evaporates.
Saying "I'll never vote Democrat again" is, as my sainted mother used to say, cutting off
your nose to spite your face. Right now, if we're going to at least slow down the rocketing
juggernaut that is GOP/plutocratic ownership of our governments, we need to elect progressive
candidates. There's no time to create a third party that can compete, so we need to vote for
the candidates who are advancing a non-neoliberal/neocon agenda whatever party they run
under. It's mostly Democrats, at the moment, but a social media acquaintance spoke of a
clearly progressive candidate running for a local office as a Republican because that's how
she's registered.
One of the ways the GOP was so successful in conning the working people and small business
owners and others into buying their hogwash was by demonizing "the Democrats." Now, their
message that "Democrats" are nothing but crazy-headed hippies who want to take their money
and give it to other people is so deeply ingrained it's a hard row to how convincing them
just how big a lie it is. Indeed, I suspect I shocked a raging right-winger the other day
when I told him we agreed about Obama and Clinton, because his Fox-muddled mind firmly
believes a Democrat thinks Obama rules the heavens.
If we don't "vote Democrat" in the upcoming primaries, then the establishment local and
state parties are going to throw more New Democrats against the GOP and lose. That can't
happen.
Yes, thank you! People need to vote for the progressive candidates in the Democratic
primaries. If they don't, then the establishment candidates will easily win, and the national
government will continue to be dominated by both Republican and Democratic lap dogs of the
billionaires. And if there are a few progressive Republicans out there, sure, vote for them,
too.
I often wonder whether some of the people who admonish us to stop voting for Democrats are
really employed by one of the many Koch brothers organizations. Not all of them, of course,
and I'm not making an accusation against anyone who is commenting here. But if people don't
vote for progressive Democrats, the billionaires and the corporate advocates of
financialization will win.
Of course, appearances can be deceptive: Obama ran as a progressive candidate .
As a quick ready-reckoner -- the more a candidate bloviates on Identity issues, the less
likely they are (should they be elected) to be "progressive" on issues of substance: the
economy, tax, war/imperialism
Right! Where are these progressive democrats? I would love to support one other than
Bernie Sanders (yes I know he is not perfect and he is too old). But they don't seem to exist
at the national level. There seem to be mayoral and other municipal candidates on the right
track – just have no idea how to move those ideas onto the state or national level.
Maybe I am just cranky and pessimistic right now.
TYT did several interviews of "Justice Democrats", newbies running on a progressive
platform. Some of the interviews you could see Cenk Uynger almost cringing, and the usually
voluble Jimmy Dore very quiet as the candidates lacked public speaking skills, and
demonstrating a probable lack of political smarts necessary to maneuver any bureaucracy.
Without trial by fire at lower levels, learning how to run a government and get results,
then there is no way to judge the candidates.
Unless candidates like Roza Calderon a faster learn that is
apparent at this point, they the Justice Democrats can only win when "anyone but him/her"
applies ,
So it was our apathy that did it. It was our moral failure. "Really," says Algernon, in The Importance of Being Earnest, "if the lower orders don't
set us a good example, what on earth is the use of them? They seem, as a class, to have
absolutely no sense of moral responsibility."
There's an important difference between being and voting Democrat. Actually, we already
have a defacto 3rd party, Independents/Unaffiliated, a larger block of voters than either
Republicans or Democrats.
With even greater numbers of Independents/Unaffiliated, we could be a force to be reckoned
with. Actually, we should recognize and own our power right now because we could decimate the
ranks of the Duopoly and make room for an actual third party. We can still vote for Democrats
of course, but they'll realize that they can't continue to take our votes for granted.
There's actually no good reason to remain a registered Democrat. You can still vote for
Democrats as an Independent/Unaffiliated voter. It's only for some presidential primaries and
caucuses that party registration is a limitation. If you live in one of those states, you can
temporarily register as a Democrat to vote, then revert to independent/unaffiliated
afterwards. Other than that, all other elections are open without regard to affiliation.
The Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same bird of prey, and we're the prey
only because we haven't yet learned to fly to escape their talons. If we start owning our
power as free agents/Independent voters, that can change. While deep pocketed donors may have
the power to make the wheels turn for the Duopoly, those wheels can't go anywhere without our
votes. Since we don't have the power of money, we can at least exercise our political power
to stay out of their talons.
Independence is the way to fly. It's not just leverage, it's also the only way to clear
more space and demand for official third parties. Since the Duopoly refuses to change their
ways and repair the rigged system they created to keep only themselves in power, we can and
should abandon them in droves.
In order to vote in the New York State Democrat party primary you must be a registered
Democrat. In NY the primary is where most seats are won and lost. Being registered as a
Democrat is a necessary evil in some cases.
It has never been clear to me why a hostile takeover of the Democrats, followed by a
management purge and seizure of its assets, should be framed as "saving" the Democrat Party.
I think that's what a lot of Sanders people would like to do. It's also not clear to me why
people think the Democrats can simply be by-passed , and don't need to be assaulted,
and if from the inside, all the better.
As readers know, my experience with the Greens was poor (as it has been with others I have
talked to). This is especially sad since the GP in Maine had seemed to be viable. So, my fear
of the Greens is not fear of the un known, but fear of the known ; I worked
at dysfunctional non-profits before, and I don't need to do it again. Others, especially CP
activists, may differ in their experience, but that's mine. (Note that I was reinforced in my
priors by Stein's lawyer adopting the "Russian hacking" meme in Stein's post-election
lawsuits.)
if Bernie's primary campaign and support had been transferred to the Green Party, he
would have been a very serious contender,
I agree. But Sanders couldn't join the Green ticket, because he made a promise to support
the Democratic candidate, and unlike some politicians, he tries to keep his promises. So what did the Greens do? Instead of actively trying to gain the support of Sanders
primary voters, they nominated ideological purist Ajamu Baraka as their Vice Presidential
candidate, and he would not back down from unrealistic insulting criticism of Sanders. In
effect, the Greens chose to fail.
I am not interested in keeping the two party system. Either the country breaks apart, or we will have regional parties that can compete with
the Democrats and the Republicans.
How many clowns can dance on the head of a pin? Debating whether it feels better to have a
donkey or an elephant standing on your neck is a fools errand. Neither the Democrat or
Republican party is democratic or representative of any more than a handful of families from
the Billionaires Club. While they may favor different individuals in the ruling class,
neither faux-party has the slightest interest in the rabble who don't line their pockets and
provide protection against electoral defeat.
Elections are a stage managed charade in our kleptocracy. Expecting them to change
anything that matters, or alter the course of the Warfare State is pure delusion. First we
must have Collapse, then Chaos before we can have Change that we can believe in.
"First we must have Collapse, then Chaos before we can have Change that we can believe
in."
You are right -- although hopefully mere "crisis" will be sufficient for radical change
rather than complete collapse & chaos . Collapse & chaos may void any chance of
organised positive change. Having said that the signs are not good: see https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/06/the-ecosystem-is-breaking-down/
for the less than cheery news on ecosystem breakdown.
Both parties must be revealed unambiguously to the whole public as the completely morally
bankrupt, treasonous & vicious entities that socialists & progressives have known
them to be for decades.
The big problem with the Democrats is that they just kicked all the Progressives out and
actively oppose them. Voting for blue dogs doesn't get us anywhere.
You are correct about Carter. Zbigniew Brzezinski was a creature of the Rockefellers, and
he was Carter's Special Assistant for National Security. Prior to becoming President, Carter
was a member of the Trilateral Commission.
The rigging was obvious from the start. When nearly all the super delegates declared for
Clinton before a single primary was held, I read numerous reports that said the reason was
quid pro quo. The super delegates were to be given campaign money in exchange for their
support. The agreement proves it.
That, and what the DNC did to Bernie supporters during the convention, made me swear I'd
never give them a penny. I have only donated to specific candidates directly. Meanwhile, the
Dem establishment stubbornly remains clueless as to why it cannot regain the House and
Senate.
I have seen portions of the agreement (not sure if JFA or MOU) characterized as a "slush
fund" for consultants. Naturally, of course, but one might also wonder if that slush fund was
used to purchase any superdelegate votes. Pure speculation I didn't have time to run down, so
I left it on the cutting room floor.
G, a lot happened to Sanders supporters at the convention, too much to recap but you can
probably find stories about it. Many walked out but their seats were filled by paid
seat-fillers so the hall didn't look empty, also from what I understand paid seat-fillers
sometimes didn't let them take their seats. Signs were blocked, white noise was used to
muffle boos, etc.
Before the convention, many of the primaries had a lot of funny business (not all, I know
of no problems here in Texas). But California, Arizona, New York, Puerto Rico, Nevada and
others all had SERIOUS problems with things such as efforts to prevent Sanders supporters
from voting, questionable vote counting (such as at Nevada caucuses), efforts to make voting
difficult by having few poll places, etc., etc.
I think there were irregularities in Illinois, too. I recall that 6 counties did not have
enough Democratic ballots, and the Democratic Attorney General, a Clinton supporter, sued to
prevent voters in those counties from voting after election day. In Massachusetts, Bill Clinton illegally electioneered near or in a polling place. But the
authorities let him get away with it.
Great article Lambert. TheGreenwald article was helpful but yours is the icing on the
cake. Hopefully many will read this so that they do not get confused with all of the
Clintonista response to Brazile. Howard Dean must be suffering from early Alzheimer's to
write such a lie. But he has done it before.
It's hard for me to believe anyone can, with a straight face, suggest the 2 agreements are
equal.How can you have more than one agreement giving "the authority to make the final decision
" ??!!
Final means last, no? #corruptlosers
I know we're not supposed to "relitigate" the 2016 campaign; we're supposed to look
forward and not back. However, the demand not to "relitigate" assumes that the case is
closed; as Brazile shows, we're hardly through with the depositions, let alone prepared to
render judgment. So, when you hear "relitigate," think "silencing tactic," and ask yourself
who and what silence serves.
Well said. Regular contact with the centrist MSM recently is like being subjected to
hypnotism routines from 50s movies. "You are thinking forward, forward, forward. When I snap
my fingers you will feel fresh, eager to believe in the promises of the party of Franklin
Roosevelt and Barack Obama."
and yet FDR stood by while his own "Senator Sanders" – Henry Wallace was sidetracked
from his vice-presidency and legacy as FDR's successor (to the chagrin of Eleanor, among
many) by corporate dems James Byrnes, stooge for big oil and U.S. steel, who replaced Wallace
with Truman at 1944 dem convention
However, there certainly is no comparison, as you note, between obama's complete lack of
"transparency, oversight, accountability" regarding bush-cheney war crimes, Wall Street
frauds, destabilization of entire Middle-East, leading to republican trump administration,
and FDR
Most authors-historicans I have encountered believe FDR had no real idea how ill he
was
A while ago, I read a story about the DNC's misuse of unpaid interns. The story itself was
barfy enough, but what really shocked me was an aside asserting that even official elected
DNC members were barred from viewing the DNC's budget. ( http://paydayreport.com/unpaidinternsatdnc/
)
"Surely that can't be true," I said to myself. But it is! I looked up the DNC's charter
and bylaws and the standing budget committee is specifically exempted from article 9 section
12, which says that all official meetings of the DNC and its committees must be open to the
public and cannot involve voting by secret ballot. http://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.17.15.pdf
"WTF kind of an organization is this?!" I thought. How on earth is that even legal?
Well, after the Brazile disclosure of the Clinton MOU, I went back to look at the DNC
charter/bylaws. You'll note on the first page the date the current version was
adopted–2 days after the MOU was signed!
Anyone wanna take a bet that the budget committee carveout was one of things that was
changed?
jsba, suggest you use the Wayback machine or another internet archive and look at prior
historical copies of DNC charter/bylaws, to identify the changes. Could be very illuminating
as to (possible) criminal intent?
I was wrong about the budget committee carveout–it's in this version as well (still
completely insane!).
The fact that it was amended 2 days after the MOU is, obviously, still extremely
suspicious. I don't have time to, but the 2009 version would be useful to identify possible
changes.
As much as I'd like to switch parties (hah) so as to add to the greater numbers of fleeing
formerly party faithful, I'm in one of those 'closed primary' states. My vote is already
nearly worthless (though I exercise my right every chance I get); to switch to a third party
would make sure I'm both excluded from the more interesting local party contests AND drowned
out in national contests. Lose/lose. Maybe if something like Maine's (currently under attack)
Ranked Choice Voting existed all over, I'd be less sour about the whole thing.
Yeah, you need people like Lambert willing to do the work. It is exhausting keeping up
with the truths, half truths and lies promulgated in the press and trying to figure out what
is true and what isn't.
I find it interesting that the agreement involved control of the IT/data infrastructure of
the DNC. Doesn't the DNC administer the democratic party registry? And with that observation,
wasn't there a lot of illegal party switching that caused a problem for some Democrats voting
in party restricted primaries that had their registration switched, so that they couldn't
take part in the primaries. Wouldn't it be interesting if the switched parties were on the
DNC record as donating to Bernie's campaign? Fixed, indeed.
Manipulations of the deplorable superdelegate system, with its covert quid pro quo payoffs
after the Clintons take power, was part of a seamless fix. Premature coronation by media and
party wigs after primary victories in red states no Democrat would win in the general
election helped ice it.
Perhaps revelations will turn up on mainstream media, from the Sabbath Gasbags to NPR,
knifing Bernie with Hillary talking points at every opportunity, when he wasn't being
ignored. Thomas Frank wrote persuasively on WaPo's bias in Swat Team in Harper's, and there
have been tidbits on off-record Clinton media cocktail parties and such. But I'd like to know
how far up the editorial totem poles the fix went and how it was achieved. Certainly Jeff
Bezos has a Washington wish list. I marveled at how many journalists suddenly sounded like
breathless valley girl propagandists. And still do. What faster way to tank journalism's
credibility than that perception?
I guess that's why after catching headlines more of my reading time shifts to alternative
offerings such as those presented here.
But I'd like to know how far up the editorial totem poles the fix went and how it was
achieved.
I worked as a journalist in America for over a decade. I cannot stress enough how
unnecessary such a literal fix would be. (Though doubtless words were and are exchanged
between concerned parties when needed.)
The hive-mind position of most U.S. journalists -- and especially of editors, who tend to
be the most compliant with the power-structure and often the stupidest people in the room --
was (and is) an automatical default to unquestioning support -- even worship -- of the
Democratic Party, its elite, and Clintonite neoliberalism.
I once wrote a long feature that got a crush-letter from Joe Lieberman's office. The
editors at the magazine in question were ecstatic and printed that letter as its own separate
feature in the next issue. Personally, I thought Leiberman was scum, but kept my qualms to
myself and was glad I used a byline.
It seems to me that the HRC campaign's JFA was expressly designed to -- and succeeded in
its design -- circumvent the statutory $2700 limit on direct campaign contributions. Yet I
have not seen commentary that suggests any laws were violated. What am I missing?
To me, it seemed that the Democratic Party had already decided for clinton before the
primaries, as at my local caucus the party had planted each neighborhood group with a party
faithful, not from the neighborhood, who would argue for clinton and fear monger about Trump.
I know this because I talked to the plant in my group, asked her where she lived, and
discovered it was not in my neighborhood; it was a different town. Others reported the
same.
Also, a Dem party leader came up to me and said "Sanders is not going to be the nominee"
and "When this is over (meaning the primary), then you'll be supporting Hillary, right?" I
told her to never assume anything.
So, thanks to Brazile, no matter her motivation, for providing proof of what we already
knew.
I think you don't see that skill set very much in party leaders because they so rarely
need for the party to win elections. They do need to be able to maintain control
over their parties, so they're great at being cutthroat and cheating. But apart from certain
important individual elections, the success of the party as a whole isn't a big priority for
them. There are spoils to divide either way.
I worked on the Sanders primary campaign in my city. I watched as the state/regional
leadership consistently tanked the gotv and other Sanders ground outreach while a few local
leaders working in smaller areas worked their hearts out on the ground. Surprisingly (or not)
the state/ regional leadership bailed to work on the HRC campaign within hours of closing the
primary office.
I swear, in one of her interviews on the past weekend, Brazile made a quick, underbreath,
reference to 'poor Seth Rich' in recounting the death threats aimed at her. Glad someone has
not forgotten that connection.
It has been a while since I handled a criminal defense case, but I am not sure that the
agreement is not in fact, criminal. When the Sanders for President campaign signed an
agreement and paid money in consideration of getting access to the voter file and when the
state parties agreed to merge their fundraising efforts with the DNC and HFA, the commercial
fraud laws applied to that relationship. Since the fundraising was done using interstate
phone calls, letters, and emails and the voter file access was provided by electronic
transmissions from servers in DC to end users in Burlington, Vermont that includes 18 USC
1341, 1343 and 1346 (mail, wire and honest services fraud). These laws do not just ban
outright lying, but also the concealment of material facts that one has a duty to
disclose.
Considering the importance of voter file access, it is impossible to imagine that your
chief competitor having joint authority over hiring the people who handle all your customer
service and monitor your compliance with voter file contract is not a material fact. If,
under DC contract law or FTC commerical regulations, these kinds of conflicts of interest are
mandatorily disclosable (I do not practice in DC but I doubt DC applies caveat emptor to that
degree), then 18 USC 1343 was broken and Jeff Sessions could indict everyone involved.
It is even worse for the state parties agreement. The DNC arguably has a duty of loyalty
to its state affiliates which makes agreeing to encourage them all to sign up even though it
is concealing its knowledge that the money will be allocated in a way that will be bad for at
least some of them seem utterly inconsistent with the honest services provisions of 1346. All
in all, it is probably a good thing for the DNC that the Sessions aides I went to law school
with paid less attention in criminal law that I did.
It seemed to me that the nondisclosure of material facts and of conflicts of interest
might, arguably, constitute some type of criminal activity and that Donna Brazile's
characterization of the agreement as "not a criminal act" was, perhaps, a bit too facile but
I did not know the specific statutes or claims that might be involved. I really appreciate
your detailed observations here.
"Not a dime's worth of difference."
When it comes to politics, it isn't Russians we need to worry about, it's Americans. That's
where the collusion is – between the parties.
It was the Republicans' turn, period. Jeff Sessions doubtless knows that.
Just want to point out that the state-party=>DNC pass-through is not at all new. Has
been active in some form and proportion in every presidential campaign since 1992 (mainly, or
at least nominally due to changes in FEC regulation), but really ramped up in and after
2008.
Pushback by states has decreased over time, as state party executive directors are now
almost always (even in off-cycle years) routed in from DC, instead of staffing from the local
pool of operatives.
One of the important impacts is on state legislatures. Gutted of necessary funding, and
discouraged (and sometimes contractually inhibited) from soliciting further funds on the
national level, state parties have little left in their coffers to support their legislative
candidates and committees (and forget about the bottom of the ticket).
So this kind of money hoovering is a significant factor in the national net loss of Dem
seats in state houses in non-"battleground" states.
During oral arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC three years ago, Justice Samuel Alito
dismissed the Campaign Legal Center's
analysis showing how, absent limits on the total amount that donors could give to
multiple political committees, candidates could use joint fundraising schemes to raise
huge, potentially corrupting contributions.
These scenarios, Justice Alito claimed, are "wild hypotheticals that are not obviously
plausible." Hillary Clinton, though, is proving that the Campaign Legal Center was right all
along.
I'm not at all a campaign finance expert. Perhaps readers will weigh in?
Yes, the amounts are new. Just saying this was the direction things were going for a while
already. Good will between DNC and state parties already at a low ebb, DWS a big part of
that.
As we know, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision allows corporations, individuals
and labor unions to make unlimited contributions to independent organizations that use the
money to support or defeat a candidate. Rules prohibit coordination between a candidate committee and an individual or
organization making "independent expenditures."
Clearly this was not the arrangement between the HVF, State Democratic Central Committees
participating in the PAC and the DNC. Hillary was pulling the strings at the DNC. But I'm just now appreciating that the Hillary Victory Fund is not a Super PAC.
Joint fundraising is fundraising conducted jointly by a political committee and one or
more other political committees or unregistered organizations. Joint fundraising rules
apply to:
Party committees;
Party organizations not registered as political committees;
Federal and/or nonfederal candidate committees;
Nonparty, unauthorized political committees (nonconnected PACs); and
Unregistered nonparty organizations. 11 CFR 102.17(a)(1)(i) and (2).
The HVF was the first joint fundraising committee between a presidential candidate and the
Democratic party since the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision McCutcheon v FEC. A horrible
precedent at that!
McCutcheon declared a total limit on how much an individual can give federal candidates
and parties in a two-year cycle unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts opined, "The existing
aggregate limits may in fact encourage the movement of money away from entities subject to
disclosure."
Right!
The HVF demonstrates how rechanneling dark money from super PACs toward candidates and
parties doesn't stop unethical and undemocratic processes.
That the HVF was needed to balance the Obama debt is one thing. That the HVF can pass
through money from State committees to the DNC and then coordinate activities there while
passing off as a joint fundraising committee is another thing.
The rechanneling of hundreds of millions of dollars donated by rich D elites to bypass
individual contribution limits was a brilliant financial engineering feat–one that the
Rs will surely emulate.
Before conducting a joint fundraiser, all participants must enter into a written
agreement that identifies the JFR and states the allocation formula -- the amount or
percentage that the participants agree to use for allocating proceeds and expenses. 11 CFR
102.17(c)(1).
What was the allocation formula of the joint fundraising committee?
As the HVF fairy tale plays out, Clinton is the witch who lures Hansel and Gretel to the
forest with a castle of confections, with the intention to eat them.
Are Democrats capable of outsmarting the witches that want to cannibalize the party?
Thanks Lambert for this. As usual, you have seen around corners and cleared the mud from
the water. Thank God you like crawling through this sh*t, so that I at least don't have
to.
Our local radio host Warren Olney, on KCRW who started his show "To The Point" (which is
syndicated nationally on Public Radio International) during the 2000 Bush v Gore Supreme
Court crowning of Bush fiasco is doing a week long retrospective of the disintegration of
Americans' faith in "our" institutions (ha!) before he goes to a once a week podcast.
I have listened to him for 17 years and I don't know how he could stomach covering U.S.
society, politics, and culture during those years of non-ending sh*t show. He was fair to all
guests including some right wing loonies, but you never got the feeling he was going for
"balance." He always seemed to get the truth. Gonna sorely miss him.
So glad you are still on the case, and loving it. You have my gratitude, and soon, a
contribution.
How much of the $250,000 the Sanders campaign paid for the DNC voter list went to the
Clinton campaign? I am still wondering if this kind of thing has occurred in other elections?
As far as relitigating the primary goes, we should've had that fight back, if not in 2000,
then definitely in 2004. After Team Clinton, people who justified their sellouts and perfidy
with 'we must never have another McGovern or Carter', gave the GOP a gift of a unified
government that should have been the permanent end of their credibility. Because while
McGovern, Carter, and Mondale went down in flames they didn't so thoroughly destroy the
anti-reactionary institutions as badly as the Third Way did.
The endless 2016 primary is our punishment for giving these centrist vipers a second
chance.
I appreciate Lambert going through these documents and laying out the timeline. One of the
things that this read sparked for me was the realization the Joe Biden was elbowed out just
as much as Bernie Sanders. I didn't follow the Biden decision-making process at the time but
checking back on the timeline it seems like Clinton pre-empted any attempt by dear old Joe to
actually decide to run. Correct me if I'm wrong (as I may well be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#2016_presidential_race
It doesn't take much elbowing to oust someone who was polling in single digits in his home
state. I donated to O'Malley's campaign before Bernie got in, and, regrettably, am still on
his mailing list.
The bottom line is that the political system is owned by the ruling oligarchy and that the
Democratic Establishment is in bed with them. If a serious candidate from the left poses a
challenge, they will rig the Primary against that candidate.
The Democratic Establishment is pretty much paid to lose and to make the consultant class
rich. Equally as importantly, they exist to co-opt the left.
Sure there are a few voices talking that make sense like Tulsi Gabbard. They are the
exception to a very corrupt party.
A big part of why the middle class has declined is because of the total betrayal of the
Democratic Party from the ideas behind the New Deal.
The DNC got into the position of selling themselves to the Clintons as they were $20
million in debt, right? I have read that the major reason for these debts was that the DNC
had not shrunk itself since the last campaign and was paying out a ton of money for
consultants doing Christ knows what. In fact, Obama also used the DNC to support a stack of
his consultants as well as grifters gotta grift, right?
My question is whether this was a deliberate ploy on Obama and the Clinton factions to put
the DNC into such a vulnerable position before 2016 came along that when the time came, they
had to take up an offer that they could not refuse. I have not heard if Obama has made any
comments on this fiasco that took place on his watch and it seems nobody wants to call him
out on it. In the Brazile case, it is not a matter of following the money but following the
lack of money.
"Both sides in the Democratic Party's current faction fight, as I see it, are in denial
about the true nature and scope of the problem
"Both responses are essentially utopian: They rest on the premise that the Democratic Party
is still a functioning political organization and that the United States is still a
functioning democracy."
Thanks. This was plain and simple money laundering to get around the Federal Election
Commission rules and regulations. That no one has been brought to justice shows how corrupt
the American political process is. It would great if you could post how you would reform it.
I would start with paper ballots counted in public and halt corporations from buying
elections.
If I understand the law correctly, this really wasn't money laundering, since laundered
money becomes dirty by virtue of its being the result of a crime (like drug dealers
depositing cash at HSBC (IIRC)). Handling money in a complex and obfuscated way is not, in itself, money laundering. I'm
not sure what the word is, though.
Violating campaign laws is a crime. Circumventing can often be shown to be violating. Need
a prosecutor willing to prosecute white collar crime, a rare breed for at least the last
decade.
But trump has been attacked by Clintons, and he has DOJ but nothing is happening.
Some very good points are made here. Carping about the inequities of the Democrat Party
establishment isn't going to change their behaviour. Too much lucre. One needs to change the
people running the party. From the ground up and with concrete regulatory features. Full
stop.
However, one might look to the UK Labour party to see how it reacted when J. Corbyn, a
lifelong member and activist, became leader of the party through grandee miscalculation. The
Thatcherist Blairites went ballastic and basically decided to destroy the party rather than
let a fairly mild democratic socialist offer an alternative to their beloved neoliberal
economic policies. Too much lucre. They almost destroyed Labour in Scotland and were intent
on defenestrating Labour in England, whilst retaining some feeble structure as a mock
substitute, so that the Tories would, in fact, become the one and only alternative.
The forces aligned against the democratic tendencies of ordinary citizens are formidable
and reach into every nook and cranny of our lives. They have the money, technological reach
and hence the power of capital and its persuasive abilities.
i dont think a campaign had owned the dnc like that before. i think it had nothing to do
with hilary being a good team player, and everything to do with money and juicy
consulting/lobbying jobs. and pointing this out is not "sulking". know your enemy, and don't
excuse their crimes and predations by an argument that "that's just the way things are".
I am a Bernie supporter. He was pushed to the side by the Dem's – a party to which I
belonged for forty years – in a total panic when it was shown to the Dem's that Bernie
was able to reach disaffected party members as myself by raising a large amount of money
through individual small donors.
That Bernie accomplished this feat was a huge factor, IMO, in why and how my former party
felt it necessary to malign and derail Bernie and his supporters before, during and after the
Democratic -meh – Nominating Convention.
The Dem's should have just named the Hillary for America Fund the Hillary for Hillary
Fund.
Hillary cares only for and about Hillary. She's the reason Trump is POTUS today.
My family has been Democrat for many generations. Most of my family members have,
unfortunately, BTFD on this one. I used to find them to be reasonable folk. Trump derangement
syndrome has infected them all. This is a common complaint these days.
Forgot to thank Lambert for all of his great care and hard work in putting this together
for us. Thank you, Lambert.
In Brazile's account I do believe I remember reading that my home state, CA, did not sign off
on the agreement with regard to the HFV fund. But I seem to remember that Naked Capitalism,
or perhaps in the commentariat here, did state that the Dem's here in CA were in an uproar
over Hillary Victory Fund taking all of the state party monies. Am I having a flashback or
did I actually remember this wrong? Anyone know?
I thought the most interesting thing about Brazile's comments to date was that Obama left
the DNC indebted and therefore more vulnerable to the highest bidder. Not easy to bail that
out on $27 donations. So typical of these Goldmanite administrations, this use of finance as
a political weapon.
"... Also: "Now she is making what bar-napkin math suggests must be at least $700,000 a night." Since the theatre had 3,500 seats, and the reporter paid $200 for a seat in the top row of the upper balcony, he could be right about Clinton's gross. I'd love a transcript of one of these things . ..."
"Fear and loathing on Hillary Clinton's grievance tour" [
The Week ].
"Why, if you believe that miscellaneous 'Russians' -- at one point she referred to a generic character
named 'Igor,' which is funny if your level of engagement with Russian culture does not extend far
beyond Rocky and Bullwinkle horizons -- bought Twitter ads in the hope of targeting 60-
and 70-something union retirees in Macomb County, Michigan, would you not think you really
won?
Also: "Now she is making what bar-napkin math suggests must be at least $700,000 a night."
Since the theatre had 3,500 seats, and the reporter paid $200 for a seat in the top row of the upper
balcony, he could be right about Clinton's gross. I'd love a transcript of one of these things .
Hillary has achieved Mother Goddess status simply by achieving nothing -- except tons of cash.
The devotees of a cult are by definition deaf, blind and dumb. The deity encourages their fervour
daily by bestowing glamor and celebrity on their dull, everyday lives.
"... "We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists, even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress." ..."
"... She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known, but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10 million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times. ..."
"... Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she said. ..."
"... "In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting." ..."
This power hungry woman are just plain vanilla incompetent: "The Russian campaign was
leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland, and a loss of
faith in democracy, she said."
Democrats had urged her to be silent after
her defeat to Trump but she was not going to go away, said Clinton. She vowed to play her part
in an attempt to win back Democratic seats in the forthcoming midterm elections. She admitted
she "just collapsed with real grief and disappointment" after her election defeat.
Clinton, who is touring the country to promote What Happened – her memoir reflecting
on the election defeat, told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "Looking at the Brexit vote now, it was a
precursor to some extent of what happened to us in the United States."
She decried the amount of fabricated information voters were given: "You know, the big lie
is a very potent tool and we've somewhat kept it at bay in western democracies, partly because
of the freedom of the press. There has to be some basic level of fact and evidence in all parts
of our society."
She urged Britain to be cautious about striking a trade deal with Trump, saying he did not
believe in free trade.
In other comments during the Cheltenham literary festival, she accused the Kremlin of waging
an information war throughout the 2016 US election process. The tactics "were a clear and
present danger to western democracy and it is right out of the Putin playbook", she said.
"We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted
attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division
in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists,
even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress."
She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known,
but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from
Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10
million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times.
Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was
a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such
cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still
playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she
said.
"In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are
in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism
and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting."
The Russian campaign was leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary
and Poland, and a loss of faith in democracy, she said.
In an interview with the ABC's Four Corners program, to air on
Monday night, Clinton alleges that Assange cooperated with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin , to
disrupt the US election and damage her campaign for president.
"WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian
intelligence," Clinton
told the ABC's Sarah Ferguson .
Describing Putin as a "dictator", Clinton said the damaging email leaks that crippled her
2016 candidacy were part of a coordinated operation against her, directed by the Russian
government.
Our intelligence community and other observers of Russia and Putin have said he held a grudge
against me because as secretary of state, I stood up against some of his actions, his
authoritarianism," Clinton told the ABC.
"But it's much bigger than that. He wants to destabilise democracy, he wants to undermine
America, he wants to go after the Atlantic alliance, and we consider Australia an extension of
that."
WikiLeaks received
thousands of hacked emails from accounts connected to the Democratic campaign allegedly stolen
by Russian operatives. The emails were released during a four-month period in the lead-up to
the US election.
Emails from the Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, were leaked on the same day –
7 October 2016 – the director of national intelligence and the secretary of homeland
security released a statement concluding the Russian government had been attempting to
interfere in the election.
Clinton told the ABC she believed the email leak was coordinated to disrupt the influence of
the Access Hollywood tape.
"WikiLeaks, which in the world in which we find ourselves promised hidden information,
promised some kind of secret that might be of influence, was a very clever, diabolical response
to the Hollywood Access tape," she said. "And I've no doubt in my mind that there was some
communication if not coordination to drop those the first time in response to the Hollywood
Access tape."
"I think he is part nihilist, part anarchist, part exhibitionist, part opportunist, who is
either actually on the payroll of the Kremlin or in some way supporting their propaganda
objectives, because of his resentment toward the United States, toward Europe," she said.
"He's like a lot of the voices that we're hearing now, which are expressing appreciation for
the macho authoritarianism of a Putin. And they claim to be acting in furtherance of
transparency, except they never go after the Kremlin or people on that side of the political
ledger."
Assange has denied the emails came from the Russian government or any other "state
parties".
In response to Clinton's comments, Assange said on Twitter there was "something wrong with
Hillary Clinton".
"It is not just her constant lying," he wrote. "It is not just that she throws off menacing
glares and seethes thwarted entitlement.
"Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen."
Julian Assange 🔹 (@JulianAssange)
There's something wrong with Hillary Clinton. It is not just her constant lying. It is not
just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement. Watch closely.
Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen. https://t.co/JNw2dkXgdu
"... Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook. ..."
"... No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that. ..."
"... a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without ..."
"... Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'. ..."
"... A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. ..."
"... "Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories. ..."
Well all right, let's review what happened, or at least the official version of what
happened. Not Hillary Clinton's version of what happened, which Jeffrey St. Clair so
incisively skewered , but the Corporatocracy's version of what happened, which overlaps
with but is even more ridiculous than Clinton's ridiculous version. To do that, we need to
harken back to the peaceful Summer of 2016, (a/k/a the
"Summer of Fear" ), when the United States of America was still a shiny city upon a hill
whose beacon light guided freedom-loving people, the Nazis were still just a bunch of ass
clowns meeting in each other's mother's garages, and Russia was, well Russia was Russia.
Back then, as I'm sure you'll recall, Western democracy, was still primarily being menaced
by the lone
wolf terrorists, for absolutely no conceivable reason, apart from the terrorists' fanatical
desire to brutally murder all non-believers. The global Russo-Nazi Axis had not yet reared its
ugly head. President Obama, who, during his tenure, had single-handedly restored America to the
peaceful, prosperous, progressive paradise it had been before George W. Bush screwed it up, was
on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon slow
jamming home the TPP . The Wall Street banks had risen from the ashes of the 2008 financial
crisis, and were buying back all the foreclosed homes of the people they had fleeced with
subprime mortgages. American workers were enjoying the freedom and flexibility of the new gig
economy. Electioneering in the United States was underway, but it was early days. It was
already clear that Donald Trump was literally
the Second Coming of Hitler , but no one was terribly worried about him yet. The Republican
Party was in a shambles. Neither Trump nor any of the other contenders had any chance of
winning in November. Nor did Sanders, who had been defeated, fair and square, in the Democratic
primaries, mostly because of
his racist statements and crazy, quasi-Communist ideas. Basically, everything was hunky
dory. Yes, it was going to be terribly sad to have to bid farewell to Obama, who had bailed out
all those bankrupt Americans the Wall Street banks had taken to the cleaners, ended all of Bush
and Cheney's wars, closed down Guantanamo, and just generally served as a multicultural messiah
figure to affluent consumers throughout the free world, but Hope-and-Change was going to
continue. The talking heads were all in agreement Hillary Clinton was going to be President,
and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
Little did we know at the time that an epidemic of Russo-Nazism had been festering just
beneath the surface of freedom-loving Western societies like some neo-fascist sebaceous cyst.
Apparently, millions of theretofore more or less normal citizens throughout the West had been
infected with a virulent strain of Russo-Nazi-engineered virus, because they simultaneously
began exhibiting the hallmark symptoms of what we now know as White Supremacist Behavioral
Disorder, or Fascist Oppositional Disorder (the folks who update the DSM are still arguing over
the official name). It started with the Brexit referendum, spread to America with the election
of Trump, and there have been a rash of outbreaks in Europe, like
the one we're currently experiencing in Germany . These fascistic symptoms have mostly
manifest as people refusing to vote as instructed, and expressing oppressive views on the
Internet, but there have also been more serious crimes, including several assaults and murders
perpetrated by white supremacists (which, of course, never happened when Obama was President,
because the Nazis hadn't been "emboldened" yet).
Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or
the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced
with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a
simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is
its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural
values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch
together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook.
No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the
mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following
the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring
the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national
sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world
where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns
completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this
outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical
development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that.
This hypothetical leftist analysis might want to focus on how Capitalism is fundamentally
opposed to Despotism, and is essentially a value-decoding machine which renders everything and
everyone it touches essentially valueless interchangeable commodities whose worth is determined
by market forces, rather than by societies and cultures, or religions, or other despotic
systems (wherein values are established and enforced arbitrarily, by the despot, the church, or
the ruling party, or by a group of people who share an affinity and decide they want to live a
certain way). This is where it would get sort of tricky, because it (i.e., this hypothetical
analysis) would have to delve into the history of Capitalism, and how it evolved out of
medieval Despotism, and how it has been decoding despotic values for something like five
hundred years. This historical delving (which would probably be too long for people to read on
their phones) would demonstrate how Capitalism has been an essentially progressive force in
terms of getting us out of Despotism (which, for most folks, wasn't very much fun) by fomenting
bourgeois revolutions and imposing some semblance of democracy on societies. It would follow
Capitalism's inexorable advance all the way up to the Twentieth Century, in which its final
external ideological adversary, fake Communism, suddenly imploded, delivering us to the world
we now live in a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without
, and where any opposition to that global ideology can only be internal, or insurgent, in
nature (e.g, terrorism, extremism, and so on). Being a hypothetical leftist analysis,
it would, at this point, need to stress that, despite the fact that Capitalism helped deliver
us from Despotism, and improved the state of society generally (compared to most societies that
preceded it), we nonetheless would like to transcend it, or evolve out of it toward some type
of society where people, and everything else, including the biosphere we live in, are not
interchangeable, valueless commodities exchanged by members of a global corporatocracy who have
no essential values, or beliefs, or principles, other than the worship of money. After having
covered all that, we might want to offer more a nuanced view of the current neo-nationalist
reaction to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the rest of the
planet. Not that we would support this reaction, or in any way refrain from calling
neo-nationalism what it is (i.e., reactionary, despotic, and doomed), but this nuanced view
we'd hypothetically offer, by analyzing the larger sociopolitical and historical forces at
play, might help us to see the way forward more clearly, and who knows, maybe eventually
propose some kind of credible leftist alternative to the "global neoliberalism vs.
neo-nationalism" double bind we appear to be hopelessly stuck in at the moment.
Luckily, we don't have to do that (i.e., articulate such a leftist analysis of any such
larger historical forces). Because there is no corporatocracy not really. That's just a fake
word the Russians made up and are spreading around on the Internet to distract us while the
Nazis take over. No, the logical explanation for Trump, Brexit, and anything else that
threatens the expansion of global Capitalism, and the freedom, democracy, and prosperity it
offers, is that millions of people across the world, all at once, for no apparent reason, woke
up one day full-blown fascists and started looking around for repulsive demagogues to swear
fanatical allegiance to. Yes, that makes a lot more sense than all that complicated stuff about
history and hegemonic ideological systems, which is probably just Russian propaganda anyway, in
which case there is absolutely no reason to read any boring year-old pieces, like this one in TheEuropeanFinancialReview , or this report by
Corporate Watch , from way back in the year 2000, about the rise of global corporate
power.
So, apologies for wasting your time with all that pseudo-Marxian gobbledygook. Let's just
pretend this never happened, and get back to more important matters, like statistically proving
that Donald Trump got elected President because of racism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia,
or some other type of behavioral disorder, and pulling down Confederate statues, or kneeling
during the National Anthem, or whatever happens to be trending this week. Oh, yeah, and
debating punching Nazis, or people wearing MAGA hats. We definitely need to sort all that out
before we can move ahead with helping the Corporatocracy remove Trump from office, or at least
ensure he remains surrounded by their loyal generals, CEOs, and Goldman Sachs guys until the
next election. Whatever we do, let's not get distracted by that stuff I just distracted you
with. I know, it's tempting, but, given what's at stake, we need to maintain our laser focus on
issues related to identity politics, or else well, you know, the Nazis win.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Yesterday evening on RT a USA lady, as usual forgot the name, spoke about the USA. In a
matter of fact tone she said things like 'they (Deep State) have got him (Trump) in the
box'.
They, Deep State again, are now wondering if they will continue to try to control the
world, or if they should stop the attempt, and retreat into the USA.
Also as matter of fact she said 'the CIA has always been the instrument of Deep State, from
Kenndy to Nine Eleven'.
Another statement was 'no president ever was in control'.
How USA citizens continue to believe they live in a democracy, I cannot understand.
Yesterday the intentions of the new Dutch government were made public, alas most Dutch
also dot not see that the Netherlands since 2005 no longer is a democracy, just a province of
Brussels.
Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting
stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'.
No doubt many do want their country back, but what concerns me is that all of a sudden we
have the concept of "independence" plastered all over the place. Such concepts don't get
promoted unless the ruling elites see ways to turn those sentiments to their favor.
A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted
and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and
independence movements. (And everything else.)
"Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s),
that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the
US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run
brainwashing factories.
"Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything,
or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and
replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which
is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because
exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their
eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer
brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on
Facebook."
Very impressed with this article, never really paid attention to CJ's articles but that is
now changing!
"... In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international realities. ..."
"... We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless degradation of his presidency by his political opposition. ..."
"... The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness. ..."
"... The invasion of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia). The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade agreements in Asia excluding China. ..."
"... After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed to reverse Obama's 'international order'. ..."
"... Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and other Obama-designated endless war zones. ..."
"... The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog' Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price. ..."
"... While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has enraged his own Party's leaders. ..."
"... The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. ..."
"... Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses. ..."
"... The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons: ..."
"... the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries who possess the capacity to retaliate. ..."
"... Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create millions of refugees. ..."
"... Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed forces and has not led to any permanent military gains. ..."
"... Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities. ..."
"... American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or punishment of peoples who think and act differently. ..."
"... They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering beacon that once shone brighter. ..."
"... How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward. Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ... ..."
"... It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself ..."
Clearly the US has escalated the pivotal role of the military in the making of foreign and, by
extension, domestic policy. The rise of ' the Generals' to strategic positions in the Trump
regime is evident, deepening its role as a highly autonomous force determining US strategic policy
agendas.
In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda
and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international
realities.
We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless
degradation of his presidency by his political opposition.
The Prelude to Militarization: Obama's Multi-War Strategy and Its Aftermath
The central role of the military in deciding US foreign policy has its roots in the strategic
decisions taken during the Obama-Clinton Presidency. Several policies were decisive in the rise of
unprecedented military-political power.
The massive increase of US troops in Afghanistan and their subsequent failures and retreat weakened
the Obama-Clinton regime and increased animosity between the military and the Obama's Administration.
As a result of his failures, Obama downgraded the military and weakened Presidential authority.
The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government
and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations
of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered
in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness.The invasion
of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing
war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct
control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. The US
military intervention in Iraq was only a secondary contributing factor in the defeat of ISIS; the
major actors and beneficiaries were Iran and the allied Iraqi Shia militias. The Obama-Clinton
engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power
in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia).
The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while
dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions
against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures.
The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international
order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined
as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic
sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade
agreements in Asia excluding China.
The Obama 'legacy' consists of an international order of globalized capital and multiple wars.
The continuity of Obama's 'glorious legacy' initially depended on the election of Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump's presidential campaign, for its part, promised to dismantle or drastically revise
the Obama Doctrine of an international order based on multiple wars , neo-colonial 'nation' building
and free trade. A furious Obama 'informed' (threatened) the newly-elected President Trump that he
would face the combined hostility of the entire State apparatus, Wall Street and the mass media if
he proceeded to fulfill his election promises of economic nationalism and thus undermine the US-centered
global order.
Trump's bid to shift from Obama's sanctions and military confrontation to economic reconciliation
with Russia was countered by a hornet's nest of accusations about a Trump-Russian electoral conspiracy,
darkly hinting at treason and show trials against his close allies and even family members.
The concoction of a Trump-Russia plot was only the first step toward a total war on the new president,
but it succeeded in undermining Trump's economic nationalist agenda and his efforts to change Obama's
global order.
Trump Under Obama's International Order
After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations
and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed
to reverse Obama's 'international order'.
Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial
to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term
commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and
other Obama-designated endless war zones.
Trump's military priorities were supposed to focus on strengthening domestic frontiers and overseas
markets. He started by demanding that NATO partners pay for their own military defense responsibilities.
Obama's globalists in both political parties were aghast that the US might lose it overwhelming control
of NATO; they united and moved immediately to strip Trump of his economic nationalist allies and
their programs.
Trump quickly capitulated and fell into line with Obama's international order, except for one
proviso – he would select the Cabinet to implement the old/new international order.
A hamstrung Trump chose a military cohort of Generals, led by General James Mattis (famously nicknamed
' Mad Dog' ) as Defense Secretary.
The Generals effectively took over the Presidency. Trump abdicated his responsibilities
as President.
General Mattis: The Militarization of America
General Mattis took up the Obama legacy of global militarization and added his own nuances, including
the 'psychological-warfare' embedded in Trump's emotional ejaculations on 'Twitter'.
The ' Mattis Doctrine' combined high-risk threats with aggressive provocations, bringing
the US (and the world) to the brink of nuclear war.
General Mattis has adopted the targets and fields of operations, defined by the previous Obama
administration as it has sought to re-enforce the existing imperialist international order.
The junta's policies relied on provocations and threats against Russia, with expanded economic
sanctions. Mattis threw more fuel on the US mass media's already hysterical anti-Russian bonfire.
The General promoted a strategy of low intensity diplomatic thuggery, including the unprecedented
seizure and invasion of Russian diplomatic offices and the short-notice expulsion of diplomats and
consular staff.
These military threats and acts of diplomatic intimidation signified that the Generals' Administration
under the Puppet President Trump was ready to sunder diplomatic relations with a major world nuclear
power and indeed push the world to direct nuclear confrontation.
What Mattis seeks in these mad fits of aggression is nothing less than capitulation on the part
of the Russian government regarding long held US military objectives – namely the partition of Syria
(which started under Obama), harsh starvation sanctions on North Korea (which began under Clinton)
and the disarmament of Iran (Tel Aviv's main goal) in preparation for its dismemberment.
The Mattis junta occupying the Trump White House heightened its threats against a North Korea,
which (in Vladimir Putin's words) ' would rather eat grass than disarm' . The US mass media-military
megaphones portrayed the North Korean victims of US sanctions and provocations as an 'existential'
threat to the US mainland.
Sanctions have intensified. The stationing of nuclear weapons on South Korea is being pushed.
Massive joint military exercises are planned and ongoing in the air, sea and land around North Korea.
Mattis twisted Chinese arms (mainly business comprador-linked bureaucrats) and secured their UN Security
Council vote on increased sanctions. Russia joined the Mattis-led anti-Pyongyang chorus, even as
Putin warned of sanctions ineffectiveness! (As if General ' Mad Dog' Mattis would ever take
Putin's advice seriously, especially after Russia voted for the sanctions!)
Mattis further militarized the Persian Gulf, following Obama's policy of partial sanctions and
bellicose provocation against Iran.
When he worked for Obama, Mattis increased US arms shipments to the US's Syrian terrorists and
Ukrainian puppets, ensuring the US would be able to scuttle any ' negotiated settlements'
.
Militarization: An Evaluation
Trump's resort to ' his Generals' is supposed to counter any attacks from members of his
own party and Congressional Democrats about his foreign policy. Trump's appointment of ' Mad Dog'
Mattis, a notorious Russophobe and warmonger, has somewhat pacified the opposition in Congress and
undercut any 'finding' of an election conspiracy between Trump and Moscow dug up by the Special Investigator
Robert Mueller. Trump's maintains a role as nominal President by adapting to what Obama warned him
was ' their international order' – now directed by an unelected military junta composed of
Obama holdovers!
The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering
Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog'
Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price.
While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the
attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has
enraged his own Party's leaders.
In sum, under a weakened President Trump, the militarization of the White House benefits the military
junta and enlarges their power. The ' Mad Dog' Mattis program has had mixed results, at least
in its initial phase: The junta's threats to launch a pre-emptive (possibly nuclear) war against
North Korea have strengthened Pyongyang's commitment to develop and refine its long and medium range
ballistic missile capability and nuclear weapons. Brinksmanship failed to intimidate North Korea.
Mattis cannot impose the Clinton-Bush-Obama doctrine of disarming countries (like Libya and Iraq)
of their advanced defensive weapons systems as a prelude to a US 'regime change' invasion.
Any US attack against North Korea will lead to massive retaliatory strikes costing tens of thousands
of US military lives and will kill and maim millions of civilians in South Korea and Japan.
At most, ' Mad Dog' managed to intimidate Chinese and Russian officials (and their export
business billionaire buddies) to agree to more economic sanctions against North Korea. Mattis and
his allies in the UN and White House, the loony Nikki Hailey and a miniaturized President Trump,
may bellow war – yet they cannot apply the so-called 'military option' without threatening the US
military forces stationed throughout the Asia Pacific region.
The Mad Dog Mattis assault on the Russian embassy did not materially weaken Russia, but
it has revealed the uselessness of Moscow's conciliatory diplomacy toward their so-called 'partners'
in the Trump regime.
The end-result might lead to a formal break in diplomatic ties, which would increase the danger
of a military confrontation and a global nuclear holocaust.
The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the
ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially
succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations
in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. These are Mattis' short-term gains over
the excessively pliant Chinese bureaucrats. However, if Mad Dog intensifies direct military threats
against China, Beijing can retaliate by dumping tens of billions of US Treasury notes, cutting trade
ties, sowing chaos in the US economy and setting Wall Street against the Pentagon.
Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate
Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized
after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses.
Conclusion
The militarization of US foreign policy, the establishment of a military junta within the Trump
Administration, and the resort to nuclear brinksmanship has not changed the global balance of power.
Domestically Trump's nominal Presidency relies on militarists, like General Mattis. Mattis has
tightened the US control over NATO allies, and even rounded up stray European outliers, like Sweden,
to join in a military crusade against Russia. Mattis has played on the media's passion for bellicose
headlines and its adulation of Four Star Generals.
But for all that – North Korea remains undaunted because it can retaliate. Russia has thousands
of nuclear weapons and remains a counterweight to a US-dominated globe. China owns the US Treasury
and its unimpressed, despite the presence of an increasingly collision-prone US Navy swarming throughout
the South China Sea.
Mad Dog laps up the media attention, with well dressed, scrupulously manicured journalists
hanging on his every bloodthirsty pronouncement. War contractors flock to him, like flies to carrion.
The Four Star General 'Mad Dog' Mattis has attained Presidential status without winning any
election victory (fake or otherwise). No doubt when he steps down, Mattis will be the most eagerly
courted board member or senior consultant for giant military contractors in US history, receiving
lucrative fees for half hour 'pep-talks' and ensuring the fat perks of nepotism for his family's
next three generations. Mad Dog may even run for office, as Senator or even President for
whatever Party.
The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons:
First of all, the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries
who possess the capacity to retaliate. Intimidation via sanctions can succeed in imposing significant
economic pain on oil export-dependent regimes, but not on hardened, self-sufficient or highly diversified
economies.
Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince
opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries
can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that
can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create
millions of refugees.
High intensity military brinksmanship carries major risk of massive losses in lives, allies, territory
and piles of radiated ashes – a pyrrhic victory!
In sum:
Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal
thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing
its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed
forces and has not led to any permanent military gains.
Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their
stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual
respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating
past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities.
American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to
many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or
punishment of peoples who think and act differently. Those policy thrusts will accomplish
the opposite of the stated intention.
They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China
and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering
beacon that once shone brighter.
Anyone with military experience recognizes the likes of Mad Poodle Mattis arrogant, belligerent,
exceptionally dull, and mainly an inveterate suck-up (mil motto: kiss up and kick down).
Every VFW lounge is filled with these boozy ridiculous blowhards and they are insufferable.
The media and public, raised on ZioVision and JooieWood pablum, worship these cartoonish bloodletters
even though they haven't won a war in 72 years .not one.
How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes:
if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks
down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward.
Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ...
It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures
to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a
place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and
impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries
can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself .
Now military has decided to reverse the roles . At least the military leaders don't have to
campaign for re employment . But very soon the forces that corrupt and abuse the civilian power
structure will do same to military .
Never met him at any of the parties I attended in the '70s and '80s, so I don't know much about
Mad Dog, but I can say that only in America can the former commander of a recruiting station grow
up to pull the strings of the President.
"... "If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security... and if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book Rogue State." ..."
William Blum's Cri de Coeur
A review of "America's Deadliest Export: Democracy" by William Blum (Zed Books, London/New York,
2013.)
(As it has appeared at DissidentVoice, OpEdNews, etc.):
In activist-author-publisher William Blum's new book, America's Deadliest Export: Democracy, he
tells the story of how he got his 15 minutes of fame back in 2006. Osama bin Laden had released an
audiotape, declaring:
"If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security... and if Bush decides
to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book Rogue
State."
Bin Laden then quoted from the Foreword of Blum's 2000 book, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's
Only Superpower, in which he had mused:
"If I were... president, I could stop terrorist attacks [on us] in a few days. Permanently.
I would first apologize... to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured,
and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that
America's global interventions... have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no
longer the 51st state of the union but... a foreign country. I would then reduce the military
budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. ... That's what
I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."
Unfortunately, Blum never made it to the White House! But, fortunately, for those who have read
his books or follow his "Anti-Empire Reports" on the Web, he was not assassinated! And now he has
collected his reports and essays of the last dozen years or so into a 352-page volume that will not
only stand the test of time, but will help to define this disillusioned, morose, violent and unraveling
Age.
America's Deadliest... is divided into 21 chapters and an introduction--and there's something
to underline or memorize on every page! Sometimes it's just one of Blum's irrepressible quips, and
sometimes it's a matter of searing American foreign or domestic policiy that clarifies that Bushwhackian
question of yore: "Why do they hate us?"
Reading this scrupulously documented book, I lost count of the times I uttered, "unbelievable!"
concerning some nefarious act committed by the US Empire in the name of freedom, democracy and fighting
communism or terrorism. Reading Blum's book with an open mind, weighing the evidence, will bleach
out any pride in the flag we have planted in so many corpses around the world. The book is a diuretic
and emetic!
Blum's style is common sense raised to its highest level. The wonder of America's Deadliest ...
is that it covers so much of the sodden, bloody ground of America's march across our post-Second-World-War
world, yet tells the story with such deftness and grace-under-fire that the reader is enticed--not
moralized, not disquisitionally badgered--, but enticed to consider our globe from a promontory of
higher understanding.
Some of the themes Blum covers (and often eviscerates) include:
Why they hate us;
America means well;
We cannot permit a successful alternative to the capitalist model to develop anywhere in the
world;
We will use whatever means necessary--including, lies, deception, sabotage, bribery, torture
and war--to achieve the above idea.
Along the way, we get glimpses of Blum's experientially rich life. A note "About the Author" tells
us that, "He left the State Department in 1967, abandoning his aspiration of becoming a Foreign Service
Officer because of his opposition to what the US was doing in Vietnam. He then became a founder and
editor of the Washington Free Press, the first "alternative" newspaper in the capital."
In his chapter on "Patriotism," Blum relates how, after a talk, he was asked: "Do you love America?"
He responded with what we may take for his credo: "I don't love any country. I'm a citizen of the
world. I love certain principles, like human rights, civil liberties, meaningful democracy, an economy
which puts people before profits."
America's Deadliest... is a book of wisdom and wit that ponders "how this world became so unbearably
cruel, corrupt, unjust, and stupid?" In a pointillistic approach, sowing aphoristic seeds for thought,
Blum enumerates instances of that cruelty, often with wry, pained commentary. "War can be seen as
America's religion," he tells us. Reflecting on Obama's octupling Bush's number of drones used to
assassinate, collaterally kill and terrorize, he affirms:
"Obama is one of the worst things that has ever happened to the American left." And, he avers,
"Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting from their worst motives, will somehow
produce the most good." And then turns around and reminds us--lest we forget--how the mass media
have invaded our lives, with memes about patriotism, democracy, God, the "good life": "Can it
be imagined that an American president would openly implore America's young people to fight a
foreign war to defend `capitalism'?" he wonders.
"The word itself has largely gone out of fashion. The approved references now are to the market
economy, free market, free enterprise, or private enterprise."
Cynthia McKinney writes that the book is "corruscating, eye-opening, and essential." Oliver Stone
calls it a "fireball of terse information."
Like Howard Zinn, Ralph Nader, Paul Craig Roberts, Cindy Sheehan and Bradley Manning, Blum is committed
to setting the historical record straight. His book is dangerous. Steadfast, immutable "truths" one
has taken for granted--often since childhood--are exposed as hollow baubles to entertain the un/mis/and
dis-informed. One such Blumism recollects Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez's account of a videotape with
a very undiplomatic Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and cowboy George Bush: "`We've got to smash
somebody's ass quickly,'" Powell said. "`We must have a brute demonstration of power.'
Then Bush spoke: `Kick ass! If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them
out and kill them! ... Stay strong! ... Kill them! ... We are going to wipe them out!'"
Blum's intellectual resources are as keen as anyone's writing today. He also adds an ample measure
of humanity to his trenchant critiques. He juxtaposes the noble rhetoric of our professed values
with the mordant facts of our deeds. The cognitive dissonance makes for a memorable, very unpretty
picture of how an immensely privileged people lost themselves, while gorging on junk food, junk politics,
junk economics, junk education, junk media. Like an Isaiah, a Jeremiah, he lambastes his own--us!--flaying
layers of hypocrisy and betrayals while seeking to reveal the core values of human dignity, empathy
and moral rectitude.
Gary Corseri has published and posted prose, poetry and dramas at hundreds of periodicals and
websites worldwide, including CommonDreams, Countercurrents, BraveNewWorld.in, OpEdNews, CounterPunch,
Outlook India, The New York Times, Dissident Voice. He has published novels, poetry collections and
a literary anthology (edited). His dramas have been presented on PBS-Atlanta and elsewhere, and he
has performed his work at the Carter Presidential Library. He has taught in US public schools and
prisons, and at American and Japanese universities. Contact: [email protected].
"... German Nazis and Italian Fascists defined their rule as 'democratic', and so does this Empire. The British and French empires that exterminated tens of millions of people all over the world, always promoted themselves as 'democracies'. ..."
"... And now, once again, we are witnessing a tremendous onslaught by the business-political-imperialist Western apparatus, destabilizing or directly destroying entire nations, overthrowing governments and bombing 'rebellious' states into the ground. All this is done in the name of democracy, in the name of freedom. ..."
"... This sacrificial altar is called, Democracy, in direct mockery to what the term symbolizes in its original, Greek, language. ..."
A specter is haunting Europe and Western world - it is this time, the specter of fascism. It came
quietly, without great fanfare and parades, without raised hands and loud shouts. But it came, or
it returned, as it has always been present in this culture, one that has, for centuries, been enslaving
our entire planet.
As was in Nazi Germany, resistance to the fascist empire is again given an unsavory name: terrorism.
Partisans and patriots, resistance fighters – all of them were and have always been defined by fascist
bigots as terrorists.
By the logic of Empire, to murder millions of men, women and children in all corners of the world
abroad is considered legitimate and patriotic, but to defend one's motherland was and is a sign of
extremism.
German Nazis and Italian Fascists defined their rule as 'democratic', and so does this Empire.
The British and French empires that exterminated tens of millions of people all over the world, always
promoted themselves as 'democracies'.
And now, once again, we are witnessing a tremendous onslaught by the business-political-imperialist
Western apparatus, destabilizing or directly destroying entire nations, overthrowing governments
and bombing 'rebellious' states into the ground. All this is done in the name of democracy, in the
name of freedom.
An unelected monster, as it has done for centuries, is playing with the world, torturing some,
and plundering others, or both.
The West, in a final act of arrogance, has somehow confused itself with its own concept of God.
It has decided that it has the full right to shape the planet, to punish and to reward, to destroy
and rebuild as it wishes.
This horrible wave of terror unleashed against our planet, is justified by an increasingly meaningless
but fanatically defended dogma, symbolized by a box (made of card or wood, usually), and masses of
people sticking pieces of paper into the opening on the top of that box.
This is the altar of Western ideological fundamentalism. This is a supreme idiocy that cannot
be questioned, as it guarantees the status quo for ruling elites and business interests, an absurdity
that justifies all crimes, all lies and all madness.
This sacrificial altar is called, Democracy, in direct mockery to what the term symbolizes
in its original, Greek, language.
***
In our latest book, "On Western Terrorism – from Hiroshima to Drone Warfare", Noam Chomsky commented
on the 'democratic' process in the Western world:
"The goal of elections now is to undermine democracy. They are run by the public relations industry
and they're certainly not trying to create informed voters who'll make rational choices. They are
trying to delude people into making irrational choices. The same techniques that are used to undermine
markets are used to undermine democracy. It's one of the major industries in the country and its
basic workings are invisible."
But what is it that really signifies this 'sacred' word, this almost religious term, and this
pinnacle of Western demagogy? We hear it everywhere. We are ready to sacrifice millions of lives
(not ours of course, at least not yet, but definitely lives of the others) in the name of it.
Democracy!
All those grand slogans and propaganda! Last year I visited Pyongyang, but I have to testify that
North Koreans are not as good at slogans as the Western propagandists are.
"In the name of freedom and democracy!" Hundreds of millions tons of bombs fell from the sky on
the Laotian, Cambodian and Vietnamese countryside bodies were burned by napalm, mutilated by spectacular
explosions.
"Defending democracy!" Children were raped in front of their parents in Central America, men and
women machine-gunned down by death squads that had been trained in military bases in the United States
of America.
"Civilizing the world and spreading democracy!" That has always been a European slogan, their
'stuff to do', and a way of showing their great civilization to others. Amputating hands of Congolese
people, murdering around ten million of them, and many more in Namibia, East Africa, West Africa
and Algiers; gassing people of the Middle East ( "I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas
against uncivilised tribes", to borrow from the colorful lexicon of (Sir) Winston Churchill).
So what is it really? Who is it, that strange lady with an axe in her hand and with a covered
face – the lady whose name is Democracy?
***
It is all very simple, actually. The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule
of the people". Then and now, it was supposed to be in direct contrast to ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratia),
that means "rule of an elite".
'Rule of the people' Let us just visit a few examples of the 'rule of the people'.
People spoke, they ruled, they voted 'democratically' in Chile, bringing in the mild and socialist
government of 'Popular Unity' of Salvador Allende.
Sure, the Chilean education system was so brilliant, its political and social system so wonderful,
that it inspired not only many countries in Latin America, but also those in far away Mediterranean
Europe.
That could not be tolerated, because, as we all know, it is only white Europe and North America
that can be allowed to supply the world with the blueprint for any society, anywhere on this planet.
It was decided that "Chile has to scream", that its economy had to be ruined and the "Popular Unity"
government kicked out of power.
Henry Kissinger, belonging, obviously, to a much higher race and country of a much higher grade,
made a straightforward and in a way very 'honest' statement, clearly defining the North American
stand towards global democracy: "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist
due to the irresponsibility of its people."
And so Chile was ravaged. Thousands of people were murdered and 'our son-of-a-bitch' was brought
to power. General Pinochet was not elected: he bombed the Presidential palace in Santiago, he savagely
tortured the men and women who were elected by the Chilean people, and he "disappeared" thousands.
But that was fine, because democracy, as it is seen from Washington, London or Paris, is nothing
more and nothing less than what the white man needs in order to control this planet, unopposed and
preferably never criticized.
Of course Chile was not the only place where 'democracy' was 'redefined'. And it was not the most
brutal scenario either, although it was brutal enough. But it was a very symbolic 'case', because
here, there could be absolutely no dispute: an extremely well educated, middle class country, voted
in transparent elections, just to have its government murdered, tortured and exiled, simply because
it was too democratic and too involved in improving the lives of its people.
There were countless instances of open spite coming from the North, towards the 'rule of the people'
in Latin America. For centuries, there have been limitless examples. Every country 'south of the
border' in the Western Hemisphere, became a victim.
After all, the self-imposed Monroe Doctrine gave North Americans 'unquestionable rights' to intervene
and 'correct' any 'irresponsible' democratic moves made by the lower races inhabiting Central and
South America as well as the Caribbean Islands.
There were many different scenarios of real ingenuity, in how to torture countries that embarked
on building decent homes for their people, although soon there was evidence of repetitiveness and
predictability.
The US has been either sponsoring extremely brutal coups (like the one in Guatemala in 1954),
or simply occupying the countries in order to overthrow their democratically elected governments.
Justifications for such interventions have varied: it was done in order to 'restore order', to 'restore
freedom and democracy', or to prevent the emergence of 'another Cuba'.
From the Dominican Republic in 1965 to Grenada in 1983, countries were 'saved from themselves'
through the introduction (by orders from mainly the Protestant North American elites with clearly
pathological superiority complexes) of death squads that administered torture, rape and extrajudicial
executions. People were killed because their democratic decisions were seen as 'irresponsible' and
therefore unacceptable.
While there has been open racism in every aspect of how the Empire controlled its colonies, 'political
correctness' was skillfully introduced, effectively reducing to a bare minimum any serious critiques
of the societies that were forced into submission.
In Indonesia, between 1 and 3 million people were murdered in the years1965/66, in a US -sponsored
coup, because there too, was a 'great danger' that the people would rule and decide to vote 'irresponsibly',
bringing the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), at that time the third most numerous Communist Party
anywhere in the world, to power.
The democratically elected President of Congo, Patrice Lumumba, was murdered in 1961, by the joint
efforts of the United States and Europe, simply because he was determined to use the vast natural
resources of his country to feed his own people; and because he dared to criticize Western colonialism
and imperialism openly and passionately.
East Timor lost a third of its population simply because its people, after gaining independence
from Portugal, dared to vote the left-leaning FRETILIN into power. "We are not going to tolerate
another Cuba next to our shores", protested the Indonesian fascist dictator Suharto, and the US and
Australia strongly agreed. The torture, and extermination of East Timorese people by the Indonesian
military, was considered irrelevant and not even worth reporting in the mass media.
The people of Iran could of course not be trusted with 'democracy'. Iran is one of the oldest
and greatest cultures on earth, but its people wanted to use the revenues from its oil to improve
their lives, not to feed foreign multi-nationals. That has always been considered a crime by Western
powers – a crime punishable by death.
The people of Iran decided to rule; they voted, they said that they want to have all their oil
industry nationalized. Mohammad Mosaddeq, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from
1951 to 1953, was ready to implement what his people demanded. But his government was overthrown
in a coup d'état, orchestrated by the British MI6 and North American CIA, and what followed was the
murderous dictatorship of the deranged Western puppet – Reza Pahlavi. As in Latin America and Indonesia,
instead of schools, hospitals and housing projects, people got death squads, torture chambers and
fear. Is that what they wanted? Is that what they voted for?
There were literally dozens of countries, all over the world, which had to be 'saved', by the
West, from their own 'irresponsible citizens and voters'. Brazil recently 'celebrated' the 50th anniversary
of the US-backed military coup d'état, which began a horrendous 20 year long military dictatorship.
The US supported two coups in Iraq, in 1963 and 1968 that brought Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party
to power. The list is endless. These are only some random examples.
On closer examination, the West has overthrown, or made attempts to overthrow, almost any democratically
elected governments, on all continents attempting to serve their own people, by providing them with
decent standards of living and social services. That is quite an achievement, and some stamina!
Could it be then that the West only respects 'Democracy' when 'people are forced to rule' against
their own interests? And when they are 'defending' what they are ordered to defend by local elites
that are subservient to North American and European interests? and also when they are defending
the interests of foreign multi-national companies and Western governments that are dependent on those
companies?
***
Can anything be done? If a country is too weak to defend itself by military means, against some
mighty Western aggressor, could it approach any international democratic institutions, hoping for
protection?
Unthinkable!
A good example is Nicaragua, which had been literally terrorized by the United States, for no
other reason than for being socialist. Its government went to court.
The case was called: The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America.
It was a 1986 case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor
of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua.
The judgment was long, consisting of 291 points. Among them that the United States had been involved
in the "unlawful use of force." The alleged violations included attacks on Nicaraguan facilities
and naval vessels, the mining of Nicaraguan ports, the invasion of Nicaraguan air space, and the
training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying of forces (the "Contras") and seeking to overthrow
Nicaragua's Sandinista government.
Judgment was passed, and so were UN votes and resolutions. The UN resolution from 1986 called
for the full and immediate compliance with the Judgment. Only Thailand, France and the UK abstained.
The US showed total spite towards the court, and it vetoed all UN resolutions.
It continued its terror campaign against Nicaragua. In the end, the ruined and exhausted country
voted in 1990. It was soon clear that it was not voting for or against Sandinista government, but
whether to endure more violence from the North, or to simply accept depressing defeat. The Sandinista
government lost. It lost because the voters had a North American gun pointing at their heads.
This is how 'democracy' works.
I covered the Nicaraguan elections of 1996 and I was told by voters, by a great majority of them,
that they were going to vote for the right-wing candidate (Aleman), only because the US was threatening
to unleash another wave of terror in case the Sandinista government came back to power, democratically.
The Sandinistas are now back. But only because most of Latin America has changed, and there is
unity and determination to fight, if necessary.
***
While the Europeans are clearly benefiting from neo-colonialism and the plunder that goes on all
over the world, it would be ridiculous to claim that they themselves are 'enjoying the fruits of
democracy'.
In a dazzling novel "Seeing", written by Jose Saramago, a laureate for the Nobel Prize for literature,
some 83% of voters in an unidentified country (most likely Saramago's native Portugal), decide to
cast blank ballots, expressing clear spite towards the Western representative election system.
This state, which prided itself as a 'democratic one', responded by unleashing an orgy of terror
against its own citizens. It soon became obvious that people are allowed to make democratic choices
only when the result serves the interests of the regime.
Ursula K Le Guin, reviewing the novel in the pages of The Guardian, on 15 April 2006, admitted:
Turning in a blank ballot is a signal unfamiliar to most Britons and Americans, who aren't yet
used to living under a government that has made voting meaningless. In a functioning democracy, one
can consider not voting a lazy protest liable to play into the hands of the party in power (as when
low Labour turn-out allowed Margaret Thatcher's re-elections, and Democratic apathy secured both
elections of George W Bush). It comes hard to me to admit that a vote is not in itself an act of
power, and I was at first blind to the point Saramago's non-voting voters are making.
She should not have been. Even in Europe itself, terror had been unleashed, on many occasions,
against the people who decided to vote 'incorrectly'.
Perhaps the most brutal instance was in the post WWII period, when the Communist Parties were
clearly heading for spectacular victories in France, Italy and West Germany. Such 'irresponsible
behavior' had to be, of course, stopped. Both US and UK intelligence forces made a tremendous effort
to 'save democracy' in Europe, employing Nazis to break, intimidate, even murder members of progressive
movements and parties.
These Nazi cadres were later allowed, even encouraged, to leave Europe for South America, some
carrying huge booty from the victims who vanished in concentration camps. This booty included gold
teeth.
Later on, in the 1990's, I spoke to some of them, and also to their children, in Asuncion, the
capital of Paraguay. They were proud of their deeds, unrepentant, and as Nazi as ever.
Many of those European Nazis later actively participated in Operation Condor, so enthusiastically
supported by the Paraguayan fascist and pro-Western dictator, Alfredo Strössner. Mr Strössner was
a dear friend and asylum-giver to many WWII war criminals, including people like Dr. Josef Mengele,
the Nazi doctor known as the "Angel of Death", who performed genetic experiments on children during
the WWII.
So, after destroying that 'irresponsible democratic process' in Europe (the post-war Western Empire),
many European Nazis that were now loyally serving their new master, were asked to continue with what
they knew how to do best. Therefore they helped to assassinate some 60,000 left-wing South American
men, women and their children, who were guilty of building egalitarian and just societies in their
home countries. Many of these Nazis took part, directly, in Operacion Condor, under the direct supervision
of the United States and Europe.
As Naomi Klein writes in her book, Shock Doctrine:
"Operación Cóndor, also known as Plan Cóndor, Portuguese: Operação Condor) was a campaign of political
repression and terror involving intelligence operations and assassination of opponents, officially
implemented in 1975 by the right-wing dictatorships of the Southern Cone of South America. The program
was intended to eradicate communist or Soviet influence and ideas, and to suppress active or potential
opposition movements against the participating governments."
In Chile, German Nazis rolled up their sleeves and went to work directly: by interrogating, liquidating
and savagely torturing members of the democratically elected government and its supporters. They
also performed countless medical experiments on people, at the so-called Colonia Dirnidad, during
the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, whose rule was manufactured and sustained by Dr. Kissinger
and his clique.
But back to Europe: in Greece, after WWII, both the UK and US got heavily involved in the civil
war between the Communists and the extreme right-wing forces.
In 1967, just one month before the elections in which the Greek left-wing was expected to win
democratically (the Indonesian scenario of 1965), the US and its 'Greek colonels' staged a coup,
which marked the beginning of a 7 year savage dictatorship.
What happened in Yugoslavia, some 30 years later is, of course clear. A successful Communist country
could not be allowed to survive, and definitely not in Europe. As bombs fell on Belgrade, many of
those inquisitive and critically thinking people that had any illusions left about the Western regime
and its 'democratic principles', lost them rapidly.
But by then, the majority of Europe already consisted of indoctrinated masses, some of the worst
informed and most monolithic (in their thinking) on earth.
Europe and its voters It is that constantly complaining multitude, which wants more and more
money, and delivers the same and extremely predictable electoral results every four, five or six
years. It lives and votes mechanically. It has totally lost its ability to imagine a different world,
to fight for humanist principles, and even to dream.
It is turning into an extremely scary place, a museum at best, and a cemetery of human vision
at the worst.
***
As Noam Chomsky pointed out:
Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the political
arena. Essentially the election is a method of marginalizing the population. A huge propaganda campaign
is mounted to get people to focus on these personalized quadrennial extravaganzas and to think, "That's
politics." But it isn't. It's only a small part of politics.
The population has been carefully excluded from political activity, and not by accident. An enormous
amount of work has gone into that disenfranchisement. During the 1960s the outburst of popular participation
in democracy terrified the forces of convention, which mounted a fierce counter-campaign. Manifestations
show up today on the left as well as the right in the effort to drive democracy back into the hole
where it belongs.
Arundhati Roy, commented in her "Is there life after democracy?"
The question here, really, is what have we done to democracy? What have we turned it into? What
happens once democracy has been used up? When it has been hollowed out and emptied of meaning? What
happens when each of its institutions has metastasized into something dangerous? What happens now
that democracy and the Free Market have fused into a single predatory organism with a thin, constricted
imagination that revolves almost entirely around the idea of maximizing profit? Is it possible to
reverse this process? Can something that has mutated go back to being what it used to be?
***
After all that brutality, and spite for people all over the world, the West is now teaching the
planet about democracy. It is lecturing Asians and Africans, people from Middle East and Sub-Continent,
on how to make their countries more 'democratic'. It is actually hard to believe, it should be one
of the most hilarious things on earth, but it is happening, and everyone is silent about it.
Those who are listening without bursting into laughter are actually well paid.
There are seminars; even foreign aid projects related to 'good governance', sponsored by the European
Union, and the United States. The EU is actually much more active in this field. Like the Italian
mafia, it sends covert but unmistakable messages to the world: "You do as we say, or we break your
legs But if you obey, come to us and we will teach you how to be a good aide to Cosa Nostra! And
we will give you some pasta and wine while you are learning."
Because there is plenty of money, so called 'funding' members of the elite, the academia, media
and non-government organizations, from countries that have been plundered by the West – countries
like Indonesia, Philippines, DR Congo, Honduras, or Colombia –send armies of people to get voluntarily
indoctrinated, (sorry, to be 'enlightened') to learn about democracy from the greatest assassins
of genuine 'people's power'; from the West.
Violating democracy is an enormous business. To hush it up is part of that business. To learn
how to be idle and not to intervene against the external forces destroying democracy in your own
country, while pretending to be 'engaged and active', is actually the best business, much better
than building bridges or educating children (from a mercantilist point of view).
Once, at the University of Indonesia where I was invited to speak, a student asked me 'what is
the way forward', to make his country more democratic? I replied, looking at several members of the
professorial staff:
"Demand that your teachers stop going to Europe on fully funded trips. Demand that they stop being
trained in how to brainwash you. Do not go there yourself, to study. Go there to see, to understand
and to learn, but not to study Europe had robbed you of everything. They are still looting your
country. What do you think you will learn there? Do you really think they will teach you how to save
your nation?"
Students began laughing. The professors were fuming. I was never invited back. I am sure that
the professors knew exactly what I was talking about. The students did not. They were thinking that
I made a very good joke. But I was not trying to be funny.
***
As I write these words, the Thai military junta has taken over the country. The West is silent:
the Thai military is an extremely close ally. Democracy at work
And as I write these words, the fascist government in Kiev is chasing, kidnapping and "disappearing"
people in the east and south of Ukraine. By some insane twist of logic, the Western corporate media
is managing to blame Russia. And only a few people are rolling around on the floor, laughing.
As I write these words, a big part of Africa is in flames, totally destroyed by the US, UK, France
and other colonial powers.
Client states like the Philippines are now literally being paid to get antagonistic with China.
Japanese neo-fascist adventurism fully supported by the Unites States can easily trigger WWIII.
So can Western greed and fascist practices in Ukraine.
Democracy! People's power!
If the West had sat on its ass, where it belongs, in Europe and in North America, after WWII,
the world would have hardly any problems now. People like Lumumba, Allende, Sukarno, Mosaddeq, would
have led their nations and continents. They would have communicated with their own people, interacted
with them. They would have built their own styles of 'democracy'.
But all that came from the Bandung Conference of 1955, from the ideals of the Non-Aligned movement,
was ruined and bathed in blood. The true hopes of the people of the world cut to pieces, urinated
on, and then thrown into gutter.
But no more time should be wasted by just analyzing, and by crying over spilt milk. Time to move
on!
The world has been tortured by Europe and the United States, for decades and centuries. It has
been tortured in the name of democracy but it has all been one great lie. The world has been tortured
simply because of greed, and because of racism. Just look back at history. Europe and the United
States have only stopped calling people "niggers", but they do not have any more respect for them
than before. And they are willing, same as before, to sacrifice millions of human lives.
Let us stop worshiping their box, and those meaningless pieces of paper that they want us to stick
in there. There is no power of people in this. Look at the United States itself – where is our democracy?
It is a one-party regime fully controlled by market fundamentalists. Look at our press, and propaganda
Rule of the people by the people, true democracy, can be achieved. We the people had been derailed,
intellectually, so we have not been thinking how, for so many decades.
Now we, many of us, know what is wrong, but we are still not sure what is right.
Let us think and let us search, let us experiment. And also, let us reject their fascism first.
Let them stick their papers wherever they want! Let them pretend that they are not slaves to some
vendors and swindlers. Let them do whatever they want – there, where they belong.
Democracy is more than a box. It is more than a multitude of political parties. It is when people
can truly choose, decide and build a society that they dream about. Democracy is the lack of fear
of having napalm and bombs murdering our dreams. Democracy is when people speak and from those words
grow their own nation. Democracy is when millions of hands join together and from that brilliant
union, new trains begin to run, new schools begin to teach, and new hospitals begin to heal. All
this by the people, for the people! All this created by proud and free humans as gift to all – to
their nation.
Yes, let the slave masters stick their pieces of paper into a box, or somewhere else. They can
call it democracy. Let us call democracy something else – rule of the people, a great exchange of
ideas, of hopes and dreams. Let our taking control over our lives and over our nations be called
'democracy'!
Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered
wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His discussion with Noam Chomsky
On Western Terrorism
is now going to print. His critically acclaimed political novel
Point
of No Return is now re-edited and available.
Oceania
is his book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about post-Suharto
Indonesia and the market-fundamentalist model is called "Indonesia
– The Archipelago of Fear". He has just completed the feature documentary, "Rwanda
Gambit" about Rwandan history and the plunder of DR Congo. After living for many years in Latin
America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached
through his website or his
Twitter.
"... This activates what Randolph Bourne called their "herd mind," inducing them to rally around their governments in a militaristic stampede so as to create the national unity of purpose deemed necessary to defend the homeland against the foreign menace. When you lay siege to an entire country, don't be surprised when it starts to look and act like a barracks. ..."
"... Imperial governments like to pretend that affairs are quite the reverse, adopting the essentially terrorist rationale that waging war against the civilian populace of a rogue state will pressure them to blame and turn against their governments. In reality, it only tends to bolster public support for the regime. ..."
"... The imperial "bogeygoat" is an essential prop for the power of petty tyrants, just as rogue state bogeymen are essential props for the power of grand tyrants like our own. Thus, it should be no surprise that the staunchest opponents to the Iran nuclear deal include both American and Iranian hardliners. Just as there is a "symbiosis of savagery" between imperial hawks and anti-imperial terrorists (as I explain here), there is a similar symbiotic relationship between imperial and rogue state hardliners. ..."
Cold wars freeze despotism in place, and thaws in foreign relations melt it away
The recent Iran nuclear deal represents a thaw in the American cold war against that country.
It is a welcome sequel to the Obama administration's partial normalization with Cuba announced late
last year.
Hardliners denounce these policies as "going soft" on theocracy and communism. Yet, it is such
critics' own hardline, hawkish policies that have done the most to ossify and strengthen such regimes.
That is because war, including cold war, is the health of the state. Antagonistic imperial policies - economic
warfare, saber-rattling, clandestine interventions, and full-blown attacks - make the citizens of
targeted "rogue states" feel under siege.
This activates what Randolph Bourne called their "herd mind," inducing them to rally around
their governments in a militaristic stampede so as to create the national unity of purpose deemed
necessary to defend the homeland against the foreign menace. When you lay siege to an entire country,
don't be surprised when it starts to look and act like a barracks.
Rogue state governments eagerly amplify and exploit this siege effect through propaganda, taking
on the mantle of foremost defender of the nation against the "Yankee Imperialist" or "Great Satan."
Amid the atmosphere of crisis, public resistance against domestic oppression by the now indispensable
"guardian class" goes by the board. "Quit your complaining. Don't you know there's a cold war on?
Don't you know we're under siege?"
Moreover, cold wars make it easy for rogue state governments to shift the blame for domestic troubles
away from their own misrule, and onto the foreign bogeyman/scapegoat ("bogeygoat?") instead. This
is especially easy for being to some extent correct, especially with regard to economic blockades
and other crippling sanctions, like those Washington has imposed on Cuba, Iran, etc.
Imperial governments like to pretend that affairs are quite the reverse, adopting the essentially
terrorist rationale that waging war against the civilian populace of a rogue state will pressure
them to blame and turn against their governments. In reality, it only tends to bolster public support
for the regime.
The imperial "bogeygoat" is an essential prop for the power of petty tyrants, just as rogue
state bogeymen are essential props for the power of grand tyrants like our own. Thus, it should be
no surprise that the staunchest opponents to the Iran nuclear deal include both American and Iranian
hardliners. Just as there is a "symbiosis of savagery" between imperial hawks and anti-imperial terrorists
(as I explain here), there is a similar symbiotic relationship between imperial and rogue state hardliners.
The last thing hardliners want is the loss of their cherished bogeygoat. Once an emergency foreign
threat recedes, and the fog of war hysteria lifts, people are then more capable of clearly seeing
their "guardians" as the domestic threat that they are, and more likely to feel that they can afford
to address that threat without exposing themselves to foreign danger. This tends to impel governments
to become less oppressive, and may even lead to their loss of power.
Thus after Nixon normalized with communist China and belatedly ended the war on communist Vietnam,
both of those countries greatly liberalized and became more prosperous. Even Soviet reforms and the
ultimate dissolution of the Soviet Union only arose following American detente.
Simultaneously, as the American cold wars against communist Cuba and communist North Korea continued
without stint for decades, providing the Castros and Kims the ultimate bogeygoat to feature in their
propaganda, the impoverishing authoritarian grip of those regimes on their besieged people only strengthened.
Similarly, ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution overthrew the puppet dictator that the CIA had
installed over Iran in a 1953 coup, the Ayatollahs have been able to exploit ongoing hostility from
the American "Great Satan" to retain and consolidate their repressive theocratic power.
All this is an object lesson for US relations with Putin's Russia, Chavista Venezuela, and beyond.
Disastrously, it is being unheeded.
Even while thawing relations with Iran, the Obama administration has triggered a new cold war
with Russia over Ukraine. This has only made Russian President Vladimir Putin more domestically popular
than ever.
And even while normalizing relations with Cuba, Obama recently declared Venezuela a national security
threat, imposing new sanctions. As journalist Alexandra Ulmer argued, these sanctions "may be godsend
for struggling Venezuelan leader," President Nicolas Maduro. As Ulmer wrote in Reuters:
"Suddenly, the unpopular leader has an excuse to crank up the revolutionary rhetoric and try to
fire up supporters, copying a tactic used skillfully for more than a decade by his mentor and predecessor,
the late socialist firebrand Hugo Chavez.
A new fight with the enemy to the north may also help unite disparate ruling Socialist Party factions
and distract Venezuelans from relentless and depressing talk about their day-to-day economic problems."
There is nothing unusual in prohibiting "unverified purchasers" reviews for a controversial book.
That said the way Hillary presents election in the book is deeply misleading. She lost as neocon warmonger and globalist because
her agenda lost. All other issues including her sleazy character, her health, Coney, emailgate, DNC hack (and criminality of throwing
sanders under the bus) are secondary
... the Telegraph first
reported , and subsequently many others observed first hand, that Amazon has been monitoring and deleting 1-star reviews of Hillary
Clinton's new book "which was greeted with a torrent of criticism on the day it was released."
Reviews of What Happened have been mixed, with some accusing Clinton of using it as an opportunity to blame others – such as former
FBI head James Comey, Bernie Sanders, Vladimir Putin, social media and pretty much everything else – for her failure, rather than
herself. Even The New
York Times , which supported Clinton's campaign, wrote that the book is "a score-settling jubilee".
What is fascinating, is how few one-star reviews have remained on the website amid reports and screengrabs showing that reviewers
used the space to criticise the former First Lady. One 1-star review, which remained on the website earlier today, read: "Read all
the promotional excerpts, which combined come close to book length – pretty good novel. It is fiction, isn't it? Surely, someone
is playing a joke." Another
wrote "Picked this book up at Wal-Mart out of sheer morbid curiosity. Returned it, claiming I bought the wrong book"
While this is not the first time Amazon has intervened to "adjust" the ratings of its products - in November negative comments
under a book by anti-Trump broadcaster Megyn Kelly appeared to be removed by the retailer - it has rarely "adjusted" reviews of such
a prominent product so publicly.
Speaking to Fortune , an Amazon
spokesperson said: "In the case of a memoir, the subject of the book is the author and their views. It's not our role to decide what
a customer would view as helpful or unhelpful in making their decision. We do however have mechanisms in place to ensure that the
voices of many do not drown out the voices of a few and we remove customer reviews that violate our community guidelines."
Interesting idea. Shame this happened, I was looking forward to reading those one start reviews. They usually have some pretty
funny shit in them.
I will say this, when reading reviews, there is a line underneath that says 'verified purchase' under it. This shows up if
you bought the product you are reviewing through your Amazon account. I believe companies are allowed to request negative reviews
be taken down if the reviewer didn't buy them through Amazon, and therefore can't be verified to have even bought the product.
If they are taking down 'verified purchase' reviews from people who did buy the book and then left a negative review then I have
a big problem with that. Thats customers saying what they think.
If its not actual purchasers of the book leaving these reviews, no publisher should have to tolerate a bunch of people who
didn't even buy their product dumping a bunch of 1 start reviews on it. I find the endless trolling and making fun of killery
highly amusing, can't stand the woman, but if all they are taking down is people who didn't buy the book off amazon then thats
to be expected. No amazon vendor would tolerate this.
Edit: I just tried a little experiment to see if Amazon would let me review the book. It says only verified purchasers are
allowed to review this book. I then went a little further. I looked up trumps most recent book, and the one he is most known for,
art of the deal. Both of those will let me post a review without buying the book. Both have almost 5 stars.
I tried the same thin with her other lame ass book, hard choices. It also let me post a review on that one. It appears to be
ONLY 'what happened' that this applies to. For the record, I didn't actually post the reviews. I just got one step past where
it stopped me on killery's newest book. Tried on a couple other books written by, shall we say, devisive people, none of them
prevent you from leaving reviews either. Just this one.
Follow up to your comment that it's legitimate to delete unverified 1-star reviews. I bet there are a lot of unverified 5-star
reviews that don't get deleted.
Not a defendant of Hillary or Amazon, but there is a chance that Amazon had enabled non-purchasers to review Hitlary's book
with negative reviews. Once the excessive reviews surfaced, proceeded with deleting all the negative non-purchaser reviews, then
enabled "negative reviews only by purchasers" mode.
Tried to leave a review. It rejected me stating only accepting reviews from verified purchasers. A new policy just for her.
Watch the magic. Search the book and there are 1800+ reviews 3 star average. Once you click the books page they are all 5 star
for about 500 reviews. They deleted 2/3 of the reviews lol
Use shop runner. Couple travel cards I have give free shop runner membership as a perk and it's the same shipping/returns as
prime. Fuck Bezos and the rest of the liberal elite scum.
"... "Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to be called the "Neocon Lobby". ..."
"... For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons. ..."
"... Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven, they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating to the people around them. ..."
"... urbi et orbi ..."
"... Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops. ..."
"... someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please. ..."
"... The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene, so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death. ..."
"... This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo! ..."
"... anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse? ..."
"... After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon." ..."
"... I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity. ..."
"... The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives on Capitol Hill. ..."
"... This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats' rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia, so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks. ..."
"... We have an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington is doing now: committing suicide. ..."
"... I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else. ..."
"... Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it fed. ..."
"... Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as much for itself as possible. ..."
"... And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard. Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. ..."
The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response have resulted in a torrent of speculations
in the official media and the blogosphere – everybody is trying to make sense of a situation which
appears to make no sense at all. Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against
Russia when Russia has done absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie
Sanders, every single US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?! This is even more baffling
when you consider that the single biggest effect of these sanctions will be to trigger a rift, and
possibly even counter-sanctions , between the US and the EU. What is absolutely clear is that
these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting
the Russians to change anything at all in their policies. And yet, every Senator except Paul and
Sanders voted for this. Does that make any sense to you?
Let's try to figure out what is going on here.
First, a simple reminder: like all US politicians, from the county level to the US Congress, Senators
have only one consideration when then vote – "what's in it for me?". The very last thing which any
US Senator really cares about are the real life consequences of his/her vote. This means that to
achieve the kind of quasi unanimity (98%) for a totally stupid vote there was some kind of very influential
lobby which used some very forceful "arguments" to achieve such a vote. Keep in mind that the Republicans
in the Senate knew that they were voting against the wishes of their President. And yet every single
one except for Rand Paul voted for these sanctions, that should tell you something about the power
of the lobby which pushed for them. So who would have such power?
Okay, why not? We could probably rearrange them, give them different labels, add a couple (like the
"Prison Industrial Complex" or the "Intelligence Community") but all in all this is an okay list.
Any name on it jump at you yet?
One could make the case that most of these lobbies need an enemy to prosper, this is certainly
true of the Military-Industrial Complex and the associated high tech industry, and one could also
reasonably claim that Big Oil, Mining and Agribusiness see Russia has a potential competitor. But
a closer look at the interests these lobbies represent will tell you that they are mostly involved
in domestic politics and that faraway Russia, with her relatively small economy, is just not that
important to them. This is also clearly true for Big Pharma, the AARP and the NRA. Which leaves the
Israel Lobby as the only potential candidate.
"Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel
as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to
be called the "Neocon Lobby". Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby
is unlike any other lobby in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests.
Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific
subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share
in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress lost
the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him. These are the
folks who simply use "Russia" as a propagandistic fulcrum to peddle the notion that Trump and his
entourage are basically Russian agents and Trump himself as a kind of "Presidential Manchurian Candidate".
Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven,
they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which
allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually
read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre
individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating
to the people around them. They always overplay their hand and then end up stunned and horrified
when all their conspiracies and plans come tumbling down on them.
I submit that this is exactly what is happening right now.
First, the Neocons lost the elections. For them, it was a shock and a nightmare. The "deplorables"
voted against the unambiguously clear "propaganda instructions" given to them by the media. Next,
the Neocons turned their rabid hatred against Trump and they succeeded at basically neutering him,
but only at the cost of terribly weakening the USA themselves! Think of it: 6 months plus into the
Trump administration the USA has already managed to directly threaten Iran, Syria, the DPRK and in
all cases with exactly zero results. Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda
inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for
the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo --
So while Kim Jong-un fires missiles on the 4th of July, the Syrian Army is closing in on Deir
ez-Zor, the Ukraine is turning into Somalia, the Russian economy is back to growth and Putin's popularity
is as high as ever, the Neocons are totally freaking out and, as is typical of a person losing control,
they don't do things which would make sense but do what they are used to doing: slapping sanctions
(even if they are totally ineffective) and sending messages (even if they are totally ignored). In
other words, the Neocons are now engaging in magical thinking, the deliberately chose to delude themselves
about their power and influence and they are coping with their full-spectrum failure at everything
by pretending that their votes in Congress matter. They truth is – they don't.
Here is where we need to turn to the other misconception in this matter, that the Russian reaction
to these latest sanctions is really about these sanctions. It is not.
First, let's tackle the myth that these sanctions are hurting Russia. They really don't. Even
the 100% russophobic Bloomberg is beginning to realize that, if anything, all
these sanctions have made both Putin and Russia stronger . Second, there is the issue of timing:
instead of slapping on some counter-sanctions the Russians suddenly decided to dramatically reduce
the US diplomatic personnel in Russia and confiscate a two US diplomatic facilities in a clear retaliation
for the expulsion of Russian diplomats and seizure of Russian diplomatic facilities by Obama last
year. Why now?
Many observers say that the Russians are "naive" about the West and the USA, that Putin was "hoping"
for better relations and that this hope was paralyzing him. Others say that Putin is "weak" or even
"in cahoots" with the West. This is all total nonsense.
People tend to forget that Putin was an officer in the foreign intelligence branch of the KGB,
the so-called "First Main Directorate" (PGU). Furthermore, Putin has recently revealed that he worked
in the highly secretive "Directorate S" of the PGU and he was in charge of contacts with a network
of illegal Soviet spies in East-Germany (were Putin was under the official cover of Director of the
USSR-GDR Friendship House). If the PGU was the "elite of the elite" of the KGB, and its most secretive
part, then the "Directorate S" was the "elite of the elite" of the PGU and its most secretive part.
This is most definitely not a career for "naive" or "weak" people, to put it mildly! First and foremost,
PGU officers were "specialists of the West" in general, and of the United States especially because
the USA was always officially considered as the "main enemy" (even if most PGU officers personally
considered the British as their most capable, dangerous and devious adversary). Considering the superb
level of education and training given to these officers, I would argue that the PGU officers were
amongst the best experts of the West anywhere in the world. Their survival and the survival of their
colleagues depended on their correct understanding of the western world. As for Putin personally,
he has always taken action in a very deliberate and measured way and there is no reason to assume
that this time around the latest US sanctions have suddenly resulted in some kind of emotional outburst
in the Kremlin. You can be darn sure that this latest Russian reaction is the result of very carefully
arrived to conclusion and the formulation of a very precise and long-term objective.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that
the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature: the new
measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions. In practical terms, if Trump
wanted to lift any of these sanctions, he would have to send an official letter to Congress which
would then have 30 days to approve or reject the proposed action. In other words, the Congress has
now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign policy and taken upon itself to micromanage
the US foreign policy.
That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'état and a gross violation of the principles
of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system.
It also is a telling testimony to the utter depravity of the US Congress which took no such measures
when Presidents bypass Congress and started wars without the needed congressional authority, but
which is now overtly taking over the US foreign policy to prevent the risk of "peace breaking out"
between Russia and the USA.
And Trump's reaction?
He declared that he would sign the bill.
Yes, the main is willing to put his signature on the text which represents an illegal coup d'état
against this own authority and against the Constitution which he swore to uphold.
With this in mind, the Russian reaction is quite simple and understandable: they have given up
on Trump.
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election of Trump
might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous dynamic
initiated by the Neocons under Obama and maybe return the international relations to a semblance
of sanity. Alas, this did not happen, Trump turned out to be an overcooked noodle whose only real
achievement was to express his thoughts in 140 characters or less. But the one crucial, vital, thing
which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly crushing the Neocons – he totally failed
to achieve. Worse, his only reaction to their multi-dimensional attempts at overthrowing him were
each time met with clumsy attempts at appeasing them.
For Russia is means that President Trump has now been replaced by "President Congress".
Since it is absolutely impossible to get anything done with this Congress anyway, the Russians
will now engage in unilaterally beneficial measures such as dramatically reducing the number of US
diplomats in Russia. For the Kremlin, these sanctions are no so much an unacceptable provocation
has an ideal pretext to move on a number of Russian internal policies. Getting rid of US employees
in Russia is just a first step.
Next, Russia will use the frankly erratic behavior of the Americans to proclaim urbi et orbi
that the Americans are irresponsible, incapable of adult decision-making and basically "gone
fishing". The Russians already did that much when they declared that the Obama-Kerry team was недоговороспособны
(nedogovorosposobny: "non agreement capable", more about this concept
here ). Now with Trump signing his own constitutional demise, Tillerson unable to get UN Nikki
to shut the hell up and Mattis and McMaster fighting over delusional plans to stop "not winning"
in Afghanistan, the Obama-Kerry teams starts to look almost adult.
Frankly, for the Russians now is the time to move on.
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump. I furthermore predict
that the USA will not launch any major military interventions (if only because the USA has run out
of countries it can safely and easily attack). Some "pretend interventions" (like the ill-fated missile
strike on Syria) remain, of course, quite possible and even likely. This internal slow-mo coup against
Trump will absorb the vast majority of the energy to get anything done, and leave foreign policy
as simply another byproduct of internal US politics.
The East-Europeans are now totally stuck. They will continue to haplessly observe the unfolding
Ukrainian disaster while playing at silly games pretending to be tough on Russia (the latest example
of that kind of "barking from behind a fence" can be seen in the rather pathetic
closure of the Romanian air space to a civilian aircraft with Russian Vice-Premier Dmitri Rogozin
amongst the passengers). The real (West) Europeans will gradually come back to their senses and begin
making deals with Russia. Even France's Emmanuel Macron de Rothschild will probably prove a more
adult partner than The Donald.
But the real action will be elsewhere – in the South, the East and the Far-East. The simple truth
is that the world cannot simply wait for the Americans to come back to their senses. There are a
lot of crucial issues which need to be urgently tackled, a lot of immense projects which need to
be worked on, and a fundamentally new and profoundly different multi-polar world which needs to be
strengthened. If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring
down the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate
in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem.
Washington DC is starting to look like a kindergarten on LSD – something both funny and disgusting.
Predictably, the kids don't look too bright: a mix of bullies and spineless idiots. Some of them
have their fingers on a nuclear button, and that is outright scary. What the adults need to do now
is to figure out a way of keeping the kids busy and distracted so they don't press the damn button
by mistake. And wait. Wait for the inevitable reaction of a country which is so much more and better
than its rulers and which now desperately needs a real patriot to stop
Witches' Sabbath in
Washington DC.
I will end this column on a personal note. I just crossed the USA, literally, from the Rogue River
in Oregon to East Central Florida. During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful
sights, but also plenty of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of
their being and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken
over the federal government. I have now lived a total of 20 years in the USA and I have learned to
love and deeply appreciate the many kind, decent, honorable and simply beautiful people who live
here. Far from seeing the American people as enemies of Russia, I see them has natural allies, if
only because we have the same enemy (the Neocons in DC) and absolutely no objective reasons for conflict,
none whatsoever. Moreover, in many ways Americans and Russians are very much alike, sometimes in
comical ways. Just as during the Cold War I never lost hope in the Russian people, I now refuse to
lose hope in the American people. Yes, the US federal government is disgusting, evil, ugly, stupid,
degenerate and outright satanic, but the people of the USA are not. Far from it. I don't know if
this country can survive the current regime as one unitary USA or whether it will break up in several
quite different entities (something I see as very possible), but I do believe that the people of
the USA will survive and overcome just as the Russian people survived the horrors of the 1980s and
1990s.
[Sidebar: after being accused of being a "paid Putin agent" (Vladimir, please send me money!!),
a "Jew-lover" or even a "crypto-Jew" myself, a Nazi and Anti-Semite (which decent and good person
has not been called an Anti-Semite" at least once in his/her life), a Communist and a Muslim (or,
at least, a "Muslim propagandist"), I will now be called an "USA lover". Fine. Guilty as charged!
I do love this country very much, as I do love its people. In fact, my heart often breaks for them
and for the immense sufferings the Anglo-Zionist Empire also inflicts upon them. In the fight between
the people of the USA and the Empire I unapologetically side with the people whom I see as friends,
allies and even brothers.]
Right now the USA appears to be plunging into a precipice very similar to the one the Ukraine
has plunged into (which is unsurprising, really, the same people inflicting the same disasters on
whatever country they infect with their presence). The big difference is that immense and untapped
potential of the USA to bounce back. There might not even be a Ukraine in 10 years, but there will
most definitely be a USA, albeit maybe a very different one or even maybe several successor states.
But for the time being, I can only repeat what Floridians say when a hurricane comes barreling
down on them: "hunker down" and brace for some very difficult and dangerous times to come. (Republished
from
The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)
Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now
put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the
current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely
nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created
this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU–they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know
why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and
calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama.
How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return
to?
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Americans and the US government are two different things.
That is no small part of why Trump got elected.
Antagonize Russia to what purpose?
Now we have Haley at the UN, Tillerton, and McMaster making statements at odds with Trumps
and they still have a job. Can Trump even remove them?
Who is actually in charge of the American government? Is it Trump or the Neocons?
The entire Russia hacking story is a joke and probably a setup by the Democrats if their links
to Fusion GPS is true.
Regardless, foreign nations have to deal with the world outside of Washington DC and its looks
like the lunatics have taken control of the DC asylum which may well be the case.
The problem is the lack of coherence from Washington.
We may be looking at a slow motion coup, or simple incompetence, but Trump never struck me
as incompetent in his other business dealings.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Your trolling comment is offensive
"During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty
of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being and who
want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken over the federal
government."
I am anything but beautiful, but everything else about that sentence describes me.
I have never been to Russia, but I have known many Russians, and I am a bit of a Russophile.
I voted for Trump partly because I was certain that Clinton would immediately plunge us into war
with Russia. It sickens me that the senate are now rattling sabres against them. I am praying
for them, and that this country is stopped from doing any real damage to them.
I can't help but wonder whether the all-but-signed alliance with the Saudis has something to
do with this. There must be something diabolical there too.
@Bragadocious You returned from a 3-year posting absence to write that? So Ned took a break
for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment was offensive, I would have called
it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of the sort that the US has already had
more than enough of.
Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because
he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that
Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is
different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect
change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.
Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is
increasingly looking like it's not going to happen.
I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall" 1850-1950 (very
last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there all the same.
Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was willing to sell
off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years. (If you want
an example, take the Panama Canal.)
In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National
Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the
"known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle)
is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive
proposition – destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY – why do the
neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc.,
you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia
agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort,
CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the
anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly,
has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now – ever since Kissinger (godfather of the
neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been
providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment – in particular to political parties
and to the media – since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China
lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know,
and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long
seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold,
Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence
of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930′s, but that might mean identifying
with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)
That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee)
are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it
to keep Congress dumb and afraid but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely, the
Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires
have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires,
including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party
of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money
much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And
what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide
to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks
pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.
If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review,
check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If
your mind has been closed, let it open.
The neocons and their media in the U.S. and the rest of the West simply HAVE to be taken out,
one way or another. This is the only acceptable route – a knot tying the whole world up in insanity,
which must be broken.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond.
But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly
crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.
Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far
as US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing
into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change
in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the
Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever
comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates
Nikki Haley's open warmongering).
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more
than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated
by lobbyists via the media.
See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to?
I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee
admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.
Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy
stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly)
singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally
well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon
propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq?
He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also
points out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape
from the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy
seems to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality,
especially with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.
And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?
Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be
a good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary
importance for US foreign and military policy.
This article is something of a mixed bag. The idea that there is going to be some rift between
the EU and US is, at best, wishful thinking, but probably closer to downright delusion. No, European
countries ceased to be subjects of history, and became objects, when they ceded their sovereignty
to the implicitly Atlanticist and supranational structure that is the EU. So they may growl and
gnash their teeth a bit, but will eventually roll over and hope that their bellies are scratched
and not slashed.
As for Trump signing the sanctions legislation as it is written, Saker's point is valid. No
president should abrogate power without a fight. He should, at the very least, insist that the
restrictions on his ability to unilaterally cancel sanctions be removed from the legislation or
he will veto the bill and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. And, he should make clear
that this isn't about sanctioning or not sanctioning Russia, but the fact that the law is unconstitutional.
Saker is also correct that the US is simply too dysfunctional now to pursue any kind of coherent
foreign policy. If I were Putin, I would ask Trump who in Congress he should be negotiating with,
since neither Trump himself, nor anyone in his cabinet, possesses the authority to follow through
with any possible agreements. The smarter commentators are actually all coming around to the same
view. Dmitry Trenin:
"I think the Kremlin views the U.S. as a dysfunctional polity, with its political class
at war with itself and its society deeply divided along cultural fault lines. Under these circumstances
one hardly expects a consistent policy Bad as they are now, U.S.-Russian relations continue
to get worse, edging ever closer to a kinetic collision between their armed forces somewhere:
in Syria, over the Baltic and Black Seas, or Ukraine."
It does indeed seem like something dramatic needs to happen, at which point the US will either
come to its senses or it's mushroom cloud time for all of us.
Although I think there is some hypobole involved, I would like to thank the Saker for raising
this very interesting and very pregnant issue:
"In other words, the Congress has now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign
policy and taken upon itself to micromanage the US foreign policy.
That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'état and a gross violation of the principles
of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system."
This is a very disturbing development, to say the least.
However, I do disagree with the Saker on this point:
"If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring down
the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate
in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem."
The "Americans" -- that is US citizens -- do NOT want to bring down the constitution, nor have
a government operate in a delusional realm. Nor does the US "government have the "right" to operate
in the way they do: that amounts to saying they have the right to commit treason ( a meaningless
concept for the Elites). Finally, it is NOT just an American "problem": unfortunately, it's a
world problem. We are all liable to suffer for the insane shenanigans of the US Ruling
class.
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.
And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump
look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey – a certified swamp creature – to be loyal
is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments
between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump.
With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only
thing standing in the way of One World Government.
I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions
Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot
of Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base.
@NoseytheDuke So Ned took a break for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment
was offensive, I would have called it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of
the sort that the US has already had more than enough of.
Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because
he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that
Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is
different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect
change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.
Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is
increasingly looking like it's not going to happen. Yes, the neocons took over before Trump.
Good observation, Sherlock
Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election
of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous
dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama
See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't
know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound
like a kindergartner on LSD.
"I would have called it stupid"
Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're
smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart.
I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee
admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.
Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy
stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly)
singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally
well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon
propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama.
How do you think we got into Iraq?
He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also points
out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape from
the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy seems
to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality, especially
with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.
And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?
Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be a
good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary
importance for US foreign and military policy. Saker didn't refer to any of those things
I agree, he didn't, but then again, it seems Saker doesn't do nuance very well. He specializes
in grandiose insults (stupid, LSD, kindergartners, overcooked noodle, gone fishing) without mentioning
some pretty important stuff, like Trump cutting off funding to the Syrian rebels. That move
infuriated the neocons. Why doesn't Saker mention that? I guess it doesn't jibe with his overall
"incompetence" theme and anti-Trump snark.
As for the sanctions, they seem to upset Saker. But then he says it's water off a duck's back
for Putin. Hey, they probably even strengthen his hand -- So really, who gives a shit? He
contradicts himself.
Finally, he says Trump has turned over foreign policy responsibility to Congress. I'm no constitutional
expert, but Congress is in charge of declaring war. Sanctions can be interpreted as an act of
war. In any case, forcing the congresscritters to go on record for something like this can be
seen as very useful, just as the Iraq war vote was in blocking Hillary from higher office.
Thanks for the compliments regarding the American people. They all want peace just like all
others and have always voted for what they thought was the peace candidate only to be betrayed
later. I've lived here longer than just twenty years, however, but my whole life and am not so
sanguine about the nature of most Americans. I'd say the vast majority, perhaps 70%, are ignorant
dolts and easily bamboozled. Elections are just festivals of lies and deceit with few being able
to learn from the previous experience. The population is composed mostly of dodo birds. The ruling
class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen. This is a bad formula
and can only go so far. The fault is not in our stars but in us.
" The ruling class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen."
And who exactly is this "ruling class" if not the neocons? Are they not exactly like Milovan
Djilas' "new class" – a class of apparatchiks in positions to profit enormously (while living
very comfortably) from the decline and fall of an empire. How could this be, if their treasonous
profiteering could only leave them as having no place to turn but the China-dominated new world
order? Well, perhaps they actually know that the very millionaires who controlled key industries
in China prior to 1950, were also millionaires who lived, have lived even during the Cultural
Revolution, and for their families, continue to live, very comfortably and securely in Shanghai
from 1950 onward – assuming that they were astute enough to have been doing business with the
Communists all along. Perhaps they realize that the Communists are about as communistic as the
National Socialists were socialistic so that course which is most profitable in the short-run
is also most profitable in the long run.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact
that the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature:
the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.
This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part
and move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day)
of 50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently.
Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much
bigly. All will be well --
Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to Kiev,
Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to hit back
at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia white.
A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that
the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature:
the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.
This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part and
move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day) of
50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently.
Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much
bigly. All will be well --
http://robertmagill.wordpress.com The production facilities of the future will be automated
and the elimination of workers will mean there is no particular reason to continue offshoring
production. The factories will come back to the West, but the jobs won't exist .
@exiled off mainstreet Great picture and great description. Hopefully, things will degenerate
to the point where they can't gin up a nuclear war. Great picture -- just not congruent with the
title of the post. With a moniker like that, EoM, one might think you'd notice the size of that
girl's pupils. Not on LSD. Ill bet she had already graduated from kindergarten, too. But then,
why be critical of what one sees and reads. I take SAKER's input with a salt shaker on hand.
@Grandpa Charlie I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall"
1850-1950 (very last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there
all the same. Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was
willing to sell off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years.
(If you want an example, take the Panama Canal.)
In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National
Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the
"known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle)
is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive
proposition - destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY - why do the
neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc.,
you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia
agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort,
CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the
anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly,
has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now - ever since Kissinger (godfather of the
neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been
providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment - in particular to political parties
and to the media - since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China
lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know,
and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long
seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold,
Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence
of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930's, but that might mean identifying
with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)
That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee)
are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it
to keep Congress dumb and afraid ... but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely,
the Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires
have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires,
including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party
of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money
much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And
what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide
to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks
pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.
If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review,
check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If
your mind has been closed, let it open.
"Yet none dare call it treason." Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.
@utu Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond.
And obviously Putin is a superman
Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything
is a stroke of genius.
These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize
these mediocrities for what they are.
@Bragadocious Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock
Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election
of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous
dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama
See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't
know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound
like a kindergartner on LSD.
"I would have called it stupid"
Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're
smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart.
I see that you've outed yourself as a Coincidence Theorist there so you may console yourself as
at least being "useful", even if it is only as being a useful idiot.
Start with ae911truth.org, grap a book on high-school physics and go on from there. There's
plenty of reading and learning ahead for you, but you'll be much better for it. Oh, and stop the
chest-thumping, it only results in bruises.
@Chuck Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/259853-training-tactical-officers-critical-for-national
"Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection." – Chuck, citing to The Hill
As always, a good read from the Saker.
I think his assessment is spot on; Trump and his movement have been disabled. Now Congress members
seem to be jockeying for future power-gains, while Trump might be starting to check out.
He'll keep tweeting or whatever, but Nikki Haley, Pence and the generals might end up grabbing
more decision-making power or perhaps not.. who knows.
There's always the 25th amendment scenario, the Russian collusion angle, or maybe some other
damning revelation to pop up in the future to sink Trump, but I think many in Washington may be
under warning that his removal could have a devastating impact.
I am not as optimistic about a lack of militarism in response to the crisis. That has been
the go-to option for all modern American presidents in times of crisis.
The worms in the House and Senate have been totally terrorized by the vile jooies. Give the
loathsome jooies whatever they want, no matter how foul, and keep their jobs or cross the abominable
jooies and lose their jobs when a well funded opponent supported by the repulsive KM (kosher media)
just happens to appear in the next primary. The Jooie Lobby runs the Knesset on the Potomac, not
the US citizenry who are held in the utmost contempt by the bloodthirsty jooie elites. Government
of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies .
Many events are sprouting up all over the map
India China, Taliban in Afghanistan ,Venezuela , Iran Syria Lebanon , Israel Palestine -- all are
moving rapidly into unknown territory . America is no longer is in a position to influence these
events. . despite not wanting American policy makers will be forced to look inwards . Those counytriesmay
nt bother to inform America .
Health Care, Student loans, next inevitable housing bubble, millennial not saving and being
forced to spend the income on health care and rents along , nation as a whole see increasing social
fragmentation on ethnic lines -- these forces will make America much weaker economically and socially
. Foreign countries like China and Gulf monarchies will influence American foreign and domestic
policies .
America democracy itself may not survive the changes . Neocons with eager media may settle
down on dictatorship.
"The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response"
There has not been any response so far. Response was to US expelling 35 Russian diplomats 6+
months ago. This is why I am not a fan of delayed responses. As saying goes, spoon is for dinner,
not afterwards. Russia so far failed to respond to USA aggression which is what sanctions are.
Putin has been doing this whole patience expectations of US coming to her senses for some 10 years
with poor results as US belligerence seems to grow in lack of appropriate responses from Russia.
Putin being liberal he is, seems cannot abandon hope to be part of the club so far hence this
treatment in white gloves when it is stick across US face and kick into US groin what's necessary.
USA is like a dog that understands only stick. And stick has been missing despite Russia having
enough options to start really hurting USA where it hurts and stop cooperation everywhere even
in Syria.
I am not holding my breath with Putin though. He still insists on not letting up and talking to
madman despite that doing everything to hurt him.
Slow learner he is both in regards to USA and Russian economy.
"What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and
I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more
of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly
crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.
Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far as
US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing
into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change
in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the
Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever
comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates
Nikki Haley's open warmongering).
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more
than the lobbyists - which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated
by lobbyists via the media.
See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents
more than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being
manipulated by lobbyists via the media.
Yet, that has never happened, and will never happen. People elect leaders quite like themselves.
It is the people, stupid (I don't necessarily mean you).
The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the risk whilst
in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough, so they go
on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's ass will be
a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the wars and dying
will be done over there in their estimation.
Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby
in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent
the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US
ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one
common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress
lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.
Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish
outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham but this need be no more complex
than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have
cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of
culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.
The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon"
is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of
Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true.
And one of the things I've learned is to NOT seek a reasonable answer to situations provoked
by utter crackpots.
It's simple; many of those in positions of power and responsibility are not only nuts in the
head, but no human is built to shoulder much power at all.
Of the lobby groups listed, probably only Big Oil and Big Jew (and not in that order) have
much of an interest in going to war with Russia. The Military-Industrials are happy just to get
contracts to build stuff. They don't really care, or particularly want, their stuff to be used.
Most of it is too expensive to use, and probably doesn't work as advertised, anyhow.
But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity.
Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means of influence to explain
the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!
And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real
interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference
to that Senate vote?
Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of
what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your
explanation .. Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from
which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high
proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected
in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its
dug in positions.
The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as
that?
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.
And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump
look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey - a certified swamp creature - to be loyal
is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments
between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump.
With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only
thing standing in the way of One World Government.
I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions
Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot of
Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base. "Russian nukes are the
only thing standing in the way of One World Government."
Indeed. Vladimir Putin has big balls, and the elites hate him. But he's not afraid of a murder
attempt. The elites know that if something happens to him, Europe, Israel and North America would
be reduced to radioactive debris in about one hour
A new alignment is likely to emerge .t will be much less adversarial and much less enthused
with polemic. America China Israel Saudi Arab – pitted against – India Russia Iran Japan, . China
will embrace US because of Neocon and myriad financial connections with US .India will be forced
to return to Russia . China joining America or America deciding to join China is the game changer
and disrupt very other relationship. China will try to occupy American position after WW2 while
US will find itself occupying post WW2 British position. Neoconservatives and financial system
of the world will force this merger .
Pakistan Germany Turkey will try to juggle and hedge theirs bets . Central Asian Stan will
be politically connected to Russia but economically to China .China and Russia will quarrel here
and these countries will face a period of turmoil. Balkans will move back to Russia . NATO will
be largely irrelevant with no ability to have consensus and a mission .
The world will become more rambunctious and hyper verbal but it won't fight .
Polyglot countries like India and America will try to talk along ethnic lines more but the fundamental
underlying realities will not change . Despite the divisiveness promoted by parties, the citizen
will move to closer relationship and understanding and common ground partly because the divisiveness
will fail to accrue any benefit to the groups most interested in harvesting it .But the divisiveness
will not disappear from daily discourse .
Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything
is a stroke of genius.
These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize
these mediocrities for what they are. ;) Everything is a stroke of genius.
Like playing 3D or nD (n–>inf) chess, right?
I think it come from desperation and hope, I think. And as they say, hope does not want to
die in spite of the evidence that it should long time ago.
@The Alarmist The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the
risk whilst in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough,
so they go on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's
ass will be a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the
wars and dying will be done over there ... in their estimation. " Neocons seem to think kicking
Russia's ass will be a manageable high"
That's what they think. Given that Russia currently has more nuclear power than USA and Israel
combined, to think that they can handle Russia is sheer stupidity.
Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive
strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's
opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding
ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as
much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how
to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898,
sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a
balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For
the US one can imagine what those might be.
We need a better term than "neo-con." People like Brennan, Clapper and McMaster were never
Trotskyites and they never wrote for Commentary. Their view is really a liberal internationalism
update for the post-Cold War, post-9/11 situation. And this view is ubiquitous inside the Beltway.
Saker,
I especially liked your use of the term "demonic" which is an appropriate term both figuratively
and possibly literally to describe many neocon adherents.
The internet is providing "Light coming into the world", that is, Truth or information coming
into mass consciousness. Mass consciousness must shape which possible futures become reality,
or the controlled media wouldn't be spending billions to try to influence it. Some would say that
this is solely because of the physical changes that people then force to happen, but evidence
also supports consciousness simply altering possible outcomes "The prayers of a righteous man
availeth much".
Saker, thanks much for Your articles!
Abstinence from all injustice to other first-rate powers is a greater tower of strength
than anything that can be gained by the sacrifice of permanent tranquillity for an apparent
temporary advantage.
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book I, 1.42-[3]
@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect
on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at
all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more
of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse
Not always, and not necessarily now. Sometimes no response is the most powerful. Aggressive and ruthless responses are often best
reserved for the times they're likely to succeed decisively. Responding to petulant pissants is more often than not a waste of time, energy and concentration. Putin appears to know all that, and good for him. I 'd love to see him knock the bastards on
their collective asses permanently. Sometime.
Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond. Russia had quite satisfactorily surfed sanctions.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please.
@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to
Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to
hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia
white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus America
or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments
other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered
by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene,
so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving
Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on
that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death.
Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome
"Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting – with trade wars, sanctions-wars,
hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars – but you will have to spare
us such merry excitement.
You are making too big a deal about the 30 day repeal. I bet you Trump will include a signing
statement that he reserves the right to ignore the parts of the law that are unconstitutional.
I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has nothing
to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask the destroyed
nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.
@schmenz I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby
has nothing to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask
the destroyed nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.
I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has
nothing to do with Israel.
This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the
interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd
and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo!
Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Thus, the "American" (please note the
quotation marks) oligarchy is imploding. Hopefully, they will not exercise a Samson Option of
their own, but anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy
is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse?
After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes
as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should
be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still
believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional
parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman,
"To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon."
Trump should have just let the veto proof sanctions become law without his signature.
Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby in
the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent
the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US
ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one
common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress
lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.
Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish
outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham ... but this need be no more complex
than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have
cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of
culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.
The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon"
is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of
Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true. Agree!
@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to
Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to
hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia
white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined
up for that stupidity. Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means
of influence to explain the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!
And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real
interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference
to that Senate vote?
Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of
what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your
explanation..... Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from
which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high
proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected
in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its
dug in positions.
The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as
that? That kind of overwhelming support in the Senate is usually reserved for Israel.
The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and
the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the
artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity
to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having
strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives
on Capitol Hill.
Germany, absent Merkel, can resurrect the reinsurance treaty with Russia which Kaiser Wilhelm
II abrogated much to the frustration and disapproval of Bismarck, the pilot of German unification.
What followed was a precarious geopolitical divide in Europe which led to the WWI with its disastrous
consequences for Germany, followed by the ordeal of the Versailles Treaty and ultimately the breakout
of WWII.
By putting the energy gun to the head of the Europeans, the American legislature will force
the Europeans to rethink and revamp their self defeating policies towards Russia that are done
at the behest of the USA. Any rapprochement with Russia will seal the fate of Eurasia as an integrated
economic bloc with the New Silk Road at its backbone.
As for the United States internal politics, it is obvious that the neocons are pushing matters
to a head with Trump whose only resort is to knit a special relationship with those leaders of
the military establishment who do not fancy the dominance of the deep state under the leadership
of the CIA The neocons move to impeach the president should create the kind of unrest that should
spur the military to take action against the corruption of the legislative branch and its extension
in the neocons media complex.
Yet this very much desired scenario that could a boon for world peace hinges on the emergence
of a new leadership in the western world that is willing to defy the powers that be. Currently
Europe is woefully lacking in the quality of leadership that can seize the moment to break free
from the dominance of the neocons.
This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats'
rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard
blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia,
so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters
were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks.
Trump did not veto the the bill because of the veto proof majority, but will effectively veto
the bill by ignoring it. I don't see any Federal Court issuing orders to enforce this bill, and
can ignore that too. It's like Congress declaring a war the President doesn't want to fight. Who
is gonna make him?
"Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against Russia when Russia has done
absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, every single
US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?!"
There is no satisfactory "worldly" explanation for what's happening here, but there is an explanation.
The Jew-controlled "U.S. government" apparently hates Russia for the same reason that Cain
hated (and eventually murdered) Abel. To put it another way, "bad" (evil) hates "good" because if there were no such thing as "good",
then there would be no such thing as "bad" by comparison. The Russian government demonstrates respect for international law, mutual cooperation, diplomacy,
stability, restraint, etc., while the U.S. government simply trashes everything, including America.
The Jews HATE a good example, and Russian re-emergence onto the world scene as an example of
relative goodness, in stark contrast to U.S. evil, is simply too much for them to bear.
"An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination
to the wicked" (Proverbs 29:27).
@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect
on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at
all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more
of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for
an eye response. Than aggression stops.
I second what 'jaques sheete' said. I just want to add that we could be on the verge of a major
break between Washington and the EU -- something Putin has been working towards for years. We have
an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington
is doing now: committing suicide.
During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty
of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being
and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken
over the federal government.
I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking
on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt
representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't
seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else.
Even more depressing than the bill is Trump's craven capitulation:
In a signing statement released by the White House, Trump said the legislation "included
a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions" in lawmakers' "haste" to pass it.
"While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and destabilizing behavior
by Iran, North Korea and Russia, this legislation is significantly flawed," he said
Trump, however, said in another statement accompanying the bill that he would not allow
the U.S. to "tolerate interference in our democratic process and that we will side with our
allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization."
So Trump now officially regards his own election as illegitimate? As the result of Russian
"subversion and destabilization"? Incredible! I realize he can't stop the bill; but that doesn't mean he has to officially sign it.
@yeah Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus
America or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments
other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered
by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene,
so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving
Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or .... the list is long. No adventure
on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of
death.
Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome
"Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting - with trade wars, sanctions-wars,
hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars - but you will have to spare
us such merry excitement.
Russian military thinking seems to have reached the point now where the idea of using force
intentionally in conflicts with peer-state adversaries has been almost completely ruled out.
This seems a radical move. But there has been a clear recognition within this military that
better strategic outcomes for Russia will result from the use of non-violent 'asymmetric warfare'
activities rather than those which will or can involve the use of force – such as conventional
war or hybrid warfare. [...] The principal aim of Russian asymmetric warfare is to create degrees
of destabilisation (destabilizatsiya) within targeted states and within collectives of targeted
states (e.g. NATO, EU). [...] And all this plays to the Russian military's own strengths –
its 'own relative advantages'. While it might lack 'quantitative indicators' – the tanks, aircraft
and ships – it does have a massive capacity to gather information, to disseminate (mis)information
and to employ considerable cyber abilities
Too backward to frack, Russia tried to bribe the tech from Exxon with massive access to
Russia untapped resources to show them how. I would really like someone to tell me why Russia
should be rewarded by transfer of crucial US technology for what it did in Ukraine. Were they
expecting a pat on the back? Russia will it not start a conventional or nuclear war unless it
thinks there is a chance of it winning, and there isn't.
They humiliated Tel Aviv. American people never wanted to spill their blood and treasure on the
other side of the Globe for the Grater Israel project. No because Jordan not Syria is just across
the river from the occupied territories' Palestinian population. Syria has little or no bearing
on the West Bank Arab problem, which is the main one for Israel
Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The
Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it
fed.
The remaining relatively-cheap oil is all in Russia, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and The UAE.
Everybody understands this. The Russians, the Chinese, the Neocons, Donald Trump. They all get
this.
The United States is for all intents-and-purposes energy independent when you include supplies
from Canada and rapidly-dwindling supplies from Mexico. But the United States relies on "control"
of the oil coming from the Persian Gulf to maintain control of its Empire and as tenuous control
over its real one and only rival – China.
South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are completely dependent for survival economically on energy
that comes from the Middle-East and is protected by the U.S. Navy.
The constant tension between Israel and Saudi Arabia (The two worst regimes in the world) on
the one side and Iran on the other is necessary to give the American Deep State and Empire purpose.
While it 'appears' that all the American military equipment and bases and meddling in the Middle
East are aimed at surrounding and blunting Iran's power – it should be obvious from 75-plus years
of history that the real purpose is to surround Saudi Arabia.
Whether it is Roosevelt meeting with the King in 1945 on the way back from Yalta or Trump meeting
with the King a month ago – the message is clear – The heads belonging to the House of Sand are
only attached to their necks at the discretion of the United States.
Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive
strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's
opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding
ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as
much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how
to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898,
sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a
balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For
the US one can imagine what those might be. Agree.
The only difference, at this stage of expansion, is that the lower classes do not get the spoils
of the expansion.
If they did .well .it would be interesting to see how much they'd be against The Empire.
And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard.
Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. What a conundrum ..
In short, some sort of battle in the Krasnogorovka sector, which the Ukrainian forces
lost:
"Here is a chronicle of events:
On the night from Thursday to Friday, from 13 to 14 July, the APU opened a mortar shell at
Staromikhaylovka. I emphasize, not our positions, namely residential buildings. Two houses
were damaged. One civilian was wounded. In the morning there was a report of the
correspondent of VGTRK Alexander Sladkov.
– On the night from Friday to Saturday from 14 to 15 July, the shelling was repeated,
but already more powerful, artillery worked.
– On Saturday evening, July 15, again, there was artillery shelling.
– On Sunday evening, July 16, again shelling and again destroyed houses in
Staromikhaylovki.
– In the morning there was a report about the press service of the NM DNR.
– In the night from Monday to Tuesday 17 on 18 July, a civilian died in
Staromikhaylovka, one more civilian was killed and another two were injured, another civilian
was injured in Kuibyshev district.
– On Tuesday, July 18th, that part of the front was quiet.
– But on Wednesday July 19, Thursday July 20 and until Friday July 21, every evening
and night Petrovsky district, Staromikhailovka Kirov district and the Kuibyshev district was
subjected to strong mortar and artillery strikes. Every day there were wounded civilians, as
well as destroyed houses and infrastructure.
Most likely, from 19 to 20 July, an order was given to suppress the mortar and artillery
batteries of the APU with available means, which have been killing civilians and military
republics for a week already. The next day, Ukrainian media filled the news with the fact
that Novorussians attacked their positions and even beaten something there. Reported about
the many dead servicemen of the Armed Forces and so on. Although according to the information
provided by the Ukrainian media, 9 soldiers were quoted, and only 4 were killed in the
Krasnogorovka district.
Notice in the Svetlodarsk arc area in December 2016, they had killed 80 soldiers and
injured more than 200, but there was a silence in the Ukrainian media. The same situation
occurred with the exacerbation of the YaBP in January 2017, there were also many deaths of
about 60 servicemen and about 120 were wounded and were also quiet.
And here 9 was lost on all 450 km to the front and such attention."
As always, not the least indication that the Ukrainian forces have upped their game since
February 2015...
"... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
"... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
"... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
"... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
"... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
"... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
"... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
"... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
"... RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] ..."
"... Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it. ..."
"... Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine. And I thought the Two State Solution was dead. Didn't you? Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair. ..."
"... Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well. ..."
"... Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. ..."
"... I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel. ..."
"... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
"... The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity -- ..."
"... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra! ..."
"... The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time. ..."
"... Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor. ..."
"... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
"... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
"... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
"... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
"... It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary. Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ? ..."
"... It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow. What for ? ..."
"... It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ? Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff.....like 9-11 ? ..."
"... Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ? They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration. Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ? ..."
"... Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him. ..."
"... Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb ..."
"... I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions to Western Civilization is sheer blindness. ..."
A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from taking office and fulfilling
his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup' is not a secret conspiracy,
but an open, loud attack on the election.
The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to
the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers out to
the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.
The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal constitutional
and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives,
mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.
The second section describes the Trump's cabinet appointments and the political measures that
the President-Elect has adopted to counter the coup. We conclude with an evaluation of the potential
political consequences of the attempted coup and Trump's moves to defend his electoral victory and
legitimacy.
The Coup as 'Process'
In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential
power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in
Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife'
for these 'regime changes'.
Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the elected Presidents were ousted
through a series of political interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies
in Congress and the Judiciary.
President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in these operations as part
of their established foreign policy of 'regime change'. Indeed, the 'success' of the Latin American
coups has encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from taking
office in January.
While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United States occurs within
a very different power configuration of proponents and antagonists.
Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to
take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the
political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus,
with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming
President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process,
which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.
Coup-makers depend on the 'Big Lie' as their point of departure – accusing President-Elect Trump
of
being a Kremlin stooge, attributing his electoral victory to Russian intervention against
his Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and
blatant voter fraud in which the Republican Party prevented minority voters from casting their
ballot for Secretary Clinton.
The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included the marginal-left Green
Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass
media.
In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national
Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives
and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This
dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's
victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to
stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several
thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill
Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass
media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and
not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast
media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any
facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American
Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'.
Like the Billionaire Soros-funded 'Color Revolutions', from Ukraine, to Georgia and Yugoslavia,
the 'Rainbow Revolt' against Trump, featured grass-roots NGO activists and 'serious leftists', like
Jill Stein.
The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their editorial pages to question
Trump's illegitimacy. This established the ground work for even higher level political intervention:
The current US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress from both parties,
and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into the fray. As the vote recount ploy flopped, they
all decided that 'Vladimir Putin swung the US election!' It wasn't just lunatic neo-conservative
warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary Clinton on the American people, liberals and
social democrats were screaming 'Russian Plot!' They demanded a formal Congressional investigation
of the 'Russian cyber hacking' of Hillary's personal e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival
'Bernie Sanders' in the primaries). They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against Russia
and increased military provocations. The outgoing Democratic Senator and Minority Leader 'Harry'
Reid wildly accused the FBI of acting as 'Russian agents' and hinted at a purge.
ORDER IT NOW
The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud".
As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on
the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election
– essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused
to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'.
President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave threat to American democracy
and Western security and freedom. He darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, " at a time and
place of our choosing".
Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the
jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf State and Saudi 'allies'. Coincidentally, the Syrian
Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo –
and defeat Obama's campaign of 'regime change' in Syria.
Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance
Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the Clintonite-coup in progress.
He prepared a diverse counter-attack to defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He appointed three
retired generals to key Defense and Security positions – indicating a power struggle between the
highly politicized CIA and the military. Active and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been
key Trump supporters. He announced that he would bring his own security teams and integrate them
with the Presidential Secret Service during his administration.
Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the financial elite who supported
the coup, Trump countered by appointing several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his
cabinet who had their own allied business associations.
One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist organizations and leaders (ADL,
George Soros et al), was the bizarre claim that Trump and his supporters were 'anti-Semites'. This
was were countered by Trump's appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like Steven Mnuchin as
Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman Sachs) to head the National Economic Council. Faced
with the Obama-CIA plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the President-Elect
named security hardliners including past and present military leaders and FBI officials, to key security
and intelligence positions.
The Coup: Can it succeed?
In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation'
on the Russian plot and manipulation of the US Presidential election in six weeks – right up to the
very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017! A concoction of pre-cooked 'findings' is already
oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval. Obama's last-ditch
effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic
well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations
with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque
policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. Will Trump succumb? The legitimacy of his election
and his freedom to make policy will depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with
his own bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his mass support among
the 'angry' American electorate. Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires
his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic
agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed
to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger
of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future.
If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly
lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies,
but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables').
He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters
among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election
to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire',
not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.
A very insightful analysis. The golpistas will not be able to prevent Trump from taking power.
But will they make the country ungovernable to the extent of bringing down not just Trump but
the whole system?
If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing
globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump
campaign was a failure.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over
the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance
of the Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama
for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he
loves his wife and kids?
Replies:
@Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.
Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first=level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been
announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context,
in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind
bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"
I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.
I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20
may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things
by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage,
his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.
Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who
are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of
the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department). ,
@animalogic Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is
to LOL.
What a god-awful president.
An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's
show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words -- & not
one shred of supporting evidence.... ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the
US" trope was shameless stupidity --
If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that
the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush
the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.
Excellent analysis! Mr. Petras, you delved right into the crux of the matter of the balance
of forces in the U.S.A. at this very unusual political moment. I have only a very minor correction
to make, and it is only a language-related one: you don't really want to say that Trump's "illegitimacy"
is being questioned, but rather his legitimacy, right?
Another thing, but this time of a perhaps idiosyncratic nature: I am a teeny-weeny bit more
optimistic than you about the events to come in your country. (Too bad I cannot say this about
my own poor country Brazil, which is going faster and faster down the drain.)
@John Gruskos If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign
promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup
is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to
stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several
thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire
hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's
position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate
their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American
forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill
Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche
of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian
hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for
the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running
since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then.
Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors'
will.
The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The
CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing
to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.
This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and
the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure
(it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will
not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite
of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support
is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked
the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble
with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead
choosing to assent by way of silence.
Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen
Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn
Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely
that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community
difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.
The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative,
instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to
undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled
the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed
after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists'
and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon,
while the Pentagon is a bit less so.
So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level:
it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying
to us about Russia.
I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping
[?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary
to law.
Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.
Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft .such
as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers
.such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still–that were invited to do so by the
elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria
is a member in good standing of the UN.
Given this I think we are all in very great danger today–now– AND I think we have to press
hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.
This truly is an emergency.
TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR.
[That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything
that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]
IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]–a felony under existing
laws. –Quite possibly an impeachable offense.
"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.
If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION
UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent
such things in the far fuzzy future–or NOT.
Respectfully,
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
–FOR TRUMP–
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an
officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day.
It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III,
smouldering as we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has
been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?]
of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.
Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.
Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft ....such
as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers....such
as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still--that were invited to do so by the elected
government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member
in good standing of the UN.
Given this......I think we are all in very great danger today--now-- AND I think we have to press
hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.
This truly is an emergency.
TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That
could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that
is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]
IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]--a felony under existing
laws. --Quite possibly an impeachable offense.
"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.
If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION
UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such
things in the far fuzzy future--or NOT.
Respectfully,
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--FOR TRUMP--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!
It needs to be published as a feature story.
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering
as we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been
sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
• Replies:
@El Dato Hmmm.... If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads
all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).
What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?
Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten
some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump–not Obama–that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump–out of fear and necessity–run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?–Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?–Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications,
though:
Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking
anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official
US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding
them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead forever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak
out all the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political
arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") - Caligula ,
Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his
shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly
equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their
machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress
to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office
and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.
For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will
require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons
are convinced that Trump is their man.
Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of
action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naïve.
It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump
has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return
sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend),
and outplay him at his own game. ,
@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's
recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to
the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national
globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the
real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look
at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among
leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC.
It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and
Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would
necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population.
This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel.
Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get
a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel
and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora
left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe
and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater
good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's
support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big
deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities
available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do
the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a
doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project
like Israel off the ground and maintained.
How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same
scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew
with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether
he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work
in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the
coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere
and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors. ,
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "
THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is
"just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile...
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election
Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.
Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights'
at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded
ISIS directly.
The real issue at stake is that Presidential control of the system is non existent, and although
Trump understands this and has intimated he is going to deal with it, it is clear his hands will
now be tied by all the traitors that run the US.
You need a Nuremburg type show trial to deal with all the (((usual suspects))) that have usurped
the constitution. (((They))) arrived with the Pilgrim Fathers and established the slave trade
buying slaves from their age old Muslim accomplices, and selling them by auction to the goyim.
(((They))) established absolute influence by having the Fed issue your currency in 1913 and
forcing the US in to three wars: WWI, WWII and Vietnam from which (((they))) made enormous profits.
You have to decide whether you want these (((professional parasitical traitors))) in your country
or not. It is probably too late to just ask them to leave, thus you are faced with the ultimate
reality: are you willing to fight a civil war to free your nation from (((their))) oppression
of you?
This is the elephant in the room that none of you will address. All the rest of this subject
matter is just window dressing. Do you wish to remain economic slaves to (((these people))) or
do you want to be free [like the Syrians] and live without (((these traitor's))) usurious, inflationary
and dishonest policies based upon hate of Christ and Christianity?
My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo
loss!
The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent
Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.
Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.
Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:
• Replies:
@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of
the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among
the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when
the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal
aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in
the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on
the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor -
is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US
big time.
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer"
to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s)
are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and
the same.[3]
There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and
the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering
activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained
an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity
(subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise
"through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired
to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]
In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,'
'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed
in state or federal court.[6]
In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential
power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups
The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic.
In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need"
for a coup.
If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will
just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course
be from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally
white interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an
officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day.
It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III,
smouldering as we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has
been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
Hmmm . If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way
up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).
What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?
Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine. And I thought the Two State Solution was dead. Didn't you? Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.
Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.
Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)
It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream
media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year
2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video
Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of
the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the
top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance
of the Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama
for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he
loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/
I expect Obama loves his kids.
Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been
announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context,
in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind
bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"
I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.
I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20
may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things
by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage,
his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.
Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who
are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of
the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the
top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance
of the Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama
for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he
loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/
Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president.
An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's
show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not
one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US"
trope was shameless stupidity --
If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the
neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush
the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop
Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several
thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire
hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's
position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate
their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American
forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's
$8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass
media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers'
and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the
term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running
since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then.
Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors'
will.
The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The
CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing
to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.
This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and
the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure
(it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will
not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite
of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support
is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked
the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble
with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead
choosing to assent by way of silence.
Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen
Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn
Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely
that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community
difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.
The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative,
instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying
to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons
controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA
This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining
'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally
neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.
So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level:
it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying
to us about Russia.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications,
though:
Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking
anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official
US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them?
No, this is just more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak
out all the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political
arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") – Caligula
@Karl the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long
before Dr Stein's recount circuses.
They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches - it wouldn't fly.
Nothing else they try will fly.
Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of
Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer"
to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s)
are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and
the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and
the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering
activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained
an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity
(subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise
"through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired
to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,'
'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed
in state or federal court.[6]
The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called
"elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders"
in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy,
does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home
and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the
US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never
been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic
and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US
have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy,
does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy
home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections,
honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the
sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.
So, what to do? ,
@Max Havelaar A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would
hang.
I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ
as to when the Coup D'etat is going to – or has already taken place .
The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President,
John F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the
cost of 2 million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's
brother, Robert Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon,
and many others, followed.
Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.
Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us.
There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a
psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the
Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect,
our Honor.
I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic
below, for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form
of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish
it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial
aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the
last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government.
All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin
Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy,
left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian
civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.
In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class,
by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare
subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers
$13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard
working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability.
Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion
. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top
1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The
interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings,
as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures,
and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain
700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest
of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent
on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared
by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as
with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates
a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured.
The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic
and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash
the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress,
is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the
Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional
Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing
accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous
debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student
Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.
As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and
in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the
1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth
would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful
government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of
speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means
economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free
people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal
politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian
governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of
the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among
the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when
the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal
aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in
the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on
the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor -
is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US
big time.
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the
US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy,
does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy
home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections,
honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the
sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.
So, what to do?
• Replies:
@Bill Jones The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.
My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer
etc and pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining
while his two palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda
and a mysterious explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?
The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before
any occupation certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing
business. Guess who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?
As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.
Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:
My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the
new 3 year contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts
and discovered that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and
2013 (the latest years I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased
by 13%.
At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.
If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI
are probably split the same way.
The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees
joined these agencies in the first place to serve their country – not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial
projects, and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.
Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their
employers.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky
political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped
to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress
to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and
can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.
For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require
massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced
that Trump is their man.
Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action.
Not until. At least that is my hope, however naïve.
It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has
to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity
and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and
outplay him at his own game.
I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to
Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most
power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.
The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America
and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.
If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things
up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we
are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot
Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing
to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to
the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf
War I. RIP.
Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying
to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.
It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on
grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.
Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt"
you seem to believe is in the offing ?
It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement
with Moscow.
What for ?
It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine
disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?
Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details
pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?
Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that
they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?
They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there
is , before Trumps inauguration.
Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?
@Tomster What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK
have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad
their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.
@Art I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador
to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the
most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.
The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America
and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.
If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!
Peace --- Art
"If we get past the inauguration ."
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) – doing his best to screw things
up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we
are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot
Act – providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
" I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to
put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the
late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War
I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told
about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all
along!
The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really - how pissed off can they be?
Peace --- Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national
globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real
reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the
Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists
and discredit the entire left-wing project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC.
It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli
Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily
result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO
being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel.
Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right
of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results
in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok
with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to
break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism,
a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli
nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal
if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available
for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing,
unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer
or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off
the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater
good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse
for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money
he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to
try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the
coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and
indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.
• Replies:
@joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the
soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That
was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace
treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high
ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing
but world public opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically
and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel
of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their
brains for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis,
big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't
think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...
Joe Webb ,
@RobinG "A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug
the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."
"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any
facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN,
BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."
You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.
There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special
situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will
once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military
will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.
@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent
stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national
globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real
reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the
Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists
and discredit the entire left-wing project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC.
It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli
Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily
result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO
being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel.
Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right
of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results
in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok
with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to
break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism,
a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli
nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal
if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available
for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing,
unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer
or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off
the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater
good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse
for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money
he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to
try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the
coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and
indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms
on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever,
but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace
treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground
to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but
world public opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically
and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel
of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their
brains for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis,
big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't
think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but
Joe Webb
• Replies:
@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians
think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That
feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What
it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one
that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully
on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not
to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and
supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did
lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the
Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
@Realist "The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented
any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was
breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC,
ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."
You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.
There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special
situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will
once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military
will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.
The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers.
Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role
of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at
Idleb the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what
was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first
of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian
diplomacy is currently working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling
the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on
apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies –
the hordes of fanatical jihadis.
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things
up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we
are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot
Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing
to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to
the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf
War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
Hi RobinG,
This is much ado about nothing – in a NYT's article today – they said that the DNC was told
about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 – they all knew the Russian were hacking all
along!
The RNC got smart – not the DNC – it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really – how pissed off can they be?
Peace - Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in
the hacking is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup
in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their
affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced
the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public
a peek inside the Democrat machine.
Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough!
This shall not stand!
This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told
about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all
along!
The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really - how pissed off can they be?
Peace --- Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
Hi Art,
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in
the hacking is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled
coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his
demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via
their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup
in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his
demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks'
leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing
behavior.
No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of
the Democratic campaign itself.
Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to
hack?
Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta
p@ssw0rd
The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.
Note the Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information
contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory
or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules,
TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic
Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp
.
@annamaria The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons
and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US
administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the
role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue
at Idleb ... the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this
is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary
first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what
Russian diplomacy is currently working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling
the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on
apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies -
the hordes of fanatical jihadis.
@joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the
soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That
was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace
treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high
ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing
but world public opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically
and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel
of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their
brains for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis,
big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't
think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...
Joe Webb
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will
result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel
can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully
on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not
to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and
supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did
lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the
Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
• Replies:
@Tomster "treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing
for them. ,
@joe webb good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around
the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?
Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of
course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.
As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially
when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the
Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A
Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like
anywhere else.
(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state
of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the
injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed
somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the
whole area under discussion..)
How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear
to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.
The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and
so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our
National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ
is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.
As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish
Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too
much...even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.
Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by
anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians
have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using
your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they
are, just like the Jews.
The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only
way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish
order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\
For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic
Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.
The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb,
just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth,
both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic
system.
All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.
finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them
for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more
than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks'
leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing
behavior.
No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of
the Democratic campaign itself.
Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to
hack?
Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta
p@ssw0rd
The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.
Note the Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information
contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory
or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules,
TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic
Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members
of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
"Was" is the operative word:
Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker
https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ ,
@alexander Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow
today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats
of the American people over the last sixteen years...
Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct
an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing
to discuss or admit.
Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the
campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination
,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.
He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed
him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...
.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY
Times, who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption
machine...that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision
to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"
Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well
as the reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange,
too, to hedge his bets.
In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak,
although he did not state it outright.
Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite
close to what actually happened.
So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful
of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels)
for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life
ahead of him, they had him shot in the back.....four times...
And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose
the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its
place the"substitute" Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions
and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to
"sully American Democracy"
.
But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?
"what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. "
The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it
has for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."
A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist. A black mark on both countries'
report cards.
@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent
stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national
globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real
reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the
Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists
and discredit the entire left-wing project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC.
It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli
Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily
result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO
being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel.
Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right
of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results
in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok
with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to
break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism,
a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli
nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal
if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available
for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing,
unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer
or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off
the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater
good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by?
The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora
Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the
coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and
indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.
"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers,
drive the nails, throw out the trash."
Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians,
while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
"As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "
THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just
more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election
Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in
the hacking is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup
in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their
affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled
coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya,
his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG - Agree 100% – some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights'
at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded
ISIS directly.
It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country,
on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary. Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across
the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?
It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement
with Moscow. What for ?
It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine
disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ? Does
anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining
to stuff.....like 9-11 ?
Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that
they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ? They seem to be dead set on welding shut
every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration. Perhaps something
"else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?
What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes
to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous
brains are?). Who knows? – but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians
think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen.
That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return.
What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel,
one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are
fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding
not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem
and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They
did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around
the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs – who have done virtually nothing for them.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of
the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today
.combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the
American people over the last sixteen years
Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct
an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing
to discuss or admit.
Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the
campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination
,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.
He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed
him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment
.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY
Times, who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption
machine that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to
take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"
Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well
as the reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too,
to hedge his bets.
In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak,
although he did not state it outright.
Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite
close to what actually happened.
So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful
of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels)
for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life
ahead of him, they had him shot in the back ..four times
And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose
the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its
place the"substitute" Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions
and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully
American Democracy" .
@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians
think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That
feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What
it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one
that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully
on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not
to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and
supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did
lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the
Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?
Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of
course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.
As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially
when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the
Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A
Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like
anywhere else.
(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state
of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the
injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed
somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the
whole area under discussion..)
How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear
to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.
The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and
so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our
National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ
is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.
As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish
Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too
much even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.
Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by
anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians
have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using
your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they
are, just like the Jews.
The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only
way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish
order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\
For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic
Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.
The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb,
just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth,
both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic
system.
All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.
finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them
for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more
than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
Joe Webb
Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first
string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying
to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the
people that voted for him.
January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.
Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were
critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the
first atomic bomb.
I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions
to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
"... "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" ..."
"... Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: " Russia intervened and decided the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate of 'Deploralandia'. ..."
"... Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI, and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger or footprints. ..."
"... Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more! ..."
"... Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen! ..."
"... Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph. There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with progressives to bolt the party. ..."
"... This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary. ..."
"... Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.) ..."
"... Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then he travels to Europe for more paid speeches. ..."
"... They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering in full flower throughout his second term. ..."
"... Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act ..."
Over the past quarter century progressive writers, activists and academics have followed a trajectory
from left to right – with each presidential campaign seeming to move them further to the right. Beginning
in the 1990's progressives mobilized millions in opposition to wars, voicing demands for the transformation
of the US's corporate for-profit medical system into a national 'Medicare For All' public
program. They condemned the notorious Wall Street swindlers and denounced police state legislation
and violence. But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who
pursued the exact opposite agenda.
Over time this political contrast between program and practice led to the transformation of the
Progressives. And what we see today are US progressives embracing and promoting the politics of the
far right.
To understand this transformation we will begin by identifying who and what the progressives are
and describe their historical role. We will then proceed to identify their trajectory over the recent
decades.
We will outline the contours of recent Presidential campaigns where Progressives were deeply
involved.
We will focus on the dynamics of political regression: From resistance to submission, from
retreat to surrender.
We will conclude by discussing the end result: The Progressives' large-scale, long-term embrace
of far-right ideology and practice.
Progressives by Name and Posture
Progressives purport to embrace 'progress', the growth of the economy, the enrichment of society
and freedom from arbitrary government. Central to the Progressive agenda was the end of elite corruption
and good governance, based on democratic procedures.
Progressives prided themselves as appealing to 'reason, diplomacy and conciliation', not brute
force and wars. They upheld the sovereignty of other nations and eschewed militarism and armed intervention.
Progressives proposed a vision of their fellow citizens pursuing incremental evolution toward
the 'good society', free from the foreign entanglements, which had entrapped the people in unjust
wars.
Progressives in Historical Perspective
In the early part of the 20th century, progressives favored political equality while opposing
extra-parliamentary social transformations. They supported gender equality and environmental preservation
while failing to give prominence to the struggles of workers and African Americans.
They denounced militarism 'in general' but supported a series of 'wars to end all wars'
. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas. By the middle of the 20th century, different strands emerged
under the progressive umbrella. Progressives split between traditional good government advocates
and modernists who backed socio-economic reforms, civil liberties and rights.
Progressives supported legislation to regulate monopolies, encouraged collective bargaining and
defended the Bill of Rights.
Progressives opposed wars and militarism in theory until their government went to war.
Lacking an effective third political party, progressives came to see themselves as the 'left
wing' of the Democratic Party, allies of labor and civil rights movements and defenders of civil
liberties.
Progressives joined civil rights leaders in marches, but mostly relied on legal and
electoral means to advance African American rights.
Progressives played a pivotal role in fighting McCarthyism, though ultimately it was the Secretary
of the Army and the military high command that brought Senator McCarthy to his knees.
Progressives provided legal defense when the social movements disrupted the House UnAmerican Activities
Committee.
They popularized the legislative arguments that eventually outlawed segregation, but it was courageous
Afro-American leaders heading mass movements that won the struggle for integration and civil rights.
In many ways the Progressives complemented the mass struggles, but their limits were defined by
the constraints of their membership in the Democratic Party.
The alliance between Progressives and social movements peaked in the late sixties to mid-1970's
when the Progressives followed the lead of dynamic and advancing social movements and community organizers
especially in opposition to the wars in Indochina and the military draft.
The Retreat of the Progressives
By the late 1970's the Progressives had cut their anchor to the social movements, as the anti-war,
civil rights and labor movements lost their impetus (and direction).
The numbers of progressives within the left wing of the Democratic Party increased through recruitment
from earlier social movements. Paradoxically, while their 'numbers' were up, their caliber had declined,
as they sought to 'fit in' with the pro-business, pro-war agenda of their President's party.
Without the pressure of the 'populist street' the 'Progressives-turned-Democrats' adapted
to the corporate culture in the Party. The Progressives signed off on a fatal compromise: The corporate
elite secured the electoral party while the Progressives were allowed to write enlightened manifestos
about the candidates and their programs . . . which were quickly dismissed once the Democrats took
office. Yet the ability to influence the 'electoral rhetoric' was seen by the Progressives as a sufficient
justification for remaining inside the Democratic Party.
Moreover the Progressives argued that by strengthening their presence in the Democratic Party,
(their self-proclaimed 'boring from within' strategy), they would capture the party membership,
neutralize the pro-corporation, militarist elements that nominated the president and peacefully transform
the party into a 'vehicle for progressive changes'.
Upon their successful 'deep penetration' the Progressives, now cut off from the increasingly disorganized
mass social movements, coopted and bought out many prominent black, labor and civil liberty activists
and leaders, while collaborating with what they dubbed the more malleable 'centrist' Democrats.
These mythical creatures were really pro-corporate Democrats who condescended to occasionally converse
with the Progressives while working for the Wall Street and Pentagon elite.
The Retreat of the Progressives: The Clinton Decade
Progressives adapted the 'crab strategy': Moving side-ways and then backwards but never forward.
Progressives mounted candidates in the Presidential primaries, which were predictably defeated
by the corporate Party apparatus, and then submitted immediately to the outcome. The election of
President 'Bill' Clinton launched a period of unrestrained financial plunder, major wars of aggression
in Europe (Yugoslavia) and the Middle East (Iraq), a military intervention in Somalia and secured
Israel's victory over any remnant of a secular Palestinian leadership as well as its destruction
of Lebanon!
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent
over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act, thereby opening
the floodgates for massive speculation on Wall Street through the previously regulated banking sector.
When President Clinton gutted welfare programs, forcing single mothers to take minimum-wage jobs
without provision for safe childcare, millions of poor white and minority women were forced to abandon
their children to dangerous makeshift arrangements in order to retain any residual public support
and access to minimal health care. Progressives looked the other way.
Progressives followed Clinton's deep throated thrust toward the far right, as he outsourced manufacturing
jobs to Mexico (NAFTA) and re-appointed Federal Reserve's free market, Ayn Rand-fanatic, Alan Greenspan.
Progressives repeatedly kneeled before President Clinton marking their submission to the Democrats'
'hard right' policies.
The election of Republican President G. W. Bush (2001-2009) permitted Progressive's to temporarily
trot out and burnish their anti-war, anti-Wall Street credentials. Out in the street, they protested
Bush's savage invasion of Iraq (but not the destruction of Afghanistan). They protested the media
reports of torture in Abu Ghraib under Bush, but not the massive bombing and starvation of millions
of Iraqis that had occurred under Clinton. Progressives protested the expulsion of immigrants from
Mexico and Central America, but were silent over the brutal uprooting of refugees resulting from
US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the systematic destruction of their nations' infrastructure.
Progressives embraced Israel's bombing, jailing and torture of Palestinians by voting unanimously
in favor of increasing the annual $3 billion dollar military handouts to the brutal Jewish State.
They supported Israel's bombing and slaughter in Lebanon.
Progressives were in retreat, but retained a muffled voice and inconsequential vote in favor of
peace, justice and civil liberties. They kept a certain distance from the worst of the police state
decrees by the Republican Administration.
Progressives and Obama: From Retreat to Surrender
While Progressives maintained their tepid commitment to civil liberties, and their highly 'leveraged'
hopes for peace in the Middle East, they jumped uncritically into the highly choreographed Democratic
Party campaign for Barack Obama, 'Wall Street's First Black President'.
Progressives had given up their quest to 'realign' the Democratic Party 'from within':
they turned from serious tourism to permanent residency. Progressives provided the foot soldiers
for the election and re-election of the warmongering 'Peace Candidate' Obama. After the election,
Progressives rushed to join the lower echelons of his Administration. Black and white politicos joined
hands in their heroic struggle to erase the last vestiges of the Progressives' historical legacy.
Obama increased the number of Bush-era imperial wars to attacking seven weak nations under American's
'First Black' President's bombardment, while the Progressives ensured that the streets were quiet
and empty.
When Obama provided trillions of dollars of public money to rescue Wall Street and the bankers,
while sacrificing two million poor and middle class mortgage holders, the Progressives only criticized
the bankers who received the bailout, but not Obama's Presidential decision to protect and reward
the mega-swindlers.
Under the Obama regime social inequalities within the United States grew at an unprecedented rate.
The Police State Patriot Act was massively extended to give President Obama the power to order the
assassination of US citizens abroad without judicial process. The Progressives did not resign when
Obama's 'kill orders' extended to the 'mistaken' murder of his target's children and other family
member, as well as unidentified bystanders. The icon carriers still paraded their banner of the
'first black American President' when tens of thousands of black Libyans and immigrant workers
were slaughtered in his regime-change war against President Gadhafi.
Obama surpassed the record of all previous Republican office holders in terms of the massive numbers
of immigrant workers arrested and expelled – 2 million. Progressives applauded the Latino protestors
while supporting the policies of their 'first black President'.
Progressive accepted that multiple wars, Wall Street bailouts and the extended police state were
now the price they would pay to remain part of the "Democratic coalition' (sic).
The deeper the Progressives swilled at the Democratic Party trough, the more they embraced the
Obama's free market agenda and the more they ignored the increasing impoverishment, exploitation
and medical industry-led opioid addiction of American workers that was shortening their lives. Under
Obama, the Progressives totally abandoned the historic American working class, accepting their degradation
into what Madam Hillary Clinton curtly dismissed as the 'deplorables'.
With the Obama Presidency, the Progressive retreat turned into a rout, surrendering with one flaccid
caveat: the Democratic Party 'Socialist' Bernie Sanders, who had voted 90% of the time with the Corporate
Party, had revived a bastardized military-welfare state agenda.
Sander's Progressive demagogy shouted and rasped on the campaign trail, beguiling the young electorate.
The 'Bernie' eventually 'sheep-dogged' his supporters into the pro-war Democratic Party corral.
Sanders revived an illusion of the pre-1990 progressive agenda, promising resistance while demanding
voter submission to Wall Street warlord Hillary Clinton. After Sanders' round up of the motley progressive
herd, he staked them tightly to the far-right Wall Street war mongering Hillary Clinton. The Progressives
not only embraced Madame Secretary Clinton's nuclear option and virulent anti-working class agenda,
they embellished it by focusing on Republican billionaire Trump's demagogic, nationalist, working
class rhetoric which was designed to agitate 'the deplorables'. They even turned on the working
class voters, dismissing them as 'irredeemable' racists and illiterates or 'white trash' when
they turned to support Trump in massive numbers in the 'fly-over' states of the central US.
Progressives, allied with the police state, the mass media and the war machine worked to defeat
and impeach Trump. Progressives surrendered completely to the Democratic Party and started to advocate
its far right agenda. Hysterical McCarthyism against anyone who questioned the Democrats' promotion
of war with Russia, mass media lies and manipulation of street protest against Republican elected
officials became the centerpieces of the Progressive agenda. The working class and farmers had disappeared
from their bastardized 'identity-centered' ideology.
Guilt by association spread throughout Progressive politics. Progressives embraced J. Edgar Hoover's
FBI tactics: "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian
banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" For progressives, 'Russia-gate'
defined the real focus of contemporary political struggle in this huge, complex, nuclear-armed superpower.
Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: "Russia intervened and decided
the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted
against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference
was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected
Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly
elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate
of 'Deploralandia'.
Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI,
and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger
or footprints.
The Progressives' far right - turn earned them hours and space on the mass media as long
as they breathlessly savaged and insulted President Trump and his family members. When they managed
to provoke him into a blind rage . . . they added the newly invented charge of 'psychologically
unfit to lead' – presenting cheap psychobabble as grounds for impeachment. Finally! American
Progressives were on their way to achieving their first and only political transformation: a Presidential
coup d'état on behalf of the Far Right!
Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!
In return, President Trump began to 'out-militarize' the Progressives by escalating US involvement
in the Middle East and South China Sea. They swooned with joy when Trump ordered a missile strike
against the Syrian government as Damascus engaged in a life and death struggle against mercenary
terrorists. They dubbed the petulant release of Patriot missiles 'Presidential'.
Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over
2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million
more!
Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained
when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives
out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They
chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's
embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions
of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological
weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen!
Conclusion
Progressives turned full circle from supporting welfare to embracing Wall Street; from preaching
peaceful co-existence to demanding a dozen wars; from recognizing the humanity and rights of undocumented
immigrants to their expulsion under their 'First Black' President; from thoughtful mass media critics
to servile media megaphones; from defenders of civil liberties to boosters for the police state;
from staunch opponents of J. Edgar Hoover and his 'dirty tricks' to camp followers for the 'intelligence
community' in its deep state campaign to overturn a national election.
Progressives moved from fighting and resisting the Right to submitting and retreating; from retreating
to surrendering and finally embracing the far right.
Doing all that and more within the Democratic Party, Progressives retain and deepen their ties
with the mass media, the security apparatus and the military machine, while occasionally digging
up some Bernie Sanders-type demagogue to arouse an army of voters away from effective resistance
to mindless collaboration.
But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who pursued
the exact opposite agenda.
Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph.
There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave
us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with
progressives to bolt the party.
This piece accurately traces the path from Progressive to Maoist. It's a pity the Republican
Party is also a piece of shit. I think it was Sara Palin who said "We have two parties. Pick one."
This should be our collective epitaph.
This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist
fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary.
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as
appeasement and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
The great Jimmy Dore is a big thorn for the Democrats. From my blog:
Apr 29, 2017 – Obama is Scum!
Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during
eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported
by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read
about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which
can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless
presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money
up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and
speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.)
Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering
the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign
for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation
this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then
he travels to Europe for more paid speeches.
Obama gets over $200,000 a year in retirement, just got a $65 million deal, so doesn't need
more money. Why would a multi-millionaire ex-president fly around the globe collecting huge speaking
fees from world corporations just after his political party was devastated in elections because
Americans think the Democratic party represents Wall Street? The great Jimmy Dore expressed his
outrage at Obama and the corrupt Democratic party in this great video.
Left in the good old days meant socialist, socialist meant that governments had the duty of
redistributing income from rich to poor. Alas in Europe, after 'socialists' became pro EU and
pro globalisation, they in fact became neoliberal. Both in France and the Netherlands 'socialist'
parties virtually disappeared.
So what nowadays is left, does anyone know ?
Then the word 'progressive'. The word suggests improvement, but what is improvement, improvement
for whom ? There are those who see the possibility for euthanasia as an improvement, there are
thos who see euthanasia as a great sin.
Discussions about left and progressive are meaningless without properly defining the concepts.
They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious
chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering
in full flower throughout his second term. But, hey, the brother now has five mansions, collects
half a mill per speech to the Chosen People on Wall Street, and parties for months at a time at
exclusive resorts for billionaires only.
Obviously, he's got the world by the tail and you don't. Hope he comes to the same end as Gaddaffi
and Ceaușescu. Maybe the survivors of nuclear Armageddon can hold a double necktie party with
Killary as the second honored guest that day.
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas.
You left out the other Roosevelt.
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party
bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act
Hilarious!
Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump
for promising to eventually expel 5 million more!
so it's not just conservative conspiracy theory stuff as some might argue.
Still, the overall point of this essay isn't affected all that much. Open borders is still
a "right wing" (in the sense this author uses the term) policy–pro-Wall Street, pro-Big Business.
So Obama was still doing the bidding of the donor class in their quest for cheap labor.
I've seen pro-immigration types try to use the Obama-deportation thing to argue that we don't
need more hardcore policies. After all, even the progressive Democrat Obama was on the ball when
it came to policing our borders, right?! Who needed Trump?
@Carlton Meyer If Jimmy keeps up these attacks on Wall Street, the Banksters, and rent-seekers
he is going to get run out of the Progressive movement for dog-whistling virulent Anti-Semitism.
Look at how the media screams at Trump every time he mentions Wall Street and the banks.
Mr. Petra has penned an excellent and very astute piece. Allow me a little satire on our progressive
friends, entitled "The path to hell is paved with good intentions".
The early socialist/progressive travellers were well-intentioned but naïve in their understanding
of human nature and fanatical about their agenda. To move the human herd forward, they had no
compulsions about resorting to harsher and harsher prodding and whipping. They felt entitled to
employ these means because, so they were convinced, man has to be pushed to move forward and they,
the "progressives", were the best qualified to lead the herd. Scoundrels, psychopaths, moral defectives,
and sundry other rascals then joined in the whipping game, some out of the sheer joy of wielding
the whip, others to better line their pockets.
So the "progressive" journey degenerates into a forced march. The march becomes the progress,
becoming both the means and the end at the same time. Look at the so-called "progressive" today
and you will see the fanatic and the whip-wielder, steadfast about the correctness of his beliefs.
Tell him/her/it that you are a man or a woman and he retorts "No, you are free to choose, you
are genderless". What if you decline such freedom? "Well, then you are a bigot, we will thrash
you out of your bigotry", replies the progressive. "May I, dear Sir/Madam/Whatever, keep my hard-earned
money in my pocket for my and my family's use" you ask. "No, you first have to pay for our peace-making
wars, then pay for the upkeep of refugees, besides which you owe a lot of back taxes that are
necessary to run this wonderful Big Government of ours that is leading you towards greener and
greener pastures", shouts back the progressive.
Fed up, disgusted, and a little scared, you desperately seek a way out of this progress. "No
way", scream the march leaders. "We will be forever in your ears, sometimes whispering, sometimes
screaming; we will take over your brain to improve your mind; we will saturate you with images
on the box 24/7 and employ all sorts of imagery to make you progress. And if it all fails, we
will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables and forget about you at election
time."
Knowing who is "progressive" and know who is "far-right" is like knowing who is "fascist" and
who is not. For obvious historical reasons, the Russian like to throw the "fascist" slogan against
anyone who is a non-Russian nationalist. However, I accept the eminent historian Carroll Quigley's
definition of fascism as the incorporation of society and the state onto single entity on a permanent
war footing. The state controls everything in a radically authoritarian social structure. As Quigley
states, the Soviet Union was the most complete embodiment of fascism in WWII. In WWII Germany,
on the other hand, industry retained its independence and in WWII Italy fascism was no more than
an empty slogan.
Same for "progressives". Everyone wants to be "progressive", right? Who wants to be "anti-progressive"?
However, at the end of the day, "progressive" through verbal slights of hand has been nothing
more than a euphemism for "socialist" or, in the extreme, "communist" the verbal slight-of-hand
because we don't tend to use the latter terms in American political discourse.
"Progressives" morphing into a new "far-right" in America is no more mysterious than the Soviet
Union morphing from Leninism to Stalinism or, the Jewish (Trotskyite) globalists fleeing Stalinist
nationalism and then morphing into, first, "Scoop" Jackson Democrats and then into Bushite Republicans.
As you might notice, the real issue is the authoritarian vs. the non-authoritarian state. In
this context, an authoritarian government and social order (as in communism and neoconservatism)
are practical pre-requisites necessity to force humanity to transition to their New World Order.
Again, the defining characteristic of fascism is the unitary state enforced via an authoritarian
political and social structure. Ideological rigor is enforced via the police powers of the state
along with judicial activism and political correctness. Ring a bell?
In the ongoing contest between Trump and the remnants of the American "progressive" movement,
who are the populists and who the authoritarians? Who are the democrats and who are the fascists?
I would say that who lands where in this dichotomy is obvious.
@Alfa158 Is Jimmy Dore really a "Progressive?" (and what does that mean, anyway?) Isn't Jimmy's
show hosted by the Young Turks Network, which is unabashedly Libertarian?
Anyway, what's so great about "the Progressive movement?" Seems to me, they're just pathetic
sheepdogs for the war-crazed Dems. Jimmy should be supporting the #UNRIG movement ("Beyond Trump
& Sanders") for ALL Americans:
On 1 May 2017 Cynthia McKinney, Ellen Brown, and Robert Steele launched
Petras, for some reason, low balls the number of people ejected from assets when the mafia
came to seize real estate in the name of the ruling class and their expensive wars, morality,
the Constitution or whatever shit they could make up to fuck huge numbers of people over. Undoubtedly
just like 9/11, the whole thing was planned in advance. Political whores are clearly useless when
the system is at such extremes.
Banks like Capital One specialize in getting a signature and "giving" a car loan to someone
they know won't be able to pay, but is simply being used, shaken down and repossessed for corporate
gain. " No one held a gun to their head! " Get ready, the police state will in fact put a gun
to your head.
Depending on the time period in question, which might be the case here, more than 20 million
people were put out of homes and/or bankrupted with more to come. Clearly a bipartisan effort
featuring widespread criminal conduct across the country – an attack on the population to sustain
militarism.
If I may add:
"and you also have to dearly pay for you being white male heterosexual for oppressing all colored,
all the women and all the sexually different through the history".
"And if it all fails, we will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables
and forget about you at election time. If we see that you still don't get with the program we
will reeducate you. Should you resist that in any way we'll incarcerate you. And, no, normal legal
procedure does not work with racists/bigots/haters/whatever we don't like".
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House
UnAmerican Activities Committee
which itself was a progressive invention. There was no "right wing" anywhere in sight when
it was estsblished in 1938.
"... "Libyans enjoyed the highest quality of life in all of Africa. Libyan citizens enjoyed free universal health care from prenatal to geriatric, free education from elementary school to post-graduate studies and free or subsidized housing. We were told that Gaddafi ripped off the nation's oil wealth for himself when in reality Libya's oil wealth was used to improve the quality of life for all Libyans. ..."
"... We were told that Libya had to be rebuilt from scratch because Gaddafi had not allowed the development of national institutions. If we knew that infant mortality had been seriously reduced, life expectancy increased and health care and education made available to everyone, we might have asked, "How could all that be accomplished without the existence of national institutions?" ..."
"Libyans enjoyed the highest quality of life in all of Africa. Libyan citizens enjoyed free
universal health care from prenatal to geriatric, free education from elementary school to post-graduate
studies and free or subsidized housing. We were told that Gaddafi ripped off the nation's oil
wealth for himself when in reality Libya's oil wealth was used to improve the quality of life
for all Libyans.
We were told that Libya had to be rebuilt from scratch because Gaddafi had not allowed the
development of national institutions. If we knew that infant mortality had been seriously reduced,
life expectancy increased and health care and education made available to everyone, we might have
asked, "How could all that be accomplished without the existence of national institutions?"
Knowledge is the antidote to propaganda and brainwashing which is exactly why it is being increasingly
controlled and restricted."
"... Critical questions – such as why the security service MI5 maintained terrorist "assets" in Manchester and why the government did not warn the public of the threat in their midst – remain unanswered, deflected by the promise of an internal "review". ..."
"... The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi (image on the right), was part of an extremist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5 for more than 20 years. ..."
"... The Manchester atrocity lifts the rock of British foreign policy to reveal its Faustian alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain's biggest weapons customer. ..."
"... This imperial marriage reaches back to the Second World War and the early days of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The aim of British policy was to stop pan-Arabism: Arab states developing a modern secularism, asserting their independence from the imperial west and controlling their resources. The creation of a rapacious Israel was meant to expedite this. Pan-Arabism has since been crushed; the goal now is division and conquest. ..."
"... The overthrow of Gaddafi, who controlled Africa's largest oil reserves, had been long been planned in Washington and London. According to French intelligence, the LIFG made several assassination attempts on Gadaffi in the 1990s – bank-rolled by British intelligence. In March 2011, France, Britain and the US seized the opportunity of a "humanitarian intervention" and attacked Libya. They were joined by Nato under cover of a UN resolution to "protect civilians". ..."
"... In fact, Obama was a leading actor in the "shit show", urged on by his warmongering Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton , and a media accusing Gaddafi of planning "genocide" against his own people. ..."
"... Why was Abedi able to travel freely through Europe to Libya and back to Manchester only days before he committed his terrible crime? Was Theresa May told by MI5 that the FBI had tracked him as part of an Islamic cell planning to attack a "political target" in Britain? ..."
"... In the current election campaign, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has made a guarded reference to a "war on terror that has failed". As he knows, it was never a war on terror but a war of conquest and subjugation. Palestine. Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. Syria. Iran is said to be next. Before there is another Manchester, who will have the courage to say that? ..."
The unsayable in Britain's general election campaign is this. The causes of the Manchester atrocity,
in which 22 mostly young people were murdered by a jihadist, are being suppressed to protect the
secrets of British foreign policy.
Critical questions – such as why the security service MI5 maintained terrorist "assets" in
Manchester and why the government did not warn the public of the threat in their midst – remain unanswered,
deflected by the promise of an internal "review".
The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi (image on the right), was part of an extremist group,
the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5
for more than 20 years.
The LIFG is proscribed by Britain as a terrorist organisation which seeks a "hardline Islamic
state" in Libya and "is part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by al-Qaida".
The "smoking gun" is that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to
travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in "battle": first to remove Mu'ammar Gadaffi
in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria.
Last year, the FBI reportedly placed Abedi on a "terrorist watch list" and warned MI5 that his
group was looking for a "political target" in Britain. Why wasn't he apprehended and the network
around him prevented from planning and executing the atrocity on 22 May?
These questions arise because of an FBI leak that demolished the "lone wolf" spin in the wake
of the 22 May attack – thus, the panicky, uncharacteristic outrage directed at Washington from London
and Donald Trump 's apology.
The Manchester atrocity lifts the rock of British foreign policy to reveal its Faustian alliance
with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian
and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain's biggest weapons customer.
This imperial marriage reaches back to the Second World War and the early days of the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt. The aim of British policy was to stop pan-Arabism: Arab states developing a
modern secularism, asserting their independence from the imperial west and controlling their resources.
The creation of a rapacious Israel was meant to expedite this. Pan-Arabism has since been crushed;
the goal now is division and conquest.
In 2011, according to Middle East Eye , the LIFG in Manchester were known as the "Manchester
boys". Implacably opposed to Mu'ammar Gadaffi, they were considered high risk and a number were under
Home Office control orders – house arrest – when anti-Gadaffi demonstrations broke out in Libya,
a country forged from myriad tribal enmities.
Suddenly the control orders were lifted.
"I was allowed to go, no questions asked," said one LIFG member.
MI5 returned their passports and counter-terrorism police at Heathrow airport were told to let
them board their flights.
The overthrow of Gaddafi, who controlled Africa's largest oil reserves, had been long been
planned in Washington and London. According to French intelligence, the LIFG made several assassination
attempts on Gadaffi in the 1990s – bank-rolled by British intelligence. In March 2011, France, Britain
and the US seized the opportunity of a "humanitarian intervention" and attacked Libya. They were
joined by Nato under cover of a UN resolution to "protect civilians".
Last September, a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry concluded that then
Prime Minister David Cameron had taken the country to war against Gaddafi on a series of "erroneous
assumptions" and that the attack "had led to the rise of Islamic State in North Africa". The Commons
committee quoted what it called Barack Obama's "pithy" description of Cameron's role in Libya as
a "shit show".
In fact, Obama was a leading actor in the "shit show", urged on by his warmongering Secretary
of State, Hillary Clinton , and a media accusing Gaddafi of planning "genocide" against his own people.
"We knew that if we waited one more day," said Obama, "Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte,
could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience
of the world."
The massacre story was fabricated by Salafist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces.
They told Reuters there would be
"a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda". The Commons committee reported, "The
proposition that Mu'ammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was
not supported by the available evidence".
Britain, France and the United States effectively destroyed Libya as a modern state. According
to its own records, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties", of which more than a third hit civilian
targets. They included fragmentation bombs and missiles with uranium warheads. The cities of Misurata
and Sirte were carpet-bombed. Unicef, the UN children's organisation, reported a high proportion
of the children killed "were under the age of ten".
More than "giving rise" to Islamic State - ISIS had already taken root in the ruins of Iraq following
the Blair and Bush invasion in 2003 - these ultimate medievalists now had all of north Africa as
a base. The attack also triggered a stampede of refugees fleeing to Europe.
Cameron was celebrated in Tripoli as a "liberator", or imagined he was. The crowds cheering him
included those secretly supplied and trained by Britain's SAS and inspired by Islamic State, such
as the "Manchester boys".
To the Americans and British, Gadaffi's true crime was his iconoclastic independence and his plan
to abandon the petrodollar, a pillar of American imperial power. He had audaciously planned to underwrite
a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union
among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would have happened, the very notion
was intolerable to the US as it prepared to "enter" Africa and bribe African governments with military
"partnerships".
The fallen dictator fled for his life. A Royal Air Force plane spotted his convoy, and in the
rubble of Sirte, he was sodomised with a knife by a fanatic described in the news as "a rebel".
Having plundered Libya's $30 billion arsenal, the "rebels" advanced south, terrorising towns and
villages. Crossing into sub-Saharan Mali, they destroyed that country's fragile stability. The ever-eager
French sent planes and troops to their former colony "to fight al-Qaida", or the menace they had
helped create.
On 14 October, 2011, President Obama announced he was sending special forces troops to Uganda
to join the civil war there. In the next few months, US combat troops were sent to South Sudan, Congo
and the Central African Republic. With Libya secured, an American invasion of the African continent
was under way, largely unreported.
In London, one of the world's biggest arms fairs was staged by the British government. The buzz
in the stands was the "demonstration effect in Libya". The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry
held a preview entitled "Middle East: A vast market for UK defence and security companies". The host
was the Royal Bank of Scotland, a major investor in cluster bombs, which were used extensively against
civilian targets in Libya. The blurb for the bank's arms party lauded the "unprecedented opportunities
for UK defence and security companies."
Last month, Prime Minister Theresa May was in Saudi Arabia, selling more of the £3 billion worth
of British arms which the Saudis have used against Yemen. Based in control rooms in Riyadh, British
military advisers assist the Saudi bombing raids, which have killed more than 10,000 civilians. There
are now clear signs of famine. A Yemeni child dies every 10 minutes from preventable disease, says
Unicef.
The Manchester atrocity on 22 May was the product of such unrelenting state violence in faraway
places, much of it British sponsored. The lives and names of the victims are almost never known to
us.
This truth struggles to be heard, just as it struggled to be heard when the London Underground
was bombed on July 7, 2005. Occasionally, a member of the public would break the silence, such as
the east Londoner who walked in front of a CNN camera crew and reporter in mid-platitude.
"Iraq!" he said. "We invaded Iraq. What did we expect? Go on, say it."
At a large media gathering I attended, many of the important guests uttered "Iraq" and "Blair"
as a kind of catharsis for that which they dared not say professionally and publicly.
Yet, before he invaded Iraq, Blair was warned by the Joint Intelligence Committee that
"the threat from al-Qaida will increase at the onset of any military action against Iraq
The worldwide threat from other Islamist terrorist groups and individuals will increase significantly".
Just as Blair brought home to Britain the violence of his and George W Bush 's blood-soaked "shit
show", so David Cameron, supported by Theresa May, compounded his crime in Libya and its horrific
aftermath, including those killed and maimed in Manchester Arena on 22 May.
The spin is back, not surprisingly. Salman Abedi acted alone. He was a petty criminal, no more.
The extensive network revealed last week by the American leak has vanished. But the questions have
not.
Why was Abedi able to travel freely through Europe to Libya and back to Manchester only days
before he committed his terrible crime? Was Theresa May told by MI5 that the FBI had tracked him
as part of an Islamic cell planning to attack a "political target" in Britain?
In the current election campaign, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has made a guarded reference
to a "war on terror that has failed". As he knows, it was never a war on terror but a war of conquest
and subjugation. Palestine. Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. Syria. Iran is said to be next. Before there
is another Manchester, who will have the courage to say that?
John Pilger is an Australian journalist and documentary film maker based in the United Kingdom
since 1962. http://www.johnpilger.com/
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect
the opinions of Information Clearing House.
"... Occam's razor's obvious: Seth and Assange, both had opportunity+motive+means. ..."
"... Seth, his family, the MSM, the politically appointed police and others were true believers, who love their god, the Demorat
party, too dearly to accept the truth. ..."
"... There is a trail of dead bodies behind the Clintons. Kim Dotcom had the motive+opportunity+means to enable Seth+Assange. ..."
"... Was it a DNC leak or a Russian hack? Government and media say it was a hack, based on a report supplied by computer-tech company
Crowdstrike, which has close connections to the Atlantic Council - an anti-Russian think tank. Already we have a bias in the reporting,
and the FBI has opted to accept this finding without ever securing the evidence and analyzing the DNC data base itself. Pretty big decision
there... dropping the ball a little? ..."
"... A hack is traceable and the FBI should be able to firm that up, whereas a flash drive could be untraceable. The FBI investigation
was being dragged out and going nowhere - Comey deserved to be fired for that alone. ..."
"... If this is true, James Comey has already lied to Congress in saying that Trump wasn't "wiretapped." In this regard, he is no
different than James Clapper and Brennan, who also denied spying to Congress, until Edward Snowden came out. ..."
Last week, Fox 5 DC's report incited a storm of controversy after formerD.C.
police homicide detectiveRod Wheeler stated that there was tangible evidence on murdered Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer
Seth Rich's laptop suggesting that he was communicating with Wikileaks prior to his death. The story generated a large amount of
outrage, with outlets like the Washington Post and
Vice labelling it a "conspiracy theory" and claiming that it had no basis in
fact. But details regarding the political affiliation of spokespeople and representatives of the Rich family appear to indicate that
the DNC may beprioritizing its own interests, minimizing alleged political elements to the tragedy.
I. Legal Representatives And Spokespeople For Rich Family Have Ties To DNC, Crime Connected Unions
Since Fox 5 DC's report, a number of individuals speaking on behalf of the Rich family have blasted Fox News and Rod Wheeler for
speaking out on the case. Rich family spokesman Brad Baumaninsisted thatanyone who continued to push the story either had a "transparent
political agenda," or were a sociopath. But an August 2016 tweet from Wikileaks
revealed that Bauman is a crisis public relations consultant working with the
Pastorum Group . A media
release from the Pastorum Group reveals that Bauman previously worked for the DNC and theService Employees International Union
(SEIU).
The SEIU has previously been reported by the Wall Street Journal as a "top
spender" for the Democrats, openly endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016and
actively assisted in her campaign. It has been
widely criticized by some groups for the involvement of union members in crimes
including embezzlement, criminal conspiracy, perjury and identity theft.The SEIU is also a client of the
Strategic Consulting Group , which was founded by the Democratic operative
Robert Creamer . In 2016, Creamer was implicated in footage obtained by journalist
James O'Keefe whichrevealed that Creamer was engaging in voting fraud and violentdisruption
of politicalevents, sometimes using his connections to unions who were as clients of his.
Bauman's past professional ties to the DNC and the SEIU raise questions about the vehemence with which he has attacked journalists
reporting on the circumstances of Seth Rich's murder.
On May 19th, Rod Wheeler was sent a cease and desist letter on behalf of
the Rich family byJoseph Ingrisano of the law firm Kutak
Rock LLP . Kutak Rock has a long history of incredibly close affiliation with DNC politicians.The law firm donated$21,850 and$13,400
to President Barack Obama during his 2008 and
2012 campaigns, respectively. Kutak also gave$11,800 to
Hillary Clinton during her2016 presidential bid.
Kutak also has ties to the Rose Law Firm, which was at the center of the infamous
Whitewater Controversy during the 1990's.
Hillary Clinton as well as White House staffer Vince Foster both practiced
law at Rose, though Clinton has sought to distance herself from the firm given the allegations of scandal that surrounded it. On
April 13th,1998, Arkansas Business reported that a number of attorneys from
Rose left the firm for Kutak Rock. Kutak Rock continues to maintain offices
in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Pro-Democrat interests have also taken to Change.org to attack companies
advertising with Fox 5 DC. The boycott campaign is organized by Karl Frisch
, a former senior fellow at propaganda groupMedia Matters for America who spent his time at the organization helping develop "long-term
strategy to target Fox News as a political actor."
II. Rich Family's Statements To The Public Are Inconsistent With Those Of Their Representatives
Despite the instance of representatives to the contrary, the Rich family have released multiple statements expressing gratitude
to individuals privately attempting to help answer questions surrounding Rich's murder and indicating fatigue at efforts from both
sides to politicize the tragedy. On April 24th, Seth Rich's parents released a video
thanking those who had "stepped forward" to help identify their son's killers and donated to the family's GoFundMe. A May 18th
update to the GoFundMe page by Seth Rich's brother Aaron exhibited a general
annoyance at third parties who were using the family for political motives. He asked for help that would allow the family to solve
Rich's murder without having to "rely on aid offered with strings."
Message from Seth Rich's brother criticizing "third parties" for politicizing Rich's murder
The Rich family themselves appears divided on who was responsible for Seth Rich's murder. Rich's cousin,
Jonathan Rich , told Sean Hannity on Twitter that he suspected Rich might have
been in touch with Wikileaks. The topic clearly continues to remain controversial for the family.
III. The Investigation Into Rich's Murder Has Been Marked By Incompetence
Facts about the investigation into Rich's murder continue to raise concerns about the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department's
efforts to identify Seth Rich's killers. The public incident report filed after
Rich's death shows that several officers who responded to the scene of the crime were wearing body cameras. But the Metropolitan
Police claimed the footage was "lost" when met with requests to release the videos, which might have provided important clues. A
May 21st, 2017 report by World Net Daily has also established that police failed
to speak with staff at Lou's City Bar (where Rich was last seen alive) to enquire about whether they had any pertinent evidence.
Even stranger, police chief Cathy Lanier resigned just a month after Rich's
death. Her replacement, Peter Newsham , has been plagued by past allegations
of alcoholism and domestic violence. Newsham was also accused of severely mishandling a rape case after the family of an 11 year
old girl alleged that he allowed the victim to becharged with filing a false report despite several medical accounts detailing her
sexual injuries and genetic evidence indicating that she had been abused by multiple assailants.
It is also not clear why police would seize Rich's laptop for an investigation into what was supposed to be a robbery gone bad.
The Washington Post claimed that neither the FBI nor the police were in possession
of Rich's laptop. But this claim contradicts a report by the Washington Examiner
which cited a former law enforcement official who stated that the laptop was examined during the investigation.
Whether the truth about who killed Seth Rich will emerge or not remains to be seen. In the aftermath of Fox 5 DC's claims, Megaupload
founder Kim Dotcom claimed he would provide proof thatSeth Rich was the source
of Wikileaks DNC email release on May 23rd. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange
has additionally hinted that while Wikileaks never discloses their own sources, other parties may hold important information
concerning Seth Rich's potential communications with the publisher.
Should information emerge showing that Seth Rich did in fact act as a source for Wikileaks, the intense denials from national
media outlets and the intimate involvement of figures tied to the DNC in the case will undoubtedly fuel renewed allegations of a
politically motivated cover up.
DNC and dem elites have modern history of buying off families, starting with Mary Jo. Kopechne's. Hannity has vowed to keep
this story on the front burner. Hannity should stay out of Ft. Marcy Park and hire a food taster.
To all non believers, I suppose you think that there are very corrupt gov's and leaders in other countries but this cannot
be happening here in murica....
Go back to sitcoms, comic books and the Kardashian's at least you woun't get on the way.
I wonder if anyone (DNC or affiliate) has made payments to the family? I know a few million bucks won't bring their son back,
but it might be enough to keep the family from seeking prosecution in any serious way.
Rich family spokesman Brad Bauman insisted that anyone who continued to push the story either had a "transparent political
agenda," or were a sociopath.
Isn't Brad including himself in his statement! Isn't he a DNC Crisis manager! Wouldn't they ( DNC) consider this a crisis!
He sustained a "small injury" to his liver and "several small bowel injuries" - none of which was fatal.
He was taken to the operating room, where his injuries were treated.
He was then moved to ICU (Intensive Care Unit) where he received blood transfusion. He was stable, his blood pressure normal.
8 hours after Rich arrived at the hospital, the place "swarmed" with law enforcement officers. Everyone, except the attending
physician and a few nurses, was kicked out of the ICU. There were no visiting hours, which is abnormal for ICU.
That morning, Anonymous and the other doctors were instructed not to make rounds (visits) on "the VIP that came in last night"
(Seth Rich).
When Rich died, no one other than the attending physician was allowed to see him. There was no code alert or call for a cardiopulmonary
resuscitation team . Although Anonymous was with a patient in the next room, he/she was blocked from attending to Rich.
At the time, Anonymous couldn't understand why the patient Rich was treated that way and thought the whole thing to be "fishy".
Later, when he found out that the patient was Seth Rich, Anonymous "was terrified".
Here's a screenshot of Anonymous' post (click to enlarge):
4chan deletes its contents at the end of each day, but the thread on which Anonymous had posted was briefly
archived
, which enabled me to copy what Anonymous wrote (see below) before the archived thread was removed.
Below are Anonymous' post and his responses to 4chan readers' queries:
4th year surgery resident here who rotated at WHC (Washington Hospital Center) last year, it won't be hard to identify me but
I feel that I shouldn't stay silent.
Seth Rich was shot twice , with 3 total gunshot wounds (entry and exit, and entry). He was taken to the OR emergently [sic]
where we performed an exlap and found a small injury to segment 3 of the liver which was packed and several small bowel injuries
(pretty common for gunshots to the back exiting the abdomen) which we resected ~12cm of bowel and left him in discontinuity (didn't
hook everything back up) with the intent of performing a washout in the morning. He did not have any major vascular injuries otherwise.
I've seen dozens of worse cases than this which survived and nothing about his injuries suggested to me that he'd sustained a
fatal wound.
Note: "OR" means operating room; "exlap" refers to
exploratory laparotomy -> is a surgical operation
where the abdomen is opened and the abdominal organs examined for injury or disease. It is the standard of care in various blunt
and penetrating trauma situations in which there may be multiple life-threatening injuries; "resected" means cut off or remove.
In the meantime he was transferred to the ICU and transfused 2 units of blood when his post-surgery crit came back ~20. He
was stable and not on any pressors , and it seemed pretty routine. About 8 hours after he arrived we were swarmed by LEOs and
pretty much everyone except the attending and a few nurses was kicked out of the ICU ( disallowing visiting hours -normally every
odd hour, eg 1am, 3am, etc- is not something we do routinely ). It was weird as hell. At turnover that morning we were instructed
not to round on the VIP that came in last night (that's exactly what the attending said, and no one except for me and another
resident had any idea who he was talking about).
Note: "post-surgery crit" is post-surgery critical care, referring to the patient's hematocrit level, i.e., the percentage
of red blood cells circulating in the blood; "
pressor " means "tending to increase blood
pressure"; "LEOs" is law enforcement officers; "not to round" means not to make bedside visits.
No one here was allowed to see Seth except for my attending when he died. No code was called. I rounded on patients literally
next door but was physically blocked from checking in on him. I've never seen anything like it before , and while I can't say
100% that he was allowed to die, I don't understand why he was treated like that. Take it how you may, /pol/, I'm just one low
level doc. Something's fishy though, that's for sure .
Note: "No code was called" means no emergency alert was sounded for a cardiopulmonary resuscitation team ; "/pol/" refers to
"politically incorrect" posts on 4chan .
A commenter challenged Anonymous:
prove you are not a larper. what are the list of medications you administered throughout the entire process?
Note: "a larper" is someone who engages in larp or live action role playing, i.e., someone online pretending to be someone
else.
When he [Seth Rich] arrived to the trauma ward he had LR running, I don't keep up with how much he got but less than 2 liters
before we rolled to the OR.
Note: "LR" is Lactated Ringers (solution), a common fluid replacement for patients who have lost blood or other body fluids;
"PRBC" is packed red blood cells; "FFP" is fresh frozen plasma.
No transfusion was done in trauma; the massive transfusion protocol was started because he was hypotensive on arrival but by
the time the cooler (4u PRBC, 2u FFP) was ready we were on the way to the OR and honestly I don't remember if he got any of it
beforehand; he responded well to just IVF resuscitation so we went ahead with the surgery any just ended up giving him 2 units
afterwards (the crit we got in trauma was returned just after we left and was low, ~24 IIRC but it wasn't communicated to us teamwork
fail for sure but that can happen when we're rushing to the OR)
Note: "hypotensive" means abnormally low blood pressure.
As for the rest of the meds? You'd have to ask anesthesia I guess. He didn't need anything from us in the ICU except a propofol/fentanyl
drip to maintain sedation while intubated but that's pretty par for the course. The important part was that he was hemodynamically
stable and not requiring pressors.
I haven't spoken to the attending who was on staff that night but the other resident I was with that night doesn't remember
it in any clarity (he was called to traumas as part of his rotation but that was ancillary to his ICU -different ICU btw- duties).
Basically he said, "yeah that was weird, right?" At the time we were way more concerned with the rising class / new interns (July
1st is a terrifying time to be a patient lol) to make much notice it always stuck in my head as something super bizarre but it
was a long time before I even realized it was Seth Rich. When he arrived he was assigned by our system a trauma number, not a
name as his patient ID. I only knew him at that time as Tra### (no freaking way that I remember the actual number). When it came
to light who he was a while later I was floored. And terrified.
Nope, nothing in the head so no freaking way we'd CT before going to the OR with a clear intraabdominal GSW. No need to FAST
or anything, just stabilize and go to the OR
Note: "CT" is CAT scan; "GSW" is gunshot wound.
One could always just increase the propofol drip or give him a ton of roc and screw with the vent settings. No idea if that
happened but it'd be easy if you have the right meds and access
He had two holes in his right flank and one in the left upper quadrant. In trauma you always assume by protocol that 3 holes
= 3 bullets but it was pretty clear that he was shot twice by the trajectory of the bullet (eg, his liver injury). I've also seen
enough GSWs to know that the media doesn't get the number right every time.
Yeah, I'm not going to do that. Way too dangerous.
Alright anons it's been swell but I'll be gone for the next few hours for regular residency meeting / journal club BS. Take
everything you read especially from the MSM with a grain of salt as usual but don't stop digging.
hmmm. the WaPo and other MSM, plus the DNC guilty in obstructing justics, conspiracy and murder?
not that the other 10,000 people murdered over the last 8 months are not equally important, but this smacks of murder for profit
and political gain running into tens of billions of dollars from federal contracts via a run for presidency (busted apart thank
god).
Wonder why the FBI isn't involved? Because it's their job to cover up for the swamp. Here's a reminder of how Comey got rich
burying and ignoring scandals http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=72788
The FBI is as corrupt and against real Americans as the CIA Disband/dissolve both. They do nothing to make our lives better.
For most of the the US's history, we had neither.
Aren't there any decent FBI and/or DC cops around any longer? I guess not. Anyone of those agents with verifiable intel on
this case could blow it wide open by appearing on Hannity and exposing the truth. Come on guys, grow a pair!
In this vid it is described how the new cia members take an oath to the cia and how they and their family will be destroyed
if they brake it. John Kiriakou, CIA whistle blower part
1
They are trying. An FBI source confirmed what the DC Private Investigator claimed. Basically, this FBI agent claimed he saw
Seth Rich's laptop and the emails from the DNC that were sent to Wikileaks. Considering what happened to Seth Rich though, I am
not surprised that this FBI source is staying anonymous.
Occam's razor's obvious: Seth and Assange, both had opportunity+motive+means.
Seth, his family, the MSM, the politically appointed police and others were true believers, who love their god, the Demorat
party, too dearly to accept the truth.
There is a trail of dead bodies behind the Clintons. Kim Dotcom had the motive+opportunity+means to enable Seth+Assange.
Comey, at best Inspector Clouseau, is a corrupt political hack with a long history of covering for the Clintons beginning with
New Square's 4 rabbis and the Marc Rich pardon. Clinton/DNC apparatchiks arranged Seth's murder.
Seems to me, as an independent observer of the political morass this great USA has devolved into, that Seth was obviously dispatched
by the same 'team' that took care of Vince Foster, Ron Brown and several others.
What truly is astounding appears to be the fact that those 'behind the scene' of this obvious Democrat's problem solving methodology
appear to be the most vocal purveryors of the anti-Putin agenda claiming that he is Evil because he murders his political opponents!
Diabolical, is it not?
Saul Alinsky Diabolical. Projection has been Hillary's, Obama's and the DNC's play plan all along. The Alt right Media has
put a kink in their play book.
Here's my take on the situation, with thanks to DuneCreature:
Was it a DNC leak or a Russian hack? Government and media say it was a hack, based on a report supplied by computer-tech
company Crowdstrike, which has close connections to the Atlantic Council - an anti-Russian think tank. Already we have a bias
in the reporting, and the FBI has opted to accept this finding without ever securing the evidence and analyzing the DNC data base
itself. Pretty big decision there... dropping the ball a little?
A hack is traceable and the FBI should be able to firm that up, whereas a flash drive could be untraceable. The FBI investigation
was being dragged out and going nowhere - Comey deserved to be fired for that alone.
Mike Whitney is an independent journalist who frequently writes for a left-wing website (Counterpunch) and has no love for
Donald Trump. However, I think he describes the present situation pretty well. A lot of the discussion here is just a red-herring.
Neither the media, nor government agencies, are digging into the real facts. (Mike Whitney's Bottom Line " The government has
a reliable witness (Craig Murray) who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and, so far,they've showed
no interest in his testimony at all. Doesn't that strike you as a bit weird?")
There's roughly $250,000 in reward monies now for further information on what happened in the murder of Seth Rich (the reported
DNC leaker). He apparently wasn't robbed, and the running narrative is that the DC police have not investigated further on orders
from above (the mayor, who apparently is on good terms with Hillary, I believe). Lots of stories are surfacing, one says that
Seth was not seriously injured, but the DC police "outside staff" took over his care and reported him dead in the morning. Reportedly,
one of the higher-ranked police officers had ties to the DNC through his wife. Another big question is where is Seth's computer
(supposedly seized by the DC police, although that is not normal for a reported robbery). While it is still early to tell what
happened to Seth Rich, it doesn't smell good. Also see Kim Dotcom ref below.
In the bigger picture, Freedom Watch was apparently the organization that brought the Obama administration's surveillance of
the Trump administration personnel to Trump's attention. Freedom Watch negotiated an immunity agreement for Dennis Montgomery,
a CIA contract agent with much higher seniority than Edward Snowden, with the US government. Freedom Watch is a highly respected
operation and there's lots of information from this whistleblower if it ever surfaces.
Freedom Watch's whistle-blower info had been "blown-off" by most government agencies until House Intelligence Committee Chairman
Devin Nunes got a hold of it and reported it to Trump. Reportedly, the information shows that the Obama administration was spying
on 156 judges, including the Supreme Court, and congress, etc -Trump and many others. This information has apparently been in
the hands of James Comey for several years.
If this is true, James Comey has already lied to Congress in saying that Trump wasn't "wiretapped." In this regard, he
is no different than James Clapper and Brennan, who also denied spying to Congress, until Edward Snowden came out.
The whole Trump impeachment movement is based on zero evidence and is a cold coup to nullify the last election. It's just like
something you'd see in the banana republic CIA is trying over throw. The Deep State hate him because: 1) if he wants to do deals
with Russia instead of waging war and destroying the Russian Federation; 2) he's against a lot of the trade deals and already
undone the TPP; and 3) Trump is undermining the whole climate change /Paris Accords narrative.
Aside from that Trump is showering the Predator Class with unprecedented filthy lucre.
So Here's where I come down (as stated by Mike Whitney)
"Does this analysis make me a Donald Trump supporter?"
Never. The idea is ridiculous. Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn't
mean there aren't other nefarious forces at work behind the smoke screen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole
flap suggests that there's an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public's radar and has the elected-government
in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they
have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.) And what's more surprising,
is that the Democrats have aligned themselves with these deep state puppet masters. They've cast their lot with the sinister stewards
of the national security state and hopped on the impeachment bandwagon. But is that a wise choice for the Dems?
Author Michael J. Glennon doesn't think so. Here's what he says in the May edition of Harper's Magazine:
"Those who would counter the illiberalism of Trump with the illiberalism of unfettered bureaucrats would do well to contemplate
the precedent their victory would set. "
Montgomery's info has been out for a while and had been sent to some members of CONgress and possibly the AG. Its buried so
deep, it would be recovered in china about now. NOTHING will ever reach the sheeple from the MSM on this.
Yes, I know it's confusing for everyone. ... Me too.
That is the way the Intelligence Community wants it because they can run any number of 'cover-ups', rescue operations (bail
out valuable assets, hide fucked up illegal behavior, damage enemies, plant and or destroy evidence, etc.) during a good raging
shit storm of bogus intel and accusations.
That's why the CIA wants to own/control all the media.
We are all paddling up stream. ... Only a scant few will have the time, energy and moxy to sift though all the bullshit and
the IC is counting on it to stay in control.
Trust me, all the bad information and false narratives are making my head hurt too. ....... Nothing pisses me off anymore than
going down some rabbit hole for a day or two only to find out it really is just where some rabbit lives.
The trouble is we have to do it or we will lose to the pirates and I think George Webb is trying hard to point out the consequences
of losing that battle.
This ain't a game or made for TV movie. ........ This is going to put some people in very REAL GRAVES. ........ Assuming the
body is found.
But yep, good work, Northern Flicker. .. Thank you, for your efforts.
Just because you can't hear explosions and gunfire doesn't mean you can blow this off as not a 'war' .... It is a war. It just
hasn't gone hot yet.
Keep compiling evidence and SPREAD the info and knowledge around all you can. ....... Your kids and neighbors asses depend
on it. .. No shit!
And, hey, if we can survive this you'll have a good scrapbook to show your grand kids. .. You were in the Spy vs. Spy vs. We
The People War of 2017. .. If not, you probably won't have grand kids anyway.
Live Hard, Just Blur My Mugshot A Little For Me In Your Picture Album, ... You'll Be So Glad You Did, Die Free
Riding your viewership post coat tails, DC. I wish this was a cute, witty, glib and popular retort.
But my anger, my fears, my gut turmoil for the future is exacerbated by my growing feelings of betrayal by the DS and all it's
machinations. Our Salesman's latest travel to Flipville was the final chapter for me. Perhaps just another planned chapter in
the enemy's playbook of division pitting one whatever after another whomever.
Saudi Arabia>Israel>the pope>Brussels>G7? For the children and their children's children to find peace in this time? So is
this the true "global warming" ?? Going hot ?
Your stock on ZH is rising,DC, IMO. Good posts, good mix. Agreed:
1) real people are about to die. (clarify For the idiot posters) -> "not over there stupid, right at your own murican soil
for a change". It is right outside your door. will it be the poor and weak with nothing left from the theft or will it be some
of many criminal DS members and traitors running this 100 year shitshow? Know your enemy. 2) will the deliverers of ultimate justice
be seen in history as villains or will they be remembered as martyrs to the founding principals of individual liberty? Agreed:
there will be graves on both sides, the only truth in every conflict. 3) what will be the tipping points the self-serving untouchables
(in their minds) are systematically and randomly exterminated like rats? Dying vets? Dying and homeless boomers? The next bail
out? Trigger happy mellinials who finally "get it", like "Dude, we are screwed for the next 40 years to the debt serfdom matrix".
4) does the 97 even remember what individual liberty is-is ??
I plead guilty of the whine and bitch, piss and moan, post videos and links to vent ad.nauseum, hide on ZH et.al., hoping someone
will do something. Fuck man, I have voted for 30 years against this colonial expansion / debt serfdom, home and abroad. A 100%
personal failure rate.
"Vocal" puking throughout man's history accomplishes little. I had some flicker of hope two years ago that the 99 people could
regain a voice. Now, I believe all that is left for liberty's redress is .338 = 666-1
Today is the personal re-start to finalize preparations placed on temporary hold after two years of praying that history will
NOT REPEAT. Your post was in part the tipper along with being force fed that Israel, the Vatican and Saudi were pinnacles of truth,
virtue and justice locked arm and "arms" with western powers to fight terror and bring freedoms to the world. My own final Orwellian
straw. I no longer give a shit about the news cycle even though I can easily separate the truth out of the chaff. Or CAN I ??
Voting, the truth, the American experiment ? I no longer think this matters if you just look at history and it's only clear message
left for us to individually re-discover. It IS time to finish my half completed plans for for the day that will come..... Flipville
becomes Tipville and 3% mobilize, collectively or individually again.
Damn it all. It always comes down to who will survive or perish. I thought for this little instant in time we had learned "civilization"
and the big picture of "the greater good- FOR ALL".....
Marie, if it shall be cake..... make mine a delicious chocolate with two scoops of iced cream. In about fifteen years or less,
with nothing left to lose, you and your family will serve your last insult. Plan on it. For those who care to consider..... your
individual plans are yours forever.
I just wanted to share and visit, thanks for listening.
Good night, and good luck.
"We now return you to our Regular Programming". (never has that common phrase been so deadly and true)
"... Instead, the millions of young voters that are rejecting Hillary's campaign this year are making a carefully reasoned, even reluctant calculation about the limits of the insider politics both she and her husband have represented. ..."
"... And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party, often including Hillary Clinton personally, has been on the wrong side of virtually all of these issues. ..."
"... Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a succession of ridiculous excuses for her vote. Remember, this was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the Bush administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones spraying poison over the capital (where were they going to launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales. ..."
"... Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason many other mainstream Democrats did: They didn't want to be tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party refused to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of supporting a wrong one. ..."
Why Young People Are Right About Hillary Clinton: Listening to the youth vote doesn't always
lead to disaster
By Matt Taibbi
March 25, 2016
... ... ...
Instead, the millions of young voters that are rejecting Hillary's campaign this year are
making a carefully reasoned, even reluctant calculation about the limits of the insider politics
both she and her husband have represented.
For young voters, the foundational issues of our age have been the Iraq invasion, the financial
crisis, free trade, mass incarceration, domestic surveillance, police brutality, debt and income
inequality, among others.
And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party, often including Hillary Clinton
personally, has been on the wrong side of virtually all of these issues.
Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a succession of ridiculous excuses
for her vote. Remember, this was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the Bush
administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones spraying poison over the capital (where
were they going to launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales.
Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason many other mainstream Democrats
did: They didn't want to be tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party refused
to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of supporting a wrong one.
It was a classic "we can't be too pure" moment. Hillary gambled that Democrats would understand
that she'd outraged conscience and common sense for the sake of the Democrats' electoral viability
going forward. As a mock-Hillary in a 2007 Saturday Night Live episode put it, "Democrats know
me . They know my support for the Iraq War has always been insincere."
This pattern, of modern Democrats bending so far back to preserve what they believe is their
claim on the middle that they end up plainly in the wrong, has continually repeated itself.
Take the mass incarceration phenomenon. This was pioneered in Mario Cuomo's New York and furthered
under Bill Clinton's presidency, which authorized more than $16 billion for new prisons and more
police in a crime bill.
As The New Jim Crow author Michelle Alexander noted, America when Bill Clinton left office
had the world's highest incarceration rate, with a prison admission rate for black drug inmates
that was 23 times 1983 levels. Hillary stumped for that crime bill, adding the Reaganesque observation
that inner-city criminals were "super-predators" who needed to be "brought to heel."
You can go on down the line of all these issues. Trade? From NAFTA to the TPP, Hillary and
her party cohorts have consistently supported these anti-union free trade agreements, until it
became politically inexpedient. Debt? Hillary infamously voted for regressive bankruptcy reform
just a few years after privately meeting with Elizabeth Warren and agreeing that such industry-driven
efforts to choke off debt relief needed to be stopped.
Then of course there is the matter of the great gobs of money Hillary has taken to give speeches
to Goldman Sachs and God knows whom else. Her answer about that - "That's what they offered" -
gets right to the heart of what young people find so repugnant about this brand of politics.
One can talk about having the strength to get things done, given the political reality of the
times. But one also can become too easily convinced of certain political realities, particularly
when they're paying you hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour.
Is Hillary really doing the most good that she can do, fighting for the best deal that's there
to get for ordinary people?
Or is she just doing something that satisfies her own definition of that, while taking tens
of millions of dollars from some of the world's biggest jerks?
I doubt even Hillary Clinton could answer that question. She has been playing the inside game
for so long, she seems to have become lost in it. She behaves like a person who often doesn't
know what the truth is, but instead merely reaches for what is the best answer in that moment,
not realizing the difference.
This is why her shifting explanations and flippant attitude about the email scandal are almost
more unnerving than the ostensible offense. She seems confident that just because her detractors
are politically motivated, as they always have been, that they must be wrong, as they often were.
But that's faulty thinking. My worry is that Democrats like Hillary have been saying, "The
Republicans are worse!" for so long that they've begun to believe it excuses everything. It makes
me nervous to see Hillary supporters like law professor Stephen Vladeck arguing in the New York
Times that the real problem wasn't anything Hillary did, but that the Espionage Act isn't "practical."
If you're willing to extend the "purity" argument to the Espionage Act, it's only a matter
of time before you get in real trouble. And even if it doesn't happen this summer, Democrats may
soon wish they'd picked the frumpy senator from Vermont who probably checks his restaurant bills
to make sure he hasn't been undercharged.
But in the age of Trump, winning is the only thing that matters, right? In that case, there's
plenty of evidence suggesting Sanders would perform better against a reality TV free-coverage
machine like Trump than would Hillary Clinton. This would largely be due to the passion and energy
of young voters.
Young people don't see the Sanders-Clinton race as a choice between idealism and incremental
progress. The choice they see is between an honest politician, and one who is so profoundly a
part of the problem that she can't even see it anymore.
They've seen in the last decades that politicians who promise they can deliver change while
also taking the money, mostly just end up taking the money.
And they're voting for Sanders because his idea of an entirely voter-funded electoral "revolution"
that bars corporate money is, no matter what its objective chances of success, the only practical
road left to break what they perceive to be an inexorable pattern of corruption. Young people aren't dreaming. They're thinking. And we should listen to them.
"new Democratic Party" is lined up with the neocons.
Bill put Strobe Talbot and Mrs Kagan in senior positions in 1993!
Hillary voted comfortably with Paul Wolfowitz ands her internal neocon.
While Obama used his peace prize speech to tell the world he would decide who should run sovereign
nations.
26000 bombs in 7 diverse countries in one year when the US is not in any declared war.
"new Democratic Party" is neocon foreign policy and $500B for the pentagon each year not counting
the bombing costs.
"new Democratic Party" also armed ISIS until they "went off the ranch" and broke the promise
they made to the US' spooks 'not to shoot at people US liked.'
"... Instead, the millions of young voters that are rejecting Hillary's campaign this year are making a carefully reasoned, even reluctant calculation about the limits of the insider politics both she and her husband have represented. ..."
"... And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party, often including Hillary Clinton personally, has been on the wrong side of virtually all of these issues. ..."
"... Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a succession of ridiculous excuses for her vote. Remember, this was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the Bush administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones spraying poison over the capital (where were they going to launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales. ..."
"... Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason many other mainstream Democrats did: They didn't want to be tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party refused to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of supporting a wrong one. ..."
Why Young People Are Right About Hillary Clinton: Listening to the youth vote doesn't always
lead to disaster
By Matt Taibbi
March 25, 2016
... ... ...
Instead, the millions of young voters that are rejecting Hillary's campaign this year are
making a carefully reasoned, even reluctant calculation about the limits of the insider politics
both she and her husband have represented.
For young voters, the foundational issues of our age have been the Iraq invasion, the financial
crisis, free trade, mass incarceration, domestic surveillance, police brutality, debt and income
inequality, among others.
And to one degree or another, the modern Democratic Party, often including Hillary Clinton
personally, has been on the wrong side of virtually all of these issues.
Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War, but offered a succession of ridiculous excuses
for her vote. Remember, this was one of the easiest calls ever. A child could see that the Bush
administration's fairy tales about WMDs and Iraqi drones spraying poison over the capital (where
were they going to launch from, Martha's Vineyard?) were just that, fairy tales.
Yet Hillary voted for the invasion for the same reason many other mainstream Democrats
did: They didn't want to be tagged as McGovernite peaceniks. The new Democratic Party refused
to be seen as being too antiwar, even at the cost of supporting a wrong one.
It was a classic "we can't be too pure" moment. Hillary gambled that Democrats would understand
that she'd outraged conscience and common sense for the sake of the Democrats' electoral viability
going forward. As a mock-Hillary in a 2007 Saturday Night Live episode put it, "Democrats know
me . They know my support for the Iraq War has always been insincere."
This pattern, of modern Democrats bending so far back to preserve what they believe is their
claim on the middle that they end up plainly in the wrong, has continually repeated itself.
Take the mass incarceration phenomenon. This was pioneered in Mario Cuomo's New York and furthered
under Bill Clinton's presidency, which authorized more than $16 billion for new prisons and more
police in a crime bill.
As The New Jim Crow author Michelle Alexander noted, America when Bill Clinton left office
had the world's highest incarceration rate, with a prison admission rate for black drug inmates
that was 23 times 1983 levels. Hillary stumped for that crime bill, adding the Reaganesque observation
that inner-city criminals were "super-predators" who needed to be "brought to heel."
You can go on down the line of all these issues. Trade? From NAFTA to the TPP, Hillary and
her party cohorts have consistently supported these anti-union free trade agreements, until it
became politically inexpedient. Debt? Hillary infamously voted for regressive bankruptcy reform
just a few years after privately meeting with Elizabeth Warren and agreeing that such industry-driven
efforts to choke off debt relief needed to be stopped.
Then of course there is the matter of the great gobs of money Hillary has taken to give speeches
to Goldman Sachs and God knows whom else. Her answer about that - "That's what they offered" -
gets right to the heart of what young people find so repugnant about this brand of politics.
One can talk about having the strength to get things done, given the political reality of the
times. But one also can become too easily convinced of certain political realities, particularly
when they're paying you hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour.
Is Hillary really doing the most good that she can do, fighting for the best deal that's there
to get for ordinary people?
Or is she just doing something that satisfies her own definition of that, while taking tens
of millions of dollars from some of the world's biggest jerks?
I doubt even Hillary Clinton could answer that question. She has been playing the inside game
for so long, she seems to have become lost in it. She behaves like a person who often doesn't
know what the truth is, but instead merely reaches for what is the best answer in that moment,
not realizing the difference.
This is why her shifting explanations and flippant attitude about the email scandal are almost
more unnerving than the ostensible offense. She seems confident that just because her detractors
are politically motivated, as they always have been, that they must be wrong, as they often were.
But that's faulty thinking. My worry is that Democrats like Hillary have been saying, "The
Republicans are worse!" for so long that they've begun to believe it excuses everything. It makes
me nervous to see Hillary supporters like law professor Stephen Vladeck arguing in the New York
Times that the real problem wasn't anything Hillary did, but that the Espionage Act isn't "practical."
If you're willing to extend the "purity" argument to the Espionage Act, it's only a matter
of time before you get in real trouble. And even if it doesn't happen this summer, Democrats may
soon wish they'd picked the frumpy senator from Vermont who probably checks his restaurant bills
to make sure he hasn't been undercharged.
But in the age of Trump, winning is the only thing that matters, right? In that case, there's
plenty of evidence suggesting Sanders would perform better against a reality TV free-coverage
machine like Trump than would Hillary Clinton. This would largely be due to the passion and energy
of young voters.
Young people don't see the Sanders-Clinton race as a choice between idealism and incremental
progress. The choice they see is between an honest politician, and one who is so profoundly a
part of the problem that she can't even see it anymore.
They've seen in the last decades that politicians who promise they can deliver change while
also taking the money, mostly just end up taking the money.
And they're voting for Sanders because his idea of an entirely voter-funded electoral "revolution"
that bars corporate money is, no matter what its objective chances of success, the only practical
road left to break what they perceive to be an inexorable pattern of corruption. Young people aren't dreaming. They're thinking. And we should listen to them.
"new Democratic Party" is lined up with the neocons.
Bill put Strobe Talbot and Mrs Kagan in senior positions in 1993!
Hillary voted comfortably with Paul Wolfowitz ands her internal neocon.
While Obama used his peace prize speech to tell the world he would decide who should run sovereign
nations.
26000 bombs in 7 diverse countries in one year when the US is not in any declared war.
"new Democratic Party" is neocon foreign policy and $500B for the pentagon each year not counting
the bombing costs.
"new Democratic Party" also armed ISIS until they "went off the ranch" and broke the promise
they made to the US' spooks 'not to shoot at people US liked.'
Hilary Clinton said on Tuesday she takes "personal responsibility" for her loss to
Donald Trump in the
2016 presidential race.
But the former Democratic nominee also blamed Russian interference in the US election and the
release just before the election of a
letter by the FBI director, James Comey , pertaining to the investigation into her emails, saying
such factors deprived her of an otherwise expected victory.
Run against Trump? Elizabeth Warren will certainly stand and fight Read more
"I take absolute personal responsibility," Clinton said of her November defeat during a sit-down
with CNN's Christiane Amanpour at an event titled Women for Women in New York. "I was the candidate,
I was the person who was on the ballot. I am very aware of the challenges, the problems, the shortfalls
that we had."
The former secretary of state nonetheless maintained she was on track to become the first female
president of the United States when a series of obstacles altered the trajectory of the race.
"It wasn't a perfect campaign. There is no such thing," she said. "But I was on the way to winning,
until a combination of Jim Comey's letter on 28 October and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the
minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off."
Clinton was referring to the decision by Comey to disclose – 11 days before election day – that
the FBI was reviewing newly
discovered emails in relation to the investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server while
at the helm of the Department of State. Just days later, Comey concluded the emails were mostly personal
or duplicates of what the government had already examined prior to clearing Clinton of any criminal
charges.
Shattered depicts a calamity of a campaign. While on the surface, Hillary
Clinton's team were far more unified and capable than their counterparts
in 2008 had been, behind the scenes there was utter discord. The senior
staff engaged in constant backstabbing and intrigue, jockeying for access
to the candidate and selectively keeping information from one another. Clinton
herself never made it exactly clear who had responsibility for what, meaning
that staff were in a constant competition to take control. Worse, Clinton
was so sealed off from her own campaign that many senior team members had
only met her briefly, and interacted with her only when she held conference
calls to berate them for their failures. Allen and Parnes call the situation
"an unholy mess, fraught with tangled lines of authority, petty jealousies,
distorted priorities, and no sense of general purpose," in which "no one
was in charge."
'For example, late in the Obama administration the board that is supposed to oversee the US
Postal Service had zero members out of the nine possible appointments. The reported reason is
that Senator Bernie Sanders put a hold on all possible appointees, as a show of solidarity with
postal workers. If it isn't obvious to you how Sanders preventing President Obama from appointing
new board members would influence the US Postal Service in the directions that Sanders would prefer,
given that President Trump could presumably appoint all nine members of the board, you are not
alone.'
Oh Lord, it's happening–the remanufacture of Trump by the Establishment. During the campaign,
Trump and the Basilisk had nothing in common but their hair dye. Now, almost daily, he looks more
like her.
He gets embarrassing. Regarding the alleged gassing in Syria, quoth Donald:
"When you kill innocent children, innocent babies - babies, little babies - with a chemical gas
that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. And I will tell you, that attack on children
yesterday had a big impact on me my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."
God almighty. Who wrote this–a middle school girl with C's in English, or the President of the
United States? Did he retire to his bedroom for a good cry?
Apparently he ordered his missile strike without bothering to find out what happened. The usual
suspects are driving him like a sports car.
The election was a choice between fetor and a lunatic. We chose the lunatic. Whether this was
better than the alternative, we will never know, but Trump is going from bad to worse, or as the
Mexicans say, de Guatemala a Guatepeor.
Does he believe this stuff? Is he naive enough to think that there was something unusually
horrible about the attack? Horrible, yes, but not in the least unusual. Do you know what everyday,
boring artillery does to children? Five-hundred-pound bombs? Hellfire rockets? Daily Mr. Trump's
military and his allies daily drop shrapnel-producing explosives on people, cities, towns, adults,
children, weddings and goatherds in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Good draft-dodger that he
was, he probably has never seen any of this. Good psychopath that he may be, he may not care.
This whole gas-attack business smells to high heaven. It looks nicely calculated to force him
to attack Assad. Gas was important: Killing babies, little babies with explosives is so routine that
no one cares, but we have been programmed to shudder at the thought of Gas!
Actually artillery has killed several orders of magnitude more people, but never mind.
Targeting children was a nice touch. Definitely a PR bonus. So Donald goes into his Poor-widdle-fings
weep, while Americans weekly kill more children in three to seven countries, depending on the date.
Is the man consciously a liar? Hasn't got sense enough to think before operating his mouth? Actually
believes what he says when he says it?
Glance at a small part of the record and focus on his changing his tune, not on whether you agree
with a particular policy. Erratic, erratic, erratic. He was going to run out the illegals within
two years, absurd but he said it. Going to put high tariffs on Mexican goods. Didn't. On Chinese
goods. Isn't. Tear up the Iran treaty. Didn't. Declare China a currency-manipulator. Isn't. Ban Muslims.
Hasn't. Promote good relations with Russia. Isn't. Get the US out of Syria. Ha. Make NATO pay for
itself. Isn't. The man has the steely determination one associates with bean curd. You cannot trust
anything the man says.
Having been reprogrammed as a good neocon, bombing places he promised to get out of, looking for
a fight with Russia, he is now butting heads with Fat Thing in North Korea. He his said things closely
resembling, "We have run out of strategic patience with the North. If nobody else will take care
of it, we will." Grrrr. Bowwow. Woof.
The problem with growly ultimata made for television is that somebody has to back down–that is,
lose face and credibility. If Trump had quietly told Fat Thing, "If you crazy bastards scrap your
nuke program, we will drop the sanctions," it might have worked. But no. Negotiations would imply
weakness. Thus an ultimatum.
So now either (a) Fat Thing knuckles under, humiliating himself and possibly endangering his grasp
on power or (b) Trump blinks in a humiliating display of the Empire's impotence, possibly endangering
his grasp on power.
Kim Jong Il, or Il Sung Jong, or whatever the the hell the latest one of them is called, shows
not the slightest sign of backing down. So does the Donald start an utterly unpredictable war, as
usual in somebody else's country, or does he weasel off, muttering, and hope nobody notices?
Fred's Third Law of International Relations: Never butt heads with a country that has a missile
named the No Dong.
Many of us favored Trump, slightly daft though he was, because he wasn't yet Hillary, wasn't yet
a neocon robot, and didn't want war with every country he had heard of, apparently meaning a good
half dozen. At least he said he didn't, not yet having been told that he did. In particular, he didn't
want war with Russia. But when the neocons control the media and Congress, they can convince a naive
public of anything and, apparently, the President.
Why is the Hillarification of Trump important? The necessary prior question: What is the greatest
threat to the neocons' American Empire? Answer: The ongoing integration of Eurasia under Chinese
hegemony. The key countries in this are China, Iran, and Russia. (Isn't it curious that, apart from
the momentary distraction of North Korea, these countries have been the focus of New York's hostility?)
In particular if Russia and, through it, China develop large and very profitable trade with Europe,
there goes NATO and with it the Empire.
Oops.
Thus the eeeeeeeeeeek! furor about Russia as existential threat and so on. Thus sending
a few troops to Baltic countries to "deter" Russia. This was theater. The idea that a thousand garrison
troops can stop the Russian army, which hasn't gone silly as ours has, on its doorstep is loony.
Hillary was on board with the Russia hysteria and the globalization and the immigration and so
on. Trump could have screwed the whole pooch by getting along with Russia, so he had to be reconfigured.
And was. A work in progress, but going well.
ORDER
IT NOW
Too much is being asked of him. One man cannot overcome the combined hostility of the media, the
political establishment, the neocons, the myriad other special interests that he has threatened.
Mass immigration is a done deal. China develops and America, already developed, cannot keep up. The
country disintegrates socially. Washington, always depending on war and its threat, faces a new world
in which trade is the weapon, and doesn't know what to do. The culture courses. The world changes.
Yet if only Trump showed some sign of knowing what he is doing, and could remember from day to
day, if only he realized that wars are more easily started than predicted, if only he were not becoming
an unbalanced Hillary.
Yet, apparently, he is.
(Reprinted from
Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
"... "There's been a real evolution," Philippe Renault-Guillemet, the retired head of a small manufacturing company, said as he handed out National Front leaflets in the market on a recent day. "A few years ago, they would insult us. It's changed ..."
"... With a month to go, the signs are mixed. Many voters, particularly affluent ones, at markets here and farther up the coast betray a traditional distaste for the far-right party. Yet others once repelled by a party with a heritage rooted in France's darkest political traditions - anti-Semitism, xenophobia and a penchant for the fist - are considering it. ..."
"... French politics are particularly volatile this election season. Traditional power centers - the governing Socialists and the center-right Republicans - are in turmoil. Ms. Le Pen's chief rival, Emmanuel Macron, is a youthful and untested politician running at the head of a new party. ..."
"... Those uncertainties - and a nagging sense that mainstream parties have failed to offer solutions to France's economic anemia - have left the National Front better positioned than at any time in its 45-year history. ..."
"... Frédéric Boccaletti, the party's leader in the Var, knows exactly what needs to be done. Last week, he and his fellow National Front activists gathered for an evening planning session in La Seyne-Sur-Mer, a working-class port town devastated by the closing of centuries-old naval shipyards nearly 20 years ago. Mr. Boccaletti, who is running for Parliament, keeps his headquarters here. ..."
"... It is not unlike the strategy that President Trump applied in the United States by campaigning in blue-collar, Democratic strongholds in rust-belt Ohio. No one thought he stood a chance there. Yet he won. ..."
"... "Now, we've got doctors, lawyers, the liberal professions with us," Mr. Boccaletti said. "Since the election of Marine" to the party's presidency in 2011, "it's all changed. ..."
"... The backlash against neoliberal globalization creates very strange alliances indeed. That was already visible during the last Presidential elections. When a considerable part of lower middle class professionals (including women) voted against Hillary. ..."
"... As Fred noted today (Why did so many white women vote for Donald Trump http://for.tn/2f51y7s ) there were many Trump supporters among white women with the college degree, for which Democrats identity politics prescribed voting for Hillary. ..."
"... I think this tendency might only became stronger in the next elections: neoliberal globalization is now viewed as something detrimental to the country future and current economic prosperity by many, usually not allied, segments of population. ..."
As French Election Nears, Le Pen Targets Voters Her Party Once Repelled
By ADAM NOSSITER
MARCH 19, 2017
SANARY-SUR-MER, France - The National Front's leafleteers are no longer spat upon. Its local
candidate's headquarters sit defiantly in a fraying Muslim neighborhood. And last week, Marine
Le Pen, the party's leader, packed thousands into a steamy meeting hall nearby for a pugnacious
speech mocking "the system" and vowing victory in this spring's French presidential election.
"There's been a real evolution," Philippe Renault-Guillemet, the retired head of a small
manufacturing company, said as he handed out National Front leaflets in the market on a recent
day. "A few years ago, they would insult us. It's changed."
It has long been accepted wisdom that Ms. Le Pen and her far-right party can make it through
the first round of the presidential voting on April 23, when she and four other candidates will
be on the ballot, but that she will never capture the majority needed to win in a runoff in May.
But a visit to this southeastern National Front stronghold suggests that Ms. Le Pen may be
succeeding in broadening her appeal to the point where a victory is more plausible, even if the
odds are still stacked against her.
With a month to go, the signs are mixed. Many voters, particularly affluent ones, at markets
here and farther up the coast betray a traditional distaste for the far-right party. Yet others
once repelled by a party with a heritage rooted in France's darkest political traditions - anti-Semitism,
xenophobia and a penchant for the fist - are considering it.
"I've said several times I would do it, but I've never had the courage," Christian Pignol,
a vendor of plants and vegetables at the Bandol market, said about voting for the National Front.
"This time may be the good one."
"It's the fear of the unknown," he continued, as several fellow vendors nodded. "People would
like to try it, but they are afraid. But maybe it's the solution. We've tried everything for 30,
40 years. We'd like to try it, but we're also afraid."
French politics are particularly volatile this election season. Traditional power centers
- the governing Socialists and the center-right Republicans - are in turmoil. Ms. Le Pen's chief
rival, Emmanuel Macron, is a youthful and untested politician running at the head of a new party.
Those uncertainties - and a nagging sense that mainstream parties have failed to offer
solutions to France's economic anemia - have left the National Front better positioned than at
any time in its 45-year history.
But if it is to win nationally, the party must do much better than even the 49 percent support
it won in this conservative Var department, home to three National Front mayors, in elections
in 2015. More critically, it must turn once-hostile areas of the country in Ms. Le Pen's favor
and attract new kinds of voters - professionals and the upper and middle classes. Political analysts
are skeptical.
Frédéric Boccaletti, the party's leader in the Var, knows exactly what needs to be done.
Last week, he and his fellow National Front activists gathered for an evening planning session
in La Seyne-Sur-Mer, a working-class port town devastated by the closing of centuries-old naval
shipyards nearly 20 years ago. Mr. Boccaletti, who is running for Parliament, keeps his headquarters
here.
"I'm telling you, you've got to go to the difficult neighborhoods - it's not what you think,"
Mr. Boccaletti told them, laughing slyly. "Our work has got to be in the areas that have resisted
us most" - meaning the coast's more affluent areas.
It is not unlike the strategy that President Trump applied in the United States by campaigning
in blue-collar, Democratic strongholds in rust-belt Ohio. No one thought he stood a chance there.
Yet he won.
"Now, we've got doctors, lawyers, the liberal professions with us," Mr. Boccaletti said.
"Since the election of Marine" to the party's presidency in 2011, "it's all changed."
The backlash against neoliberal globalization creates very strange alliances indeed. That
was already visible during the last Presidential elections. When a considerable part of lower
middle class professionals (including women) voted against Hillary.
As Fred noted today (Why did so many white women vote for Donald Trump
http://for.tn/2f51y7s ) there were many Trump
supporters among white women with the college degree, for which Democrats identity politics prescribed
voting for Hillary.
I think this tendency might only became stronger in the next elections: neoliberal globalization
is now viewed as something detrimental to the country future and current economic prosperity by
many, usually not allied, segments of population.
"... Clinton's time is passed. Her view of "common ground" is still based in the 20th century and the Third Way neoliberal politics she and her husband helped create. That era is over. ..."
"... Why won't she just go off and become a professor somewhere, like Dukakis did? ..."
"... Hillary like bill never feels guilt. Only ambition. They are monsters ..."
Hillary Clinton Says She's
'Ready to Come Out of the Woods' https://nyti.ms/2nCIzGS
NYT - AP - March 17
SCRANTON, Pa. - Hillary Clinton said Friday she's "ready to come out of the woods" and help
Americans find common ground.
Clinton's gradual return to the public spotlight following her presidential election loss continued
with a St. Patrick's Day speech in her late father's Pennsylvania hometown of Scranton.
"I'm like a lot of my friends right now, I have a hard time watching the news," Clinton told
an Irish women's group.
But she urged a divided country to work together to solve problems, recalling how, as first
lady, she met with female leaders working to bring peace to Northern Ireland.
"I do not believe that we can let political divides harden into personal divides. And we can't
just ignore, or turn a cold shoulder to someone because they disagree with us politically," she
said.
Friday night's speech was one of several she is to deliver in the coming months, including
a May 26 commencement address at her alma mater, Wellesley College in Massachusetts. The Democrat
also is working on a book of personal essays that will include some reflections on her loss to
Donald Trump.
Clinton, who was spotted taking a walk in the woods around her hometown of Chappaqua, New York,
two days after losing the election to Donald Trump, quipped she had wanted to stay in the woods,
"but you can only do so much of that."
She told the Society of Irish Women that it'll be up to citizens, not a deeply polarized Washington,
to bridge the political divide.
"I am ready to come out of the woods and to help shine a light on what is already happening
around kitchen tables, at dinners like this, to help draw strength that will enable everybody
to keep going," said Clinton. ...
(As you may recall HRC won the popular vote,
and also 472 counties which generate
64% of the US GDP.)
... Our observation: The less-than-500 counties that Hillary Clinton carried nationwide encompassed
a massive 64 percent of America's economic activity as measured by total output in 2015. By contrast,
the more-than-2,600 counties that Donald Trump won generated just 36 percent of the country's
output-just a little more than one-third of the nation's economic activity. ...
Clinton's time is passed. Her view of "common ground" is still based in the 20th century and
the Third Way neoliberal politics she and her husband helped create. That era is over.
Why won't she just go off and become a professor somewhere, like Dukakis did?
"... Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade." ..."
"... The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it , but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and " vehement advocate for the TPP "-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team. ..."
"... Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said , "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country." ..."
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has reiterated his opposition
to the Trans Pacific
Partnership (TPP), saying on Tuesday that President Barack Obama's push
to get the trade deal passed during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress
is "outrageous" and "absolutely wrong."
Stiglitz, an economics professor at
Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute,
made the comments on CNN's "Quest Means Business."
His criticism comes as Obama aggressively
campaigns to get lawmakers to pass the TPP in the Nov. 9 to Jan. 3 window-even
as
resistance mounts against the 12-nation deal.
Echoing an
argument made by Center for Economic
and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot, Stiglitz said, "At the lame-duck
session you have congressmen voting who know that they're not accountable anymore."
Lawmakers "who are not politically accountable because they're leaving may,
in response to promises of jobs or just subtle understandings, do things that
are not in the national interest," he said.
Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate
interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned
"the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and
"the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and
actually harm trade."
"The advocates of trade said it was going to benefit everyone,"
he added. "The evidence is it's benefited a few and left a lot behind."
Stiglitz has also been advising the
Hillary
Clinton presidential campaign. The Democratic candidate, for her part,
supported the deal before coming out
against it, but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially
since she recently
named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and "vehement
advocate for the TPP"-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition
team.
Opposition to the TPP also appeared Tuesday in Michigan and Florida, where
union members and lawmakers criticized what they foresee as the deal's impacts
on working families.
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.)
said, "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after
this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)
said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World,
"If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country."
We cannot allow this agreement to forsake the American middle class, while foreign governments
are allowed to devalue their currency and artificially prop-up their industries.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is a bad deal for the American people. This historically
massive trade deal -- accounting for 40 percent of global trade -- would reduce restrictions on foreign
corporations operating within the U.S., limit our ability to protect our environment, and create
more incentives for U.S. businesses to outsource investments and jobs overseas to countries with
lower labor costs and standards.
Over and over we hear from TPP proponents how the TPP will boost our economy, help American workers,
and set the standards for global trade. The International Trade Commission report released last May
(https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607.pdf)
confirms that the opposite is true. In exchange for just 0.15 percent boost in GDP by 2032, the TPP
would decimate American manufacturing capacity, increase our trade deficit, ship American jobs overseas,
and result in losses to 16 of the 25 U.S. economic sectors. These estimates don't even account for
the damaging effects of currency manipulation, environmental impacts, and the agreement's deeply
flawed Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process.
There's no reason to believe the provisions of this deal relating to labor standards, preserving
American jobs, or protecting our environment, will be enforceable. Every trade agreement negotiated
in the past claimed to have strong enforceable provisions to protect American jobs -- yet no such
enforcement has occurred, and agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have
resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Former Secretary of Labor Robert
Reich has called TPP "NAFTA on steroids." The loss of U.S. jobs under the TPP would likely be unprecedented.
"... "No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3." ..."
"... To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer). ..."
A response to Hillary Clinton's America Exceptionalist Speech:
1. America Exceptionalist vs. the World..
2. Brezinski is extremely dejected.
3. Russia-China on the march.
4. "There will be blood. Hillary Clinton smells it already ."
"No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November
- means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows
it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved
during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress
from November 9 to January 3."
To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency
hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless
we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how
much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as
the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering
if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade
surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer).
Regarding the push to pass the TPP and TISA I've been needing to get
this off my chest and this seems to be as good a time as any:
In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have
trotted out a new argument: "we have come too far", "our national credibility
would be damaged if we stop now." The premise of which is that negotiations
have been going on so long, and have involved such effort that if the
U.S. were to back away now we would look bad and would lose significant
political capital.
On one level this argument is true. The negotiations have been long,
and many promises were made by the negotiators to secure to to this
point. Stepping back now would expose those promises as false and would
make that decade of effort a loss. It would also expose the politicians
who pushed for it in the face of public oppoosition to further loss
of status and to further opposition.
However, all of that is voided by one simple fact. The negotiations
were secret. All of that effort, all of the horse trading and the promise
making was done by a self-selected body of elites, for that same body,
and was hidden behind a wall of secrecy stronger than that afforded
to new weapons. The deals were hidden not just from the general public,
not from trade unions or environmental groups, but from the U.S. Congress
itself.
Therefore it has no public legitimacy. The promises made are not
"our" promises but Michael Froman's promises. They are not backed by
the full faith and credit of the U.S. government but only by the words
of a small body of appointees and the multinational corporations that
they serve. The corporations were invited to the table, Congress was
not.
What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is
on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals
fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that
a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of
us will make good.
When that minor loss is laid against the far greater fact that the
terms of these deals are bad, that prior deals of this type have harmed
our real economies, and that the rules will further erode our national
sovreignity, there is no contest.
Michael Froman's reputation has no value. Our sovreignity, our economy,
our nation, does.
"What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on
the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail
what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful
of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make
good."
Yes! And the victory will taste so sweet when we bury this filthy, rotten,
piece of garbage. Obama's years of effort down the drain, his legacy tarnished
and unfinished.
I want TPP's defeat to send a clear message that the elites can't count
on their politicians to deliver for them. Let's make this thing their Stalingrad!
Leave deep scars so that they give up on TISA and stop trying to concoct
these absurd schemes like ISDS.
sorry but i don't see it that way at all. 'they' got a propaganda machine
to beat all 'they' make n break reps all the time. i do see a desperation
on a monetary/profit scale. widening the 'playing field' offers more profits
with less risk. for instance, our Pharams won't have to slash their prices
at the risk of sunshine laws, wish-washy politicians, competition, nor a
pissed off public. jmo tho')
LOL "America's credibility" LOL, these people need to get out more. In
the 60's you could hike high up into the Andes and the sheep herder had
two pics on the wall of his hut: Jesus and JFK. America retains its cachet
as a place to make money and be entertained, but as some kind of beacon
of morality and fair play in the world? Dead, buried, and long gone, the
hype-fest of slogans and taglines can only cover up so many massive, atrocious
and hypocritical actions and serial offenses.
Clinton Inc was mostly Bill helping Epstein get laid until after Kerry
lost. If this was the reelection of John Edwards, Kerry's running mate,
and a referendum on 12 years of Kerronomics, Bill and Hill would be opening
night speakers at the DNC and answers to trivia questions.
My guess is Obama is dropped swiftly and unceremoniously especially since
he doesn't have much of a presence in Washington.
"It looks as if we'll be firing Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria in
the coming days, and critics are raising legitimate concerns:"
"Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious
behavior like genocide or the use of chemical weapons. Since President Obama
established a "red line" about chemical weapons use, his credibility has
been at stake: he can't just whimper and back down."
Obama did back down.
NIcholas Kristof, vigilant protector of American credibility through
bombing Syria.
Ah yes the credibility of our élites. With their sterling record on Nafta's
benefits, Iraq's liberation, Greece's rebound, the IMF's rehabilitation
of countries
We must pass TPP or Tom Friedman will lose credibility, what?
"... pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. ..."
"... Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ..."
"... I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results ..."
There are two reasons: First, they consciously seek to weaken the national
defense. And second, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system is
a
surrender of national sovereignty .
National Defense
This might be labeled the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since we're informed that
Paul Singer and Augustus Cole's techno-thriller has really caught the attention
of the national security class below the political appointee level, and that
this is a death blow for neoliberalism. Why? "The multi-billion dollar, next
generation F-35 aircraft, for instance, is rendered powerless after it is revealed
that Chinese microprocessor manufacturers had implanted malicious code into
products intended for the jet" (
Foreign Policy ). Clearly, we need, well, industrial policy, and we need
to bring a lot of manufacturing home.
From Brigadier General (Retired) John Adams :
In 2013, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board put forward a remarkable
report describing one of the most significant but little-recognized threats
to US security: deindustrialization. The report argued that the loss of
domestic U.S. manufacturing facilities has not only reduced U.S. living
standards but also compromised U.S. technology leadership "by enabling new
players to learn a technology and then gain the capability to improve on
it." The report explained that the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing presents
a particularly dangerous threat to U.S. military readiness through the "compromise
of the supply chain for key weapons systems components."
Our military is now shockingly vulnerable to major disruptions in the
supply chain, including from substandard manufacturing practices, natural
disasters, and price gouging by foreign nations. Poor manufacturing practices
in offshore factories lead to problem-plagued products, and foreign producers-acting
on the basis of their own military or economic interests-can sharply raise
prices or reduce or stop sales to the United States.
The link between TPP and this kind of offshoring has been well-established.
And, one might say, the link between neo-liberal economic policy "and this
kind of offshoring has been well-established" as well.
So, when I framed the issue as one where pro-TPPers "consciously seek
to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism,
through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry
at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. Note that re-industrializing
America has positive appeal, too: For the right, on national security grounds;
and for the left, on labor's behalf (and maybe helping out the Rust Belt that
neoliberal policies of the last forty years did so much to destroy. Of course,
this framing would make Clinton a traitor, but you can't make an omelette without
breaking eggs. (Probably best to to let the right, in its refreshingly direct
fashion, use the actual "traitor" word, and the left, shocked, call for the
restoration of civility, using verbiage like "No, I wouldn't say she's a traitor.
She's certainly 'extremely careless' with our nation's security.")
ISDS
The Investor-State Dispute Settlement system is a hot mess (unless you represent
a corporation, or are one of tiny fraternity of international corporate lawyers
who can plead and/or judge ISDS cases).
Yves wrote :
What may have torched the latest Administration salvo is a well-timed
joint publication by Wikileaks and the New York Times of a recent version
of the so-called investment chapter. That section sets forth one of the
worst features of the agreement, the investor-state dispute settlement process
(ISDS). As we've described at length in earlier posts, the ISDS mechanism
strengthens the existing ISDS process. It allows for secret arbitration
panels to effectively overrule national regulations by allowing foreign
investors to sue governments over lost potential future profits in secret
arbitration panels. Those panels have been proved to be conflict-ridden
and arbitrary. And the grounds for appeal are limited and technical.
Here again we have a frame that appeals to both right and left. The very
thought of surrendering national sovereignty to an international organization
makes any good conservative's back teeth itch. And the left sees the "lost profits"
doctrine as a club to prevent future government programs they would like to
put in place (single payer, for example). And in both cases, the neoliberal
doctrine of putting markets before anything else makes pro-TPP-ers traitors.
To the right, because nationalism trumps internationalism; to the left, because
TPP prevents the State from looiking after the welfare of its people.
The Political State of Play
All I know is what I read in the papers, so what follows can only be speculation.
That said, there are two ways TPP could be passed: In the lame duck session,
by Obama, or after a new President is inaugurated, by Clinton (or possibly by
Trump[1]).
[OBAMA:] And hopefully, after the election is over and the dust settles,
there will be more attention to the actual facts behind the deal and it
won't just be a political symbol or a political football. And I will actually
sit down with people on both sides, on the right and on the left. I'll sit
down publicly with them and we'll go through the whole provisions. I would
enjoy that, because there's a lot of misinformation.
I'm really confident I can make the case this is good for American workers
and the American people. And people said we weren't going to be able to
get the trade authority to even present this before Congress, and somehow
we muddled through and got it done. And I intend to do the same with respect
to the actual agreement.
So it is looking like a very close vote. (For procedural and political
reasons, Obama will not bring it to a vote unless he is sure he has the
necessary votes). Now let's look at one special group of Representatives
who can swing this vote: the actual lame-ducks, i.e., those who will be
in office only until Jan. 3. It depends partly on how many lose their election
on Nov. 8, but the average number of representatives who left after the
last three elections was about 80.
Most of these people will be looking for a job, preferably one that can
pay them more than $1 million a year. From the data provided by OpenSecrets.org,
we can estimate that about a quarter of these people will become lobbyists.
(An additional number will work for firms that are clients of lobbyists).
So there you have it: It is all about corruption, and this is about as
unadulterated as corruption gets in our hallowed democracy, other than literal
cash under a literal table. These are the people whom Obama needs to pass
this agreement, and the window between Nov. 9 and Jan. 3 is the only time
that they are available to sell their votes to future employers without
any personal political consequences whatsoever. The only time that the electorate
can be rendered so completely irrelevant, if Obama can pull this off.
(The article doesn't talk about the Senate, but Fast Track passed the Senate
with a filibuster-proof super-majority, so the battle is in the House anyhow.
And although the text of TPP cannot be amended - that's what fast track means!
- there are still ways to affect the interpretation and enforcement of the text,
so Obama and his corporate allies have bargaining chips beyond Beltway sinecures.[2])
Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become,
it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. (
Remember , "[T]he preferences of economic elites have far more independent
impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.") However,
if the anti-TPP-ers raise the rhetorical stakes from policy disagreement to
treason, maybe a few of those 80 representatives will do the right thing (or,
if you prefer, decide that the reputational damage to their future career makes
a pro-TPP vote not worth it. Who wants to play golf with a traitor?)
Passing TPP after the Inaugural
After the coronation inaugural, Clinton will have to use more
complicated tactics than dangling goodies before the snouts of representatives
leaving for K Street. (We've seen that Clinton's putative opposition to TPP
is based on lawyerly parsing; and her base supports it. So I assume a Clinton
administration would go full speed ahead with it.) My own thought has been that
she'd set up a "conversation" on trade, and then buy off the national unions
with "jobs for the boys," so that they sell their locals down the river. Conservative
Jennifer Rubin has a better proposal , which meets Clinton's supposed criterion
of not hurting workers even better:
Depending on the election results and how many pro-free-trade Republicans
lose, it still might not be sufficient. Here's a further suggestion: Couple
it with a substantial infrastructure project that Clinton wants, but with
substantial safeguards to make sure that the money is wisely spent. Clinton
gets a big jobs bill - popular with both sides - and a revised TPP gets
through.
What Clinton needs is a significant revision to TPP that she can tout
as a real reform to trade agreements, one that satisfies some of the TPP's
critics on the left. A minor tweak is unlikely to assuage anyone; this change
needs to be a major one. Fortunately, there is a TPP provision that fits
the bill perfectly: investor state dispute settlement (ISDS), the procedure
that allows foreign investors to sue governments in an international tribunal.
Removing ISDS could triangulate the TPP debate, allowing for enough support
to get it through Congress.
Obama can't have a conversation on trade, or propose a jobs program, let
alone jettison ISDS; all he's got going for him is corruption.[3] So, interestingly,
although Clinton can't take the simple road of bribing the 80 represenatives,
she does have more to bargain with on policy. Rubin's jobs bill could at least
be framed as a riposte to the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since both are about "jawbs,"
even if infrastructure programs and reindustrialization aren't identical in
intent. And while I don't think Clinton would allow ISDS to be removed (
her corporate donors love it ), at least somebody's thinking about how to
pander to the left. Nevertheless, what does a jobs program matter if the new
jobs leave the country anyhow? And suppose ISDS is removed, but the removal
of the precautionary principle remains? We'd still get corporate-friendly decisions,
bilaterally. And people would end up balancing the inevitable Clinton complexity
and mush against the simplicity of the message that a vote for TPP is a vote
against the United States.
Conclusion
I hope I've persuaded you that TPP is still very much alive, and that both
Obama in the lame duck, and Clinton (or even Trump) when inaugurated have reasonable
hopes of passing it. However, I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing
a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that
frame out, I'd like to hear the results (especially when the result comes
from a letter to your Congress critter). Interestingly, Buzzfeed just published
tonight the first in a four-part series, devoted to the idea that ISDS is what
we have said it is all along: A surrender of national sovereignty.
Here's
a great slab of it :
Imagine a private, global super court that empowers corporations to bend
countries to their will.
Say a nation tries to prosecute a corrupt CEO or ban dangerous pollution.
Imagine that a company could turn to this super court and sue the whole
country for daring to interfere with its profits, demanding hundreds of
millions or even billions of dollars as retribution.
Imagine that this court is so powerful that nations often must heed its
rulings as if they came from their own supreme courts, with no meaningful
way to appeal. That it operates unconstrained by precedent or any significant
public oversight, often keeping its proceedings and sometimes even its decisions
secret. That the people who decide its cases are largely elite Western corporate
attorneys who have a vested interest in expanding the court's authority
because they profit from it directly, arguing cases one day and then sitting
in judgment another. That some of them half-jokingly refer to themselves
as "The Club" or "The Mafia."
And imagine that the penalties this court has imposed have been so crushing
- and its decisions so unpredictable - that some nations dare not risk a
trial, responding to the mere threat of a lawsuit by offering vast concessions,
such as rolling back their own laws or even wiping away the punishments
of convicted criminals.
This system is already in place, operating behind closed doors in office
buildings and conference rooms in cities around the world. Known as investor-state
dispute settlement, or ISDS, it is written into a vast network of treaties
that govern international trade and investment, including NAFTA and the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Congress must soon decide whether to ratify.
That's the stuff to give the troops!
NOTE
[1] Trump:
"I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers." Lotta
wiggle room there, and the lawyerly parsing is just like Clinton's. I don't
think it's useful to discuss what Trump might do on TPP, because until there
are other parties to the deal, there's no deal to be had. Right now, we're just
looking at
Trump doing A-B testing - not that there's anything wrong with that - which
the press confuses with policy proposals. So I'm not considering Trump because
I don't think we have any data to go on.
To pacify [those to whom he will corrupt appeal], Obama will
have to convince them that what they want will anyway be achieved, even
if these are not legally part of the TPP because the TPP text cannot be
amended.
He can try to achieve this through bilateral side agreements on specific
issues. Or he can insist that some countries take on extra obligations beyond
what is required by the TPP as a condition for obtaining a U.S. certification
that they have fulfilled their TPP obligations.
This certification is required for the U.S. to provide the TPP's benefits
to its partners, and the U.S. has previously made use of this process to
get countries to take on additional obligations, which can then be shown
to Congress members that their objectives have been met.
In other words, side deals.
[3] This should not be taken to imply that Clinton does not have corruption
going for her, too. She can also make all the side deals Obama can.
"... One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states. ..."
"... These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. ..."
"... "US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve. ..."
TTIP negotiations have been ongoing since 2013 in an effort to establish a massive
free trade zone that would eliminate many tariffs. After 14 rounds of talks
that have lasted three years not a single common item out of
the 27 chapters being discussed has been agreed on. The United States has
refused to agree on an equal playing field between European and American companies
in the sphere of public procurement sticking to the principle of "buy American".
The opponents of the deal believe that in its current guise the TTIP is too
friendly to US businesses. One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it
could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for
taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies
might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment
regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes
between investors and states.
In Europe thousands of people supported by society groups, trade unions and
activists take to the streets expressing protest against the deal. Three million
people have signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped. For instance, various
trade unions and other groups have called for protests against the TTIP across
Germany to take place on September 17. A trade agreement with Canada has also
come under attack.
These developments take place against the background of another major
free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)
- hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. The chances
are really slim.
silverer •Sep 5, 2016 9:51 AM
"US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major
setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve.
After all, Clinton is not going to make it into the Oval Office unless she can secure the votes of
those who backed the far-more progressive Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries.
Clinton's camp have wielded various sticks to beat these voters into submission. Not least they
have claimed that a refusal to vote for Clinton is an indication of one's
misogyny . But it has not been an easy task. Actor Susan Sarandon, for example, has
stated that she is not going to "vote with my vagina". As she notes, if the issue is simply about
proving one is not anti-women, there is a much worthier candidate for president who also happens
to be female: Jill Stein, of the Green Party.
Sarandon, who supported Sanders in the primaries, spoke for a vast swath of voters excluded by
the two-party system when she told BBC Newsnight:
I am worried about the wars, I am worried about Syria, I am worried about all of these things
that actually exist. TTP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] and I'm worried about fracking. I'm worrying
about the environment. No matter who gets in they don't address these things because money has
taken over our system.
Given that both Donald Trump and Clinton represent big money – and big money only – Clinton's
supporters have been forced to find another stick. And that has been the "lesser evil" argument.
Clinton may be bad, but Trump would be far worse. Voting for a non-evil candidate like Jill Stein
– who has no hope of winning – would split the progressive camp and ensure Trump, the more evil candidate,
triumphs. Therefore, there is a moral obligation on progressive voters to back Clinton, however bad
her track record as a senator and as secretary of state.
There is nothing new about this argument. It had been around for decades, and has been corralling
progressives into voting for Democratic presidents who have still advanced US neoconservative policy
goals abroad and neoliberal ones at home.
America's pseudo-democracy
So is it true that Clinton is the lesser-evil candidate? To answer that question, we need to examine
those "policy differences" with Trump.
On the negative side, Trump's platform poses a genuine threat to civil liberties. His bigoted,
"blame the immigrants" style of politics will harm many families in the US in very tangible ways.
Even if the inertia of the political system reins in his worst excesses, as is almost certain, his
inflammatory rhetoric is sure to damage the façade of democratic discourse in the US – a development
not to be dismissed lightly. Americans may be living in a pseudo-democracy, one run more like a plutocracy,
but destroying the politics of respect, and civil discourse, could quickly result in the normalisation
of political violence and intimidation.
On the plus side, Trump is an isolationist, with little appetite for foreign entanglements. Again,
the Washington policy elites may force him to engage abroad in ways he would prefer not to, but his
instincts to limit the projection of US military power on the international stage are likely to be
an overall good for the world's population outside the US. Any diminishment of US imperialism is
going to have real practical benefits for billions of people around the globe. His refusal to demonise
Vladimir Putin, for example, may be significant enough to halt the gradual slide towards a nuclear
confrontation with Russia, either in Ukraine or in the Middle East.
Clinton is the mirror image of Trump. Domestically, she largely abides by the rules of civil politics
– not least because respectful discourse benefits her as the candidate with plenty of political experience.
The US is likely to be a more stable, more predictable place under a Clinton presidency, even as
the plutocratic elite entrenches its power and the wealth gap grows relentlessly.
Abroad, however, the picture looks worse under Clinton. She has been an enthusiastic supporter
of all the many recent wars of aggression launched by the US, some declared and some covert. Personally,
as secretary of state, she helped engineer the overthrow of Col Muammar Gaddafi. That policy led
to an outcome – one that was entirely foreseeable – of Libya's reinvention as a failed state, with
jihadists of every stripe sucked into the resulting vacuum. Large parts of Gadaffi's arsenal followed
the jihadists as they exported their struggles across the Middle East, creating more bloodshed and
heightening the refugee crisis. Now Clinton wants to intensify US involvement in Syria, including
by imposing a no-fly zone – or rather, a US and allies-only fly zone – that would thrust the US into
a direct confrontation with another nuclear-armed power, Russia.
In the cost-benefit calculus of who to vote for in a two-party contest, the answer seems to be:
vote for Clinton if you are interested only in what happens in the narrow sphere of US domestic politics
(assuming Clinton does not push the US into a nuclear war); while if you are a global citizen worried
about the future of the planet, Trump may be the marginally better of two terribly evil choices.
(Neither, of course, cares a jot about the most pressing problem facing mankind: runaway climate
change.)
So even on the extremely blinkered logic of Clinton's supporters, Clinton might not be the winner
in a lesser-evil presidential contest.
Mounting disillusion
But there is a second, more important reason to reject the lesser-evil argument as grounds for
voting for Clinton.
Trump's popularity is a direct consequence of several decades of American progressives voting
for the lesser-evil candidate. Most Americans have never heard of Jill Stein, or the other three
candidates who are not running on behalf of the Republican and Democratic parties. These candidates
have received no mainstream media coverage – or the chance to appear in the candidate debates – because
their share of the vote is so minuscule. It remains minuscule precisely because progressives have
spent decades voting for the lesser-evil candidate. And nothing is going to change so long as progressives
keep responding to the electoral dog-whistle that they have to keep the Republican candidate out
at all costs, even at the price of their own consciences.
Growing numbers of Americans understand that their country was "stolen from them", to use a popular
slogan. They sense that the US no longer even aspires to its founding ideals, that it has become
a society run for the exclusive benefit of a tiny wealthy elite. Many are looking for someone to
articulate their frustration, their powerlessness, their hopelessness.
Two opposed antidotes for the mounting disillusionment with "normal politics" emerged during the
presidential race: a progressive one, in the form of Sanders, who suggested he was ready to hold
the plutocrats to account; and a populist one, in the form of Trump, determined to deflect anger
away from the plutocrats towards easy targets like immigrants. As we now know from Wikileaks' release
of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's emails, the Democats worked hard to rig their own primaries
to make sure the progressive option, Sanders, was eliminated. The Republicans, by contrast, were
overwhelmed by the insurrection within their own party.
The wave of disaffection Sanders and Trump have been riding is not going away. In fact, a President
Clinton, the embodiment of the self-serving, self-aggrandising politics of the plutocrats, will only
fuel the disenchantment. The fixing of the Democratic primaries did not strengthen Clinton's moral
authority, it fuelled the kind of doubts about the system that bolster Trump. Trump's accusations
of a corrupt elite and a rigged political and media system are not merely figments of his imagination;
they are rooted in the realities of US politics.
Trump, however, is not the man to offer solutions. His interests are too close aligned to those
of the plutocrats for him to make meaningful changes.
Trump may lose this time, but someone like him will do better next time – unless ordinary Americans
are exposed to a different kind of politician, one who can articulate progressive, rather regressive,
remedies for the necrosis that is rotting the US body politic. Sanders began that process, but a
progressive challenge to "politics as normal" has to be sustained and extended if Trump and his ilk
are not to triumph eventually.
The battle cannot be delayed another few years, on the basis that one day a genuinely non-evil
candidate will emerge from nowhere to fix this rotten system. It won't happen of its own. Unless
progressive Americans show they are prepared to vote out of conviction, not out of necessity, the
Democratic party will never have to take account of their views. It will keep throwing up leaders
– in different colours and different sexes – to front the tiny elite that runs the US and seeks to
rule the world.
But the cough that she has struggled with during various moments of her campaign returned during
a rally in Ohio on Sunday afternoon. It was Clinton's second rally that day.
After coughing several times, Clinton reached for a lozenge and quickly popped it in her mouth
- then ended her speech just minutes later.
The success of [civil rights and anti-apartheid] movements did not end racism, but drove
it underground, allowing neoliberals to exploit racist and tribalist political support while
pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white)
poor.
That coalition has now been replaced by one in which the tribalists and racists are dominant.
For the moment at least, [hard] neoliberals continue to support the parties they formerly controlled,
with the result that the balance of political forces between the right and the opposing coalition
of soft neoliberals and the left has not changed significantly.
There's an ambiguity in this narrative and in the three-party analysis.
Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the inchoate
left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth
and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it with a different
style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting anti-racist
and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . .
The new politics of the right has lost faith in the hard neoliberalism that formerly furnished
its policy agenda of tax cuts for the rich, war in the Middle East and so on, leaving the impure
resentment ungoverned and unfocused, as you say.
The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism
and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil.
The problem of how to oppose racism and tribalism effectively is now entangled with soft neoliberal
control of the remaining party coalition, which is to say with the credibility of the left party
as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility of economic populism as an antidote for
racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)
The form of tribalism used to mobilize the left entails denying that an agenda of economic
populism is relevant to the problems of sexism and racism, because the deplorables must be deplored
to get out the vote. And, because the (soft) neoliberals in charge must keep economic populism
under control to deliver the goods to their donor base.
Or the racism of the middle class. People are tribal and arguably it is baked into our DNA.
That doesn't excuse the mental laziness of trafficking in stereotypes but one could make a case
that racism is as much a matter of ignorance as of evil character.
Obama with his "bitter clingers" and HIllary with her "deplorables" are talking about people
about whom they probably know almost nothing.
One of the long ago arguments for school integration was that propinquity fosters mutual understanding.
This met with a lot of resistance. And for people like our Pres and would be Pres a broader view
of the electorate would be inconvenient.
Videos constructed from public sources that show the true
Hillary Clinton. All video used under the doctrine of FAIR
USE.
For more, check out
http://www.vidzette.com
"... Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. ..."
"... In the end, Putin will be done in by his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs. ..."
This is a very good analyses. But I am less pessimistic: the blowback against neoliberal globalization
is real and it is difficult to swipe it under the carpet.
There are some signs of the "revolutionary situation" in the USA in a sense that the neoliberal
elite lost control and their propaganda loss effectiveness, despite dusting off the "Red scare"
trick with "Reds in each computer" instead of "Reds under each bed". With Putin as a very convenient
bogeyman.
As somebody here said Trump might be a reaction of secular stagnation, kind of trump card put
into play by some part of the elite, because with continued secular stagnation, the social stability
in the USA is under real threat.
But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch
of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world
peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing
ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease.
But that might make her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo male
politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).
All-in-all it looks like she in not a solution for neoliberal elite problems, she is a part
of the problem
Adventurism of the US neoliberal elite, and especially possible aggressive moves in Syria by
Hillary regime ("no fly zone"), makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely (with
Pakistan, Iran and India as possible future members). So Hillary might really work like a powerful
China lobbyist, because the alliance with Russia will be on China terms.
Regime change via color revolution in either country requires at dense network of subservient
to the Western interests and financed via shadow channels MSM (including TV channels), strong
network of NGO and ability to distribute cash to selected members of the fifth column of neoliberal
globalization. All those condition were made more difficult in Russia and impossible in mainland
China. In Russia the US adventurism in Ukraine and the regime change of February 2014 (creation
of neo-fascist regime nicknamed by some "Kaganat of Nuland" (Asia Times
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-100315.html
)) essentially killed the neoliberal fifth column in Russia and IMHO it no longer represent
a viable political force.
Also Russians probably learned well lesson of unsuccessful attempt of regime change by interfering
into Russian Presidential election process attempted by Hillary and Obama in 2011-2012. I would
like to see the US MSM reaction if Russian ambassador invited Sanders and Trump into the embassy
and promised full and unconditional support for their effort to remove criminal Obama regime,
mired in corruption and subservient to Wall Street interests, the regime that produced misery
for so many American workers, lower middle class and older Americans ;-)
Ambassador McFaul soon left the country, NED was banned and screws were tightened enough to
make next attempt exceedingly difficult. Although everything can happen I would discount the possibility
of the next "White Revolution" in Russia. So called "Putin regime" survived the period of low
oil prices and with oil prices over $60 in 2017 Russian economy might be able to grow several
percent a year. At the same time the US "post-Obama" regime might well face the winds of returning
higher oil prices and their negative influence of economy growth and unemployment.
In China recent troubles in Hong Cong were also a perfect training ground for "anti color revolution"
measures and the next attempt would much more difficult, unless China experience economic destabilization
due to some bubble burst.
That means that excessive military adventurism inherent in the future Hillary regime might
speed up loss by the USA military dominance and re-alignment of some states beyond Philippines.
Angela Merkel regime also might not survive the next election and that event might change "pro-Atlantic"
balance in Europe.
Although the list in definitely not complete, we can see that there are distinct setbacks for
attempts of further neoliberalization beyond Brexit and TPP troubles.
So there are some countervailing forces in action and my impression that the Triumphal march
of neoliberalism with the USA as the hegemon of the new neoliberal order is either over, or soon
will be over. In certain regions of the globe the USA foreign policy is in trouble (Syria, Ukraine)
and while you can do anything using bayonets, you can't sit on them.
So while still there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism as a social system, the ideology
itself is discredited and like communism after 1945 lost its hold of hearts and minds of the USA
population. I would say that in the USA neoliberalism entered Zombie stage.
My hope is that reasonable voices in foreign policy prevail, and the disgust of unions members
toward DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats) could play the decisive role in coming elections. As bad
as Trump is for domestic policy, it represent some hope as for foreign policy unless co-opted
by Republican establishment.
#70 But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch
of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world
peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing
ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease.
But that might kale her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo her
male politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).
Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made by
commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
' .makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely '
Any analysis which arrives at this conclusion is profoundly ignorant.
Meta-comment: Is it permitted to say that a moderation scheme which objects to engels as a
troll, while permitting this tripe from likbez has taken a wrong turn somewhere. Seriously, some
explanation called for.
Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made
by commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.
I would like to apologize about the number of typos, but I stand by statements made. Your implicit
assumption that I am lying was not specific, so let's concentrate on three claims made:
1. "Hillary has serious neurological disease for at least four years", 2. "Obama and Hillary tried to stage color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012 interfering in Russian
Presidential elections" 3. "Hillary Clinton is a neocon, a warmonger similar to John McCain"
1. Hillary Health : Whether she suffers from Parkinson disease or not in unclear, but signs
of some serious neurological disease are observable since 2012 (for four years). Parkinson is just
the most plausible hypothesis based on symptoms observed. Those symptoms suggests that she is at
Stage 2 of the disease due to an excellent treatment she gets:
http://www.viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/news/100312.htm
The average time taken to progress from Stage 1 (mild) to Stage 2 (mild but various symptoms)
was 1 year 8 months. The average time taken to progress from Stage 2 to Stage 3 (typical) was
7 years and 3 months. From Stage 3 to Stage 4 (severe) took 2 years. From Stage 4 to Stage 5 (incapacitated)
took 2 years and 2 months. So the stage with typical symptoms lasts the longest. Those factors
associated with faster progression were older age at diagnosis, and longer disease duration. Gender
and ethnicity were not associated with the rate of Parkinson's Disease progression.
These figures are only averages. Progression is not inevitable. Some people with Parkinson's
Disease have either : stayed the same for decades, reduced their symptoms, rid their symptoms,
or worsened at a rapid rate. For more current news go to Parkinson's Disease News.
Concern about Hillary health were voiced in many publications and signs of her neurological disease
are undisputable:
3. The opinion that Hillary as a neocon is supported by facts from all her career , but
especially during her tenure as the Secretary of State. She voted for Iraq war and was instrumental
in unleashing Libya war and Syria war. The amount of evidence can't be ignored:
If you have more specific concerns please voice them and I will try to support my statements with
references and known facts.
stevenjohnson 10.26.16 at 1:50 pm
likbez @70 Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great
deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social
Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using
the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's
belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. But whether mine
is actually a deep analysis seems doubtful even to me.
But the OP is really limiting itself solely to domestic politics, and in that context the
resistance to "neoliberal globalization," (Why not use the term "imperialism?") is more or
less irrelevant. The OP seems to have some essentialist notion of the "Right" as openly aimed
at restoring the past, ignoring the content of policies. Reaction would be something blatant
like restoring censorship of TV and movies, instead of IP laws that favor giant
telecommunications companies, or abolition of divorce, instead of discriminatory enforcement
of child protection laws that break up poor families. This
cultural/psychological/moralizing/spiritual approach seems to me to be fundamentally a
diversion from a useful understanding.
There may be some sort of confused notions about popular morals and tastes clearly evolving
in a more leftish direction. Free love was never a conservative principle for instance, yet
many of its tenets are now those of the majority of the population. Personally I can only
observe that there's nothing quite like the usefulness of laws and law enforcement,
supplemented by the occasional illicit violence, to change social attitudes. The great model
of course is the de facto extermination of the Left by "McCarthyism." No doubt the
disappearance of the left targeted by "McCarthyism" is perceived to be a purification of the
real left. It is customary for the acceptable "left" to agree with the McCarthys that
communism lost its appeal to the people, rather than being driven out by mass repression. As
to populism, such reactionary goals as the abolition of public education are notoriously sold
as service to the people against the hifalutin' snobs, starting of course with lazy ass
teachers. It seems to me entirely mistaken to see the populist reactionaries as out of
ammunition because the old forms of race-baiting aren't working so well.
By the way, there already is a Chinese bourgeoisie, in Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines,
Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, as well as elements in SEZs in China proper and select circles
in various financial capitals. Restoration of capitalism in China has run into the difficulty
that capitalism isn't holding up its end. President Xi Jinping is finding it difficult for
capitalism to keep the mainland economy growing at a sufficiently rapid rate to keep the
working class pacific, much less generate the so-called middle class whose stock market
portfolios will bind them to the new ruling class forever. These are the sources for a
revolution in China, not NGOs or a color revolution. In the end, Putin will be done in by
his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain
from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs.
Val @72 I remember that there were only rare, vague hints about Reagan, not factual
evidence. So unless you are committed to the proposition his Alzheimer's disease only set in
January 21, 1992, demanding factual evidence about the mental and physical health of our
elective divinities seems unduly restrictive I think.
Layman @79 The Shanghai Cooperation Organization alone makes an analysis that a military
alliance between Russia and China reasonable enough. Even if incorrect in the end, it is not
"profoundly ignorant."
Meta-comment: Engels post was perceived as mocking, which was its offense. As for "trolling,"
that's an internet thing...
"... From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the basement"? ..."
"... When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives. ..."
Option two: Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have total, repeat
total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton
to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies.
The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the
basement"?
When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested
as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the
Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most
Russians led miserable lives.
"... Establishment panic is traceable to another fear: its [neoliberal] ideology, its political religion, is seen by growing millions as a golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed. ..."
"... After having expunged Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment installed "democracy" as the new deity, at whose altars we should all worship. And so our schools began to teach. ..."
"... Today, Clintons, Obamas, and Bushes send soldiers and secularist tutors to "establish democracy" among the "lesser breeds without the Law." ..."
"... By suggesting he might not accept the results of a "rigged election," Trump is committing an unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy, and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots. ..."
"... For none of the three-diversity, equality, democracy-is to be found in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, or the Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic. ..."
"... Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is not an improvement upon the old republic; it is the corruption of it. ..."
"... Consider: six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton bundler, announced that by executive action he would convert 200,000 convicted felons into eligible voters by November. ..."
"... Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in "Points of Rebellion": "We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution." ..."
"... Baby-boomer radicals loved it, raising their fists in defiance of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. But now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the niceties of liberal democracy to save the America that they love, elitist enthusiasm for "revolution" seems more constrained. ..."
What explains the hysteria of the establishment? In a word, fear. The establishment is horrified
at the Donald's defiance because, deep within its soul, it fears that the people for whom Trump speaks
no longer accept its political legitimacy or moral authority. It may rule and run the country, and
may rig the system through mass immigration and a mammoth welfare state so that Middle America is
never again able to elect one of its own. But that establishment, disconnected from the people it
rules, senses, rightly, that it is unloved and even detested.
Having fixed the future, the establishment
finds half of the country looking upon it with the same sullen contempt that our Founding Fathers
came to look upon the overlords Parliament sent to rule them.
Establishment panic is traceable to another fear: its [neoliberal] ideology, its political
religion, is seen by growing millions as a golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed.
Trump is "talking down our democracy," said a shocked Clinton.
After having expunged Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment
installed "democracy" as the new deity, at whose altars we should all worship. And so our schools
began to teach.
Half a millennia ago, missionaries and explorers set sail from Spain, England, and France to bring
Christianity to the New World.
Today, Clintons, Obamas, and Bushes send soldiers and secularist tutors to "establish democracy"
among the "lesser breeds without the Law."
Unfortunately, the natives, once democratized, return to their roots and vote for Hezbollah, Hamas,
and the Muslim Brotherhood, using democratic processes and procedures to reestablish their true God.
And Allah is no democrat.
By suggesting he might not accept the results of a "rigged election," Trump is committing
an unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy,
and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots.
For none of the three-diversity, equality, democracy-is to be found in the Constitution, the
Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, or the Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic.
When Ben Franklin, emerging from the Philadelphia convention, was asked by a woman what kind of
government they had created, he answered, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is not an improvement upon the old
republic; it is the corruption of it.
Consider: six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton bundler, announced that
by executive action he would convert 200,000 convicted felons into eligible voters by November.
If that is democracy, many will say, to hell with it. And if felons decide the electoral votes
of Virginia, and Virginia decides who is our next U.S. president, are we obligated to honor that
election?
In 1824, Gen. Andrew Jackson ran first in popular and electoral votes. But, short of a majority,
the matter went to the House. There, Speaker Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams delivered the presidency
to Adams-and Adams made Clay secretary of state, putting him on the path to the presidency that had
been taken by Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Adams himself. Were Jackson's people wrong to regard
as a "corrupt bargain" the deal that robbed the general of the presidency? The establishment also
recoiled in horror from Milwaukee Sheriff Dave Clarke's declaration that it is now "torches and pitchforks
time."
Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in
"Points of Rebellion": "We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether
it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition,
is also revolution."
Baby-boomer radicals loved it, raising their fists in defiance of Richard Nixon and Spiro
Agnew. But now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the niceties of liberal
democracy to save the America that they love, elitist enthusiasm for "revolution" seems more constrained.
The only way Hillary could be stopped would be if the Republican Party elite stood with Trump,
so Soros and the other donor who owns voting machines could be blocked from flipping/fractionalizing
votes. But that isn't happening. Soros machines are in key swing states like Colorado and Pennsylvania,
and we already have data from the primary that a good 15% (at least) can be flipped, compared to
exit polls/hand counts/paper trail or non-donor machines.
I guess it's still possible, like what happened in the Michigan Democratic primary, that the real
numbers are more like a 10% lead for Trump and they come out in force in unexpected locations, and
Clinton's small, unenthusiastic base stays home, thus making it too difficult to successfully flip.
But I'm trying not to count on something like that, because it seems too close optomism bias driven
"poll unskewing" – I mean, the polls clearly ARE skewed in favor of Hillary, but I doubt they're
off by 15%.
Stein could never take over the Democratic Party. It isn't even clear to me that the Greens could
replace the Democrats, although I do think their massive increase in ballot access this year is a
credit to the party and to Stein. That shows real organizing and management effectiveness.
I started this campaign season advocating for purging Clintonians out of the now hollow Democratic
Party and taking it over. That still seems like the most efficient path to an actual left national
party, in part because our current system is so corrupted and calcified. But I'm not sure it's possible.
At this point, I can imagine a cataclysmic revolution happening during Clinton's term more easily
than a reformed, citizen friendly Democratic Party.
"... I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism rather amusing. ..."
"... Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American nativist, ..."
"... Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act, I have this piece for you . ..."
"... Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life. ..."
"... In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are not only permissible; they are imperatives. ..."
"... The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine. I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist running a rather incompetent campaign. ..."
"... The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics. ..."
"... White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and customary advantages. ..."
"... The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy. ..."
"... The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more important groups. ..."
"... The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity politics." ..."
"... The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders ..."
"... In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill. ..."
"... Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens. ..."
"... That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary GOP establishment away from Trump. ..."
"... "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism. ..."
"... Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement. ..."
"... By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests. ..."
"... Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power. ..."
"... Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group, some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him. ..."
"... Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices. ..."
I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism
rather amusing.
For one thing, liberals don't crush fascism. Liberals appease fascism, then they exploit fascism.
In between there's a great big war, where communists crush fascism. That's pretty much the lesson
of WWII.
Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American
nativist, which is pretty much indistinguishable from old-fashioned racist when considering
the subjugation of native Americans and African-Americans and Asian immigrants, but requires that
touch of "nativist" nuance when considering indigenous bigotry against Irish, Italian, and Jewish
immigrants and citizens.
Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of
attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and
predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion
things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know
Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act,
I have this piece for you .
And for anybody who doesn't believe the US government does not already engage in intensive "extreme"
vetting and targeting of all Muslims immigrants, especially those from targeted countries, not only
to identify potential security risks but to groom potential intelligence assets, I got the Brooklyn
Bridge to sell you right here:
Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns
bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme,
mobilizing force in national life.
In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy
resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel
might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are
not only permissible; they are imperatives.
The need to seize state power and hold it while a fascist or Bolshevik agenda is implemented dictates
the need for a military force loyal to and subservient to the party and its leadership, not the state.
The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine.
I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political
movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist
running a rather incompetent campaign.
It's a little premature to throw dirt on the grave of the Trump candidacy, perhaps (I'll check
back in on November 9), but it looks like he spent too much time glorying in the adulation of his
white male nativist base and too little time, effort, and money trying to deliver a plausible message
that would allow other demographics to shrug off the "deplorable" tag and vote for him. I don't blame/credit
the media too much for burying Trump, a prejudice of mine perhaps. I blame Trump's inability to construct
an effective phalanx of pro-Trump messengers, a failure that's probably rooted in the fact that Trump
spent the primary and general campaign at war with the GOP establishment.
The only capital crime in politics is disunity, and the GOP and Trump are guilty on multiple counts.
The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to
the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between
big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics.
It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed
lumpen . It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case
in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives:
socialism and communism.
That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness.
That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the
United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. The North's
abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War had more to do a
desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from the competition
of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.
White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American
labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and
customary advantages.
If anyone harbors illusions concerning the kumbaya solidarity between white and black labor
in the post-World War II era, I think the article The Problem of Race in American Labor History
by Herbert Hill ( a freebie on
JSTOR ) is a good place to start.
The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American
politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political
muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy.
However, in this campaign, the race wedge has cut the other way in a most interesting fashion.
White conservatives are appalled, and minority liberals energized, by the fact that the white guy,
despite winning the majority white male vote, lost to a black guy not once but twice, giving a White
Twilight/Black Dawn (TM) vibe to the national debate.
The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton
and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more
important groups.
The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching
and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity
politics."
The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary
Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie
Sanders.
My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I
never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders while announcing
the Black Congressional Caucus endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Bear in mind that during the 1960s,
Sanders had
affiliated his student group at the University of Chicago with Lewis' SNCC, the Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee; during the same era, Hillary Clinton was at Wellesley
condemning
"the snicks" for their excessively confrontational tactics.
Ah, politics.
To understand the significance of this event, one should read Fracture by the guru of woke
Clintonism, Joy Reid. Or read
my piece on the subject . Or simply understand that after Hillary Clinton lost Lewis's endorsement,
the black vote, and the southern Democratic primaries to Barack Obama in 2008, and she was determined
above all to secure and exploit monolithic black support in the primaries and, later on, the general
in 2016.
So, in order to prevent Sanders from splitting the black vote to her disadvantage on ideological/class
lines, Clinton played the race card. Or, as we put it today when discussing the championing of historically
disadvantaged a.k.a. non white male heterosexual groups, celebrated "identity politics".
In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie
bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African
American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided
acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill.
Trump's populism draws its heat from American nativism, not "soak the rich" populism of the Sandernista
stripe, and it was easily submerged in the "identity politics" narrative.
Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for
his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against
blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe
the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists
subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens.
As an indication of the fungible & opportunistic character of the "identity politics" approach,
as far as I can tell from a recent visit to a swing state, as the Clinton campaign pivoted to the
general, the theme of Trump's anti-black racism has been retired in favor of pushing his offenses
against women and the disabled. Perhaps this reflects the fact that Clinton has a well-advertised
lock on the African-American vote and doesn't need to cater to it; also, racism being what it is,
playing the black card is not the best way to lure Republicans and indies to the Clinton camp.
The high water mark of the Clinton African-American tilt was perhaps the abortive campaign to
turn gun control into a referendum on the domination of Congress by white male conservatives. It
happened a few months ago, so who remembers? But John Lewis led a sit-in occupation of the Senate
floor in the wake of the Orlando shootings to highlight how America's future was being held hostage
to the whims of Trump-inclined white pols.
That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice
initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists
started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary
GOP establishment away from Trump.
There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to screw
Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core of
the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand
of billionaire-friendly liberalism.
In my view, a key tell is Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable
foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a
font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement.
By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative
crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider
to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ
the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests.
Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from
the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press
to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and
it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity
politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power.
In my view, the Trump and Clinton campaigns are both protofascist.
Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group,
some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him.
Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which
adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices.
But the bottom line is race. U.S. racism has stacked up 400 years of tinder that might take a
few hundred more years, if ever, to burn off. And until it does, every politician in the country
is going to see his or her political future in flicking matches at it. And that's what we're seeing
in the current campaign. A lot. Not fascism.
(Reprinted from
China Matters by permission of author or representative)
"... Clinton says publically she believes that. Meanwhile supposedly smart economists like Tyler Cowen say they don't. Boston Fed President Rosengren says there are too many jobs. We need more unemployed. I'm Fed Up with regional Fed Presidents like him. ..."
"... Class issues are now a tough nut to crack, partly I think because the Democrats and some liberals take demands for economic fairness and try to give us identity politics instead, ..."
"... The meritocratic class who Krugman speaks for and centrist politicians like Clinton will slow-walk class issues like how Tim Geithner slow-walked financial reform. It's part of their job description and milieu. ..."
"... It's funny when neo-liberals/libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing to do collective bargaining -- while think it is perfectly OK -- indeed, so "natural" that any question wouldn't even occur to them -- for owners of capital to organize themselves under the special protections of the state-created corporation. ..."
"... It's understandable, though, that they would consider the corporation to be ordained by natural law: the Founding Fathers, after all, were dedicated to the proposition that all men and corporations are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. (Never mind that the creator of the corporations is the state.) ..."
I liked how Hillary said in the third debate that she was for raising the minimum wage because
people who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. And "Donald" is against it. That's why people
are voting for her.
That's an ethical or moral notion, combined with "morally neutral" economics. People who work
hard full time, play by the rules and pay their dues shouldn't live in poverty.
Clinton says publically she believes that. Meanwhile supposedly smart economists like Tyler
Cowen say they don't. Boston Fed President Rosengren says there are too many jobs. We need more
unemployed. I'm Fed Up with regional Fed Presidents like him.
Think about the debate between the centrists and progressives over Trump supporters. The centrists
argue Trump supporters (nor anyone else besides a few) aren't suffering from economic anxiety
- that it's racism all of the way down. Matt Yglesias. Dylan Matthews. Krugman. Meyerson. Etc.
The progressives admit there's racism, but there's a wider context. The Nazis were racists,
but there was also the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression. And Germany got better in
the decades after the war just as the American South is better than it once was. Steve Randy Waldman
and James Kwak discussed in blog post how the wider context should be taken into consideration.
On some "non-economic issues" there has been progress even though the recent decades haven't
been as booming as the post-WWII decades were with rising living standards for all.
A black President. Legalized gay marriage. Legalized pot. I wouldn't have thought these things
as likely to happen when I was a teenager because of the bigoted authoritarian nature of many
voters and elites. During the Progressive era and when the New Deal was enacted, racism and sexism
and bigotry and anti-science thinking was virulent. Yet economic progress was made on the class
front.
Class issues are now a tough nut to crack, partly I think because the Democrats and some
liberals take demands for economic fairness and try to give us identity politics instead,
not that the latter isn't worthwhile. Partly b/c of what Mike Konczal discussed in his recent
Medium piece.
If we can just apply the morality and politics of electing a black President and legalizing
gay marriage and pot, to class issues. The meritocratic class who Krugman speaks for and centrist
politicians like Clinton will slow-walk class issues like how Tim Geithner slow-walked financial
reform. It's part of their job description and milieu.
But Clinton did talk to it during the third debate when she said she'd raise the minimum wage
because people who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. That is a morale issue as the new
Pope has been talking about.
Hillary should have joked last night about what God's Catholic representative here on Earth
had to say about Trump.
urban legend said...
It's funny when neo-liberals/libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is
clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing
to do collective bargaining -- while think it is perfectly OK -- indeed, so "natural" that any
question wouldn't even occur to them -- for owners of capital to organize themselves under the
special protections of the state-created corporation.
It's understandable, though, that they would consider the corporation to be ordained by
natural law: the Founding Fathers, after all, were dedicated to the proposition that all men and
corporations are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. (Never mind that the
creator of the corporations is the state.)
Washington forgot his role in color revolutions in Ukraine, Russia, Serbia and other countries,
when Washington controlled neoliberal media served as air support for local fifth column. Now
boomerang returned...
On Tuesday, the Foreign Ministry of Ecuador confirmed WikiLeaks' charge that Ecuador itself
had ordered the severing of Assange's Internet connection under pressure from the US government.
In a statement, the ministry said that WikiLeaks had "published a wealth of documents impacting
on the US election campaign," adding that the government of Ecuador "respects the principle of
non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states" and "does not interfere in external
electoral processes." On that grounds, the statement claimed, the Ecuadorian government decided
to "restrict access" to the communications network at its London embassy.
"... she collapsed at the 9/11 memorial and went stiff as a board when she fell into the van....90 minutes later she comes out of Chelseas' apartment looking 20 pounds thinner! She was also grinning and hopping around....I'd like to know what they are giving her and order some..LOL ..."
"... They accused him of using cocaine, and he comes back by asking for a drug test for both. Sheer brilliance ..."
Huma Abedin, top aide to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, asked a speechwriter
to shorten a potential statement to reporters because Clinton would not deliver it at a podium, according
to the latest Wikileaks release of messages from John Podesta's email accounts.
"I would make it shorter only because it's a bank of Mics and no podium," Abedin replied.
Based on contemporaneous news reports, Clinton's team appears to have scrapped a "post-game" statement
altogether - since Clinton ultimately sat and talked for 11 hours over the course of the hearing.
During that time, Clinton suffered a coughing fit for several minutes while answering questions from
Rep. Elijah Cummings.
That makes sense...because when she collapsed at the 9/11 memorial and went stiff as a board
when she fell into the van....90 minutes later she comes out of Chelseas' apartment looking 20
pounds thinner! She was also grinning and hopping around....I'd like to know what they are giving
her and order some..LOL
It reminds of the movie. "Death Becomes Her" with Goldie Hawn and Meryl Streep where they are
dead and Bruce Willis keeps them animated with "science"....
ladywarrior > Realistic Observer
Yes! I saw that medicinal drip apparatus in a photo of her leaning down talking to supporters
at the last debate....small box showing through her jacket with a hose running up the middle of
her back between her shoulder blades....it was clear as a bell.....she's being kept upright with
super drugs....
constitutionminded > Bloodaxe
They accused him of using cocaine, and he comes back by asking for a drug test for both. Sheer
brilliance.
"... So now David Axelrod suggests Hillary should drop out of third debate scheduled for Wednesday, blames Trump's call for drug test! ..."
"... Drudge says Hillary about to be very publicly finally forced out of the closet! ..."
"... Here's what the Clinton Staff say about Chelsea: "..the apple doesn't fall far. A kiss on the cheek while she's sticking a knife in the back, and the front." ..."
Among the latest, ninth round of Podesta email releases by Wikileaks this morning,
is a July 31, 2015 email
by Hillary Clinton's National Press Secretary Brian Fallon who lays out the agenda for the day's
rollout of Clinton's tax record and, more importantly, Hillary's "excellent health" medical statement,
where once again the media, listed as "AP, Politico, WSJ, WaPo, etc" is exposed as coordinating and
colluding with the campaign to send a message that Hillary is in great health.
In the email written in the early hours on Friday, Fallon writes that in the "rollout plan" for
that same day, the campaign will "Pitch the first round of stories to the travelling press corps
(AP, Politico, WSJ, WaPo, etc) with a 2 pm embargo."
He goes on to say that for these stories "we will provide the full text of HRC's physician's letter,
summarizing that she is in excellent health and is medically fit to perform the duties of President.
We will push that she is the FIRST presidential candidate to release this info."
In further evidence of the prepared media narrative, Fallon points out that "we expect the stories
that pop at 2 pm to have headlines such as "CLINTON IN 'EXCELLENT HEALTH,' MEDICAL RECORDS SAY" …
"CLINTON RELEASES HEALTH REPORT."
... ... ...
* * *
The above takes places several months after a
March 2015 email exchange
in which campaign manager Mook wrote Podesta, asking if he had talked to Hillary "about her taxes
and health:, admitting that both topics are "hypersensitive" to her, yet adding that "both are better
dealt with very early so we control them--rather than responding to calls for transparency."
* * *
And that is how Hillary's well-greased organization maintained the lid on her health narrative
from day one, and prevented it from sliding out of control in an undesired direction by coordinating
with the "friendly press." Of course, it was unable to do so for too long, as we noted over the summer;
at that point the Clinton campaign would simply smear those non-compliant press as "alt-right" elements,
or as has been the case recently, invoke "Russian-support" elements and suggest it is one vast conspiracy,
at least until a video of Hillary collapsing on September 11 emerged and confirmed it was all just
"conspiracy fact."
Yes We Can. But... •Oct 16, 2016 12:28 PM
So now David Axelrod suggests Hillary should drop out of third debate scheduled for Wednesday,
blames Trump's call for drug test!
And Drudge says Hillary about to be very publicly finally forced out of the closet! Payback
for going after Trump's supposed kissy-kissy feely-feely thing.
Methinks it all may be a bit more than she has the strength and/or willingness to bear this
Wednesday.
Here's what the Clinton Staff say about Chelsea:
"..the apple doesn't fall far. A kiss on the cheek while she's sticking a knife in the back, and the front."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu5G4KNVYAA9yw9.jpg
And here's Posdesta's racist remark about white people when he found out the San Bernadino
shooter was Muslim
Among the latest, ninth round of Podesta email releases by Wikileaks this morning,
is a July 31, 2015 email
by Hillary Clinton's National Press Secretary Brian Fallon who lays out the agenda
for the day's rollout of Clinton's tax record and, more importantly, Hillary's
"excellent health" medical statement, where once again the media, listed as "AP,
Politico, WSJ, WaPo, etc" is exposed as coordinating and colluding with the campaign to
send a message that Hillary is in great health.
In the email written in the early
hours on Friday, Fallon writes that in the "rollout plan" for that same day, the
campaign will "Pitch the first round of stories to the travelling press corps (AP,
Politico, WSJ, WaPo, etc) with a 2 pm embargo."
He goes on to say that for these stories "we will provide the full text of HRC's
physician's letter, summarizing that she is in excellent health and is medically fit to
perform the duties of President. We will push that she is the FIRST presidential
candidate to release this info."
In further evidence of the prepared media narrative, Fallon points out that "we
expect the stories that pop at 2 pm to have headlines such as "CLINTON IN 'EXCELLENT
HEALTH,' MEDICAL RECORDS SAY" … "CLINTON RELEASES HEALTH REPORT."
... ... ...
* * *
The above takes places several months after a
March 2015 email exchange
in which campaign manager Mook wrote Podesta, asking if he had talked to Hillary
"about her taxes and health:, admitting that both topics are "hypersensitive" to her,
yet adding that "both are better dealt with very early so we control them--rather than
responding to calls for transparency."
* * *
And that is how Hillary's well-greased organization maintained the lid on her
health narrative from day one, and prevented it from sliding out of control in an
undesired direction by coordinating with the "friendly press." Of course, it was unable
to do so for too long, as we noted over the summer; at that point the Clinton campaign
would simply smear those non-compliant press as "alt-right" elements, or as has been the
case recently, invoke "Russian-support" elements and suggest it is one vast conspiracy,
at least until a video of Hillary collapsing on September 11 emerged and confirmed it
was all just "conspiracy fact."
Yes We Can. But...
•Oct 16, 2016 12:28 PM
So now David Axelrod suggests Hillary should drop out of third debate scheduled for
Wednesday, blames Trump's call for drug test!
And Drudge says Hillary about to be very publicly finally forced out of the closet! Payback
for going after Trump's supposed kissy-kissy feely-feely thing.
Methinks it all may be a bit more than she has the strength and/or willingness to bear this
Wednesday.
"... Meanwhile, between journalism's insiders and outsiders-between the ones who are rising and the ones who are sinking-there is no solidarity at all. Here in the capital city, every pundit and every would-be pundit identifies upward, always upward. ..."
"... We cling to our credentials and our professional-class fantasies, hobnobbing with senators and governors, trading witticisms with friendly Cabinet officials, helping ourselves to the champagne and lobster ..."
"... "The real "deplorables" generally aren't the people whom Hillary denounced as wholly "irredeemable," or at whom economically secure commentators fulminate on a regular basis. More obviously "deplorable" are Hillary's fellow financial, political, economic, and military elites who wrecked the economy, got us mired in endless unwinnable foreign wars, and erected a virtually impenetrable cultural barrier between everyday Americans trying to live fruitful lives and their pretentious, well-heeled superiors ensconced in select coastal enclaves. It is thanks to the actions of this "basket of deplorables" that we're in the situation we're in" ..."
I skimmed the Harpers article by Thomas Frank on the media's extermination of Bernie Sanders.
It's a good article about an unpleasant topic. One point that is not clear from the blurb is that
Frank isn't writing about the media's treatment of Sanders, but rather about the Washington Post's
treatment of Sanders. Occasionally other media outlets are mentioned (I saw a reference to the
Associated Press), but it's almost all about the Bezos Washington Post's unfairness
to Sanders. A lot of other newspapers mistreated him as well.
The article is excellent, but if anyone doesn't have the time to read it, I'd suggest going
straight to the last page, its a brilliant demolition of modern punditry journalism. The last
two paragraphs in particular:
Meanwhile, between journalism's insiders and outsiders-between the ones who are rising
and the ones who are sinking-there is no solidarity at all. Here in the capital city, every
pundit and every would-be pundit identifies upward, always upward.
We cling to our credentials and our professional-class fantasies, hobnobbing with senators
and governors, trading witticisms with friendly Cabinet officials, helping ourselves to the
champagne and lobster. Everyone wants to know our opinion, we like to believe, or to celebrate
our birthday, or to find out where we went for cocktails after work last night.
Until the day, that is, when you wake up and learn that the tycoon behind your media concern
has changed his mind and everyone is laid off and that it was never really about you in the
first place. Gone, the private office or award-winning column or cable-news show. The checks
start bouncing. The booker at MSNBC stops calling. And suddenly you find that you are a middle-aged
maker of paragraphs-of useless things-dumped out into a billionaire's world that has no need
for you, and doesn't really give a damn about your degree in comparative literature from Brown.
You start to think a little differently about universal health care and tuition-free college
and Wall Street bailouts. But of course it is too late now. Too late for all of us.
Yes, thanks for the link to Thomas Frank's essay in Harpers about the efforts of corporate
media, particularly the Washington Post and New York Times, to kill Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign
for the presidency.
Yesterday NC linked to an article from the American Conservative by Michael Tracey titled
"The Real Deplorables". In his article Tracey observed: …
"The real "deplorables" generally aren't the people whom Hillary denounced as wholly
"irredeemable," or at whom economically secure commentators fulminate on a regular basis. More
obviously "deplorable" are Hillary's fellow financial, political, economic, and military elites
who wrecked the economy, got us mired in endless unwinnable foreign wars, and erected a virtually
impenetrable cultural barrier between everyday Americans trying to live fruitful lives and
their pretentious, well-heeled superiors ensconced in select coastal enclaves. It is thanks
to the actions of this "basket of deplorables" that we're in the situation we're in"…
Clearly Michael Tracey overlooked a group. But what is particularly troubling me was Thomas
Frank's observation: …"for the sort of people who write and edit the opinion pages of the Post,
there was something deeply threatening about Sanders and his political views. He seems to have
represented something horrifying, something that could not be spoken of directly but that clearly
needed to be suppressed."
"... Recast and repeated enough times, and they become facts. ..."
"... Trump has lost it. ..."
"... Voters are deserting him ..."
"... "Hillary will win ..."
"... The news organizations have (or used to have) a duty not to report lies. And remember, all it takes is one phone call from the DNC. So, if they are reporting it, the emails are legitimate. Wiki can leak, but they can ignore. ..."
"... If the MSM wanted to find out whether the emails were genuine or doctored or forgeries, all they have to do is ask Podesta for the authentic emails. The MSM hasn't done so, because the results would spoil their narrative. ..."
The news organizations have (or used to have) a duty not to report lies. And remember,
all it takes is one phone call from the DNC. So, if they are reporting it, the emails are legitimate.
Wiki can leak, but they can ignore.
If the MSM wanted to find out whether the emails were genuine or doctored or forgeries,
all they have to do is ask Podesta for the authentic emails. The MSM hasn't done so, because the
results would spoil their narrative.
"... Moreover since the DNC hack is a criminal offence, it is a statement of opinion made about a matter which is presumably being investigated by the police. ..."
"... If the statement is merely a statement of opinion based on inference of which guesses about Russian "motivations" apparently form a major part, and one which moreover concerns a matter which is or ought to be the subject of investigation by the police and not therefore the subject of this sort of comment, why was it published at all? ..."
"... The short answer is in order to help Hillary Clinton win the US Presidential election. ..."
"... To that end the statement fulfils two purposes: firstly, it discredits the content of any leaks that might otherwise damage Hillary Clinton's campaign by lending credence to her claim that they are part of a Russian 'dirty tricks' campaign against her; and secondly, it lends credence to the claim popularised by Hillary Clinton's campaign and by Hillary Clinton's supporters in the media that Donald Trump is Putin's candidate and that Putin is trying to help him win the election. ..."
"... That the second is one of the purposes of statement is proved by its reference to US intelligence's "belief" that the leak was authorised by "Russia's senior-most officials ". This is clearly intended to refer to Putin, and is intended to give the impression that Putin himself personally authorised the DNC leak in order to damage Hillary Clinton and to help Trump win the election and become President. ..."
"... US intelligence has meddled in elections in other countries on numerous occasions starting with the Italian parliamentary elections of 1948 ..."
"... To my knowledge this is however the first occasion that US intelligence has directly and publicly meddled in a US national election, acting to help one candidate defeat another. ..."
"... It matters not whether this was done by US intelligence on its own initiative, or whether it was pressured to do so by officials of the Obama administration or of Hillary Clinton's campaign. ..."
"... Either way the disturbing truth must now be faced: the practice of US intelligence meddling in and trying to influence national elections has now been imported home to the US. ..."
The single most important event of the US Presidential election took place last week and to my
knowledge it has gone completely unreported.
This was not the video tape of Donald Trump's grotesque and deeply offensive sexual banter from
2005.
It was the public confirmation that an intelligence agency is directly interfering in an ongoing
US Presidential election.
The intelligence agency in question is not however that of Russia as is being reported. It is
that of the United States itself.
To understand why this is so, consider the statement US intelligence published last week on the
subject of alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and of other US agencies
involved in the election. It
reads as follows :
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian
Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including
from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like
DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the
methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are
intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians
have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example
, to influence public opinion there . We believe , based on
the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."
(bold italics added)
The statement is an implicit admission that US intelligence has no evidence to back its allegations
of Russian hacking.
It is merely "confident" – not "sure" – that it is the Russians who are behind the hacking, and
it is clear from the statement that it arrived at this conclusion purely through inference: because
the hacks supposedly were "consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts".
US intelligence assumes the Russians were behind the hack not because it knows this to be so but
in part because of what it believes Russian motives to be.
The statement backs its claim with a textual trick. It says "the Russians have used similar tactics
and techniques across Europe and Eurasia". It then immediately follows these words with the words
"for example".
These lead to the expectation that an actual example of such Russian "tactics and techniques"
is about to follow. Instead what is provided are the fact free words "to influence public opinion
there".
The words "for example" lend nothing to the meaning of the statement, which would be exactly the
same without them. These two words as used in the statement are actually meaningless. That is a sure
sign that their presence in the statement is intended to confuse the casual reader, and that this
is true of the statement as a whole.
The words are designed to create a subliminal impression to a casual reader that the Russians
have been caught doing this sort of thing before, without however providing a single actual example
when this was the case.
Demonstrating how thin the case of Russian government actually is, the statement then goes on
to say
"Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems,
which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are
not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government ."
(bold italics added)
In other words US intelligence admits the mere fact servers operated by a Russian company may
have been used for "scanning and probing" – and presumably also for hacking – is not in itself
proof of the involvement of the Russian government.
This is consistent with what I have heard, which is that skilled and well-resourced hackers can
use compromised machines to carry out hacks by remote access, and that the mere discovery that a
particular machine has been used in a hack does not in and of itself implicate the owner. (I should
stress I am not an expert in this field and I may have misunderstood this. However it appears to
be what US intelligence is saying).
This part of the statement seems to me intended to prevent challenges to the eventual outcome
of the election based on US intelligence's claims of Russian hacking. US intelligence does not want
to be drawn into post-election arguments about the validity of the election outcome, which might
lead to demands that it make public its "evidence" of Russian hacking. In the process US intelligence
however casts doubt on what is almost certainly the only actual evidence it has of Russian state
involvement in the hacking.
In summary, the statement is a mere statement of opinion, it is not a statement of fact, and the
evidence upon which it is based is threadbare.
Moreover since the DNC hack is a criminal offence, it is a statement of opinion made about
a matter which is presumably being investigated by the police.
The relevant police agency is presumably the FBI, which significantly is not a co-author
of the statement.
That in turn begs a host of questions: has the FBI been shown the "evidence" upon which US intelligence
expresses its opinion and has made the statement? Has it asked to see this "evidence"? Was it invited
to co-author the statement? What does the FBI think of the public involvement of US intelligence
in a domestic criminal matter which falls within the FBI's exclusive competence?
If the statement is merely a statement of opinion based on inference of which guesses about
Russian "motivations" apparently form a major part, and one which moreover concerns a matter which
is or ought to be the subject of investigation by the police and not therefore the subject of this
sort of comment, why was it published at all?
The short answer is in order to help Hillary Clinton win the US Presidential election.
To that end the statement fulfils two purposes: firstly, it discredits the content of any
leaks that might otherwise damage Hillary Clinton's campaign by lending credence to her claim that
they are part of a Russian 'dirty tricks' campaign against her; and secondly, it lends credence to
the claim popularised by Hillary Clinton's campaign and by Hillary Clinton's supporters in the media
that Donald Trump is Putin's candidate and that Putin is trying to help him win the election.
That the second is one of the purposes of statement is proved by its reference to US intelligence's
"belief" that the leak was authorised by "Russia's senior-most officials ". This is clearly intended to refer to Putin, and is intended to give the impression that Putin
himself personally authorised the DNC leak in order to damage Hillary Clinton and to help Trump win
the election and become President.
To my knowledge this is however the first occasion that US intelligence has directly and publicly
meddled in a US national election, acting to help one candidate defeat another.
It matters not whether this was done by US intelligence on its own initiative, or whether
it was pressured to do so by officials of the Obama administration or of Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Either way the disturbing truth must now be faced: the practice of US intelligence meddling
in and trying to influence national elections has now been imported home to the US.
Telling several members of the investment bank's board of directors how they had to check her out
whenever they get a chance, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein was overheard Monday describing to
friends how incredible it is to see Hillary Clinton live.
"You can forget any recordings you've heard of Hillary, because they don't even compare to the
experience of seeing her in person," said Blankfein, who excitedly recounted the first time he saw
the Democratic presidential nominee in a small, intimate venue back in 2013, noting how he was instantly
captivated by what he was hearing and found himself nodding along throughout the 90-minute solo performance.
"... They were in active collusion with the 1990s Clinton campaigns too, but I didn't have Wikileaks around to confirm it, or the internets for alternative sources of information. I suspected it anyway. I finally cut the cord after 2002. ..."
"... Well the NYT, WaPo, CNN et al have shot themselves in the foot with this blatant collusion with the Clinton campaign. They've pissed off their most intelligent readers & viewers, shown themselves to be knaves and fools, and what are they going to say when HRC is president and investigated up the wazoo for corruption? ..."
"... If you defeat Trump, you prevail over one guy. When Clinton is defeated, you win over all those 'with her.' ..."
"... Yes… But leverage much higher than 100:1… Not just MSM, but banks, neocons, corrupt ceo's, and all these alphabet groups keeping us safe… Hopefully he'd be vindictive against all the elites trying to defeat him. ..."
"... Some combination of "it's a Russian plot" and "we told you so." The MSM - they know everything. ..."
"... NEVER overestimate the intelligence of the American public. If Hillary can get an 11 point lead over a salacious story that affects almost nobody and yet get no drop in popularity over revelations that will affect everyone's lives, I don't think there is much hope that the NYT, WaPo, CNN, et al, will get their comeuppance. But Americans who drink in what these MSM sites are feeding them WILL get the President they so obviously deserve, won't they? ..."
"... Yes, it's the public's fault… despite being subject to the most brutal propaganda campaign in history and being assaulted by years of neoliberalism that barely gives them time to breathe between their three zero-hour contract jobs, it's their fault and they deserve a president who will grand-bargain away their social security benefits, TPP away the few remaining good jobs and start a civilisation-threatening war with Russia. ..."
"... And just for the record (/sarc), HRC only has an 11-point lead because most people won't be voting anyway, as they've correctly surmised that the system is completely rigged against them. ..."
"... I have not seen the data on that poll but I doubt that it is a "scientific poll". Many of the polls that I have taken the time to look at the data shows that they avoid asking 35 and under voters and heavily skew the data set to democrats. Lee Camp from Redacted Tonight has also shown this on his TV show on RT. Those even ruskies. ..."
"... Stupid Bloomberg headlines I never clicked on: The Trump Video Would Get Most CEOs Ousted. No doubt. But so would running their own private server outside the company system, then destroying emails in response to a Congressional subpoena. ..."
NYT: the toilet paper of record. In yet another Wikileaks dump it's come out that they're in
active collusion with Hillary's campaign. How anyone is still dumb enough to believe the lies
they're alwaus putting out is beyond me.
Really, it's fine to be biased lackeys for the rich and powerful as long as you're honest about
it. Pretending to be unbiased arbiters of truth while doing that though is pathetic.
These media presstitutes are so rancidly despicable that I want to throw up whenever I think
of them. Newspapers and the rest of the media: want to know why you're going bankrupt? It's not
the internet–it's because every day more and more people are clued into the fact that you are
pathetic lying scum. In my mind these media people are in the same exact category as child molesters.
They were in active collusion with the 1990s Clinton campaigns too, but I didn't have Wikileaks
around to confirm it, or the internets for alternative sources of information. I suspected it
anyway. I finally cut the cord after 2002.
Well the NYT, WaPo, CNN et al have shot themselves in the foot with this blatant collusion
with the Clinton campaign. They've pissed off their most intelligent readers & viewers, shown
themselves to be knaves and fools, and what are they going to say when HRC is president and investigated
up the wazoo for corruption?
Yes… But leverage much higher than 100:1… Not just MSM, but banks, neocons, corrupt ceo's,
and all these alphabet groups keeping us safe…
Hopefully he'd be vindictive against all the elites trying to defeat him.
NEVER overestimate the intelligence of the American public. If Hillary can get an 11 point
lead over a salacious story that affects almost nobody and yet get no drop in popularity over
revelations that will affect everyone's lives, I don't think there is much hope that the NYT,
WaPo, CNN, et al, will get their comeuppance. But Americans who drink in what these MSM sites
are feeding them WILL get the President they so obviously deserve, won't they?
Yes, it's the public's fault… despite being subject to the most brutal propaganda campaign
in history and being assaulted by years of neoliberalism that barely gives them time to breathe
between their three zero-hour contract jobs, it's their fault and they deserve a president who
will grand-bargain away their social security benefits, TPP away the few remaining good jobs and
start a civilisation-threatening war with Russia.
And just for the record (/sarc), HRC only has an 11-point lead because most people won't
be voting anyway, as they've correctly surmised that the system is completely rigged against them.
I have not seen the data on that poll but I doubt that it is a "scientific poll". Many
of the polls that I have taken the time to look at the data shows that they avoid asking 35 and
under voters and heavily skew the data set to democrats. Lee Camp from Redacted Tonight has also
shown this on his TV show on RT. Those even ruskies.
Just watched a documentary on the murder of Kitty Genovese. It sure made me think there has
been a culture of corruption at the New York Times for decades, enabled by outside journalists
refusing to question them for whatever reason (intimidation, careerism…).
Stupid Bloomberg headlines I never clicked on: The Trump Video Would Get Most CEOs Ousted.
No doubt. But so would running their own private server outside the company system, then destroying
emails in response to a Congressional subpoena.
"... The only bright spot in the prospect of a Hellary Klinton presidency is the probability that she may not survive long enough to start a war with Russia. I wonder how the training for the Mark I body double is coming? ..."
"... And how can anyone with a functioning brain cell think that anything a politician says or promises during an election has any connection to how they will act once elected? Remember Obama, Mr. "Audacity of Hope?" ..."
The only bright spot in the prospect of a Hellary Klinton presidency is the probability
that she may not survive long enough to start a war with Russia. I wonder how the training for
the Mark I body double is coming?
On the other hand, why should anyone think that a bubble-headed blowhard like Trumpet has the
intelligence or gumption to have any effect upon the operations of the Warfare State? When the
opinion makers of his own party and the neoliberal leaders of Klinton's party are all riding on
the Military-Industrial gravy train looking for the next enemy to keep business booming?
And how can anyone with a functioning brain cell think that anything a politician says
or promises during an election has any connection to how they will act once elected? Remember
Obama, Mr. "Audacity of Hope?"
"... "Clinton is an insider in an outsider year. It's as simple as that. Trying to blame everything and everyone but her is really tiresome and not helping her actually win." ..."
"... Thank you. How can such very serious people ignore the Bernie Sanders phenomenon and dismiss that so easily? People want reform, they want change. And the two party system keeps serving up more of the same rotten, ineffective corruption. ..."
"... Hillary is a candidate of "status quo" and as such is in bad position. As you correctly noted "People want reform, they want change." And her health, abhorrent warmongering and emailgate make her political position only worse. Please note that calling her "a staunch warmonger" is just a politically correct definition of the type of politician she represents. If we take the standards of Nuremberg trials, she might well be considered a war criminal ..."
"... the charter defined three categories of crimes: crimes against peace (including planning, preparing, starting or waging wars of aggression or wars in violation of international agreements), war crimes (including violations of customs or laws of war, including improper treatment of civilians and prisoners of war) and crimes against humanity (including murder, enslavement or deportation of civilians or persecution on political, religious or racial grounds). ..."
"... It was determined that civilian officials as well as military officers could be accused of war crimes. ..."
"... today's Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for arms merchants, mercenaries, academic war planners, lobbyists for every foreign intervention, promoters of color revolutions, failed generals, exploiters of the natural resources of corrupt governments. We have American military bases in 80 countries, and there are now American military personnel on the ground in about 130 countries, a remarkable achievement since there are only 192 recognized countries. Generals and admirals announce our national policies. Theater commanders are our principal ambassadors. Our first answer to trouble or opposition of any kind seems always to be a military movement or action. ..."
"... Re "first past the post": You are absolutely correct and this is the main obstacle to the rise of third parties. The Green Party has as one of the main campaign items the need for ranked choice. ..."
"... I think changing this is perhaps the single most urgent reform item in our politics, and can be accomplished at the local and state level without running afoul of federal or constitutional constraints. ..."
"... the occupied [nations officials] are the only candidate for war crime trials...... Lemay, Harris, everyone in 8 nations that own them involved in nuclear weapons in any way would be hanged if their targets got their way ..."
"... dnc insider [is] definition of crooked! ..."
"... There's a pendulum, which sometimes swings the wrong way. Go figure. Bush Jr was the outsider. Gore was the insider. Likewise Trump and Hillary Clinton? ..."
"... The race baiting has to stop. Krugman should travel to Camden, Rochester, East St. Louis or any of the thousands of towns and cities that were stripped of their wealth thanks to free trade policies he championed. ..."
"... It is close because Trump offers hope. People remember that times were much, much better when their cities had factories before the so-called globalization hurricane just "naturally" swept everything away. Twenty years of protectionism and an undervalued currency will turn the US into a star trek land like Singapore. 10 more years on our current free trade trajectory and we'll be Haiti, another free trade paradise. ..."
"Clinton is an insider in an outsider year. It's as simple as that. Trying to blame everything and
everyone but her is really tiresome and not helping her actually win."
Thank you. How can such very serious people ignore the Bernie Sanders phenomenon and dismiss that
so easily? People want reform, they want change. And the two party system keeps serving up more of
the same rotten, ineffective corruption.
Disencruft Macro -> to Jesse...
insider in an outsider year. It's as simple as that. Trying to blame everything and everyone but
her is really tiresome and not helping her actually win.
She needs to either regain some outsider cred (impossible, her entire candidacy is based on her
being the "most accomplished candidate ever" which necessarily implies having experience on the inside)
Or tar Trump with insider status. That should be doable but it's proving a hard sell. People seem
to be excusing Trump's links and ties with insiders. It seem people will excuse what he has done
because he was just playing the game by the rules that already existed. On the other hand, Clinton
is seen (wrongly in my opinion) as being one of the rule makers and then breaking the rules to her
benefit.
That might be the crucial distinction. Trump had no part in making the rules so breaking them
is understandable. But if Clinton was part of the people who made the rules it is hypocritical for
her to break the rules she made for other people to abide by.
I don't think Clinton is especially bad and I'm definitely voting for her. I'm only positing a
theory as to why Trump's proven malfeasance doesn't seem to impact his standing with the voters while
Clinton's implied, but not proven, malfeasance is a big issue.
"And the two party system keeps serving up more of the same rotten, ineffective corruption."
That's by design. "First past the post" system is perfect for maintaining status quo. It is essentially
an ingenious modification of a one party rule, disguised as two party "equilibrium". It is not that
different from the USSR system of elections -- a predefined by the elite candidate eventually wins
in all cases. The only difference is that in this case there two such predefined, preapproved candidates
and associated exciting political theater, instead of boring (but more economical and honest ;-)
single one.
I think the Communists would only increase their legitimacy (and might prolong the life of the
USSR) by switching to this system. The essence -- communist nomenclatura rule in case of the USSR,
neoliberal elite (financial oligarchy) in case of the USA are the same.
In this system any new movement (think Sanders) can be immaculated and integrated into existing
neoliberal framework by one of two semi-identical parties of "hard" and "soft" neoliberalism. And
that "self-stabilizing" function of crushing any political insurrection "by integration" while it
is in its infancy works fine until the total crash of the system.
In this regard, the appearance of Trump on the scene as a candidate from Repugs is a surprise
and might be viewed as a revolutionary moment as it shows that the republican elite lost control
over peons. The Dem elite managed to crush the insurrection, as expected.
Trump is a sign of a mounting backlash against neoliberal globalization, of political destabilization
due to rejection of neoliberal dogma by the majority of population. At this point neoliberal brainwashing
stops working, much like happened in the USSR with communist propaganda.
Hillary is a candidate of "status quo" and as such is in bad position. As you correctly noted
"People want reform, they want change." And her health, abhorrent warmongering and emailgate make
her political position only worse. Please note that calling her "a staunch warmonger" is just a politically
correct definition of the type of politician she represents. If we take the standards of Nuremberg
trials, she might well be considered a war criminal :
The Allies eventually established the laws and procedures for the Nuremberg trials with the
London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), issued on August 8, 1945. Among other
things, the charter defined three categories of crimes: crimes against peace (including planning,
preparing, starting or waging wars of aggression or wars in violation of international agreements),
war crimes (including violations of customs or laws of war, including improper treatment of civilians
and prisoners of war) and crimes against humanity (including murder, enslavement or deportation
of civilians or persecution on political, religious or racial grounds).
It was determined that civilian officials as well as military officers could be accused
of war crimes.
John and Robert Kennedy devoted their greatest commitments and energies to the prevention of
war and the preservation of peace. To them that was not an abstract formula but the necessary
foundation of human life. But today's Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for arms
merchants, mercenaries, academic war planners, lobbyists for every foreign intervention, promoters
of color revolutions, failed generals, exploiters of the natural resources of corrupt governments.
We have American military bases in 80 countries, and there are now American military personnel
on the ground in about 130 countries, a remarkable achievement since there are only 192 recognized
countries. Generals and admirals announce our national policies. Theater commanders are our principal
ambassadors. Our first answer to trouble or opposition of any kind seems always to be a military
movement or action.
Re "first past the post": You are absolutely correct and this is the main obstacle to the rise of
third parties. The Green Party has as one of the main campaign items the need for ranked choice.
I think changing this is perhaps the single most urgent reform item in our politics, and can be
accomplished at the local and state level without running afoul of federal or constitutional constraints.
the occupied [nations officials] are
the only candidate for war crime trials...... Lemay, Harris, everyone in 8 nations that own them involved in nuclear weapons in any way would
be hanged if their targets got their way
Pinkybum -> efcdons...
"Clinton is an insider in an outsider year."
Having voted for Bernie this is not the choice we are faced with.
"She needs to either regain some outsider cred"
Having ran as an insider and won she needs to do no such thing...
lsm -> Pinkybum...
dnc insider [is]
definition of crooked! no conviction...
Fred C. Dobbs said...
There's a pendulum, which
sometimes swings the wrong way. Go figure. Bush Jr was the outsider. Gore was the insider. Likewise Trump and Hillary Clinton?
This pendulum has (almost) magical effects. As for me, and many here, I hope its effect is not
felt this time.
The race
baiting has to stop. Krugman should travel to Camden, Rochester, East St. Louis or any of the thousands
of towns and cities that were stripped of their wealth thanks to free trade policies he championed.
It is close because Trump offers hope. People remember that times were much, much better when
their cities had factories before the so-called globalization hurricane just "naturally" swept everything
away. Twenty years of protectionism and an undervalued currency will turn the US into a star trek
land like Singapore. 10 more years on our current free trade trajectory and we'll be Haiti, another
free trade paradise.
Young people reject neoliberalism... And thus they reject Hillary. As simple as that...
Notable quotes:
"... Here is my own wild take on why millennials don't support Clinton "enough": Many younger American voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's chances, have significant ideological differences with the candidate. That's my theory ..."
"... I would like to suggest that the threat these young voters pose to technocratic [neo]liberalism is not the possibility of electing Donald Trump. Despite Clinton's flagging numbers, her chances of success remain high. Rather, the fear is that if younger voters really are committed to a host of ideological positions at odds with the mainstream of the Democratic Party, then that Party, without a Trump-sized cudgel, is doomed. ..."
"... So why have liberal pundits resisted such a move? Why are they intent on not just defeating but discrediting the ideological preferences of the young left, dismissing them not as a legitimate divergence but as mere ignorance and confusion? ..."
The given causes vary but the consensus is clear: Young voters are pathological and the cure is
to disabuse them of their ignorance.
Here is my own wild take on why millennials don't support Clinton "enough": Many younger American
voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's chances, have significant
ideological differences with the candidate. That's my theory. Many liberal pundits seem unimpressed
by this idea perhaps because it suggests that votes must be earned in a democracy, but it does have
the benefit of the evidence.
... ... ...
I would like to suggest that the threat these young voters pose to technocratic [neo]liberalism
is not the possibility of electing Donald Trump. Despite Clinton's flagging numbers, her chances
of success remain high. Rather, the fear is that if younger voters really are committed to a host
of ideological positions at odds with the mainstream of the Democratic Party, then that Party, without
a Trump-sized cudgel, is doomed. It should not escape anybody's notice that politics by negative
definition-the argument, at bottom, that "we're better than those guys"-has become the dominant electoral
strategy of the Democratic Party, and that despite the escalation of the "those guys" negatives,
the mere promise to be preferable has yielded diminishing returns. At some point, the Democratic
Party will either need to embrace a platform significantly to the left of their current orthodoxy,
or they will lose.
... ... ...
This might not seem such a bad thing. Positions shift. Parties evolve. A serious threat of millennial
desertion might lead to a natural compromise: support, in exchange for real policy concessions going
forward. So why have liberal pundits resisted such a move? Why are they intent on not just defeating
but discrediting the ideological preferences of the young left, dismissing them not as a legitimate
divergence but as mere ignorance and confusion?
Emmett Rensin is a writer based in Iowa City, Iowa. His previous work has appeared in Vox,The
New Republic, The Atlantic and The Los Angeles Review of Books (where he is a contributing editor).
Follow him on Twitter at @EmmettRensin.
... ... ... Coughing can be a symptom of so many different illnesses, but it is interesting to
note that it happens to be one of the symptoms
of Parkinson's Disease …
Difficulty swallowing, called dysphagia, can happen at any stage of Parkinson disease. Signs
and symptoms can range from mild to severe and may include: difficulty swallowing certain foods
or liquids, coughing or throat clearing during or after eating/drinking, and feeling as if food
is getting stuck . As the disease progresses, swallowing can become severely compromised and food/liquid
can get into the lungs, causing aspiration pneumonia. Aspiration pneumonia is the leading cause
of death in PD.
By itself, it would be impossible to link Hillary Clinton with Parkinson's Disease just based
on her coughing. But the truth is that she has exhibited so many of the other symptoms as well.
According
to Google , here are some of the other symptoms that Parkinson's Disease victims often exhibit…
Tremor: can occur at rest, in the hands, limbs, or can be postural
Muscular: stiff muscles, difficulty standing, difficulty walking, difficulty with bodily
movements, involuntary movements, muscle rigidity, problems with coordination, rhythmic muscle contractions,
slow bodily movement, or slow shuffling gait
Sleep: daytime sleepiness, early awakening, nightmares, or restless sleep
Whole body: fatigue, dizziness, poor balance, or restlessness
Cognitive: amnesia, confusion in the evening hours, dementia, or difficulty thinking and
understanding
A lot of those should ring a bell if you have been following Hillary's bizarre behavior in recent
months.
In this
video , a medical doctor with 36 years of experience named Ted Noel puts the pieces together
and explains how he reached his conclusion that Hillary Clinton is suffering with Parkinson's Disease.
I think that you will find that his reasoning is quite compelling…
Everyone's gotten over sensitized after that creepy but brief head bobbing incident. If you
hadn't seen that, I doubt you't take any notice of her nodding here. Looks more like an attempt
to channel nervousness or hide the effort to stay faux pleasant.
I'm more bothered by her claim that she's "met the standard" for releasing health records.
Bullshit. McCain released 10,000 pages and Shrub, 4,000. By contrast, she's given a page or two
of letters from her local Dr. Feelgood.
It depends on what the meaning of the word "standard" is..
This is just one of the reasons she isn't up by 50.. no one trusts her so why bother to care
about her policy or her proposals. She will just make up excuses as she goes along for whatever
she wants to do.
It's worth pointing out she said she's had memory problems since the concussion when she had
her interview with the fbi. So she's reaping what she's sowed as far as doubts about her health.
It's not like she's been consistent about how good her health is….much like she's not consistent
about…well…
"... OK, let's be more charitable here – if Hillary did indeed overheat and become dehydrated, then it was a partial truth, but it was made a lie because it wasn't the whole story ..."
"... she did not tell either her staff or running mate Tim Kaine of the pneumonia diagnosis until after her Sunday collapse ..."
"... visiting the 9/11 ceremonies was certainly a high-risk event for Hillary to attend, since there were lots of people, lots of things going on with multiple distractions occurring at the same time in an uncontrolled environment, lots of reporters, lots of cameras taking pictures ..."
Only four days after I wrote "The
Decrepit Candidate" here at American Thinker, Hillary Clinton took ill at the 9/11 fifteenth
anniversary memorial ceremonies in New York City, ditched her press pool, left prematurely, and
was unceremoniously stuffed, stiff as a board, into her van to escape to daughter Chelsea's
apartment. Thanks to a
citizen video, taken by Zdenek Gazda and now viewed by millions of people worldwide, we know
that the Clinton campaign's original statement that Hillary became "overheated" is a lie.
OK, let's be more charitable here – if Hillary did indeed overheat and become
dehydrated, then it was a partial truth, but it was made a lie because it wasn't the whole story.
After Gazda's video became public, a new excuse explanation was needed, and it was provided by
Hillary's personal physician, Dr. Lisa Bardack, who has written that she examined Hillary on
Friday, September 9, performed tests, and diagnosed "a mild non-contagious bacterial pneumonia"
(whatever that is; probably a simplified description in layman's terms). Hillary was put on
antibiotics (for the second time since September 2) and told to rest. Presumably ignoring
the good doctor's advice, Hillary returned to full-bore campaigning and fundraising that same
day.
I don't doubt that Hillary had pneumonia, but is this also a lie, because it is not the
complete story? We now understand that Hillary is very secretive about her health, as
she did not tell either her staff or running mate Tim Kaine of the pneumonia diagnosis until
after her Sunday collapse.
I remain skeptical that Hillary is really in good health, and I think there are very good odds
that the very secretive Hillary is hiding a degenerative neurological condition from the public,
and probably from most everybody except those people closest to her, possibly even from her
primary care physician (Dr. Bardack).
If so, then visiting the 9/11 ceremonies was certainly a high-risk event for Hillary to
attend, since there were lots of people, lots of things going on with multiple distractions
occurring at the same time in an uncontrolled environment, lots of reporters, lots of cameras
taking pictures, a lot of chances to spot evidence of a neurological disorder, and not a
good time for something to go "wrong," which it did.
"... These OFF episodes occur without warning when the patient is in the ON state and at unexpected times ..."
"... OFF episodes can have a tremendous negative impact on patients' daily lives. The potential for unexpected loss of motor function or the unpredictable onset of benefit of one's PD medications can result in patients' avoidance of certain social settings and hinder performance of simple daily tasks such as eating, bathing and dressing. ..."
"... I think the fact she bounced back so quickly and put on a great act at Chelsea's three hours after being unable to walk would indicate this is not pneumonia plus dehydration plus overheating (overheating seems a big stretch given the temps that morning). So the question is, if not those then what? ..."
"... And no, I think the campaign's credibility is pretty much shot on any and all excuses they provide which do not stand up to simple logic and common sense. ..."
This neurological disorder, by definition, most frequently occurs as
the result of long-term (usually at least 3 months duration) or high-dose
use of
antipsychotic
drugs.
…
In some cases, an individual's legs can be so affected that walking becomes
difficult or impossible
…
Respiratory irregularity, such as grunting and difficulty breathing,
is another symptom associated with tardive dyskinesia, although studies
have shown that the prevalence rate is relatively low
These OFF episodes occur without warning when the patient is in the ON
state and at unexpected times. The goal of levodopa therapy is to maintain
a constant blood level of levodopa that is expected to result in a constant
supply of levodopa to the brain and, therefore, a constant level of dopamine
and dopaminergic stimulation. However, the brain does not utilize dopamine
at a constant rate. Changes in activity level or changes in mood such as
agitation or anxiety result in an increased use of dopamine. The brain then
depletes the reserves of dopamine, and more time is required to rebuild
that dopamine deficit. As a result, a patient in the ON state can unexpectedly
and suddenly turn OFF when their normal PD medications are typically effective.
OFF episodes can have a tremendous negative impact on patients' daily
lives. The potential for unexpected loss of motor function or the unpredictable
onset of benefit of one's PD medications can result in patients' avoidance
of certain social settings and hinder performance of simple daily tasks
such as eating, bathing and dressing. Further, a patient's varying
consumption of dopamine from variable "daily stresses" as well as the loss
of dopaminergic cells, exacerbates the frequency, duration and severity
of OFF episodes.
Does Hillary suffer from one of these? No clue – not a doctor. But I
think the fact she bounced back so quickly and put on a great act at Chelsea's
three hours after being unable to walk would indicate this is not pneumonia
plus dehydration plus overheating (overheating seems a big stretch given the
temps that morning). So the question is, if not those then what?
And no, I think the campaign's credibility is pretty much shot on any
and all excuses they provide which do not stand up to simple logic and common
sense. Hillary's responses to the Benghazi and Email issues torched that.
Not to mention the fact we heard a string of conflicting and changing reasons
all day long. This indicates we are not done yet hearing more "clarifications".
Like Hillary regularly gets so dehydrated she faints :
Bill Clinton's attempt on Monday at downplaying his wife's recent fainting
spell may have backfired.
During an interview with CBS News' Charlie Rose, the former president
said that Hillary Clinton has "on more than one occasion" had a fainting
episode after becoming "severely dehydrated."
So this HAS happened before – guess that is why
the secret service were so well choreographed.
(prnewswire.com)
628
Posted
by
BeauHD
on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:00AM
from the
turn-your-head-and-cough
dept.
schwit1
PR Newswire:
Concerns about Hillary Clinton's
health are "serious --
could be disqualifying for the position of President
of the U.S.
," say nearly 71% of 250 physicians
responding to an
informal internet survey
by the Association of
American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). About 20%
said concerns were "likely overblown, but should be
addressed as by full release of medical records."
Only 2.7% responded that they were "just a political
attack; I have confidence in the letter from her
physician and see no cause for concern." While more
than 81% were aware of her history of a concussion,
only 59% were aware of the cerebral sinus
thrombosis, and 52% of the history of deep venous
thrombosis. More than 78% said the health concerns
had received "not enough emphasis" in the media, and
only 2.7% that there had been "too much emphasis."
Nearly two-thirds said that a physician who had a
concern about a candidate's fitness to serve for
health reasons should "make the concerns known to
the public." Only 11% said a physician should "keep
silent unless he had personally examined the
patient," and 10% that the candidate's health was
"off limits for public discussion." A
poll of 833 randomly selected registered voters
by Gravis Marketing showed that nearly half (49%)
were not aware of the "well documented major health
issues that Hillary Clinton has." Nearly
three-fourths (74%) were unaware of Bill Clinton's
statement that Hillary suffered a "terrible"
concussion requiring "six months of very serious
work to get over." The majority (57%) thought that
candidates should release their medical records.
"... How can anyone take the claim that Hillary has pneumonia seriously? Are everyone's bullsh*t detectors are broken? ..."
"... Very likely to be BS. All speculation at this point...though I haven't got the will to sift through the MSM and blogosphere to attempt a reading between the lines. ..."
"... Speculation that she may have late stage Parkinsons is reaching a fever pitch. Parkinsons patients often contract pneumonia. ..."
"... What is happening now with Hillary is not another example of planning by the deep state; it is just the usual pattern among declining empires that their systems are too corrupt for good leaders to be chosen. ..."
"... Hillary is and has been a very sick lady for some time now. The fire, energy and determination she exuded during the 2008 campaign has not been visible during this run. The image of her stubbornly giving a speech in the rain to thousands of supporters in '08 are not seen this time around. The packed rally's are gone. She's a shell of the person she once was. ..."
"... Kaine was the Governor. Virginia put Obama in the White House. ..."
"... I am suggesting the neolib leadership has known Hillary's ailment was extremely serious for some time now, and I'm just guessing here, but I'm confident many tried to talk her out of running in '16 for the sake of her health and her family. ..."
"... What we are witnessing is Operation 'it takes a Village', that is, the entire Dem elite cabal has circled their wagons to ensure Hillary's lifelong wish is realized -- being sworn in as the first woman to the U.S. Presidency no matter how ill she may be. ..."
"... The pneumonia narrative that is peddled by her campaign and echoed by western presstitute media is obviously damage control. ..."
"... The Democratic Party doesn't really care if the Republicans win. C'mon, now. Democrats might be unreliable on enacting the GOP policy the Third Way imperialist traitors want. Republicans will be very reliable at "balancing" the needs of the rich and well-connected with the bother of the poor and atomized. ..."
"... That comment is definitely the best speculation about Hillary's condition I have seen thus far. I started reading Atlantic comments recently. The Atlantic's posts are about as pro-Hillary as Salon's, but the comment section of the Atlantic turns out not to be a Dem echo chamber, as Salon and HuffPo entertainingly are. ..."
"... It's just that the signs of whatever her neurological disorder are becoming more prominent -- coughing fits, seizures, queer eye movement, a lack of energy and now collapse. ..."
"... ...The action of her security detail in the video reveals that they are aware of an ongoing issue. ..."
At this juncture I don't believe one damn thing the press (CCM; corporate
controlled media) says about anything; and especially Clinton's health.
I think she's on her way out.
Word is that Hillary is suffering from "vascular dementia" and will probably
die within a year. Or maybe even before the elections.
My guess is she
would be replaced by her vice presidential pick Tim Kaine or possibly Joe
Biden. Kain would perhaps be less than a total disaster, but relatively
little information about him can be discovered immediately. Biden is a hopeless,
ancient, corrupt political hack.
Or maybe Hillary will be secretly "replaced" by a double (the Beatles
ruse)? If she suddenly recovers the conspiracy world will instantly go on
red alert.
NY Times initially reported Hillary's collapse as a stumble. Do they understand
in that elite tower that YouTube video all over Twitter almost in real time
showed a dramatic fainting collapse? NYT needs a competent PR pro to explain
in easy to understand English that it must improve its lying so it accords
with immediately and easily observed reality. But ... too arrogant, too
privileged. I suppose, though, we should take some hope from the breakdown
of traditional uniparty media/propaganda.
From Wikipedia
: "In early 1984, Chernenko was hospitalized for over
a month, but kept working by sending the Politburo notes and letters. During
the summer, his doctors sent him to Kislovodsk for the mineral spas, but
on the day of his arrival at the resort Chernenko's health deteriorated,
and he contracted
pneumonia
.
Chernenko did not return to the Kremlin until later in 1984.
By the end of 1984, Chernenko could hardly leave the Central Clinical
Hospital, a heavily guarded facility in west Moscow, and the Politburo was
affixing a facsimile of his signature to all letters, as Chernenko had done
with Andropov's when he was dying. Chernenko's illness was first acknowledged
publicly on 22 February 1985 during a televised election rally."
No, Sec Clinton clearly goes rigid, the distinction is important.
Here's a video with a close up of her feet on the left in the second half
of the video.
How can anyone take the claim that Hillary has pneumonia seriously? Are
everyone's bullsh*t detectors are broken?
She lambasted those who claimed that she was ill only a week or so before.
So why would she try to hide any real illness - especially one that seems
rather mild (mild enough that she went to the 911 event and appeared healthy
when leaving Chelsea's apartment). Shifting explanations from the campaign
were amateurish for a condition that was supposedly diagnosed on FRIDAY.
As pointed by commenters on several different websites:
>> a pneumonia vaccine is recommended for anyone over 65 and with Hillary
hectic campaign schedule and travels she should have had the vaccine;
>> getting dragged into the van is not consistent with "overheated"
or pneumonia;
>> if she had pneumonia, why would she get close to a child
(after
leaving she Chelsea's apartment)
?
"Pneumonia" is likely to be BS. See my comment @11.
Very likely to be BS. All speculation at
this point...though I haven't got the will to sift through the MSM and blogosphere
to attempt a reading between the lines.
With that said, where there is smoke there's fire. Her limited public
schedule appears to be protecting something. Trump will no doubt play hardball
with the networks as only he can, but in the end he should engage Hillary
to share as much podium time as he can.
Sec Clinton clearly goes rigid, the distinction is important. Here's
a video with a close up of her feet on the left in the second half of the
video.
Also, to me it looks like she is doing that head bobbing thing again,
like she did when she was asked questions by several reporters simultaneously
while walking, and then at the Democratic convention. On those two previous
occasions, one had to point out that a person can have a (petit mal) seizure
without falling. This time, she fell.
Hillary's fund-raising trip to California planned for today and tomorrow
has been cancelled. The pneumonia story provides cover for that. (Which
is not to say that she does not have pneumonia. The point is that pneumonia
cannot explain her collapse.)
Speculation that she may have late stage Parkinsons is reaching a fever
pitch. Parkinsons patients often contract pneumonia. From a personal and
not political point of view, watching the videos was painful.
I think
she is withdrawing from the race in a matter of days.
Clinton would eliminate all other Dem contenders and
then she'd be pulled at the last minute for Biden to step in.
That seems to employ an interpretive framework common here at MoA. This
is that the Empire is infinitely knowledgeable and clever, so that anything
of geopolitical significance that happens anywhere must be explained as
another clever trick by the Empire's planners and strategists. (Obama fools
Putin once again with Turkey's invasion of Syria.)
So Hillary is to be seen as a mere instrument of the US Establishment,
in the same way that Obama is. (Obama does seem to be a creation
of the CIA
.) But I see Hillary more as an American Chernenko, as
Petri Krohn
does at #6 above. What is happening now with Hillary is
not another example of planning by the deep state; it is just the usual
pattern among declining empires that their systems are too corrupt for good
leaders to be chosen.
Heh,
deplorables
is not proper Eng. but from Sp. / Fr.
Before this incident - was
Game Over
…since at least a month…
The 'health' meme will be used as that is a legit, for HRC to get off
the stage. Rather than the e-mail scandal (Comey, head of FBI, could not
recommend 'prosecution' as he and his brother are tied to the Clintons in
various huge lucrative deals), the Total Corruption (bold it) of the Clinton
Foundation has to be swept under the lying carpet, etc.
HRC is on her last buckling legs and seizure bobbing head. So sad 'n
bad that her performance on stage etc. even if carefully monitored and contolled
by guardians, the audience who scrutinise are no longer fooled.
Besides her own ambition, is the q. of overall corruption. Billions were
invested in HRC, now they have to write down the loss, or are rabid about
being misled, angry at being lied to, some still want her propped up as
a Zombie, raking in fav decisions, others are like …this is the END…cue
music…
My hunch for quite some time now has been Hillary has some debilitating
affliction that modern medicine cannot overcome. Many have speculated that
it might be Parkinson's or what blues said @3 "vascular dementia". Whatever
her diagnosis is it appears to be neurologically related given her falls,
her seizures, her concussion (which I believe was a Traumatic Brain Injury
aka TBI). A concussion is a mild brain injury that can take up to three
or so months to recover. TBI's are a lifetime.
A family member of mine had a serious fall in her early sixties and she
was hospitalized with a TBI for six months. The first couple of weeks were
in ICU and then she was transferred to a long-term nursing facility. She
takes coumadin due to the two serious injuries to her brain. Sadly, her
health continues to deteriorate and she will remain in a long-term nursing
facility till her last breath.
Hillary is and has been a very sick lady for some time now. The fire,
energy and determination she exuded during the 2008 campaign has not been
visible during this run. The image of her stubbornly giving a speech in
the rain to thousands of supporters in '08 are not seen this time around.
The packed rally's are gone. She's a shell of the person she once was.
blues @3 said "My guess is she would be replaced by her vice presidential
pick Tim Kaine or possibly Joe Biden. Kain would perhaps be less than a
total disaster, but relatively little information about him can be discovered
immediately. Biden is a hopeless, ancient, corrupt political hack."
Tim Kaine IS Obama's third term. He IS Obama's pick. Not Hillary's. Kaine
screwed Hillary in '08 by peeling off many of Hillary's super delegates
in Virginia to support Obama. I know what that man did to eliminate her
support in this state as do many others who left the Party, as I did, in
total disgust. Never forget Virginia was a fire red state until the '08
election. Kaine was the Governor. Virginia put Obama in the White House.
A funny thing happened a couple of years after the '08 election along
with other extremely odd wins for other D's in both local and statewide
elections in Virginia. The voting machines in several key districts that
went blue were quietly removed due to a preponderance of evidence of manipulation.
There was only one alt news outlet that covered the story. No one in mainstream
touched it. I'm thinking both parties were aware, both parties manipulated
and both parties agreed to kill the story. Lots of elections I'm sure would
be over turned like say the match up b/w George Allen and Jim Webb...
I am suggesting the neolib leadership has known Hillary's ailment was
extremely serious for some time now, and I'm just guessing here, but I'm
confident many tried to talk her out of running in '16 for the sake of her
health and her family. But knowing Hillary, and pretty much any woman who
had come so close to reaching the pinnacle of her/their lifetime dreams
-- to crack the highest glass ceiling in elite land -- the US Presidency
-- she wasn't going to let any illness, no matter how serious, get in her
way.
What we are witnessing is Operation 'it takes a Village', that is, the
entire Dem elite cabal has circled their wagons to ensure Hillary's lifelong
wish is realized -- being sworn in as the first woman to the U.S. Presidency
no matter how ill she may be. Phase two of Operation 'it takes a Village'
is to have in place Obama's chosen predecessor -- Tim Kaine ready to take
the helm when she finally succumbs to her illness.
I predict she won't make it to November. Then what?
The pneumonia narrative that is peddled by her campaign and echoed by western
presstitute media is obviously damage control. I wonder how all those powerful
elites that gave her millions of bribes (donor money) must feel now. The
chance that she will need to be replaced is real and propping up a replacement
will again cost millions. Trump who has been dragged trough the mud (his
naked wife, small penis, ...) is remarkably tame on the issue. If it's not
because both he and Clinton have conspired right from the start, then it
must be that his campaigns strategy is to look like the "nice guy".
Here's
her "pneumonia" episode but from another angle. If you watch her hands,
it's clear she lost total control which of course is confirmed seconds later
when she drops like a rag doll.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/11-EAzsGxgQ
And again her creepy performance before the journos. The comments are
also quite funny: "This honestly creeped me out... I think it was demon
coming out of her..." or "My guess is that she's truly a reptilian creature
and it's fighting to retain its humanoid form."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMHOcmDVBP0
If such episode would occur during her presidency she'd probably wag
the dog like her husband did during the Lewinsky case and bomb some pharmaceutical
factories to rubbles in some poor defenseless country.
Guess Google will have to crank
their false search results
up a notch as to prevent Jill Stein causing
a 2000 election moment and having the republicans win.
The Democratic Party doesn't
really
care if the Republicans
win. C'mon, now. Democrats might be unreliable on enacting the GOP policy
the Third Way imperialist traitors want. Republicans will be very reliable
at "balancing" the needs of the rich and well-connected with the bother
of the poor and atomized.
@22 Demian,
Kindly leave your bourgeois liberal priors at the door. Clearly you are
a self-absorbed managerialist who believes in the holiness of the Quantified
Self and one-true-wayism, i.e. the Problem personified, or you would recognize
that competence is not uniform across subjects and your ideological quest
for bourgeois excellence motivates nobody who's sane and honest.
So, having said that, it's a lot easier to run a stage show when you
control the angles (Fernsehen) than when you don't. And statecraft is, aside
from the cold-blooded murder required to subjugate a people against its
will, just stagecraft writ large.
I have been reading a lot of sites and am now convinced that Clinton has
been very ill for some time. There are countless photos which give it away
- from the neurological test of gripping two fingers presented to her which
her aides do often, to the pictures of aides taking her pulse while waiting
for her ride yesterday, the repeated head movements she makes when being
'ambushed' by journalist, the placement of her hands to stop trembling,
the coughing, the weird fixed smile - they all indicate middle-stage Parkinson's.
Yes, there has been speculation about Parkinson's for months, but I never
accepted that, because Parkinson's is characterized by the inability to
initiate movement, so that a feature is having a stone-faced look, which
Hillary does not have.
She can't walk, she can't control her own oral secretions and so she
is aspirating them...they are going down into her lung. Hence the cough,
and now aspiration pneumonia. Her fall and head injury weren't the cause...something
caused the fall.
I think she has a progressive neurological disease. Some speculate
Parkinson's, but I favor Progressive Supranuclear Palsy...the disease
the late Dudley Moore, actor, had. It is insidious in onset but starts
with balance and gait difficulties. It's been 4 years since Hillary
fell and got her concussion, so the disease is inexorably progressing.
Also...she had to be dragged into that van. Her feet were being dragged.
If this was the first time something like this happened, she would have
been taken to the ER. No lay people would have done anything else. So,
this is a recurrent problem they've dealt with before.
The symptoms of the disease listed by Wikipedia seem to match what we've
seen of Hillary pretty well.
That comment is definitely the best speculation about Hillary's condition
I have seen thus far. I started reading Atlantic comments recently. The
Atlantic's posts are about as pro-Hillary as Salon's, but the comment section
of the Atlantic turns out not to be a Dem echo chamber, as Salon and HuffPo
entertainingly are.
A psychopath runs for president of the United States with serious
medical problems when they worship the God of Mammon/private finance/global
plutocracy/or whatever you call our Hillary sick society.
That is an incredible story. I followed the link, and sure
enough, the addresses match. Why would someone put a medical facility in
an expensive residential building?
mischi : "what kind of a psychopath runs for president of the United States
with serious medical problems?"
The kind of person millions of Americans
would vote for: an habitual liar, a psycho, a person with cold-hearted ambition
and no compunction over spilled blood.
Hillary Clinton is a metaphor now, and is a testament to the level to
which this country has sunk.
She still doesn't strike me as sociopathic.
Just very ambitious, completely dishonest, highly blackmailable, and, by
the look of it, seriously ill.
I think the question should be - what person, or more likely, what group
of people make a vulnerable (however flawed) person with quickly progressing
disability run for POTUS on their behalf, and what do they hope to achieve
through her weakness and dependency on them, while fully accessing the greatest
executive power on planet Earth?
Someone on ZH just observed that Pres's Wilson and FDR were both basically
disabled by the time each presided over US entering another World War. Ominous.
(and I am not saying D Trump would be any better, just possibly harder
to control - and even that comes with a big question mark, reality show
hosting and all)
Maybe Hillary is being used as a means to an end. The Clintons
and the Bushes hide a rat's nest of secrets. She runs for the presidency,
in the way someone in the mafia might have to pay off a debt. And for an
example elsewhere, General Pinochet, the infamous head of the Chilean Junta,
escaped prosecution over reasons of incapacity to stand trial and ill health,
even though he was arrested, extradited, and brought back to Chile for trial.
The cancer that is the Clinton Foundation will escape scrutiny probably
because it remains an instrument of the permanent government, or Deep State.
But nothing would surprise me now. If there is an October Surprise, it is
probably another damn coup. It seems we are on a roll. Don't get too comfortable,
or think that we will come out unscathed, or that we will not have another
president selected for us.
The funny thing with the Hillary at 9/11 video was that they showed the
stumble but the part with the woman holding her up before the misstep is
sort of hidden.
jackrabbit @41 said "There were few concerns about her health during the
campaign for the Democratic nomination. Most of the heath concerns raised
have been in the last few weeks."
This is not accurate. Many have been
posting and discussing her health for many, many months now with some for
years. Drudge, Breitbart, the Conservative Treehouse, Right Side, Gateway
Pundit and so many more.
It's just that the signs of whatever her neurological disorder are becoming
more prominent -- coughing fits, seizures, queer eye movement, a lack of
energy and now collapse.
I know I've been following her health concerns for several years now.
It's just hard to do b/c her team protects and covers up for her. Nothing
to see here...move along...and the useless political press corp says nothing.
Only alt news and the right do.
Copeland@42 -
"...Maybe Hillary is being used as a means to an end..."
Give yourself a little more credit, Copeland. She
IS CLEARLY
being
used as a means to an end. What everyone should be wondering about isn't
whether she or Kaine will be sitting in the White House, but who is the
next Cheney that will be pulling the strings behind the scenes for either
of them. What is the next 9/11 the future Cheney is scheming? The thought
that either of these two will actually run anything is preposterous - they
are distractions. They are to serve as the brightly-dressed clowns with
big, floppy shoes and neon green wigs dancing around in front of us while
some version of Cheney II opens up the gold vaults and blood chutes back
in DC.
I'll humbly suggest that most people
are looking in the rear-view
mirror
for answers. Every U.S. citizens should
look closely in
the shadows around them now
for their next evil masters. The U.S.
MSM is
not
trying to get Hillary elected. They are desperately trying
to look like they are
so the debate goes on endlessly
. And it's working
absolutely wonderfully in an insidious, evil, psychopathic sort of way.
Americans are easy - we will all honestly be surprised by the
next
9/11 and it's inevitable result. Hillary or Trump are just sideshow freaks;
they're
not
the main attraction.
'Means to an end' is the job description of the entire
political class. We need to make choices of representatives/spokespersons
from among ourselves, and ultimately to empower ourselves, to turn down
our own deplorable, now exclusive reliance on representatives/spokespersons.
No one has our interests at heart but ourselves.
No to Clinton, no to Trump
.
...The action of her security detail in the video reveals that they are
aware of an ongoing issue. First, a collapse after an alleged pneumonia
diagnosis should have meant immediate medical care. Instead she is ferried
to her daughter's apartment and back on the street in an hour. Second, the
detail circles around her as she is placed in the van, blocking the view,
in a practiced deliberate manner. There is no surprise or second glances.
@ Paveway IV, I think you are right. Best to keep an eye on the shadows
gathering around us.
@ crone, Thanks for that video; but I thought is
was a little creepy that the doctor identifies his means of gathering evidence,
with the methods of the CIA
Hillary Clinton is a metaphor now, and is a testament
to the level to which this country has sunk.
I used to think that Lady Macbeth is the literary character who best
represents Hillary, but now I think it is Zola's
Nana
:
Nana
tells the story of Nana Coupeau's rise from streetwalker
to high-class prostitute during the last three years of the French Second
Empire. …
"What emerges from [Nana] is the completeness of Nana's destructive
force, brought to a culmination in the thirteenth chapter by a kind
of roll call of the victims of her voracity".
Zola has Nana die a horrible death in July 1870 from smallpox: "What
lay on the pillow was a charnel house, a heap of pus and blood, a shovelful
of putrid flesh. The pustules had invaded the whole face, so that one
pock touched the next". Outside her window the crowd is madly cheering
"To Berlin! To Berlin!" to greet the start of the Franco-Prussian War,
which will end in defeat for France and the end of the Second Empire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1IDQ2V1eM&feature=youtu.be
PARKINSONS
& Hillary. Seems credible. By a doctor. Goes back to 2005 & observes minutely--
even certain ways of using the hands. As far as I can see he's accounted
for every symptom. The clips are really interesting.
It should be beyond obvious that Clinton is not fit for the office of president.
Further, it could be said she is not concerned about her country, but rather
her own self aggrandizement.
The very embodiment of the worst of all possible leaders.
She's in advanced Parkinson's. Her symptoms can't be masked anymore.
Even
Google (which is in league with the Clintons) will suggest "Parkinson's"
if you type "hillary clinton p" into a search box.
Even if Hillary has no more events like she did on Sunday until the election,
it is very clear that she has Parkinson's, and there's a lot of buzz about
that on the Net. So keeping her name on the ballot on election day would
do more damage to the legitimacy of the American political system than the
theft of the 2000 election did. So I doubt that the establishment will run
the risk of keeping her name on.
And if she does manage to make it to November and get elected, her chances
of making it through another two months to get inaugurated are not that
good.
"... My money's on H Clinton suffering a "serious relapse" into pneumonia, necessitating an 'indefinite' postponement of the debates. ..."
"... Native what, Algonquin? As in, "Hillary" =..small pox infested blankets. ..."
"... like your idol, you never reply with a straight answer when engaged on your talking points. I think you owe us - all the American people - much, much more than that. ..."
"... It's obvious you missed the fact I was 'speaking' tongue-in-cheek when I commented, as I was referencing an earlier comment regarding Warfarin being used to eradicate rats. (That and the *wink* I'd added sailed right over your head, apparently). Hateful? Yes. I've grown to hate Clinton for her complete dishonesty. ..."
"... First she says she turned over all the emails, and then Oops! The FBI found thousands more. ..."
"... She said she didn't have classified info on her personal server. Oops! Proven to be a lie once again. ..."
"... In response she said she didn't know how to distinguish classified emails from others. Really?! Remember, she was a senior partner at a law firm before entering the White House as First Lady. ..."
"... I don't expect her to participate in the debates, even if she doesn't drop out. I think that is the plan all along unless she's really behind in the polls. ..."
"... Nixon increased food stamps, created the EPA, expanded Medicaid… Maybe we could resurrect him to have an option to the left of the Goldwater Girl. ..."
"... I've read that Nixon was for socialized medicine, but it wasn't good enough for Teddy Kennedy, who helped kill it. ..."
"... If Clinton is elected, one can only hope she follows the "good" NIxon model. but my fear is she will be an even more hawkish Obama, cynically saying one thing while doing another. ..."
"... The Democrats and moderate Republicans pushed Nixon to do things, but that countervailing force is gone now. ..."
"... He also nominated L. Powell, of the infamous "Powell memo" , to the SCOTUS…and while he(Nixon) might have publically postured and declared-"we're all keynesians now", the new deal was being hijacked (Hayeked) where it mattered. ..."
"... If Hillary really does have pneumonia - who knows, though, as the announcements and reporting have not necessarily been paragons of candor - it is serious. Pneumonia can turn fatal to old folks (68 is plenty old enough), sometimes when it seems to be under control. At the least, it can be debilitating for months. ..."
"... Something's fishy here. Whatever her problem really is I found it strange her handlers floated out the term, "pneumonia." Why use such a scary, ominous sounding word when something more benign, like a "mild respiratory ailment" would've sufficed just fine? ..."
"... Sounds like the beginning of "plausible deniability" exit possibilities have begun. ..."
"... Exactly, she should have been resting. IF she was diagnosed with pneumonia, she should have suspended activities for a few days. She is not President, there was nothing vital for her to do this weekend. Send delegates to the fundraisers, and offer a statement about 9/11. ..."
"... But instead she ends up having an episode that is clearly NOT pneumonia and there are at least two damning videos about it. Of course that means there is the other question: does she really have pneumonia or was that the least problematic excuse they could come up with? ..."
"... unfit to serve as president ..."
"... pre-9/11 memorial, one allegation floating in the conservative blogosphere was that Hillary Clinton wears a catheter given some odd bulges in some Clinton photos. ..."
"... Our real enemies aren't the rulers who act in their interest but the corporations, if we know a way by pure deceit to defeat them it might be more than worth it. But just getting tweedledee instead of tweddledum acting in their name not really. All we've done is pervert our own capacity to perceive reality for a non-plan. Our politicians already take advantage of our gullibility to believing whatever (Iraq had WMD etc.). ..."
"... That is not just pneumonia, she was having a seizure, something else that has been observed on video. Didn't they originally say this was dehydration? ..."
"... Epilepsy as a side effect of something tramatic versus Pneumonia. Fancy blue Zeiss lenses are sometimes used to treat epilepsy. Short-term, often predictable loss of motor control is common. An aide being close at all times, as in the person guiding her to the van, would be expected. ..."
"... Pneumonia does not produce motor issues but is often accompanied by powerful bouts of coughing. Pneumonia does not require an aide but generally involves lots of bed rest. It doesn't lead to rapid dehydration either. She was there for less than an hour. ..."
"... If they had planned better they would have said that Hillary had a bout of food poisoning. Instead it was the explained as the heat and then, Hillary showing no obvious symptoms, trying to imitate Typhoid Mary. I thought politicians were better at fibbing than this. ..."
"... [H]er visible symptoms are consistent with a severe and/or long untreated case of pneumonia ..."
"... However, the facts of the situation are not. As far as "severe" goes, according to her release, she was diagnosed on Friday, and given antibiotics. As anyone who has suffered bacterial respiratory infection knows, antibiotics will usually get you on the road to recovery pretty quickly. Combined with plenty of fluid intake, she should have been out of the woods, not hurtling towards a complete physical breakdown. Also, the prevailing message is that its's a "mild" case and that the real bugbear is dehydration. It stretches credulity to suggest a person with a team of handlers surrounding her at all times can't keep hydrated. ..."
"... "Undiagnosed?" Seriously? She is admittedly under the care and supervision of some ..."
"... As someone who has suffered from pneumonia three times in his life, the fact is that when I was at my sickest point in each battle (high fever, massive coughing, exhaustion), at no time did I become spastic. A person who loses complete motor function due to pneumonia needs to get rushed to a hospital, not her daughter's apartment. ..."
"... I agree with the pneumonia claim being dodgy. Does not add up to what happened on the tape. ..."
"... Has anyone commented on the two women who to appear to be nurses who are accompanying Clinton? ..."
"... PS the dropping metal thing looked like it might be a lipstick. ..."
"... One of the 'nurses' appears to be her personal doctor, Dr Lisa Bardack, who was named in the press release stating that Hillary has pneumonia. ..."
"... In these photos you can see Dr Bardack appearing to take her pulse as they walked and also appearing to test Hillary's motor skills by asking her to squeeze her fingers. Also notice when her pulse is being taken that Hillary puts her right hand flat on on her chest – she does this a lot – does she do it to hide/control a tremor? ..."
"... I remember back in the day laughing at the efforts of the old Soviet Union or North Korea trying to hide the health failures of their leaders… welcome to the club ..."
"... I wish Hillary well and hope she recovers from what ever ails her. However, watching the two videos prior to her entering the car, you can see she is leaning against the chrome pillar for support, her right shoulder is significantly lower than her left, then as she walks forward she can't control her head, her right foot goes completely backward and is dragging along the ground, then she collapses into the car. Perhaps a doctor can explain all this, but I have had pneumonia three times and never had these symptoms. ..."
"... I also wonder what the little metal vile or what not was that dropped from her pants or around her as she was falling. ..."
"... I've been privately comparing her Chappaqua MD to Michael Jackson's MD, in that ..."
"... Her medical report looked like it was written by Hillary's lawyers, ..."
"... She's been awfully amped at some of her events, which could be Adderall or other upper-ish drugs, which a conservative MD might be reluctant to prescribe regularly to someone of her age. But the idea of drug interactions is actually sorta obvious and should have occurred to me. ..."
"... Many 'celebrities' (esp. secretive ones) receive concierge medical care, which tends to be substandard. Maybe it's b/c of the secrecy, i dunno… but it tends to be lousy. ..."
"... extend that thought to all professional services. I get the impression that despite their wealth, many celebrities are awful bad at finding competent service providers. ..."
"... Indeed, when I volunteered at a treatment centre, a fair number of high-functioning chemically-dependent patients (C-level execs, senior clinicians, politicians) came in as - and this choice of words is intentional - victims of bespoke top-flight one-2-one primary care as provided by luxury outfits in London's Harley Street or "hospitals" ..."
"... What usually pushed the patients I saw over the edge - and gave the medicine-as-consumerism practitioners sufficient worry to finally throw in the towel - was an episode of physical collapse as both the doctors and their unfortunate charges fell off the tightropes they'd been walking. ..."
"... You'd expect someone at Hillary's level to have a top doctor at a NY teaching hospital but you can't keep secrets in places like that ..."
"... When it comes to VIP patients if anyone were to access their records you better have a reason. Those are the only patients where the officials take Hipaa seriously. Fired, fined and lose your license. Hope that gossip rag pays well. ..."
"... My reaction to that is why the hell didn't she step down at that time, at least for a while, if her memory was so compromised? If she was so affected by a concussion, she was obviously not well enough to be conducting business as SOS. ..."
"... Yet she uses that as an excuse now in relation to her total disregard for security concerns and that makes it all okay, regardless of the outcome created? ..."
"... Not just meds being out of wack. It could be drug abuse. As if any one would deny any thing she wanted. This would enplane why they felt it necessary to be less than forthcoming on the issue. ..."
"... I highly doubt it is pneumonia. What grandmother with a serious illness show up at her daughter's house with a not even 3 month old and a two year old? There's campaigning and then there's the family dynasty. I doubt even Hilary's ambitions would put herself ahead of her grandkids. Regardless, it is poor judgement and more fodder for Trump. ..."
"... If intentional "Here's a woman who cares more for herself then her child or grand children" ..."
"... If unintentional "Here's a woman who's judgement is so poor she puts her family at risk with a contagious disease. If she's that unthinking about her actions towards her family, what about America's families." ..."
"... Chelsea took one for the Team. Any detour to a hospital or other non-private space would have sparked untold media frenzies. Oh, wait… ..."
"... Ms Clinton and Mr Mezvinsky's apartment has six and a half bathrooms, a home office and den, plus a 252-square-foot planting terrace and a private storage unit. ..."
"... My guess is, though, that Chelsea's was the only place they could go that was close by and where they were guaranteed to be able to control the situation. Had she been taken to a hospital, there's no way any of what transpired would not have ended up being leaked. ..."
"... How many hands did Clinton shake between receiving her diagnosis and being on medication for 24 hours? ..."
"... Pretty sure I'm not the only one who's noticed that all the coughing Clinton does she does into her hand, not into her elbow, so she's pretty much a traveling Typhoid Mary. ..."
"... Yes, I suppose 6+ bathrooms would be required in the Clinton family. ..."
Hateful?! afisher, if we hate you, it is because, like your idol, you
never reply with a straight answer when engaged on your talking points.
I think you owe us - all the American people - much, much more than that.
afisher– It's obvious you missed the fact I was 'speaking' tongue-in-cheek when I
commented, as I was referencing an earlier comment regarding Warfarin being
used to eradicate rats. (That and the *wink* I'd added sailed right over
your head, apparently). Hateful? Yes. I've grown to hate Clinton for her complete dishonesty.
First she says she turned over all the emails, and then Oops! The FBI
found thousands more.
She said she didn't have classified info on her personal server.
Oops! Proven to be a lie once again.
In response she said she didn't know how to distinguish classified emails
from others.
Really?! Remember, she was a senior partner at a law firm before entering
the White House as First Lady.
As to my "ignorance"?
THAT I take exception to. Education does not come just from books or schooling.
"Hateful and ignorance"?
If you're still paying off that student loan for a college education, you
should demand your money back.
My mere h.s. education taught me better than that.
I don't expect her to participate in the debates, even if she doesn't
drop out. I think that is the plan all along unless she's really behind
in the polls.
"But on April 17, 1973, Nixon stunned reporters by saying that he had
conducted an investigation that raised the prospect of involvement by White
House officials."
"Mr. Ziegler told a puzzled press corps that this was now the "operative
statement," repeating the word operative six times. Finally, R. W. Apple
Jr. of The New York Times asked, "Would it be fair for us to infer, since
what the president said today is now considered the operative statement,
to quote you, that the other statement is no longer operative, that it is
now inoperative?" "
Now we need to recycle more Nixon people and have Dick Cheney endorse
HRC's health, perhaps by saying. "Many people thought my health was suspect
in 1999, but, through medical science, I've been able to continue to "serve"
my country until the present day." Maybe the Clinton campaign is reaching out to Cheney today..
And Nixon's politically inspired war on drugs did have rehab and treatment
as part of the plan, which was largely removed by subsequent administrations
who ramped up prison time.
I've read that Nixon was for socialized medicine, but it wasn't good
enough for Teddy Kennedy, who helped kill it. Sometimes cynical, self-serving people do good things when pushed, while
compromised "good" people do harmful things.
If Clinton is elected, one can only hope she follows the "good" NIxon
model. but my fear is she will be an even more hawkish Obama, cynically
saying one thing while doing another.
The Democrats and moderate Republicans pushed Nixon to do things, but
that countervailing force is gone now.
He also nominated L. Powell, of the infamous "Powell memo" , to the SCOTUS…and
while he(Nixon) might have publically postured and declared-"we're all keynesians
now", the new deal was being hijacked (Hayeked) where it mattered.
If Hillary really does have pneumonia - who knows, though, as the announcements
and reporting have not necessarily been paragons of candor - it is serious.
Pneumonia can turn fatal to old folks (68 is plenty old enough), sometimes
when it seems to be under control. At the least, it can be debilitating
for months.
As for her use of Coumadin it's been well-known and pretty widely reported
for years.
The media speculation about her health, though, is little more than the
usual political season bullshit. Believe nothing; it's all crap. No matter
who is purveying it.
I experienced pneumonia at age 39. I was given antibiotics and told to
go home and rest. The next week of my life was nothing short of a near death
experience and for a couple of months thereafter, I was in a physically
weak condition. If Hillary was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday, as the
AP has reported, her entourage would have had to not only carry her into
her car, they would have had to carry her out as well, and probably with
an IV still attached.
I don't know whether I've ever had pneumonia, but I've had both bacterial
bronchitis and type A influenza. My experiences were quite bad, although
not as severe as yours. In both cases, it took a month for me to fully recover.
When I had "walking" pneumonia, I could only pray for a cough as mild
and infrequent as hillary's seemed to be. Every time I had to cough, which
was constantly, I had to wrap my arms tightly around my ribs and squeeze
because otherwise the pain was unbearable.
Something's fishy here. Whatever her problem really is I found it strange
her handlers floated out the term, "pneumonia." Why use such a scary, ominous
sounding word when something more benign, like a "mild respiratory ailment"
would've sufficed just fine?
Sounds like the beginning of "plausible deniability" exit possibilities
have begun.
Exactly, she should have been resting. IF she was diagnosed with pneumonia,
she should have suspended activities for a few days. She is not President,
there was nothing vital for her to do this weekend. Send delegates to the
fundraisers, and offer a statement about 9/11.
There was no reason for her
to soldier on this weekend. Oh, but it would have fueled the rumors. No,
it would have done a lot to end the rumors. She gets up in front of the
press, and notes that they know she went to the doctor, she has developed
a mild case of pneumonia and as sad as it makes her to miss X, Y and Z she
is going to take the weekend to rest and allow the antibiotics to get started.
"I will be sending __________to this event, and Chelsea to represent me
at the 9/11 memorial" or something like that.
But instead she ends up having an episode that is clearly NOT pneumonia
and there are at least two damning videos about it. Of course that means
there is the other question: does she really have pneumonia or was that
the least problematic excuse they could come up with?
And if you find the speculation 'feverish' and "unpleasant" I suggest
you turn off the media, the news and the internet until you hear otherwise
because this is not going to go away, and even if it fades unless she starts
leaping up stairs, stops coughing and frankly never has a moment of confusion
on this campaign again it will start all over. Largely because most people
do not believe Hillary Clinton or her people about anything, and have no
reason to do so especially when their stories don't really add up.
But he delivered his lengthy inaugural address in a pouring March rain.
Hillary would at least have an umbrella. (Didn't Obama at one of his inaugurations?
Or have I mixed a remembered picture from some other occasion with memories
of an inauguration?)
Hillary is done. The video is absolutely damning and it was taken from
three angles. Metal objects were falling out of her pant leg. During her
big coughing spell, there was video of her vomiting mucus into a glass and
then drinking it. She's had her Dukakis moment and doesn't know it yet.
Obama has said Trump is unfit to serve as president and other
comments like:
"I continue to believe Mr. Trump will not be president," Obama said
at a news conference in California after a meeting with southeast Asian
leaders. "And the reason is that I have a lot of faith in the American
people. Being president is a serious job. It's not hosting a talk show,
or a reality show."
I used to think that right wing conspiracies about an Obama third term
were bullshit, through and through. But now I am concerned about a peaceful
transition in power. Will Obama give the reins to Trump? Will he put off
the election until there is a better result?
More importantly, will the American people be okay with that?
Could you post the links to those videos, I haven't seen the one with
the metal things falling out of her pants leg or the one with her drinking
vomit.
pre-9/11 memorial, one allegation floating in the conservative blogosphere
was that Hillary Clinton wears a catheter given some odd bulges in some
Clinton photos.
just repeating what I read…i'm in the camp that extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence.
unfortunately I doubt anyone will get Clinton to raise her pant legs
in public.
I had to wear one of those catheters for about a week after a procedure.
I had the smallest one available and there is no way the wrinkles in those
pictures accounts for the actual size of an empty bag, let alone one with
natural fluids. It's nonsense.
The mucus glass video is a total fake. Watch the source video, there
is clearly no green blob (though your source is a much better edit then
the one I saw on twitter).
As far as the fall, I have seen only two video with distinctly different
angles (main 45 degree angle and then one slightly off centered) and then
a third that is the same is the main video but mirrored laterally. I have
no idea why no one else points that out or why people are claiming it is
a third angle.
So let's give the old gal, who is no respecter of truth and decency herself
I would have to observe, a break, ok? Because we are such careful kindly
people who want to make sure of all the facts we think we have access to
before making any kind of statement or judgment about events. The Dem campaign,
the ants eating the aphids (see my little post below) being all about honesty
and issues and all that. Because "we" are "better than that," and so we
get our wings eaten off and milked of our sustenance and provide handy snack
food for the Foraminifera Rulers…
I am not advocating proving any breaks of excuses (if this is what you
mean). I am of the opinion that (in our dichotomous world) Trump is a poor
candidate, but that Clinton needs to go. That said, we need to
make sure the supporting material is real. I find the glob video highly
suspect, especially as the globes appear to disappear in translucent water
and glass as soon as the glass is brought down from her sip.
Well what do you imagine will happen if we decide not to be honest to
those who aren't honest. The resurrection of Bernie Sanders candidacy in
time for the election via our strategic lying or something?
Nah. So why not preserve an attempt at objectivity being we are going
to get screwed regardless.
Our real enemies aren't the rulers who act in
their interest but the corporations, if we know a way by pure deceit to
defeat them it might be more than worth it. But just getting tweedledee
instead of tweddledum acting in their name not really. All we've done is
pervert our own capacity to perceive reality for a non-plan. Our politicians
already take advantage of our gullibility to believing whatever (Iraq had
WMD etc.).
You're absolutely right about the mistakenly described "different" angle
that is actually a mirrored image, which I myself didn't catch either until
you mentioned it on my post of the video yesterday. (It's obvious of course
from the direction the van is facing, but the eye doesn't always catch the
"obvious.") The better angle from almost directly behind Clinton is harder
to find as a standalone video, and I haven't seen it posted as much. Here's
the best link I could find in a quick search.
She wasn't vomiting mucus, she lost – or deliberately spit out – the
cough drop she had put in her mouth earlier. I've done that myself, usually
out of fear of inadvertently inhaling the cough drop if I'm hit with a spell
of coughing.
That's my take as well, she was just trying to do it discretely.
Thing is, if we saw her occasionally spit a cough drop into a handkerchief
and then make a joke about all the talking she does, she might be seen as
more human and therefore likeable.
Epilepsy as a side effect of something tramatic versus Pneumonia. Fancy blue Zeiss lenses are sometimes used to treat epilepsy.
Short-term, often predictable loss of motor control is common.
An aide being close at all times, as in the person guiding her to the van,
would be expected.
Pneumonia does not produce motor issues but is often accompanied
by powerful bouts of coughing. Pneumonia does not require an aide but generally
involves lots of bed rest. It doesn't lead to rapid dehydration either.
She was there for less than an hour.
She didn't cough in the video and she couldn't stand on her own when
she moved from the post.
If they had planned better they would have said that Hillary had a bout
of food poisoning. Instead it was the explained as the heat and then, Hillary
showing no obvious symptoms, trying to imitate Typhoid Mary. I thought politicians
were better at fibbing than this.
These strange and erroneous notions about pneumonia and its effects are
spreading and they're pernicious. There's no way for us to be certain the reports of Hillary having pneumonia
are true or not, but her visible symptoms are consistent with a severe and/or
long untreated case of pneumonia, symptoms which can include shaking, dehydration,
feeling faint or passing out, high fever, "out of body" experience, severe
cough, and so on.
The people who are reporting their own experiences with pneumonia in
this thread can testify. I've been there too. I had a severe cough for weeks.
Motor problems seemed to hit from out of the blue. I passed out in a supermarket
line. When I finally got to the ER they hooked me up to an IV stat because
I was so dehydrated. I was in the hospital for eleven days on IV antibiotics
and fluids. And it was months before I recovered fully.
All of Hillary's visible symptoms are consistent with such a severe case
of pneumonia.
On the other hand, it could be something else or something else and pneumonia.
It's serious. And it could be deadly even if treated.
[H]er visible symptoms are consistent with a severe and/or long untreated
case of pneumonia
However, the facts of the situation are not. As far as "severe" goes, according to her release, she was diagnosed
on Friday, and given antibiotics. As anyone who has suffered bacterial respiratory
infection knows, antibiotics will usually get you on the road to recovery
pretty quickly. Combined with plenty of fluid intake, she should have been
out of the woods, not hurtling towards a complete physical breakdown. Also,
the prevailing message is that its's a "mild" case and that the real bugbear
is dehydration. It stretches credulity to suggest a person with a team of
handlers surrounding her at all times can't keep hydrated.
"Undiagnosed?" Seriously? She is admittedly under the care and supervision
of some medical staff. Pneumonia is fairly easy to spot if you're
examined. It's not like she's homeless or someone avoiding medical interaction
because of lack of insurance or funds.
As someone who has suffered from pneumonia three times in his life,
the fact is that when I was at my sickest point in each battle (high fever,
massive coughing, exhaustion), at no time did I become spastic. A person
who loses complete motor function due to pneumonia needs to get rushed to
a hospital, not her daughter's apartment.
While you caution against speculation, you actually engage in some pretty
tenuous, and I believe dangerous speculation in an attempt to lend credence
to what is obviously a poor, belated cover story.
You are way too optimistic re the curative powers of antibiotics. You've
got no idea how long she had it. And I've had much less serious infections
that have not responded well to meds. I'm as healthy as a horse yet I've
had multiple instances of it taking more than one course of antibiotics
to do much.
Having said that, I agree with the pneumonia claim being dodgy. Does
not add up to what happened on the tape.
Has anyone commented on the two women who to appear to be nurses
who are accompanying Clinton? They are in the video, both are
wearing identical navy blue dresses with short sleeves and both wear
flat beige colored shoes. They help Clinton into the vehicle.
I just wondered if it was standard procedure for medical personnel to
always travel with presidential candidates.
PS the dropping metal thing looked like it might be a lipstick.
One of the 'nurses' appears to be her personal doctor, Dr Lisa Bardack,
who was named in the press release stating that Hillary has pneumonia.
In these photos you can see Dr Bardack appearing to take her pulse
as they walked and also appearing to test Hillary's motor skills by asking
her to squeeze her fingers. Also notice when her pulse is being taken that
Hillary puts her right hand flat on on her chest – she does this a lot –
does she do it to hide/control a tremor?
It's also interesting that Dr Bardack just happened to be immediately
on hand when required – so it's not just a nurse but a doctor by her side
at all times now?
(Don't like using an obviously right wing website for the photos but
it's the best I can find at the moment).
I remember back in the day laughing at the efforts of the old Soviet
Union or North Korea trying to hide the health failures of their leaders…
welcome to the club … I wonder when the body double appears?!
I wish Hillary well and hope she recovers from what ever ails her.
However, watching the two videos prior to her entering the car, you can
see she is leaning against the chrome pillar for support, her right shoulder
is significantly lower than her left, then as she walks forward she can't
control her head, her right foot goes completely backward and is dragging
along the ground, then she collapses into the car. Perhaps a doctor can
explain all this, but I have had pneumonia three times and never had these
symptoms.
Even before she moves her head is shaky and cocked upwards. It doesn't
look good. I also wonder what the little metal vile or what not was that
dropped from her pants or around her as she was falling.
Oh, duh, I NEVER thought of that, that her meds could be what's messing
her up. I've been privately comparing her Chappaqua MD to Michael Jackson's
MD, in that
1. Her medical report looked like it was written by Hillary's lawyers,
2. You'd expect someone at Hillary's level to have a top doctor at a
NY teaching hospital but you can't keep secrets in places like that and
3. She's been awfully amped at some of her events, which could be
Adderall or other upper-ish drugs, which a conservative MD might be reluctant
to prescribe regularly to someone of her age. But the idea of drug interactions
is actually sorta obvious and should have occurred to me.
Many 'celebrities' (esp. secretive ones) receive concierge medical
care, which tends to be substandard. Maybe it's b/c of the secrecy, i dunno…
but it tends to be lousy.
"Many 'celebrities' (esp. secretive ones) receive concierge medical care,
which tends to be substandard."
extend that thought to all professional services. I get the impression
that despite their wealth, many celebrities are awful bad at finding competent
service providers.
Indeed, when I volunteered at a treatment centre, a fair number of high-functioning
chemically-dependent patients (C-level execs, senior clinicians, politicians)
came in as - and this choice of words is intentional - victims of bespoke
top-flight one-2-one primary care as provided by luxury outfits in London's
Harley Street or "hospitals" of the kind where a liveried footman helps
you from the limo at the entrance.
The drug regimes these places offered usually started with uppers or
downers to help, in the words of Philip Marlow, with the occasional "humps"
in the road; except of course, eventually it was all humps.
Then came the polypharmacy in often ever more bizarre and scarcely feasible
doses and combinations.
What usually pushed the patients I saw over the edge - and gave the medicine-as-consumerism
practitioners sufficient worry to finally throw in the towel - was an episode
of physical collapse as both the doctors and their unfortunate charges fell
off the tightropes they'd been walking.
When it comes to VIP patients if anyone were to access their records
you better have a reason. Those are the only patients where the officials
take Hipaa seriously. Fired, fined and lose your license. Hope that gossip
rag pays well.
Yves, I hadn't thought of that either. Good point offered by ambrit.
Excuses don't cut it with me, however. The end result is still the same.
I'm still having a problem with her saying that she doesn't remember
certain 'security briefings' back in 2012 due to her concussion. WHAT?
My reaction to that is why the hell didn't she step down at that
time, at least for a while, if her memory was so compromised? If she was
so affected by a concussion, she was obviously not well enough to be conducting
business as SOS.
Yet she uses that as an excuse now in relation to her total disregard
for security concerns and that makes it all okay, regardless of the outcome
created?
I have the same feelings about any drugs she may be on or medical condition
she obviously has if she's not willing to reveal it. She is not currently
well enough to be elected POTUS. The excuse for her behavior doesn't change
the facts her health is obviously compromised in some way, as it was then,
and should disqualify her.
Which, of course, is why she and her team are trying to hide it.
It's 'her turn' no matter what, apparently.
Is she setting the stage for if/when she starts a war with Russia, so
she can then fly above the destruction on Air Force One and blame her poor
decision on her meds this time?
Not just meds being out of wack. It could be drug abuse. As if any
one would deny any thing she wanted. This would enplane why they felt it
necessary to be less than forthcoming on the issue.
But then there is that cage little thing called the lack of evidence.
I highly doubt it is pneumonia. What grandmother with a serious illness
show up at her daughter's house with a not even 3 month old and a two year
old? There's campaigning and then there's the family dynasty. I doubt even
Hilary's ambitions would put herself ahead of her grandkids. Regardless,
it is poor judgement and more fodder for Trump.
If intentional "Here's a woman who cares more for herself then her
child or grand children"
If unintentional "Here's a woman who's judgement is so poor she puts
her family at risk with a contagious disease. If she's that unthinking about
her actions towards her family, what about America's families."
Once you connect the 9/11 event with that head bobbing incident. She
has something serious going on with her health. Ironically, she may actually
be telling the truth when she says she can't remember things about the e-mail
server, if she has Parkinson's.
By Sunday, and assuming she started on the antibiotics on Friday, she
had at least 24 hours of medication on board. And assuming she was not running
a fever, she would not be considered to be contagious when she arrived at
her daughter's.
Also, let's remember that Chelsea's apartment is no cold-water flat;
it is a 5,000 sq. ft. space that cost $10 million.
Here's a link to some photos and more .
Ms Clinton and Mr Mezvinsky's apartment has six and a half bathrooms,
a home office and den, plus a 252-square-foot planting terrace and a
private storage unit.
The couple will also enjoy two dishwashers, two washer/dryers, his
and her maze-like closet spaces and commodes, as well as natural light
flooding the female dressing room – with double-sided vanity mirrors.
'Wives eyes light up when they see the closets,' said Ms Lazenby,
the daughter of James Bond actor George Lazenby.
'They smile and say they'll need more clothes to live here. Their
husbands just shake their heads.
'The long apartment, located at 21 East 26th St enables 'one spouse
to be fast asleep while the other has a huge dinner party. All on one
floor,' she added.
One person who toured the building, which was built in 1924 by luxury
textile manufacturer Clarence B. Whitman & Sons, joked that residents
of The Whitman will have a longer walk to their kitchen than many New
Yorkers have to the corner store.
So…my point is that in a space that large, there was little danger of
exposing the babies to anything contagious.
I'm sure they do, but with 24 hours of medication, and assuming no fever
(and assuming she even had pneumonia), she likely wasn't contagious anyway.
In fact, most day care facilities/homes and schools permit children to
return under those same guidelines.
My guess is, though, that Chelsea's was the only place they could go
that was close by and where they were guaranteed to be able to control the
situation. Had she been taken to a hospital, there's no way any of what
transpired would not have ended up being leaked.
How many hands did Clinton shake between receiving her diagnosis and
being on medication for 24 hours?
Pretty sure I'm not the only one who's noticed that all the coughing
Clinton does she does into her hand, not into her elbow, so she's pretty
much a traveling Typhoid Mary.
Sorry, but my head's still spinnin' over the "6 1/2 bathrooms", which
begs the question how full of 'it' must a couple with 2 small children be
that they require that many bathrooms?
I remain disgusted with the fact Hillary claimed they were 'broke' when
they left the WH, and only able to afford '2 houses, Chelsea's education,
and helping out relatives'.
Yes, I suppose 6+ bathrooms would be required in the Clinton family.
If Hillary Clinton or any other Democratic nominee had to leave the race,
the DNC would need to gavel back into session and re-do the process all over
again. The DNC consists of more than 200 members, selected by Democrats in
all 50 states as well as the chairs and vice chairs of each state party.
Except this time, the average Joe rank-and-file Democrat would be shut out;
it is the DNC officials that were railed at throughout this year's campaign
who are afforded the power of finding a replacement.
Article
III, Section 1
, the clause that provides the DNC with that power, is
as straightforward as can be: "The Democratic National Committee shall have
general responsibility for the affairs of the Democratic Party between
National Conventions...This responsibility shall include...filling vacancies
in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President."
"What is frightening is the desperation. It's like the [US neoliberal] elite
are afraid of something terrible. " -- that a very asute observation,
" Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates
to Brexit. Turning their world upside down. " -- also true, although
neoliberalism still successfully counterattack in selected countries and
recently scored two wins in Latin America (Argentina and Brazil)
Notable quotes:
"... The atmosphere feels like 1974 just before Richard Nixon resigned. Except, it is completely reversed. The establishment is protecting Hillary Clinton. They are spinning up a whirlwind. What is frightening is the desperation. It's like the elite are afraid of something terrible. ..."
"... I presume it has to be that millions of incorrigibles are recognizing the oligarchs' scams. Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates to Brexit. Turning their world upside down. ..."
"... Ms. Clinton and/or whichever member of her staff decided to use The Clinton Rules for Obfuscation and Avoidance as a way to address what was clearly some kind of medical event. ..."
"... Given that she wasn't whisked away in an ambulance, and didn't spend any time in an emergency room, whatever it was that happened must not have been entirely unanticipated or unusual – it may just be that she had the great misfortune of exhibiting these symptoms in public and not in the privacy of her own home. ..."
"... But let's recap, shall we? First, she was constructively absent from the campaign trail for the entire month of August. She did few events and not as much traveling. She also was not spending any time with the media, giving no pressers for months. Criticism mounted, so – wonder of wonders – when she got her spiffy new plane, the invites went out to the media to join her on the plane, and she held her first presser in months just this past Thursday. ..."
"... She looked fine. Her color was good, she looked rested. The next night, she did a high-dollar fundraiser hosted by Barbra Streisand. Again, she looked and sounded fine. Yet, it was that day that her physician says she was diagnosed with pneumonia and given antibiotics. ..."
"... Then, on Sunday, with temps in the low 80's and low humidity, she falls ill. She looked okay walking to her car, but she leaned on the post for support and then appeared to collapse getting into the van. Did she lose her footing on the curb? ..."
"... She sustained a serious concussion in 2012, when she fainted as a complication of a stomach virus that caused her to be dehydrated. The concussion gave her double vision, for which she wore special lenses for a time. She was not allowed to fly. A follow up visit to the doctor revealed that she had a blood clot in a vein between her brain and her skull so she was put on blood thinners. Her husband says it took every bit of six months for her to recover from the concussion. ..."
"... She's also had DVTs in her legs, and has an underactive thyroid for which I presume she takes medication. ..."
"... no matter how infrequent – post-concussion symptoms will call into question her mental abilities, which would be the death knell for her candidacy. ..."
"... she and her people spoon feed us one somewhat-plausible explanation after another, apparently in the hope they will hit on one that makes people stop asking questions about it ..."
"... This is how the Clintons – both of them – handle everything, and it's exactly why Hillary finds herself the topic of conversation and speculation everywhere. ..."
"... Also, not sure I believe the pneumonia story. Wouldn't put it past them to fabricate that. How is taking about health issues w/o talking about her concussion, blood clots, and rat poison meds …. an honest talk about her health? ..."
"... If Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's -- or some other neurological impairment leading to her frequent "spells" and falls -- the Democratic Party should ask her to step aside and allow someone in better health to run. ..."
"... As they move her away from that post she was leaning against, her arms stay rigid behind her back. My friend used to call this "offing", as in on or off, which was different from his freezing of gait, and happened to him when he was under stress. ..."
"... the coughing, even the pneumonia could be caused by difficulty swallowing. ..."
"... It could be Vascular Parkinsonism. I just wish she would be strong enough to admit she is weak. ..."
"... Ah, thanks for explaining why her arms were like that behind her back. At first I thought she was handcuffed. ..."
"... Noel's How to Prove Me Wrong about Hillary's Parkinson's Disease is worth a look. ..."
"... Forget Parkinson's, what about MS. ..."
"... after the DVT Hillary would have been placed on an anticoagulant, especially with all those plane trips. Then there is that fall she had last year. If she were on Coumadin at that time with a fall & head trauma can cause a bleed. Also MDs are nervous about putting someone on a blood thinner that is at risk for frequent falls. This whole situation is crazy. ..."
"... I'd bet that Clinton shopped around until she found a doctor willing to work with a minimal paper trail and certainly zero electronic trail. ..."
"... It isn't logical to believe a sudden press release used as a distraction. With past episodes of fainting, falling, concussion and ongoing treatment, this qualifier is put out to run up the flagpole. Please note the moment the handlers suddenly jump to surround and hide the candidate from the cameras. ..."
"... Daily Mail even goes as far as to say the candidate was "thrown into the seat like a sack of beef" (paraphrasing) ..."
"... Was that doctor EpiPen that opened the door to the van? ..."
"... So she has what could be very contagious? And she rests at Chelsea's home and plays with the kids? Anyone want some real cheap swamp land in the Everglades? ..."
"... my guess is at Chelsea's they could give her a quick shot of amphetamines so we could then get the "look, the candidate can actually walk unaided!" photo op when she emerged. ..."
"... So that's how low we've sunk, we're supposed to vote for the elderly, sickly, serial war criminal, pathological liar old lady because she can actually walk. Oh, and "because she's a woman". ..."
"... I'd just like to point out how annoying it is that the media stenographers on many sites today are slavishly repeating the Hillary campaign's pneumonia story without a single speck of actually checking, either through logic or investigation, whether any of it makes sense. Though admittedly there is a tiny bit doubt starting to creep through the media narrative; maybe they're thinking that this is the fig leaf they need to feel like they still have credibility–which is just them fooling themselves. ..."
"... Since stuff coming from the mainstream media is provably guaranteed to be just some sht they made up, or passing along some sht someone else made up without questioning it, I don't think there's anything wrong with just ignoring the msm and believing whatever you feel like believing from the internet; unlike with the msm there is at least a decent chance that that stuff might be true. ..."
"... Policies? Pay no attention to what emerges from the candidates mouths, as Obama said in 2008 "Hilary will say anything, and change nothing", she can be at a rally and yell "I'm fighting for you!" and 15 minutes later she is meeting with a Wall St CEO on new ways to rip people off. I'm not saying her opponent is any better ..."
"... Focus on the candidate's health is always appropriate. Particularly so when the ability of the candidate to serve out their term is a legitimate question. It is the height of arrogance for a candidate to accept the nomination without the full expectation that they will be ready to serve the full term at stake. For a candidate to attempt to proceed through concealment of substantive health issues is an expression of complete unaccountability. ..."
"... If Hillary had been more honest about her physical condition, folks wouldn't be stooping to armchair diagnoses, which is normal human behavior for those to whom the truth has not been forthcoming. ..."
"... Not a one-time diagnosis. She apparently has had a deep venous thrombosis and more recently cavernous sinus thrombosis. I suspect because of this (two discrete episodes) a decision has been made for chronic continuing use of coumadin. Like all medications, a decision is made as to whether the benefits of treatment using that medication outweigh the projected risks of the medication. Properly managed, the risks are fairly small. But the key is proper management, which may be difficult given the demands of the position as POTUS. ..."
"... I also believe her travel did and would put her at greater risk. https://www.stoptheclot.org/learn_more/air_travel_and_thrombosis.htm ..."
"... This just in: Hillary Clinton to Release More Medical Records After Pneumonia Diagnosis http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-plans-to-rest-amid-health-concerns-1473694474 ..."
"... More"? Like how many more? ..."
"... How many more? As many as it takes, one dollop at a time, until she hits the sweet spot where the questions stop. It was always destined to take the same path as the e-mails and every other questionable thing Clinton's been associated with – that's how they roll! ..."
"... "One-shoe" Hillary is now the butt of visual jokes, as her signature red arrow is repurposed into a stretcher: http://tinyurl.com/zbza8ph ..."
"... At this point, Clinton would have as much success convincing the public that she's released all the medical records that are relevant to her run for president as she would convincing us that she was part of a grand experiment whereby an entire medical team has been shrunk to Fantastic Voyage size, and injected into her bloodstream so that she can be under constant care. ..."
"... If she became spastic, and collapsed (unexpectedly) just trying to get into an SUV, what kind of risk is she going to be under during the first debate? ..."
"... Everyone is going to be watching for any slight, "unnatural," twitch, or, movement for the whole episode. ..."
"... The question really is: Is a vote for Clinton a vote for Tim Kaine??? ..."
"... Here's why. If humans were rational creatures, the time and place of Clinton's "overheating" wouldn't matter at all. But when it comes to American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel unsafe. And safety is our first priority. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton just became unelectable. The mainstream media might not interpret today's events as a big deal. After all, it was only a little episode of overheating. And they will continue covering the play-by-play action until election day. But unless Trump actually does shoot someone on 5th Avenue, he's running unopposed." ..."
"... seems to me that Hillary could likely be suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. ..."
"... If diagnosed in 2012-13, which seems likely given her concussion and brain clot diagnoses, she would now begin to experience a severe physical decline and pneumonia is a frequent cause of death for those suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. ..."
I agree with all of Anne's great comments above on Hillary Clinton's
9-11 fainting episode.
The atmosphere feels like 1974 just before Richard Nixon resigned.
Except, it is completely reversed. The establishment is protecting Hillary
Clinton. They are spinning up a whirlwind. What is frightening is the desperation.
It's like the elite are afraid of something terrible.
It can't be Donald Trump; he is one them. Instead, I presume it has
to be that millions of incorrigibles are recognizing the oligarchs' scams.
Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates
to Brexit. Turning their world upside down.
If you want to blame anyone for all this armchair medical discussion,
look no further than Ms. Clinton and/or whichever member of her staff decided
to use The Clinton Rules for Obfuscation and Avoidance as a way to address
what was clearly some kind of medical event.
Given that she wasn't whisked away in an ambulance, and didn't spend
any time in an emergency room, whatever it was that happened must not have
been entirely unanticipated or unusual – it may just be that she had the
great misfortune of exhibiting these symptoms in public and not in the privacy
of her own home.
Whatever this is or was, it is how she chose to handle it that has led
to all this discussion.
But let's recap, shall we? First, she was constructively absent from
the campaign trail for the entire month of August. She did few events and
not as much traveling. She also was not spending any time with the media,
giving no pressers for months. Criticism mounted, so – wonder of wonders
– when she got her spiffy new plane, the invites went out to the media to
join her on the plane, and she held her first presser in months just this
past Thursday.
She looked fine. Her color was good, she looked rested. The next
night, she did a high-dollar fundraiser hosted by Barbra Streisand. Again,
she looked and sounded fine. Yet, it was that day that her physician says
she was diagnosed with pneumonia and given antibiotics.
Then, on Sunday, with temps in the low 80's and low humidity, she
falls ill. She looked okay walking to her car, but she leaned on the post
for support and then appeared to collapse getting into the van. Did she
lose her footing on the curb?
So, first we heard she wasn't feeling well. Then we heard she was overheated
and dehydrated. Some hours later, we were told of the pneumonia diagnosis,
and then – like a miracle – she comes walking out of her daughter's apartment
building looking quite chipper. Did she get IV fluids? Who knows?
She sustained a serious concussion in 2012, when she fainted as a complication
of a stomach virus that caused her to be dehydrated. The concussion gave
her double vision, for which she wore special lenses for a time. She was
not allowed to fly. A follow up visit to the doctor revealed that she had
a blood clot in a vein between her brain and her skull so she was put on
blood thinners. Her husband says it took every bit of six months for her
to recover from the concussion.
She's also had DVTs in her legs, and has an underactive thyroid for which
I presume she takes medication.
Could she be having periodic bouts of vertigo as a result of the concussion?
Other effects that linger, or pop up from time to time? Doesn't seem unreasonable,
but here's the thing: we are never going to know if that's the case, because
unlike pneumonia for which you can take an antibiotic and be done with,
ongoing – no matter how infrequent – post-concussion symptoms will call
into question her mental abilities, which would be the death knell for her
candidacy.
So, she and her people spoon feed us one somewhat-plausible explanation
after another, apparently in the hope they will hit on one that makes people
stop asking questions about it – but the problem is that this method just
adds to the sense people have that she's still hiding something and so the
speculation goes on.
This is how the Clintons – both of them – handle everything, and it's
exactly why Hillary finds herself the topic of conversation and speculation
everywhere.
Yes to this (Anne. September 12, 2016 at 9:57 am):
My real issue with this whole event is that, had Clinton not collapsed,
we wouldn't know anything about the alleged pneumonia. It's the same
old story: she does what she wants until events conspire to force her
to make public whatever it was she wanted to remain private.
And even
then, she continues to hold close as much information as possible for
as long as possible, before being more or less forced to get it all
out there.
Also, not sure I believe the pneumonia story. Wouldn't put it past
them to fabricate that. How is taking about health issues w/o talking about
her concussion, blood clots, and rat poison meds …. an honest talk about
her health?
It's probably a lot worse than a case of walking pneumonia. The video
below was posted to yootoobs three days before Hillary Clinton collapsed
into her own footprint like a world tower of trade:
A) Parkinson's Disease has several stages. Hillary appears to be ten
years into the progression at least and somewhere in the disease's middle
stages. Also,
B) the medication used to treat Parkinson's has its own serious side
motor effects, which she seems to exhibit.
C) And finally C, not only does Parkinson's debilitate its victim randomly
and episodically, and ultimately in its latter stages will make keeping
up a daily schedule of activities impossible, it also is typically accompanied
by non-motor symptoms of delusions and hard mood swings: eg, anxiety/depression
and rage.
If Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's -- or some other neurological impairment
leading to her frequent "spells" and falls -- the Democratic Party should
ask her to step aside and allow someone in better health to run. Naturally
being Hillary Clinton she would hotly refuse and retreat to her bunker with
Eva Braun to lean on, but the certain ferocity of her reaction doesn't relieve
the party leadership of this responsibility.
I long ago abandoned any hope for that party, but in an alternate universe
where they had not become mobbed-up and corrupt to the core, Clinton would
get a public call from party elders now to do the right thing for the country
and endorse a substitute candidate.
Having lived with someone who had Parkinson's, and after looking closely
at the video of her on 9/11, I think she has Parkinson's.
As they move her away from that post she was leaning against, her arms
stay rigid behind her back. My friend used to call this
"offing", as in on or off, which was different from his freezing of gait,
and happened to him when he was under stress.
Just too many things, the coughing, the blue sunglasses, the falling,
the coughing, even the pneumonia could be caused by difficulty swallowing.
It could be Vascular Parkinsonism. I just wish she would be strong enough
to admit she is weak.
What is concerning is that after the DVT Hillary would have been placed
on an anticoagulant, especially with all those plane trips. Then there is
that fall she had last year. If she were on Coumadin at that time with a
fall & head trauma can cause a bleed. Also MDs are nervous about putting
someone on a blood thinner that is at risk for frequent falls. This whole
situation is crazy. Feel bad, don't like her, adios-time to take all that
foundation money and retire.
It isn't logical to believe a sudden press release used as a distraction.
With past episodes of fainting, falling, concussion and ongoing treatment,
this qualifier is put out to run up the flagpole. Please note the moment
the handlers suddenly jump to surround and hide the candidate from the cameras.
Daily Mail even goes as far as to say the candidate was "thrown into
the seat like a sack of beef" (paraphrasing) If this is so, that isn't a
response for someone fainting as much as perhaps the attempt to hide symptoms
from observers. Was that doctor EpiPen that opened the door to the van?
Was this an attempt to divert attention from the real issue?
As a great philosopher once said; "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit
out of my hat"
So she has what could be very contagious? And she rests at Chelsea's
home and plays with the kids? Anyone want some real cheap swamp land in
the Everglades?
This is the tell, if she actually had pneumonia they would not just have
hustled her off to Chelsea's place, my guess is at Chelsea's they could
give her a quick shot of amphetamines so we could then get the "look, the
candidate can actually walk unaided!" photo op when she emerged.
So that's how low we've sunk, we're supposed to vote for the elderly,
sickly, serial war criminal, pathological liar old lady because she can
actually walk. Oh, and "because she's a woman". (So we got the last
8 years of disaster because of the candidate's dermis, and we"ll get the
next 4 years of disaster because of the candidate's pubis).
I'd just like to point out how annoying it is that the media stenographers
on many sites today are slavishly repeating the Hillary campaign's pneumonia
story without a single speck of actually checking, either through logic
or investigation, whether any of it makes sense. Though admittedly there
is a tiny bit doubt starting to creep through the media narrative; maybe
they're thinking that this is the fig leaf they need to feel like they still
have credibility–which is just them fooling themselves.
Since stuff coming from the mainstream media is provably guaranteed
to be just some sht they made up, or passing along some sht someone else
made up without questioning it, I don't think there's anything wrong with
just ignoring the msm and believing whatever you feel like believing from
the internet; unlike with the msm there is at least a decent chance that
that stuff might be true.
Policies? Pay no attention to what emerges from the candidates mouths,
as Obama said in 2008 "Hilary will say anything, and change nothing", she
can be at a rally and yell "I'm fighting for you!" and 15 minutes later
she is meeting with a Wall St CEO on new ways to rip people off. I'm not
saying her opponent is any better
Focus on the candidate's health is always appropriate. Particularly
so when the ability of the candidate to serve out their term is a legitimate
question. It is the height of arrogance for a candidate to accept the nomination
without the full expectation that they will be ready to serve the full term
at stake. For a candidate to attempt to proceed through concealment of substantive
health issues is an expression of complete unaccountability.
It's not the candidate's prerogative to decide upon what information
the voters will make their choice.
If Hillary had been more honest about her physical condition, folks
wouldn't be stooping to armchair diagnoses, which is normal human behavior
for those to whom the truth has not been forthcoming.
Not a one-time diagnosis. She apparently has had a deep venous thrombosis
and more recently cavernous sinus thrombosis. I suspect because of this
(two discrete episodes) a decision has been made for chronic continuing
use of coumadin. Like all medications, a decision is made as to whether
the benefits of treatment using that medication outweigh the projected risks
of the medication. Properly managed, the risks are fairly small. But the
key is proper management, which may be difficult given the demands of the
position as POTUS.
"More"? Like how many more? If this is more opining by her Chappaqua
MD, that does not qualify as "records". This is beginning to resemble the
forced drip of e-mails…..
How many more? As many as it takes, one dollop at a time, until she hits
the sweet spot where the questions stop. It was always destined to take
the same path as the e-mails and every other questionable thing Clinton's
been associated with – that's how they roll!
What continues to boggle my mind is why she doesn't seem to understand
that THIS is why such a significant segment of the electorate doesn't trust
her; it's so obvious, and yet she continues to employ this strategy and
it could cost her the election.
Assuming she is healthy enough to participate in the first debate, it
should be a doozy.
At this point, Clinton would have as much success convincing the public
that she's released all the medical records that are relevant to her run
for president as she would convincing us that she was part of a grand experiment
whereby an entire medical team has been shrunk to Fantastic Voyage size,
and injected into her bloodstream so that she can be under constant care.
The Fantastic Voyage scenario might actually be more believable.
In other words, it's just one more thing that doesn't really matter because
only those in her basket of adorables believe anything she says – and they
believe everything, no matter how the story shifts and changes.
If she became spastic, and collapsed (unexpectedly) just trying to get
into an SUV, what kind of risk is she going to be under during the first
debate?
The stress of being thrust into the biggest "fishbowl" imaginable
( largest TV audience ever being predicted) with all the "marbles" on the
table would freak out the healthiest human alive.
Everyone is going to be
watching for any slight, "unnatural," twitch, or, movement for the whole
episode.
What drama! I wouldn't be surprised if some pretext is found to nix the
debate. The risk for her is just too great, IMO, of course.
Each time she releases medical records, it gives her chorus another chance
to sing (in harmony) that she has clearly demonstrated that she
is healthy. After a few of these, the corporate press will feign impatience,
and any talk about Hillary's health will be cast aside as coming from conspiracy
theorists. No one will ever question why the issue wasn't resolved up front
with a full disclosure.
All of this is fine (I guess) except if she is hiding Parkinson's, which
is completely debilitating as far as the Presidency is concerned.
The question really is: Is a vote for Clinton a vote for Tim Kaine???
Now, the REALLY cynical might conjecture that Clintoon is thinking the
BEST meme to save the election for herself is that she spins it that she
pulls a William Henry Harrison – don't worry about voting for Clintoon!!!
I'll only be president for 30 or so days!
Hey, your not really voting for me Your really voting for Kaine!
Only decades later is the Clinton tomb excavated and it is revealed that
she was a Disney animatronic programmed by Goldman Sachs – those "speeches"
were really charades to allow the cables to be plugged in so the updated
software could be downloaded…
If the media is in the pocket of the Clintons, why now are we finding
out about her "illness" ….hmmmmm….
"If you are following breaking news, Hillary Clinton abruptly left the
9-11 memorial today because she was reportedly "overheated." Her campaign
says she is fine now. You probably wonder if the "overheated" explanation
is true – and a non-issue as reported – or an indication of a larger medical
condition. I'm blogging to tell you it doesn't matter. The result is the
same.
Here's why. If humans were rational creatures, the time and place
of Clinton's "overheating" wouldn't matter at all. But when it comes to
American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear
than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in
front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel
unsafe. And safety is our first priority.
Hillary Clinton just became unelectable. The mainstream media might
not interpret today's events as a big deal. After all, it was only a little
episode of overheating. And they will continue covering the play-by-play
action until election day. But unless Trump actually does shoot someone
on 5th Avenue, he's running unopposed."
Teh Guardian is running reports and every accompanying image is of some
other event with Killary stepping, smiling, unassisted into a car. What
a disgrace that shill sheet is.
robnume September 12, 2016 at 9:58 pm
Having worked in an emergency/trauma center for years, no, I won't say what
I did as I like anonymity, it seems to me that Hillary could likely
be suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. Upon a diagnoses of
this kind, one can expect to live from 3 to 5 years. If diagnosed in
2012-13, which seems likely given her concussion and brain clot diagnoses,
she would now begin to experience a severe physical decline and pneumonia
is a frequent cause of death for those suffering from subcortical vascular
dementia.
Rosario September 13, 2016 at 3:03 am
I used to think all the health speculation with Hillary was sexist and bogus
until her ordeal Sunday. The pneumonia diagnosis is absolutely bizarre and
doesn't quite line up with her visual symptoms at the 9/11 memorial. Pneumonia
was the best her staff could come up with? I guess they think we live in
a world without the internet and Youtube. Hillary doesn't look like she
had pneumonia Friday at the fundraiser. The same day she was apparently
diagnosed, which implies the first day of treatment when symptoms for bacterial
infections are at their absolute worst. She actually looked like she was
in her element, bright as rain. In addition, how in the hell do you have
a "pneumonia episode"? Apparently it came on real hard Sunday morning (ironically,
the time of day when the body is most capable during illness) then magically
went away an hour later for her to have a chipper, non-coughing, non-fatigued
photo op with a little girl (it was so identity politics staged it was comical)...
In view of the recent events the old question arise again: Was Hillary Clinton already on warafin when she suffered her latest fall?
Notable quotes:
"... Secretary Clinton was started on Coumadin, also known as warfarin. This medication significantly reduces - though it does not eliminate - the chance of a future blood clot. ..."
"... This extends to other facets of life; a simple fall that would be shook off by anyone else can give a patient on blood thinners a lethal brain bleed. The risks and benefits of anticoagulation must be weighed against the risk of a stroke if one does not use blood thinners; and is a choice for every patient to make with their physician. ..."
"... This does not include the possibility of an intracranial bleed, which could cause major cognitive disabilities without being lethal. ..."
"... There is a non-trivial possibility that Secretary Clinton will suffer a major bleed of some kind. ..."
"... Vamsi Aribindi is a medical student who blogs at the Medical Intellectual . ..."
Her
medical history includes two deep vein thromboses (DVTs) in 1998 and 2009,
as well as a cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in 2012. A thromboses is a clot;
basically, the formation of a solid plug inside a vein, a misfire of the body's
ability to plug holes and stop bleeding. While I could not find news articles
discussing the 2009 incident in further detail, the
1998 incident was a proximal DVT - one that had ascended into the popliteal
vein - an especially dangerous form of DVT that is most likely to cause a condition
called pulmonary embolus which can be fatal. A cerebral venous sinus thrombosis
is also a deadly condition, with a mortality of
approximately
10 percent and negative cognitive effects, though survivors make a good
recovery.
When anyone has multiple unprovoked clots, meaning there was no obvious reason
for the body to misfire it's clot formation system such as surgery or active
cancer, and especially when someone has a clot in an unusual location such as
the brain, an extensive workup is indicated to look for causes. Some such causes
include previously undetected cancers, inherited or random genetic disorders,
and autoimmune disorders. That workup was negative in Secretary Clinton's case,
per her doctor's letter. This is not unusual; there are many disorders that
we have not yet discovered, and in all likelihood Secretary Clinton's particular
clotting disorder happens to be one that has not yet been discovered.
When someone has such a clotting disorder, as a precaution patients are often
started on a medication to prevent the formation of clots. These medications
are known as anticoagulants or blood thinners. Secretary Clinton was started
on Coumadin, also known as warfarin. This medication significantly reduces -
though it does not eliminate - the chance of a future blood clot.
What is the side effect of blood thinners? A greater chance of bleeding and
greater difficulty stopping a bleed once it happens. An elderly patient on blood
thinners who is subsequently injured in a car crash is a nightmare for a trauma
team. This extends to other facets of life; a simple fall that would be
shook off by anyone else can give a patient on blood thinners a lethal brain
bleed. The risks and benefits of anticoagulation must be weighed against the
risk of a stroke if one does not use blood thinners; and is a choice for every
patient to make with their physician.
In Secretary Clinton's case, what is her risk of bleeding? Secretary Clinton
is over 65, and she has had multiple falls (in
2005, 2009, and 2011, and 2012); the 2009 fall resulting in a broken elbow
and the last one resulting in a concussion. According to
guidelines
put out by the American College of Chest Physicians, two risk factors puts her
in the category of high-risk patients, meaning her risk of bleeding while on
long-term anticoagulation is 6.5 percent per year. The mortality from a major
bleed is
approximately
10 percent. This does not include the possibility of an intracranial
bleed, which could cause major cognitive disabilities without being lethal.
What is Secretary Clinton's precise risk? It is difficult to say. She does
receive excellent medical care, and presumably has her dose of warfarin closely
monitored by many professionals. In addition, she may soon switch to newer anticoagulants
which are easier to take and dose than warfarin, though it is unclear if they
are truly any safer.
Ultimately, all that can be said is this: There is a non-trivial possibility
that Secretary Clinton will suffer a major bleed of some kind. The worst
possible scenario? Trump and Clinton are nominated, and Clinton suddenly suffers
a devastating bleed in the middle of the campaign, leaving a likely underqualified
vice presidential pick to try and fight Donald Trump. However, the risk of this
is likely small; and it is not as if 74-year-old Senator Bernie Sanders is free
of health risks either. Patients and doctors both hate uncertainty, and yet
we deal with it every day. I don't believe Secretary Clinton's increased risks
are anything that should disqualify her from the presidency, but they are certainly
something to ponder.
Looks like from this point Hillary is an underdog. Attempt to swipe under the
carpet her health problems failed. Version about pneumonia as fake as it sound
only made matters worse. Now she is officially a person with
"unidentified serious health problem" in this race. Does she
have an immunodeficiency ? For some reason Clinton Foundation put a lot of
efforts in helping AIDS patients.
She now will face perfectly reasonable questions about whether she's
physically up to serving as president. There are also strong doubts if this is
really 's pneumonia. And even pneumonia is a dangerous condition at her age.
Notable quotes:
"... the risk was enormous - and it's blown up in their faces. Because now the story isn't just that Clinton is ill. It's that, once again, she's untrustworthy - and this time about her own health. ..."
"... Both of these candidates are too old to realistically carry out the responsibilities associated with arguably the most difficult, demanding job in the world. There is a minimum age for the Senate, and there should be a maximum allowable age to seek and serve in the executive branch. ..."
"... Why was the Friday diagnosis not made public, particularly in light of rampant speculation? Why did it take the candidate literally collapsing for the disclosure to be made? ..."
"... I'm a Democrat, a Medical Doctor, and will never vote for Trump. Now that I've made that clear, let me say that there's something wrong with this story. A patient of her age would never be diagnosed at home with pneumonia, much less a presidential candidate. A 68 year old with suspected pneumonia would be sent to the hospital for X RAYS. It doesn't make sense. ..."
"... In the video, it appears that she was suffering a seizure. She has no control of her movements and has to carried to the van. If it was dehydration or symptoms of pneumonia, she would not have appeared perfectly normal less than 2 hours later. You cannot rehydrate someone from collapse in 90 minutes. Her physician is hiding her condition which is fine, but the voters have a right to know her true health status. ..."
"... Something about all this just doesn't ring true. A diagnosis of pneumonia, made at home and not mentioned until after a serious public incident. A presidential candidate collapses at a public event and is not rushed to a hospital, but to her daughter's apartment. Looks like another attempt to control the flow of information and manage what the public knows. That is Hillary Clinton's stock in trade. ..."
"... It's kind of amusing to watch the story change. She's not sick. Well, allergies. Well allergies and today, just overheating. No actually, pneumonia. Las Vegas should offer odds in the various possibilities of the next iteration if the story. ..."
"... If her stumble hadn't been caught on camera, we wouldn't know that she had any health issues at all. ..."
"... Well, if this is a cover-up of some sort, it has gone too far. Whatever the outcome, the public will not forgive or forget. ..."
"... Mrs. Clinton, who I once hoped to see elected, has spent the summer cozying the elites in very rarified airs and walking away with sacks of cash for it, while the very few public events she has recently and briefly attended, it is apparent that she is barely able to function. ..."
"... What I saw on film today from many different angles has me horrified and disturbed. That was not walking pneumonia. She should have been to the hospital, not an hour of rest at home, after that episode. Something it not right about this, and there will be a reckoning if the truth is not forthcoming. ..."
"... I think it is a mistake for Hillary and her campaign to try to blow this pneumonia diagnosis as no big thing. Pneumonia can be spread via breathing and coughing. Hillary has had at least two coughing fits, she has been in crowds, she hugged a little girl today and spent an hour or so in Chelsea's apartment (presumably Chelsea's infant was at home). ..."
"... So many commenters are worried what Trump will say but the video of Hillary buckling and being hauled into the van head- first is as bad as it gets, no one has to say anything. ..."
"... Alright. Let's buy the party line from Hillary's people about the pneumonia shtick, which was generated after multi-hours of secrecy into a PR disaster while holding her own press people - many sympathetic to her - in the dark. ..."
"... But at best it makes the unspoken party line that as her people were calling talk of Hillary health issues last week a 'conspiracy' she was being diagnosed with respiratory infections a the same time, unannounced and under the table. ..."
"... So she knew she had pneumonia, then hugged that little girl? After going to her daughter's apartment, who has very young children? That someone would have pneumonia is perfectly reasonable. That it's being spun like this is not. ..."
"... Unfortunately, it looks like Secretary Clinton is propped up against a stanchion, semi-conscious, and then proceeds to collapse as she is helped to the vehicle and lifted inside. ..."
"... Nonsense! First it was total denial. Then it was 'overheating' (on a pleasant NYC day.) And then when a pedestrian's video came out on Twitter, its 'a little pneumonia'. Nonsense. I've had pneumonia, your lungs get filled with fluid and you can barely breathe. And by the way, if she did have pneumonia, it was massively irresponsible of her to be in a crowd or to hug that little girl. No more lies. We have a right to know ..."
"... Once again team Hillary covered up the facts - until a viral video ruined the cover story - and the press lapped up the spin unquestioningly (even lying about the temperature at the event). Information about the health of the candidates is extremely important to the public but the press wont break ranks and act like real journalists. Makes one wonder about Hillary's one month absence from the campaign trial that the Times reported was unprecedented but was to raise money from fat cats. ..."
"... This is getting stranger and stranger by the day. Strange times call for strange outcomes: Get Sanders back on the wagon and trump the Trumpster as we all well know only he can. ..."
"... My theory, and the word is theory, is she knows she's quite ill but wants to cement her legacy as the first female President of the United States no matter how short lived it might be. ..."
"... The conspiracy of the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media, e.g. the New York Times and the Washington Post to cover up news about Hillary's health is what all Americans should worry about. ..."
"... It wasn't until the story got so big that the campaign, the New York Times, and the Washington Post could no longer ignore it that we learned about a diagnosis. ..."
"... I jogged today in NJ, 40 minutes from NYC, on a beautiful "cool" day unlike the hot days before. Was NYC really hot as described that caused her to become dehydrated/overcome by heat? Something ain't kosher here... ..."
"... Mrs. Clinton lost consciousness, called a syncope episode. She should have been brought to a hospital by ambulance. She needed to have full blood work, an EKG, a chest X-ray, a CT of the head, a neuro and cardiac consult. She needs to be on a cardiac monitor for 24 hours. Especially since she is on Coumadin a powerful blood thinner for previous blood clots which has significant complications. ..."
"... One more attempt to deceive the public for political purposes. I do not believe the pneumonia story. And why didn't they tell us about it in Friday when the diagnosis was made? Her physician should be careful, she should be deposed. Mrs. Clinton put herself out there and we have a right to know her health problems now that she collapsed in public at a routine low stress event. I am a licensed practicing Emergency Medicine physician for 35 years, Board Certified. ..."
"... Clinton didn't lose her balance, as the NYT put it, she collapsed and had to be carried to her car. My God, is the NYT, in its mission to relentlessly push Clinton's candidacy, now refusing to report simple facts? Have we reached a new low in journalism now? Clinton collapsed! I hope Mrs. Clinton the best in regards to her own health, but for the NYT to purposely refuse to report what everyone saw is outrageously dishonest. ..."
"... So, the focus group came back with pneumonia, eh? I can't think of any reason they'd lie about this. Btw, the weather service reported late morning Manhattan temp of 77F and humidity of 42% The media have led us to believe that the heat index was nearing 9.47 Trillion F...But they've never misled me before...sarc/off ..."
"... Pneumonia diagnosed on Friday, really? A dozen reporters follow Mrs. Clinton all day, did they visit the Mt. Kisco Medical Group? This isn't a condition you can diagnose over the phone, and someone as important as a Presidential candidate ought to have a proper diagnosis which would include x-rays and blood tests. ..."
"... Many of the comments are support Mrs. Clinton and claim a little pneumonia is not a problem. It may not be. The big issue here is TRUST. Can we believe what she or her camp says about her health issues? Anybody her takes her word on face value is a fool. She has lied to us so many times. ..."
"... NY I don't believe the campaign explanation. I think it is a fib. My sense is that Mrs. Clinton has had underlying health issues which have and will continue to be aggravated by the rigors of a Presidential campaign. To me, an undecided voter, she does not seem healthy and age has caught up with her in startling fashion. ..."
"... Did any of the commenters here actually see the video...?!? She passed out while standing up..! Is our president, the president of the United States going to need babysitting so she doesn't pass out on here feet, fall and hit her head again? It's like the Seven Plagues with you people... ..."
"... Ehhh, she fainted and was then carried the last couple of feet inside the van by 2 or 3 people; she also visibly loses one of her shoes in the process. How is she "fine" again? ..."
After Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia and put on antibiotics,
she did not, as her physician recommended, take time out to rest.
Instead, she attended a fundraiser featuring Barbra Streisand.
Then on Sunday morning, she attended the 9/11 commemoration,
became "overheated," and woozily wobbled rather dramatically. Ninety
minutes later she exited her daughter Chelsea's apartment building to
tell the press she was "feeling great." The Secret Service permitted
a young girl to come over to give the candidate a hug.
It was only a few hours later when her campaign finally announced
that she has pneumonia and is recovering.
So the campaign chose to lie. The potential reward was considerable:
namely, an absence of politically damaging news stories about Clinton's
medical condition. But the risk was enormous - and it's blown up in
their faces. Because now the story isn't just that Clinton is ill. It's
that, once again, she's untrustworthy - and this time about her own
health.
That's why the announcement that she has pneumonia will only fuel
more speculation about Clinton's physical condition, with potentially no
end in sight. The world saw her collapse, and 90 minutes later, the
candidate looked America in the eye and proclaimed that she was feeling
great. Except now we know that she wasn't.
Both of these candidates are too
old to realistically carry out the responsibilities
associated with arguably the most difficult, demanding
job in the world. There is a minimum age for the Senate,
and there should be a maximum allowable age to seek and
serve in the executive branch.
The presidency ages
everyone who assumes the duties; when it comes to the
White House, 50 is the new 70, not vice versa.
riclys, Brooklyn, New York
I sincerely hope Mrs Clinton's health improves . But why do I get the
feeling that this is not over? Why was the Friday diagnosis not made public,
particularly in light of rampant speculation? Why did it take the candidate
literally collapsing for the disclosure to be made?
What else are we not
being told, and what further public health-related episodes might we have to
witness? As with so many things Clinton, even answers lead to more
questions. Bottom-line though, let us all fervently hope that Mrs Clinton's
health is as good as we are being told it is.
Gladys Vazquez, Miami
I'm a Democrat, a Medical Doctor, and will never vote for Trump. Now
that I've made that clear, let me say that there's something wrong with this
story. A patient of her age would never be diagnosed at home with pneumonia,
much less a presidential candidate. A 68 year old with suspected pneumonia
would be sent to the hospital for X RAYS. It doesn't make sense.
Melissa Los Angeles
It wasn't a "stumble" - the way her head flailed it looked like
fainting or even a seizure.
@PISonny Manhattan, NYC
Pneumonia cannot be confirmed without an
X-Ray. She had a full day on Friday, what with her 'basket of deplorables'
speech, and then interviews to the press, followed by interview with Cuomo. When
did she have the X-Ray done?
Something does not add up here. More lies, more cover-up, more unfit.
Thomas, Corey 7 hours ago
In the video, it appears that she was suffering a seizure. She has no
control of her movements and has to carried to the van. If it was
dehydration or symptoms of pneumonia, she would not have appeared perfectly
normal less than 2 hours later. You cannot rehydrate someone from collapse
in 90 minutes. Her physician is hiding her condition which is fine, but the
voters have a right to know her true health status.
Mark Markarian, Pleasantville, NY
Yeah, Hillary's being treated for pneumonia and I'm Captain James Tiberius Kirk.
Larry NY,
Something about all this just doesn't ring true. A
diagnosis of pneumonia, made at home and not mentioned until after a serious
public incident. A presidential candidate collapses at a public event and is not
rushed to a hospital, but to her daughter's apartment. Looks like another
attempt to control the flow of information and manage what the public knows.
That is Hillary Clinton's stock in trade.
Michael Pasadena, CA
It's kind of amusing to watch the story
change. She's not sick. Well, allergies. Well allergies and today, just
overheating. No actually, pneumonia. Las Vegas should offer odds in the various
possibilities of the next iteration if the story.
OldNYCGirl, Boston, MA
If her stumble hadn't been caught on camera, we wouldn't know
that she had any health issues at all. Why did it take more than 8
hours for her campaign to disclose this after she left the ceremony? If
there is nothing to hide, why didn't they say something immediately
about the illness that was diagnosed several days ago?
Jack NY, NY
The problem with Clinton is that you have no way of
knowing what the truth is. A woman who would lie so easily and often about her
email debacle, not to mention her Benghazi testimony and her lies about some
video causing the attack in Benghazi, would find it also easy to lie about her
health.
As a former Obama voter, I'm going with Trump. He's not the greatest
candidate but at least he gives the impression of being honest -- sometimes too
honest. His faults are those of a non-politician and that's refreshing after
decades of phoniness n Washington.
Le Sigh Murrakuh
Looking over this timeline, how many hours
passed before this penumonia announcement, that should have been released as
soon as it became a diagnosis, not after a horrible episode of goodness knows
what that was we all saw?
As one of the reviled lefties who are on the outside
of either party, I want to see the lung x-ray. I was horrified to see the left dorso-lateral view that a citizen filmed today, as it was a terrible and real
medical emergency.
To learn she recovered for a short time at Chelsea's
apartment and then left again, all chipper in the public eye as if a hair was
never out of place. Well, if this is a cover-up of some sort, it has gone too
far. Whatever the outcome, the public will not forgive or forget.
Mrs. Clinton,
who I once hoped to see elected, has spent the summer cozying the elites in very
rarified airs and walking away with sacks of cash for it, while the very few
public events she has recently and briefly attended, it is apparent that she is
barely able to function.
What I saw on film today from many different angles has
me horrified and disturbed. That was not walking pneumonia. She should have been
to the hospital, not an hour of rest at home, after that episode. Something it
not right about this, and there will be a reckoning if the truth is not
forthcoming. This is a candidate for the presidency of the United States of
America, not a run of the mill celebrity entitled to their wall of privacy.
Lynn in DC um, DC
I think it is a mistake for Hillary and her
campaign to try to blow this pneumonia diagnosis as no big thing. Pneumonia can
be spread via breathing and coughing. Hillary has had at least two coughing
fits, she has been in crowds, she hugged a little girl today and spent an hour
or so in Chelsea's apartment (presumably Chelsea's infant was at home). Either
someone is being very irresponsible or we are hearing lies again.
It is
great that Hillary is on antibiotics and has been rehydrated but perhaps she
should stay home for the sake of her own health and let Tim Kaine do the heavy
lifting.
So many commenters are worried what Trump will say but the video of Hillary
buckling and being hauled into the van head- first is as bad as it gets, no one
has to say anything.
TheZeitgeist Santa Monica, CA
Alright. Let's buy the party line
from Hillary's people about the pneumonia shtick, which was generated after
multi-hours of secrecy into a PR disaster while holding her own press people -
many sympathetic to her - in the dark.
But at best it makes the unspoken party line that as her people
were calling talk of Hillary health issues last week a 'conspiracy' she
was being diagnosed with respiratory infections a the same time,
unannounced and under the table.
The woman either has the worst PR flacks or worst intrinsic PR instinct of
any public figure I've ever seen. I just can't figure out who's the more hapless
in the Big Hillary operation.
Jonathan Colorado
So she knew she had pneumonia, then hugged
that little girl? After going to her daughter's apartment, who has very young
children? That someone would have pneumonia is perfectly reasonable. That it's being
spun like this is not.
John Murray Midland Park, NJ
Unfortunately, it looks like
Secretary Clinton is propped up against a stanchion, semi-conscious, and then
proceeds to collapse as she is helped to the vehicle and lifted inside.
Oakwood New York
Nonsense! First it was total denial. Then it was
'overheating' (on a pleasant NYC day.) And then when a pedestrian's video came
out on Twitter, its 'a little pneumonia'. Nonsense. I've had pneumonia, your
lungs get filled with fluid and you can barely breathe. And by the way, if she
did have pneumonia, it was massively irresponsible of her to be in a crowd or to
hug that little girl. No more lies. We have a right to know
Michael S is a trusted commenter Wappingers Falls, NY
Once again
team Hillary covered up the facts - until a viral video ruined the cover story -
and the press lapped up the spin unquestioningly (even lying about the
temperature at the event). Information about the health of the candidates is
extremely important to the public but the press wont break ranks and act like
real journalists. Makes one wonder about Hillary's one month absence from the
campaign trial that the Times reported was unprecedented but was to raise money
from fat cats.
will w CT
This is getting stranger and stranger by the day.
Strange times call for strange outcomes: Get Sanders back on the wagon and trump
the Trumpster as we all well know only he can.
Said Ordaz Manhattan
Dear apologists of the NYT, stop denying it,
she's really really sick, and you know it. Do us all a favor, start doing your
job and investigate the true extent of her illness, and actual state of health.
JEFF S is a trusted commenter Brooklyn, NY 10 hours ago
Reporters were with
her all day Friday and she had that national security briefing, a press
conference, did an interview with CNN which aired today, did the fund raiser and
opened up about half of the Trump supporters. When was there time for her to be
examined for pneumonia? And wouldn't it be necessary to have a chest x-ray in a
hospital to rule out something else. And then she attended today's memorial at
Ground Zero? Something is very fishy.
I don't think there's any question she will have a stroke sooner or later
although obviously it could be tomorrow, it could be next year, it could be a
decade from now. Who knows? It seems to me if I were her doctor, I would highly
recommend against running for President. My theory, and the word is theory, is
she knows she's quite ill but wants to cement her legacy as the first female
President of the United States no matter how short lived it might be.
Of course, the Hillary crowd here who have been in denial about her health
all along will remain in denial. If she is indeed ill, for the sake of the
country, she should just give it up and still give the democrats time to put up
somebody less contenteous than she is.
S. Austin Los Angeles
The conspiracy of the Clinton campaign and
the mainstream media, e.g. the New York Times and the Washington Post to cover
up news about Hillary's health is what all Americans should worry about. When
she had her coughing fit last week, why did she blame it on allergies and keep
the real reason quiet when she knew on FRIDAY she has pneumonia? Even after we
saw the video of her semi-collapsing today, the "real" story was not told.
It
wasn't until the story got so big that the campaign, the New York Times, and the
Washington Post could no longer ignore it that we learned about a diagnosis.
Her health is a real concern and not the conspiracy theory all the Liberal
elites want to apply to anyone who questions her health.
dlglobal N.J. 11 hours ago
I jogged today in NJ, 40 minutes from NYC, on a
beautiful "cool" day unlike the hot days before. Was NYC really hot as described
that caused her to become dehydrated/overcome by heat? Something ain't kosher
here...
rich williams long island ny 8 hours ago
Mrs. Clinton lost consciousness,
called a syncope episode. She should have been brought to a hospital by
ambulance. She needed to have full blood work, an EKG, a chest X-ray, a CT of
the head, a neuro and cardiac consult. She needs to be on a cardiac monitor for
24 hours. Especially since she is on Coumadin a powerful blood thinner for
previous blood clots which has significant complications.
One more attempt to
deceive the public for political purposes. I do not believe the pneumonia story.
And why didn't they tell us about it in Friday when the diagnosis was made? Her
physician should be careful, she should be deposed. Mrs. Clinton put herself out
there and we have a right to know her health problems now that she collapsed in
public at a routine low stress event. I am a licensed practicing Emergency
Medicine physician for 35 years, Board Certified.
in disbelief Manhattan 8 hours ago
Clinton didn't lose her balance, as the
NYT put it, she collapsed and had to be carried to her car. My God, is the NYT,
in its mission to relentlessly push Clinton's candidacy, now refusing to report
simple facts? Have we reached a new low in journalism now? Clinton collapsed! I
hope Mrs. Clinton the best in regards to her own health, but for the NYT to
purposely refuse to report what everyone saw is outrageously dishonest.
Z USA 10 hours ago
As a medical resident, I am perplexed by the pneumonia
diagnosis. Pneumonia is diagnosed with a chest x-ray. Did she undergo a chest
x-ray on Friday? Also, pneumonia can be quite a serious illness - it doesn't
seem wise for her campaign to allow her to interact with young children
(apparently she hugged a child?) given the diagnosis. I don't want to say it but
as Trump likes to say, "something is going on here." I don't want to stoke the
conspiracy theorists, but I think it's time we get some more information about
her health...
Michel Santa Barbara 11 hours ago
All of a sudden NYT is no longer able to
bury the story about her fainting and stumbling as it has done so far today,
much to the shame of people who call themselves journalists and are in fact
nothing more than shameful surrogates for a hugely failing candidates
Sue Cleveland
If she was told she had pneumonia on Friday, why
did they not release that information then?
Dr.J Atlanta
I have had pneumonia myself. She will get better.
With all the plane flights and her grueling schedule, I am not surprised she got
sick. That said, even if she were gravely ill, why would that make Trump a more
appealing candidate? She has chosen a vice presidential candidate who reflects
her values and the values of our country. I fully expect Secretary Clinton to be
fine, but if heaven forbid she is not, Tim Kaine is a far better choice than
Donald Trump or Mike Pence.
Steve New York 5 hours ago
I know, it's the fault of the Sander's supporters
that her health is now an issue. It's always the fault of the Sander's
supporters for any of the problems that Clinton has. The DNC is not at all at
fault for saddling Democrats with a candidate whom few trust and now has the
additional question of health. Thanks a lot DNC.
Sarah Minneapolis 10 hours ago
The commenter who is a medical doctor is
right: The current state of medicine requires an x-ray to be diagnosed with
pneumonia. One safe bet is that Chelsea doesn't have an x-ray machine in her
swank NYC apartment.
I don't know what's more pathetic: The NYT "news" coverage of Clinton's
health issues or the fact that all the NYT Picks comments are pro-Hillary.
The storied NYT has become a caricature of a liberal rag. MSM has completely
failed to do its job, as far as Clinton is concerned. Doesn't any journalist
there have any semblance of a professional conscience left?
Jon Dama Charleston, SC 10 hours ago
Gee - so Giuliani was right after all.
He's been commenting that Hillary doesn't look good for the past weeks - and
gathering much savage criticism from the liberal press for saying so. No wonder
he was a great mayor - he can spot a problem from a New York mile. Now let's
learn if this is just a bout of pneumonia; or something worse - perhaps related
to that fall. Hmm - don't count on the truth from her headquarters - we'll have
to wait and see.
Gagg Door County, WI 10 hours ago
So, the focus group came back with
pneumonia, eh? I can't think of any reason they'd lie about this. Btw, the
weather service reported late morning Manhattan temp of 77F and humidity of 42%
The media have led us to believe that the heat index was nearing 9.47 Trillion
F...But they've never misled me before...sarc/off
Here There 10 hours ago Today was the nicest weather in weeks, the humidity
was about 35 percent, and at 9 am the sunlight isn't a major issue.
In other words, not buying.
Chicklet is a trusted commenter Douglaston, NY 5 hours ago
Pneumonia
diagnosed on Friday, really? A dozen reporters follow Mrs. Clinton all day, did
they visit the Mt. Kisco Medical Group? This isn't a condition you can diagnose
over the phone, and someone as important as a Presidential candidate ought to
have a proper diagnosis which would include x-rays and blood tests.
Hopefully it's a simple bacterial pneumonia that readily responds to
antibiotics. I hope her physician picked a modern medication, more modern than
her obsolete thyroid medicine and blood thinners. One would think she could get
the best care in the world instantly- this doesn't seem right...
Steve Dimick Las Vegas
Many of the comments are support Mrs.
Clinton and claim a little pneumonia is not a problem. It may not be. The big
issue here is TRUST. Can we believe what she or her camp says about her health
issues? Anybody her takes her word on face value is a fool. She has lied to us
so many times.
Peter Albany.
NY I don't believe the campaign explanation. I
think it is a fib. My sense is that Mrs. Clinton has had underlying health
issues which have and will continue to be aggravated by the rigors of a
Presidential campaign. To me, an undecided voter, she does not seem healthy and
age has caught up with her in startling fashion.
TB NY 6 hours ago
The video of Mrs. Clinton as she "loses balance" at an
event where a very large number of professional "reporters" were in attendance,
including some accompanied by people with expensive video cameras on their
shoulders, was attributed to "Twitter user Zdenek Gazda".
What a stunning indictment of the media, particularly those who were assigned
to cover the Democratic nominee for President; the one who was diagnosed with
pneumonia two days ago. But they didn't know that, to be fair, otherwise they
might have actually kept an eye on her at the ceremony.
It took one guy with a smartphone to change the whole dynamic of the story.
Not a journalist, it should be noted. Just some guy with a smartphone, and some
curiosity.
Too bad he wasn't around on Friday. We might have learned about the pneumonia
diagnosis.
Disgraceful.
seniordem Arizona
Pneumonia can be quite a surprising event. I
am a bit older than Hillary and last year, I suddenly without any warning, found
my self on the floor and unable to get up by myself. The medical technicians
told us that it would be OK for my spouse to drive me to the hospital where it
came as much as a surprise as my fall to find out that I had Pneumonia. The next
day I came home and was on my feet a day later. Antibiotics certainly are a
wonder of our time. To sum up my experience In the jargon of New York "Who
knew"? We wish Hillary well and look for her to be able to resume her campaign
soon.
Seb Williams Orlando, FL
It says so much about the Clintons that
even something like this is difficult to trust. Pneumonia -- fine. Nobody's
going to begrudge her that, it happens. Why the compulsive secrecy, obfuscation,
press-dodging? At her age, why on earth was she not sent for x-rays?
I'm really baffled by the sycophancy in these comments. Here's a woman who
employs a personal physician and aspires to be President of the United States
being utterly reckless with *her own health*. That is not "strength", that's
scary.
Mike B Tampa, FL 10 hours ago
Did any of the commenters here actually see the
video...?!? She passed out while standing up..! Is our president, the president
of the United States going to need babysitting so she doesn't pass out on here
feet, fall and hit her head again? It's like the Seven Plagues with you
people... What in the name of humanity is it going to take to make you
understand that she is not well.... She is in no way capable to serve, no
possible way!
Frank E AK 11 hours ago
Ehhh, she fainted and was then carried the last
couple of feet inside the van by 2 or 3 people; she also visibly loses one of
her shoes in the process. How is she "fine" again?
Pol Pont California 7 hours ago
Hillary is surrounded by either a bunch of
liars or incompetents. If she had a pneumonia why not say so last Friday and
take her to ground zero for 30 minutes which was well enough under the
circumstances and not let her stand there until she fainted knowing that she was
unwell. We all have a colds and other passing illnesses at the worst possible
time. Are they trying to make her really ill?
Cryptapocalypse USA 7 hours ago
NYT- this development is exactly why all
these pieces in the Times poo-pooing health concerns were ill-advised and even
suggested complicity on the Time's part to minimize what are obviously multiple
strange behaviors by Mrs. Clinton. Even a person without medical training can
recognize that she has some problems, whatever they may be. I am sick of the
attempts by the Times and other mainstream publications to convince the public
that a common sense observation that Mrs. Clinton has frail health is wrong. The
fact that you also question Mr. Trumps health does not lessen the sting of
attempts to minimize concerns about Mrs. Clinton. What will you do if she has an
epileptic fit during the debates? You may be eating more and more proverbial
crow as time goes on. Please start doing your job as journalists and not as
apologists for either candidate.
Hey Joe Somewhere In The US 7 hours ago
The Clintons lie and hold back on the
most ridiculous things. Pneumonia is treatable, and carries no shame. But the
poor handling of this makes ya wonder if it isn't something worse. They've brought this on themselves. I hope she is well. And if she isn't,
stop everything and deal with it. And if she does get well, don't do stupid
things like this, or do them off camera.
Baron95 Westport, CT 9 hours ago
Anyone living in the NYC area knows that
this morning 8-9AM during the ceremony, the weather was neither hot, nor humid.
Instead it was a perfect 70s with low humidity (35%).
Why does the NYT insist on calling it "hot and humid"? Is it to fit the
Clinton narrative?
Also there were hundreds of reports throughout the day of Mrs. Clinton near
fainted, being carried out is a hurry.
Yet, the NYT only reports on it after it gets the proper "narrative" from the
official Clinton campaign release.
Is that what journalism is supposed to be?
Joe Schuler Norwalk, CT 10 hours ago
Stonewalling, followed by suspect cover
stories, has been a constantly recurring theme during Mrs. Clinton's campaign.
Large media sources, including my once-trusted NY Times, have been shockingly
complicit in abetting these attempts at deceit. What has happened to you guys?
ADCM Many Places 10 hours ago
As a preliminary matter let me say that Trump
is a disaster.
That said, I've grown so weary of the secrecy, minimizing and misdirection
from the Clintons and this campaign. And I don't want to hear any of the
'vast-right-wing-conspiracy' or 'Trump-is-a-whole-lot-worse' tripe! Voters
deserve honesty and respect from candidates and we aren't getting it.
I'm just sick at the choice of a Nixonian-like presidency from Clinton or a
dictatorship from Trumpolini.
Thanks a lot republican and democratic parties!
Shines66 Florida 7 hours ago
Is it time for the DNC to select an alternative
to Clinton? She is not well and will not be able to perform duties of the
presidency. Her health condition is going to get Mr. Trump elected.
"... Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post ..."
As the White House prepares for its final "
all-out push " to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) during the upcoming
lame-duck session of Congress, lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle
are being made vulnerable due to growing opposition to the controversial, corporate-friendly
trade deal.
"[I]n 2016," the Guardian
reported on Saturday, "America's faltering faith in free trade has become
the most sensitive controversy in D.C."
Yet President Barack Obama "has refused to give up," wrote Guardian
journalists Dan Roberts and Ryan Felton, despite the fact that the 12-nation
TPP "suddenly faces a wall of political opposition among lawmakers who had,
not long ago, nearly set the giant deal in stone."
... ... ...
Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with
Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal,"
as the Washington Post
reported Thursday, but once-supportive Dems are also poised to jump ship.
To that end, in a column this week, Campaign for America's Future blogger
Dave Johnson
listed for readers "28 House Democrat targets...who-in spite of opposition
from most Democrats and hundreds of labor, consumer, LGBT, health, human rights,
faith, democracy and other civil organizations-voted for the 'fast-track' trade
promotion authority (TPA) bill that 'greased the skids' for the TPP by setting
up rigged rules that will help TPP pass."
Of the list that includes Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), Jared Polis
(Colo.), and Ron Kind (Wis.), Johnson wrote: "Let's get them on the record before
the election about whether they will vote for TPP after the election."
This is an important summary of symptom that are known from open sources...
Notable quotes:
"... Road to Recovery from Parkinson's Disease ..."
"... This situation with Hillary is like the sickly, mentally deficient child of a recently deceased monarch being installed as a puppet ruler who is completely under the control of shadowy advisers. ..."
"... Not just other countries, Doomberg. Mrs. Wilson did a great job of hiding her husband's stroke which left him in a coma as she ran the country. It has happened here before, as well. ..."
"... e psychopaths are selected never elected ..."
Hillary's health is declining, as anyone who has looked at her can see. The
question is: What condition does she have? A board certified Anesthesiologist
has written a memo of Hillary's health. Feel free to pass it along to doctors
and to analytics and criticize it.
Hillary Clinton (HRC) has suffered a variety of health issues. Unfortunately,
she has declined to make her medical records public. In July of 2015 her personal
physician released a letter asserting her "excellent physical condition." Unfortunately,
multiple later episodes recorded on video strongly suggest that the content
of the letter is incorrect. This discussion is designed to sort through the
known facts and propose a possible medical explanation for these events. In
keeping with Occam's Razor, a single explanation that covers everything is preferred.
In 2009, HRC fell and broke her elbow . Little else
was made public.
[i]
On December 17, 2012, while Secretary of State, HRC fell and suffered
a concussion.
[ii] Later, a transverse sinus thrombosis was diagnosed, resulting in
chronic anticoagulation therapy.
[iii] Her post-concussion syndrome was declared "recovered" in about
six months.
[iv] The original fall was publicly attributed to dehydration following
gastroenteritis.
An email from Huma Abedin (HRC's closest advisor) on January
26, 2013, says that HRC "is often confused."
[v]
Photos show being assisted up what appears to be the steps of a residential
porch. This apparently happened in February of 2016. On August 4, 2016,
Reuters and Getty published the photos.
[vi]
At a rally on May 2, 2016, HRC demonstrates classic PD hand
posturing .
[vii] She has
no lectern in front, so she starts with her right hand pressed against her
chest. At the 18:02 mark, she starts gesturing with her right hand, which
is in a very unnatural position that is common in PD.
On July 21, 2016 HRC was filmed talking to reporters at close range
when several spoke at once. Without warning, she started a bizarre
head-bobbing episode that must be seen rather than described. After
several cycles, she regained control and declared that the reporters "must
try the iced chai."
[viii]
On July 28, 2016, during the balloon drop, HRC suddenly looks
up with a frozen wide-mouth and wide-eyed stare . After a couple
of seconds she regains control and a more normal expression.
[ix]
On August 5, HRC declared that she had "short circuited"
[x] a response to Chris Wallace in an interview that aired July 31 on
Fox News Sunday.
[xi]
August 6, 2016, at a campaign rally, HRC freezes with wide eyes
in response to protestors . A large black male who commonly accompanies
her leans in and tells her "It's OK. We're not going anywhere. Keep talking…"
Shortly after, she laughs strangely and then says "OK. Here we are. We'll
keep talking."
[xii]
Several recent photos show HRC with an inappropriately exaggerated
wide-mouthed smile and extreme wide-open eyes . Several videos
show her laughing inappropriately and for extended periods. Numerous events
have been interrupted by prolonged episodes of coughing unrelated to any
infectious cause.
This discussion will not argue that the black male is carrying
a diazepam injector, since there is a plausible argument that it is actually
a small flashlight, and is seen in other video to be such. We will also
not discuss the circular area on her tongue. It appears to be the site of
a mass excision. Benign explanations that do not bear on chronic health
issues may easily be proffered.
Discussion:
The HRC campaign meme is that "there's nothing to see here."
But numerous trained observers have noted multiple other, more subtle bits that
strongly support the argument below.
After the 2012 fall, HRC had post-concussion syndrome (PCS). She should have
declared herself unable to fulfill her duties as Secretary of State. Her resignation
from the position shortly thereafter may have satisfied this need without public
medical discussion. If no other questionable medical signs had appeared, this
discussion would end here. But the other events and signs point to a single
cause for the fall, and it is not the public explanation. Further, HRC's statement
early in her tenure as Secretary of State that she would serve only four years
can be read in the context of a progressive disease that was known as she assumed
the post.
It is the premise of this discussion the HRC is most likely suffering from
Parkinson's Disease (PD).
It explains every one of the items listed above. Further, since it is a diagnosis
primarily made by observation, the video record is sufficient to create a high
degree of certainty.
The 2009 fall where HRC broke her elbow suggests that she had working protective
reflexes, and her arm took the brunt of the fall. But three years later, she
had a catastrophic fall where her reflexes were unable to help her. It is notable
that this fall took place at home, where she would have been unstressed and
in a familiar setting. Failing reflexes are common in PD. Poor balance is also
common in PD, and a fall without working protective reflexes is a prescription
for head injury. Her subsequent concerns with transverse sinus thrombosis are
plausibly related to the fall. Her need for fresnel lens glasses also fits with
post-concussion syndrome.
Huma Abedin's email comment can be referring to PCS as well, since it was
during the six-month period of rehab. One must, however, be cautious not to
overlook persistent cognitive problems that PCS can have. (Editorial note: The
reader will note that this discussion is giving the benefit of the doubt to
as many HRC memes as can reasonably earn it.)
2016 starts a spate of new data. The photos of HRC being helped up the steps
is consistent with a fall similar to 2012, but with a security detail close
enough to catch her before she fell to the ground. This matches the loss of
reflexes and balance with PD.
On July 21 a video of HRC is posted that has many observers calling a "seizure."
We should note the setting. She is answering questions, and then multiple
reporters call out at the same time. Such a shock is often too much stress for
a PD patient, and the patient suffers an "on/off" episode. Higher control turns
off and an unpredictable dyskinesia takes over. Shortly she switches back "on"
and regains control. Her mind froze during the "off" state, but was aware, so
she is able to speak again, but inappropriately.
It should be noted that such dyskinesias are sufficiently common with long
term treatment that they have a name: Parkinson's Disease LevoDopa Induced Dyskinesia
(PD LID).
A week later, during the balloon drop at the Convention, HRC suddenly "freezes."
This is an "off" moment manifested by bradykinesia, another PD problem. The
particular form is a brief oculogyric crisis, complete with head arched back,
fixed gaze, and wide open mouth. Again, this is common in PD. We should compare
it to HRC's facial expressions on "Live with Kelly and Michael" on November
19, 2015. [xiii]
At 6:30 in that video, we also see a PD tremor and posture in her left hand
when it comes to rest momentarily. In most videos her hands are in constant
motion or clasped against some object. These are strategies to suppress a tremor.
HRC's description of her false answers to Chris Wallace as a "short circuit"
is extremely unusual.
It comes from the field of electronics, in which HRC has never been involved.
The Urban Dictionary definition is electrical, and there is no popular or slang
usage. But one semi-technical description of PD calls it "short-circuiting"
brain circuits.
[xiv] Did she hear this during a doctor's explanation of her disease? It
would not be unusual to parrot such a phrase if she has PD.
Days later, HRC "freezes" again at a campaign rally. This "off" state is
like the others, triggered by a startle/stress reaction. But what is more telling
is that the security detail gives her specific instructions in an attempt to
get her to turn "on" again. She then parrots those exact words as she restarts.
This is another PD sign.
The numerous episodes of prolonged coughing are another tell. Swallowing
disorders are very common in PD. They can lead to aspiration pneumonia, the
most common cause of death in PD. But before that they lead to chronic difficulty
swallowing saliva. It gets onto the vocal cords, leading to coughing in an attempt
to clear them. The high frequency of these episodes strongly suggests a major
swallowing disorder.
Multiple episodes of inappropriate and extended laughter have also been documented.
This, again, is common in PD.
We do not have video evidence of the "pill rolling" tremor that is common
in PD. But that is not a major concern for our thesis. Treatment with levodopa
can reduce it. Also, PD sufferers develop a variety of techniques to hide it.
Since it is a tremor at rest, keeping the hands in motion suppresses it. Grasping
objects such as a lectern can also hide it. As long as the hands are busy, it
is usually not visible.
Summary:
HRC probably has PD.
She has had clinical symptoms for a minimum of 4 years, and probably much
longer, given that the fall leading to her head injury required a significant
progression of the disease. All of her bizarre physical actions since that time
fit nicely into the spectrum of signs that we expect in PD. And since PD explains
all of them, we have a high probability of a correct diagnosis. It has almost
certainly been treated with levodopa. Some of her symptoms may be related to
this drug treatment.
It is most curious that all of the bizarre physical signs seem to be in 2016
videos. HRC was a public figure in 2015, with a lot of campaign work underway.
Yet all of the oddities seem to be within the last several months. This suggests
a significant progression of her PD. We also know that her contact with the
public has been rigidly controlled. She has not done news conferences during
the campaign. These would be highly stressful to a PD sufferer and would elicit
many PD signs.
PD is a chronic disease with a downhill prognosis. HRC's instability and
frequent cough suggest that her PD is advanced. This is not a good outlook for
someone running for the Presidency. The office of the President is one of the
highest stress jobs in the world. Stress sets off PD episodes, which render
the sufferer incapable of proper response.
At this point, a bit of speculation seems appropriate. HRC talks about her
yoga sessions. But no one we know of has ever documented one. It is possible
that this is cover for sessions designed to teach her coping mechanisms for
PD or for rest breaks. Exhaustion makes PD worse.
HRC's coughing suggests that her swallowing disorder is advanced, placing
her closer to an aspiration pneumonia that would disable or kill her. That's
bad enough, but PD has one more, even more dangerous step in its progression.
As PD continues, cognitive problems can develop. In time, they become full-blown
dementia. The United States cannot survive if its President is mentally impaired.
Conclusion:
It is not appropriate for a physician to make a diagnosis at a distance.
But since the evidence in the public record so strongly suggests that HRC has
moderate to advanced PD, it is imperative that HRC release her complete
medical record to an impartial panel of physicians for review. It is not
necessary for the public at large to see them. Such a panel should be secure
in its deliberations and should present a summary to the public. If she has
PD, the panel would know and it would be made public. If not, then the air would
clear.
Note on authorship:
The author of this document is a board-certified Anesthesiologist with 36
years of experience. That brings with it the ability to understand medical discussions,
but not the expertise to evaluate PD signs and symptoms.
The first subject matter expert is a close friend of the author. This person
is a brilliant businessman who was forced to sell his interest in eight successful
businesses because early onset PD made him unable to continue in the daily duties
of business. He is well versed in PD and sees its ravages in himself.
The second subject matter expert is the author's brother. He is an RN who
spent two years working 12-hour shifts caring for PD patients in a nursing home.
This saturation experience allows him to pick up PD signs automatically. He
notes that he called HRC's PD and levodopa therapy when he watched the famous
"What difference does it make?" exchange. Her mannerisms and behavior were classic
and stereotypical.
Of interest is that during a teleconference, the author called the others
to look at HRC's left hand during the "Live With Kelly and Michael" video. The
clip was played, and neither of the others even saw her hand. They
were both riveted to her eyes, and both exclaimed that her eyes were "classic
PD." The clip had to be played a second and third time before they could even
take their gaze away from her eyes. They did finally see her hand and agree
that it was also demonstrating PD.
Very thorough observations. If this turns out to be true it's beyond
me that the Democrats would continue to back her as a candidate for president.
Poor judgment in my opinion.
If this turns out to be true it's beyond me that the Democrats would
continue to back her as a candidate for president. Poor judgment in
my opinion.
This situation with Hillary is like the sickly, mentally deficient
child of a recently deceased monarch being installed as a puppet ruler who
is completely under the control of shadowy advisers.
This is the kind of thing that used to happen in places like Imperial
China or Egypt during the time of the pharaohs... this should not be happening
in the United States of America!
Not just other countries, Doomberg. Mrs. Wilson did a great job of
hiding her husband's stroke which left him in a coma as she ran the country.
It has happened here before, as well.
Mrs. Wilson didn't live in today's technical world. Mrs. Wilson didn't
have deployed forces at play carrying massive weapons of war. Neither did
she have nuclear armaments at her disposal. Mrs. Wilson wasn't involved
in a war with an enemy army that America had imported onto it's own soil.
Mrs. Wilson didn't use the most childish judgement ever by conducting
government business on her own basement servers leaving the entire country
open to malicious mismanagement. Mrs. Wilson didn't abandon American citizens
in Benghazi and leave them to be mutilated and murdered because she wanted
to take a nap.
Even without dementia, she's proven that she is an inept government worker
and is not qualified for the position and will place America in jeopardy.
The fact that the democratic party hires people to make comments like
yours on the internet is further proof that corruption is part and parcel
of weak and greedy people who put the well being of their own country low
on their list of priorities. Unless the democrats are forwarding your payment
for that comment to Saudi Arabia, you'd be a traitor.
Don't forget Ronald and Nancy. Yes, dementia happens to Republicans too,
and Donald Trump clearly has cognitive issues that prevent him from staying
on script or exhibiting the smallest shred of empathy for others.
Dimentia came much later, after he had served his two terms. Nice try
though. But, I suppose that since he wore hearing aids, this only helped
him really, he could turn the volume down when idiots began talking too
much.
The psychopaths are selected never elected, 'tis a game of charades,
whilst Obummer and Michael await in The Dark House wings, martial law shall
be what the 'happy couple' sings.
FDR had already been diagnosed with terminal congestive heart failure
and was periodically mentally incompetent before he ran for re-election
in November of 1944. He probably should have resigned prior to finishing
his third term, and DEFINITELY should not have run for a fourth, but the
truth about his health had been kept from the American people.
the majority of the democrats backing her are doing it not because they
like her but because they stupidly fear Trump more than her.
i expect they will put their head in the sand about this news and hope
it doesn't get any traction. yes that's right, they'd rather have a sickly
ill president, then one that is tee total, clean and healthy as an ox
While Bill was President, the Clintons were found to have, illegally,
of course, a number of FBI files on the "enemies". Sorry, I can't recall
the whole story.
The RINO and Democrat establishments both fear that Donald Trump will
free U.S. policy from the control of globalist interests, cutting off the
gravy train for the vast majority of professional politicians who have been
in the pay of the globalist cabal for the past 30 years.
I don't know if relying on the same people over time is bad or loopy or what. I know that old
friends are the best friends, so this does not bother me so much.
I will add, which is almost never pointed out, that while the Clintons really are money grubbers
(see them stealing White House silverware and HRC unbelievably stupidly giving all those Goldman
Sachs talks for money she did not need and for which she should have known she would be criticized
while running, which Bernie certainly did plenty, although somehow Trump has so far laid off that),
the Clintons have in fact publicly released 33 years of their tax returns right up to the latest
ones. They may be money grubbers, but it is pretty much all out there to see.
... ...
Beverly Mann
August 30, 2016 5:05 pm
What bothers me–what strikes me as weird–is the extent to which she relies on Abedin, especially,
but also Mills and a few others. They're like human security blanket, without which she can't
function, it appears.
And: Oooooh, yeah, Trump's hiding not just something but a lot of things. Believe me.
"... So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin. ..."
"... The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of the orders from Washington. ..."
All this anti-Russian warmongering from esteemed commenters here is suspect. And should be
taken with a grain of salt.
The USA neoliberal elite considers Russia to be an obstacle in the creation of the USA led
global neoliberal empire (with EU and Japan as major vassals),
So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify
such a course as well as the demonization of Putin.
The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color
revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because
the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And
Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but
just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of
the orders from Washington.
That means that as bad as Trump is, he is a safer bet than Hillary, because the latter is a
neocon warmonger, which can get us in the hot war with Russia. And this is the most principal,
cardinal issue of the November elections.
All other issues like climate change record (although nuclear winter will definitely reverse
global warming), Supreme Court appointments, etc. are of secondary importance.
As John Kenneth Galbraith said, "Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and
the unpalatable."
"... Clinton has gone days between events in some cases and hasn't given a press conference in more than 270 days, a fact that Republicans have been eager to highlight. ..."
"... The press has badgered Clinton's running mate Tim Kaine and other top surrogates, Vice President Biden among them, about Clinton's whereabouts and why she has kept such a low profile with the election only two months away. ..."
"... The only running Hillary is doing is AWAY from truth and accountability. ..."
"... Leading the lambs to slaughter. There's Syria. There's Iran. There's Russia. And boom! boom!! There's China. They'll all fall in a week. Just like Afghanistan. Just like Libya. Just like Iraq. Just like Yemen. Just like Egypt. Just like the Ukraine. And just like Syria. ..."
"... But it was Hillary, Biden, Kerry and the Democrats who voted for the war. Man up and take responsibility for a change. A vote for Hillary is a vote for war ..."
"... Hillary does not know a Classified Message or that she exposed secrets to enemies? By the way an Iranian nuclear scientist who was spying for the U.S. was exposed by Hillary's emails. He was just executed. ..."
"... And as for the University find out why Bill Clinton made 17 million from an on line University that gave donations to the Clinton foundation for favorable treatment overseas. Then get back to me. ..."
"... 50 old guard internationalists that need their old school ideas swept into the dust bin of history. I thought democrats hated Neocons? Now you love them? ..."
In that time, controversy has exploded over Clinton Foundation ties to the State Department. A
steady drip of developments surrounding Clinton's use of a private email server also persists, punctuated
by Friday's release by the FBI of documents pertaining to its investigation into her email set-up.
Those controversies have dragged Clinton's already-dismal approval rating to new lows and have
kept her from slamming the door shut on Trump.
"It used to look like Clinton should just spend the fall at the International Space Station watching
Trump implode, but it raises the question of whether you can disappear from the campaign trail without
it having some effect," said Marquette University pollster Charles Franklin, whose Wisconsin survey
found Clinton's favorability declining across every metric.
Clinton has gone days between events in some cases and hasn't given a press conference in
more than 270 days, a fact that Republicans have been eager to highlight.
The press has badgered Clinton's running mate Tim Kaine and other top surrogates, Vice President
Biden among them, about Clinton's whereabouts and why she has kept such a low profile with the election
only two months away.
"I don't think anyone can tell her story as well as she can, so she needs to be out there telling
it," said Democrat Nina Turner, a former top spokesperson for Bernie Sanders. "You have to face the
voters if you want them to vote for you. You have to be out there talking to them and engaging with
them and having real conversations and dialogue."
Leading the lambs to slaughter.
There's Syria.
There's Iran.
There's Russia.
And boom! boom!! There's China. They'll all fall in a week.
Just like Afghanistan.
Just like Libya. Just like Iraq.
Just like Yemen.
Just like Egypt.
Just like the Ukraine.
And just like Syria.
Hillary told the FBI that she had a massive brain injury and blood clot due to a concussion, so
she can't remember anything.
You give her too much credit. And you lie.
Hillary did not broker a peace agreement between Israel and Hamas regarding GAZA.
There is no agreement.
Israel has built a big wall along the GAZA strip to assist their security..
2) As US Senator, Hillary Clinton was a member of the highly classified -
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
3) As Sec of State - Clinton was the boss of the entire US State Dept.
And she signed the following
"CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT",
that she had received the "security indoctrination" etc.,
. . but she clung to her precious Blackberry like a life preserver. She demanded to be able to
use her Blackberry. After all, the President of the United States used HIS Blackberry ( a specially
altered, secure Blackberry ) all the time! It's Ssoooo cool! Why can't she have a special Blackberry
too?
"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction." Turned out all that was found were leaky canisters left
over from the Iran/Iraq war in 1983. For that Bush and all who voted for him set the mid-east
on fire. That's so far up the stupid scale it doesn't ever register.
But it was Hillary, Biden, Kerry and the Democrats who voted for the war. Man up and take responsibility
for a change. A vote for Hillary is a vote for war
Hillary does not know a Classified Message or that she exposed secrets to enemies? By the way
an Iranian nuclear scientist who was spying for the U.S. was exposed by Hillary's emails. He was
just executed.
And Shrillary has no concept of how to handle classified information and left her unsecured server
containing above Top-Secret information open to hostile intelligence services. She should be prosecuted.
Others have for much less.
Tim Kaine graduated from Harvard, did missionary work in Central America, and then was mayor
of Richmond, Lt. Governor, Governor of Virginia, and a U.S. Senator. Trump is a lying, racist,
casino owner with four bankruptcies, three marriages. and a phony "university.".
Obama went Harvard and is an idiot. Missionary work-who cares? He was bad in every office he held
proving Democrats will elect idiots. As for Trump -- you clearly don't know squat about starting
or running a big business. Every Bank that got stuck in a BK is still with Trump because ALL banks
play the odds. Trump as made them billions.
And as for the University find out why Bill Clinton
made 17 million from an on line University that gave donations to the Clinton foundation for favorable
treatment overseas. Then get back to me.
50 old guard internationalists that need their old school ideas swept into the dust bin of history.
I thought democrats hated Neocons? Now you love them?
I am getting those "living a past life" feelings; swimming with a school of
my fellow fish, and sensing that a huge fishing net is being drawn in, with my
group in it. Feeling the slack noose around my horse-neck, slowly begin to
tighten; Seeing a hardening in the faces of the formerly "friendly" occupying
soldiers of my little town.
Google is Censoring Hillary's Health Problems Search Results
"... Clinton cannot recall, or chooses not to recall, a briefing she received on January 22, 2009. Either one implicates her as incompetent or a liar. I say both... ..."
"... "she could only work at State for a few hours a day" So her paycheck was cut to reflect her shorter hours like everybody else, right? ..."
"... That's why she invaded Libya which had nothing to do with anything. She was only half conscious. ..."
"... She bombed Libya because she forgot Soweto Obama had already won the Nobel Peace Prize. ..."
"... When someone with severe anti-social personality disorder tells you "I don't recall," especially when 'recalling' would result in negative consequences for a particular action or actions, it is usually not a problem with memory. ..."
"... So she get the Nuclear Key and forgets about when to use it or if she actually did. Very convenient setup. ..."
"... Clinton said she never sent classified data from her server. Turned out to be false. Using BleachBit shows she was trying to destroy evidence. ..."
With much of the recent discussion focusing on Hillary Clinton's general health condition, and
mental acuity in particular, we wonder if the FBI just threw her under the bus with the following
statement which links Hillary's "inability" to remember her transition instructions with her 2012
concussion and blood clot:
CLINTON stated she received no instructions or direction regarding the preservation or production
of records from State during the transition out of her role as Secretary of State in early 2013.
However, in December of 2012, CLINTON suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a
blood clot. Based on her doctor's advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and
could not recall every briefing she received . CLINTON did not have any discussions with aides
about turning over her email records, nor did anyone from State request them. She believed her
work-related emails were captured by her practice of sending email to the state.gov email address
of her staff. CLINTON was unaware of the requirement to turn over printed records at that time.
Her physical records were boxed up and handled by aides.
The original, on page 9 of 11:
CLINTON stated she received no instructions or direction regarding the preservation
or production of records from State during the transition out of her role as Secretary of State
in early
2013, However, in December of 2012, CLINTON suffered a concussion and then around the New Year
had a blood clot. Based on her doctor's advice, she could only work at State lor a few hours a
day and
could not recall every briefing she received. CLINTON did not have airy discussions with aides
about
turning over her email records, nor did anyone from State request them. She believed her work-related
emails were captured by her practice of sending email to the state.gov email addresses of her
staff.
CLINTON was unaware of the requirement to turn over printed records at that time. Her physical
records
were boxed up and handled by aides.
Clinton cannot recall, or chooses not to recall, a briefing she received on January 22,
2009. Either one implicates her as incompetent or a liar. I say both...
Clinton's sole briefing occurred on January 22, the day after the Senate confirmed
her to the post. On that date, as the nation's top diplomat, Clinton signed a document acknowledging
she received a security briefing.
"I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature
and protection of SCI," or the nation's highest classified materials, was part of the pledge
in the document.
It amazes me how Alex Jones, Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin have such an extensive network
they can now plant their CONSPIRACY THEORIES in FBI reports.
Clearly the Russians are behind it. Better for vote Clinton.
Here is the definitive video on the true state of Hillary's health and why she should not be elected
president of the USA. Hillary is quite ill and the media is doing a masterful job of covering
it up.
When someone with severe
anti-social personality disorder tells you "I don't recall," especially when 'recalling' would
result in negative consequences for a particular action or actions, it is usually not a problem
with memory.
Here is an idea: The govt needs to build a senior care facility just outside DC, perhaps on the
grouds of Langley. Top drawer care and facilities for , for, for , elderly prior elected or appointed
officials. It woudl be a safe zone for them, nothing they say is recorded but then again limited
visitors.For recreation thay woudl have conference rooms and board rooms, even a copy of the Oval
Office-those deemed messed up go live there and have the make believe meetings and conversations
thay always wanted to have without creating problems.
Newly elected or appointed officials woudl be taken out there for field trips to be shown what
happens when you lose your effectiveness.
The cost woudl be offset by not having to pay for secret service, not paying their retirement
(that goes to the facility) or pay for private planes to travel.
Put Reid, Pelosi, McCain, mcConnell there to start. Bush , both of them, Cheney--add enough
of these folks they can hold make beleve meetings. Then add Hillary --they can hold make beleve
cabinet meetings, authorize huge spendng programs, start wars without declarign them--
it wodl be a make believe garden of eden.
we could build on this and make is a offer they cannot refuse.
This is frgiin priceless as her health is not a concern.....until she needs an excuse for treaon
- LOCK HER UP: Hillary Clinton told the FBI she did not recall all the briefings she received
on handling sensitive information as she made the transition from her post as U.S. secretary of
state, due to a concussion suffered in 2012.
Wait. Time out. Don't you see the chess move? She's going to use the "I had a brain clot" to escape
doing Federal jail time. Kind of like when your girlfriend tells you "not tonight, honey, I've
got a headache." Except we're all going to end up with headaches if she beats the rap and gets
elected.
"CLINTON stated she received no instructions or direction regarding the preservation or
production of records from State during the transition out of her role as Secretary of State
in early 2013."
Clinton said she never sent classified data from her server. Turned out to be false. Using
BleachBit shows she was trying to destroy evidence.
It has now been 271 days since Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton held a press
conference.
#HidingHillary is a campaign strategy to prevent Clinton from making public gaffes. By
avoiding unscripted questions and public appearances that are not carefully controlled by the
campaign, the tactic is designed to allow Clinton's opponent, Republican presidential nominee
Donald Trump, to hand her the presidency through his own self-inflicted wounds.
#HidingHillary might minimize the risk of mistakes for Clinton, but it bolsters Trump's
ability to set the narrative. Under the leadership of Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon, Trump's
campaign is taking full advantage of #HidingHillary, focusing on Clinton's many scandals and more
recently on Trump's immigration policy in an attempt to redirect the political conversation.
Huffington Post reporter David Seaman terminated for questioning Hillary's
health
David Seaman says he was terminated by Huffington Post late Sunday night for
submitting an article that questioned Hillary's health and for linking to a
Paul Joseph Watson video that's been watched by over 3.5 million people.
In the following video, it's obvious the reporter fears for his life, as he
mentions several times that he's not suicidal or depressed or clumsy in any
way.
It looks like he made this video in case he disappears or has "an accident"
some time in the near future:
Josef Stalin speech, March 3, 1937; In its confidential letter of July
29, 1936, on the espionage-terrorist activities of the
Trotskyist-Zinovievist bloc, the Central Committee of the RKP once again
called upon Party organizations to display the utmost vigilance, the ability
to discern enemies of the people, no matter how well masked they may be. The
confidential letter stated:
"Now that it has been proved that the Trotskyist-Zinovievist fiends are
uniting in the struggle against Soviet power, all the most infuriated and
vicious enemies of the toilers of our country-the spies, provocateurs,
diversionists, whiteguards, kulaks, and so on; when all boundaries have been
obliterated between these elements on the one hand and the Trotskyists and
Zinovievists on the other; all of our Party organizations and all members of
the Party must understand that vigilance on the part of Communists is
imperative on every sector and under all circumstances. The inalienable
quality of every Bolshevik under present conditions must be the ability to
discern an enemy of the Party, no matter how well masked he may be."
Dr. Drew was fired from CNN for questioning her healthcare into question.
Deep vein thrombosis and hypothyroidism are a concern for a presidential
candidate of her age. DVT is a concern since managing clots is difficult. NC
covered this issue recently so I'll be on my way.
Problems are undeniable, but severity of the condition can be assessed only by qualified doctors
after studying all medical record. Which should be a requred stp for all US presidential candidates.
CNN presstitutes do disservice to the nation downplaying the concerns.
Notable quotes:
"... So, will Hillary accept Trump's challenge to release her medical records? I think we all know the answer to that... ..."
... reminds Americans about Trump's self-professed medical disability, which allowed him to avoid
serving in the Vietnam War Second, this baseless attack on Clinton's health reeks of the same conspiracy
theory junk we have heard before from him
...Even the way Trump's cheerleader-in-chief Rudy Giuliani
recently tried to support his claim that Clinton was very ill smacked of typical conspiracy fare:
...
CNN User
So, will Hillary accept Trump's challenge to release her medical records? I think we all
know the answer to that...
Just like showing up for a press conference, she just has too much to lose by being open with
voters.;
...prominent medical practitioners who have expressed sincere concern. The most prominent of which
is Dr. Bob Lahita, the Chairman of the Department of Medicine at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center
who has frequently been called on to opine for health on CBS, MSNBC, ABC, Fox, and local news outlets.
"This
is a very unusual story with Hillary," said Lahita, pointing to the two blood clots that Hillary's
been diagnosed with in the past. "The fact that she's having these clots and she's had two bouts
of thrombosis is disconcerting to say the least."
"I don't think it's a conspiracy," said Lahita when asked if questions about Hillary's health
are the musings of far-right agitators or a legitimate question. "You go back to the history of our
presidents and we've had many presidents up until Lyndon Johnson who've concealed their health during
their campaigns." "It had dire effects for our country, going from Kennedy to Roosevelt, to Woodrow
Wilson, whose wife ran the White House for some time," he continued. "So we have issues here and
I think both candidates should be very forthcoming and perhaps have an impartial panel of physicians
review the data and make that kind of decision before Americans go to the poll."
Donald Trump is challenging Hillary Clinton to release her "detailed" medical records and put
the questions surrounding her health status to rest. "I think that both candidates, Crooked Hillary
and myself, should release detailed medical records," Trump tweeted Sunday evening.
"I have no problem in doing so! Hillary?" he said.
Clinton so far has refused to release her detailed medical history.
While on the campaign trail in Iowa, giving a speech for wife Hillary Clinton, Bill's hands were noticeably trembling–and not from being in hot water with Hillary.
Kaposi's sarcoma lesions appear on Clinton's forehead. (depicted)
On CNN 12/6/13 Wolf Blitzer interviewed Clinton in regards to the death of Nelson Mandela. He
was sporting a nice big lesion on his forehead. There have been scandalous reports about him having
a secret HIV test in April of this year and though I don't follow the Star, Globe or any Murdoch
rag, I figure they are probably as right as any news these days.
I'll leave it to you to see the interview later once CNN posts it to their blogs. I had
to watch the jobless figures fraud once again. The 7% figure is fantasy and if it were to be 7% it
would mean three percent are underemployed or have just left the planet.
I find it appropriate that Bill Clinton would be on considering he signed off on NAFTA and the
sucking sound that were US jobs going across the borders and oceans. Maybe harsh justice has
come. I assume Clinton knows where he contracted it though as we all know he DID NOT
HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN, but he did with all the others.
"... video of Bill Clinton clearly shows Kaposi Sarcoma on the forehead and inside the left eyelid. ..."
"... There is a long list of adverse neurological after-effects of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, some of them short term and others that are long term. Surgeons who deal with these issues refer to the long term and permanent loss of cognitive function as "pump head", so named because the patient was kept alive by a heart-lung machine during surgery. ..."
"... It's very likely that Bill Clinton has been dealing with a form of "pump head" since he underwent bypass surgery in February 2010. ..."
"... Absolutely looks like HIV to me. I have seen it, believe me, working in a hospital as a PA for over 20 years. ..."
"... To be honest..I had thought that maybe Bill Clinton was HIV positive back a year ago or so. I managed to see him on TV and was shocked at how totally wasted away he looked. Just my 2 cents though. ..."
"... If he has HIV it should be known to many sex partners as he has had. ..."
In their new
book, Bill & Hillary: So This is That Thing Called Love, the authors interview Clinton
insiders who claim that Bill slept with so many women that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly forced
him to get an HIV test from the doctor. This is because the former President "favored unprotected
sex."
And while the first tests came back negative, HIV and AIDS might explain an ongoing mystery.
Over the years, both Clintons have kept their medical records a secret. Clinton has explained his
rapidly changing appearance to his heart surgery and "new diet" but he has looked increasingly thin
and weak at Hillary campaign rallies.
As Rush Limbaugh opined, looking at Bill Clinton on the campaign trail, Rush only sees Preparation
H, Geritol, Fixodent, and Depends. Bill Clinton looks like his health is on a rapid recline.
The Dec 6 2013 video of Bill Clinton clearly shows Kaposi Sarcoma on the forehead and inside
the left eyelid. Hillary's neurological problems are probably from:
PRIMARY CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM (CNS) LYMPHOMA
Your central nervous system consists of your brain, spinal cord, and spinal nerves. This
system controls all the workings of your body. HIV can infect and damage parts of it.
Primary CNS lymphoma is a type of cancer that typically occurs in people with CD4 counts
less than 50 cells/mm3. This type of cancer affects the lymph system in your brain and spinal
cord. Symptoms of this type of cancer can include:
Headache
Memory loss
Confusion
Other neurological changes
(Other conditions may cause the same symptoms. Consult your healthcare provider if you have
any of these symptoms.)
Diagnosis includes many of the same types of tests as those for Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma-but
because CNS lymphoma affects the brain directly, your healthcare provider may want to do a
brain biopsy as well. Radiation therapy is the most common treatment for AIDS-related CNS lymphoma.
For more information, see the National Cancer Institute's General Information About Primary
CNS Lymphoma.
Pierce, June 16, 2016 at 1:03 am
this is a stupid article, first of all HIV doesn't cause neurological signs unless you have
crytococcous neoformans, PML, HIV dementia which will only happen if he is not taking medications
which as a doctor i'm 100 percent sure,
NEXT people forgot that BILL CLINTON had a CABG(cornary artery bypass procedure) this procedure
which has a side effect of NEUROTOXICITY. Even though he might of had side effects from this procedure
his IQ is not affected.
DONT LISTEN TO THIS GARBAGE ARTICLE
Gunnar, July 2, 2016 at 7:04 pm
Your response sounds emotional, Pierce. There is a long list of adverse neurological after-effects
of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, some of them short term and others that are
long term. Surgeons who deal with these issues refer to the long term and permanent loss of cognitive
function as "pump head", so named because the patient was kept alive by a heart-lung machine during
surgery.
It's very likely that Bill Clinton has been dealing with a form of "pump head" since he
underwent bypass surgery in February 2010.
Laura, May 17, 2016 at 4:42 pm
Absolutely looks like HIV to me. I have seen it, believe me, working in a hospital as a PA
for over 20 years. This is what happens to humans when they live a degenerative lifestyle.
Not everyone gets HIV but something else gets them. You can't fool Mother Nature. She will get
you in the end.
Robert says: February 25, 2016 at 9:59 pm
To be honest..I had thought that maybe Bill Clinton was HIV positive back a year ago or so.
I managed to see him on TV and was shocked at how totally wasted away he looked. Just my 2 cents
though. I wouldn't wish that disease on any body.
Debbie says: February 25, 2016 at 5:23 pm
If he has HIV it should be known to many sex partners as he has had. How many are at
risk? Even Hillary may be at risk..Is that where her cough has come from ???? Does she have it?
Is thatwhat Obama has had on them?
In this gif the thumb of his right hand has a lot going on independently of the rest of his
fingers. Take a look at his left hand, and you will see the less noticeable tremor in his index
and middle fingers.
"Since I follow this year's presidential primaries very closely, I have
recently noticed the same physical characteristics of AIDS patients being
exhibited by Bill Clinton's appearance and persona. At first, anyone may
think he is getting up in age and the deteriorating features are natural.
However, on further examination, one has to conclude Bill Clinton is a very
ill man suffering from advanced stages of AIDS.
Like Charlie Sheen, Bill Clinton has lived a sexually promiscuous lifestyle
and has contracted AIDS. Hillary Clinton is doing everything she can to keep
it quiet. It is very apparent at almost all Hillary Clinton campaign rallies
and speeches where Bill is in attendance that he is a very sick man."
In Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince's new book, Bill & Hillary: So This is
That Thing Called Love, Clinton insiders claim that Bill slept with so many
women that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly forced him to get an AIDS test
from the doctor. This is because the former President "favored unprotected
sex."
No doubt neither of them are running on full health. Bill has been listless,
had a drastic weight loss, trembling hands, red blotches on his face and a
number of other definite signs of ill health, many which are common AIDS
symptoms.
Since my video went viral and
catapulted Hillary's health back into the national
spotlight, we've seen more examples of Clinton behaving
bizarrely, while the establishment has launched a
cover-up.
Excerpted from McIntyre In The Morning | KABC-AM (8/16/2016)
The controversy surrounding Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's health continues
to swirl. KABC's Dr. Drew Pinsky says the former Secretary of State may be receiving inadequate health
care that is not optimal for her condition.
Drew told some tall tales about what medicines are used, especially about treating blood clots.
Coumadin is still much widely used, but it's only fault is the needed blood testing weekly or
bi-weekly. The medicine he pushed is very expensive, (Eliquis), when compared to Coumadin, though
it doesn't require the blood testing that Coumadin does. However, Coumadin does the same thing
as the more expensive medicine.
Here, Coumadin is the standard go-to medicine for blood clots,
after the blood has been thinned with Lovenox injections, and this is still taught in all major
medical schools. I have to agree that this was nothing but an interview to set up Trump, from
a non-psychiatric physician, who is trying to psychoanalyze him as being hypermanic.
However, physicians have stated that Hillary is sociopathic, which is much much worse, since
they are the type that constantly lie, and become cold-blooded killers. Drew did admit that Trump
did not have a narcissistic personality disorder. Trump has a personality born from the boroughs
of New York. New Yorkers are tough, and do not care to tell it like it is.
+Bri G.
True, but new medicines are always expensive in their patent phase, until generic forms are out.
Eliquis is one of the most ridiculously overpriced drugs that there are, for what it does.
"... Trump's Northern Virginia and Maryland state director, asked why Mrs Clinton was dressed for winter during a recent campaign t. ..."
"... "How many of you would wear a wool coat in August?" he said, according to The Louden Times ..."
"... "The woman who seeks to be the first female president of the United States wears a wool coat at every single thing. Have you ever stopped to wonder why? ..."
"... "It's a big deal, folks. This woman is very, very sick and they're covering it up. ..."
Addressing a gathering of Women4Trump in the town of Middleburg, John Jaggers, Trump's Northern Virginia
and Maryland state director, asked why Mrs Clinton was dressed for winter during a recent campaign
t.
"The woman who seeks to be the first female president of the United States wears a wool coat at
every single thing. Have you ever stopped to wonder why?
"It's a big deal, folks. This woman is very, very sick and they're covering it up.
"You're not so much talking about
Hillary Clinton being
president for eight years, you're talking about
Tim Kaine being president for eight years. Because that's what we're dealing with here."
Donald Trump said lots (and lots) of thing during his hour-long town hall with Fox News's Sean Hannity
on Wednesday night.
This one - Trump talking about Hillary Clinton - stood out to me:
She is so protected. They are so protecting her. She hasn't had a news conference in, like, 250
days.
...Jokes aside, it's beyond ridiculous that one of the two people who will be elected president
in 80 or so days continues to refuse to engage with the press in this way.
But she does sit-down interviews! And she did a "press conference" with a moderator, um, moderating
the questions!
...
Clinton, who looked tired and had bags under her eyes, made a quick appearance before cameras in
New York today to show the opening to her meeting with several police chiefs from around the country.
Notice how not one single photographer used a camera FLASH while taking probably hundreds if not
even thousands of photos of Hillary Clinton. As we previously reported
Hillary is sensible to camera flashes and it may trigger some seizures in her:
This means that she has noticeable problems already in 2011, so her "serious neurological
disease" has been already evident at this time.
Notable quotes:
"... Emails released by Wikileaks show that Hillary Clinton looked into a drug used to treat sleepiness and Parkinson's disease after she apparently began suffering from "decision fatigue" back in 2011. ..."
"... The article also explains how "decision fatigue" could explain why "ordinarily sensible people get angry at colleagues," which is possibly a nod to Clinton's infamous temper tantrums that have left her staffers in tears. "Wow that is spooky descriptive," wrote Hillary in response to the article. ..."
"... In a separate email sent two months later, Hillary received information from her top foreign policy advisor Jacob Sullivan about a drug called Provigil (Modafinil), which is used to treat "excessive sleepiness in patients with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and multiple sclerosis," as well as "excessive sleepiness caused by narcolepsy". ..."
"... The fact that the drug is used to treat Parkinson's is interesting in light of what we were told by a Secret Service whistleblower earlier this month, that Hillary has a serious neurological disease. ..."
"... The date of the emails is significant because Hillary's apparent problems with "decision fatigue" were evident before she fell and hit her head in 2012. ..."
Emails released by Wikileaks show that Hillary Clinton looked into a drug used to treat sleepiness
and Parkinson's disease after she apparently began suffering from "decision fatigue" back in 2011.
Clinton sent an
email to close confidante and advisor Cheryl D. Mills on August 19, 2011 featuring the text of
an article entitled Do You Suffer From Decision Fatigue?
The article talks about how people in positions of power and influence can suffer from "decision
fatigue" that causes them to be "low on mental energy" and prompts the sufferer to "become reckless"
and "act impulsively".
The article also explains how "decision fatigue" could explain why "ordinarily sensible people
get angry at colleagues," which is possibly a nod to
Clinton's infamous temper tantrums that have left her staffers in tears. "Wow that is spooky
descriptive," wrote Hillary in response to the article.
In a separate
email sent two months later, Hillary received information from her top foreign policy advisor
Jacob Sullivan about a drug called Provigil (Modafinil), which is used to treat "excessive sleepiness
in patients with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and multiple sclerosis," as well as "excessive sleepiness
caused by narcolepsy".
The fact that the drug is used to treat Parkinson's is interesting in light of what we were
told by a
Secret Service whistleblower earlier this month, that Hillary has a serious neurological disease.
The date of the emails is significant because Hillary's apparent problems with "decision fatigue"
were evident before she fell and hit her head in 2012.
While the mainstream media continues to dismiss questions over Hillary's health as a "conspiracy
theory," more prominent voices are beginning to express the same concerns.
Yesterday we
reported on top doctor and Rutgers University Professor of Medicine Bob Lahita's call for Hillary
to be assessed by an impartial panel of physicians to ensure she is fit for office.
Hillary attempted to deflect suspicions over her health during an appearance on the Jimmy Kimmel
Live last night… by opening an already opened jar of pickles.
See also
http://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/trump-campaign-clinton-has-dysphasia-747294275911 Attempt
to dismiss problem with health from Hillary campaign are misdirected. Hiding Hillary continues to
dodge open questions events in favor of heavily staged and controlled media interviews. The Clinton
campaign is doing everything they can to hide Hillary from unscripted questions.
Appearing on MSNBC on Thursday, Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson
claimed that Clinton suffers from dysphasia, a brain dysfunction that affects a person's ability
to comprehend and formulate language.
"What's new are the other reports of the observations of Hillary Clinton's behavior and
mannerisms," Pierson said before mentioning "her dysphasia, the fact that she's fallen, she has
had a concussion."
Since a complete lack of evidence has never proven sufficient to put a Clinton conspiracy theory
to rest, the Clinton campaign has
pushed back forcibly against these rumors, releasing a statement from her longtime physician
Dr. Lisa Bardack reaffirming that "Secretary Clinton is in excellent health and fit to serve as President
of the United States."
Amazon review of Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew... the word "conservative" was replaced by "neoliberal" as it more correctly
reflect the concept behind this social process.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberal ideology is championed on behalf of corporate elites who have now secured total control, even ownership, of the federal government. ..."
"... Elites need federal government revenue transferred to their realm via fat government contracts and juicy subsidies. They want government without regulation, and they want taxation imposed on the masses without real representation, but not on them. ..."
"... Neoliberals drew up a long term strategy to sabotage and disrupt the liberal apparatus. There ensued a vast selling-off of government assets (and favors) to those willing to fund the neoliberal movement. The strategy was concocted as a long term plan - the master blueprint for a wholesale transfer of government responsibilities to private-sector contractors unaccountable to Congress or anyone else. An entire industry sprung up to support conservatism - the great god market (corporate globalism) replaced anti-communism as the new inspiration. (page 93) ..."
"... But capitalism is not loyal to people or anything once having lost its usefulness, not even the nation state or the flag ..."
"... According to Frank, what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of governments; it is the capture of government by business interests. ..."
"... Neoliberals don't want efficient government, they want less competition and more profits - especially for defense contractors. Under Reagan, civil servants were out, loyalists were in. ..."
"... Contractors are now a fourth branch of government with more people working under contracts than are directly employed by government - making it difficult to determine where government stops and the contractors start in a system of privatized government where private contractors are shielded from oversight or accountability ..."
"... The first general rule of neoliberal administration: cronies in, experts out. ..."
"... Under Reagan, a philosophy of government blossomed that regarded business as its only constituent. ..."
"... Watergate poisoned attitudes toward government - helping sweep in Ronald Reagan with his anti-government cynicism. Lobbying and influence peddling proliferated in a privatized government. Lobbying is how money casts its vote. It is the signature activity of neoliberal governance - the mechanism that translates market forces into political action. ..."
"... Neoliberalism speaks of not compromise but of removing adversaries from the field altogether. ..."
"... One should never forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal that saved capitalism from itself. Also, one should not forget that capitalism came out of the classical liberal tradition. Capitalists had to wrest power away from the landowning nobility, the arch neoliberal tradition of its time. ..."
Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew is another classic. This work, along with his more notable What's
The Matter With Kansas?, is another ground breaking examination into a major phenomenon of American
politics by one of America's foremost social analysts and critics. While What's The Matter With
Kansas? looked more at cultural behavior in explaining why Red State Americans have embraced corporate
elitist ideology and ballot casting that militates against their own economic self-interest, even
their very survival, this title deals more with structural changes in the government, economy,
and society that have come about as a result of a Republican right wing agenda. It is a perplexing
and sorry phenomenon that deserves the attention of a first rate pundit like Frank.
Neoliberal ideology is championed on behalf of corporate elites who have now secured total
control, even ownership, of the federal government. The Wrecking Crew is about a Republican
agenda to totally eliminate the last vestiges of the New Deal and Great Society, which have provided
social safety nets for ordinary working class Americans through programs such as Social Security
and Medicare. Corporate elites want to demolish only that part of government that doesn't benefit
the corporation. Thus, a huge military budget and intrusive national security and police apparatus
is revered, while education, health, welfare, infrastructure, etc. are of less utility for the
corporate state. High taxes on the corporations and wealthy are abhorred, while the middle class
is expected to shoulder a huge tax burden. Although Republicans rail against federal deficits,
when in office they balloon the federal deficits in a plan for government-by-sabotage. (Page 261)
Elites need federal government revenue transferred to their realm via fat government contracts
and juicy subsidies. They want government without regulation, and they want taxation imposed on
the masses without real representation, but not on them. The big government they rail at
is the same government they own and benefit from. They certainly do not want the national security
state (the largest part of government) or the national police system to go away, not even the
IRS. How can they fight wars without a revenue collection system? The wellspring of conservatism
in America today -- preserving connections between the present and past -- is a destroyer of tradition,
not a preserver. (Page 267)
Neoliberals drew up a long term strategy to sabotage and disrupt the liberal apparatus.
There ensued a vast selling-off of government assets (and favors) to those willing to fund the
neoliberal movement. The strategy was concocted as a long term plan - the master blueprint for
a wholesale transfer of government responsibilities to private-sector contractors unaccountable
to Congress or anyone else. An entire industry sprung up to support conservatism - the great god
market (corporate globalism) replaced anti-communism as the new inspiration. (page 93)
Market populism arose as business was supposed to empower the noble common people. But
capitalism is not loyal to people or anything once having lost its usefulness, not even the nation
state or the flag. (page 100) While the New Deal replaced rule by wealthy with its brain
trust, conservatism, at war with intellectuals, fills the bureaucracy with cronies, hacks, partisans,
and creationists. The democracy, or what existed of it, was to be gradually made over into a plutocracy
- rule by the wealthy. (Page 252) Starting with Reagan and Thatcher, the program was to hack open
the liberal state in order to reward business with the loot. (Page 258) The ultimate neoliberal
goal is to marketize the nation's politics so that financial markets can be elevated over vague
liberalisms like the common good and the public interest. (Page 260)
According to Frank, what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of governments;
it is the capture of government by business interests. The game of corporatism is to see
how much public resources the private interest can seize for itself before public government can
stop them. A proper slogan for this mentality would be: more business in government, less government
in business. And, there are market based solutions to every problem. Government should be market
based. George W. Bush grabbed more power for the executive branch than anyone since Nixon. The
ultra-rights' fortunes depend on public cynicism toward government. With the U.S. having been
set up as a merchant state, the idea of small government is now a canard - mass privatization
and outsourcing is preferred. Building cynicism toward government is the objective. Neoliberals
don't want efficient government, they want less competition and more profits - especially for
defense contractors. Under Reagan, civil servants were out, loyalists were in.
While the Clinton team spoke of entrepreneurial government - of reinventing government - the
wrecking crew under Republicans has made the state the tool of money as a market-based system
replaced civil service by a government-by-contractor (outsourcing). Page 137 This has been an
enduring trend, many of the great robber barons got their start as crooked contractors during
the Civil War. Contractors are now a fourth branch of government with more people working under
contracts than are directly employed by government - making it difficult to determine where government
stops and the contractors start in a system of privatized government where private contractors
are shielded from oversight or accountability. (Page 138)
The first general rule of neoliberal
administration: cronies in, experts out. The Bush team did away with EPA's office of enforcement
- turning enforcement power over to the states. (Page 159) In an effort to demolish the regulatory
state, Reagan, immediately after taking office, suspended hundreds of regulations that federal
agencies had developed during the Carter Administration. Under Reagan, a philosophy of government
blossomed that regarded business as its only constituent. In recent years, neoliberals have
deliberately piled up debt to force government into crisis.
Watergate poisoned attitudes toward government - helping sweep in Ronald Reagan with his
anti-government cynicism. Lobbying and influence peddling proliferated in a privatized government.
Lobbying is how money casts its vote. It is the signature activity of neoliberal governance -
the mechanism that translates market forces into political action. (Page 175)
It is the goal of the neoliberal agenda to smash the liberal state. Deficits are one means
to accomplish that end.- to persuade voters to part with programs like Social Security and Medicare
so these funds can be transferred to corporate contractors or used to finance wars or deficit
reduction.. Uncle Sam can raise money by selling off public assets.
Since liberalism depends on fair play by its sworn enemies, it is vulnerable to sabotage by
those not playing by liberalism's rules/ (Page 265) The Liberal State, a vast machinery built
for our protection has been reengineered into a device for our exploitation. (Page 8) Liberalism
arose out of a long-ago compromise between left-wing social movements and business interests.
(Page 266) Neoliberalism speaks of not compromise but of removing adversaries from the field altogether.
(Page 266) No one dreams of eliminating the branches of state that protect Neoliberalism's constituents
such as the military, police, or legal privileges granted to corporations, neoliberals openly
scheme to do away with liberal bits of big government. (Page 266)
Liberalism is a philosophy of
compromise, without a force on the Left to neutralize the magneticism exerted by money, liberalism
will be drawn to the right. (Page 274)
Through corporate media and right wing talk show, liberalism has become a dirty word. However,
liberalism may not be dead yet. It will have to be resurrected from the trash bin of history when
the next capitalist crisis hits. One should never forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal
that saved capitalism from itself. Also, one should not forget that capitalism came out of the
classical liberal tradition. Capitalists had to wrest power away from the landowning nobility,
the arch neoliberal tradition of its time.
The folks voting for Trump know what they're getting. Media reports of Trump transgressions fall
upon deaf ears because the folks supporting Trump have no reason to have any faith whatsoever
in the neutrality of the press.
The GOP and Trump are still negotiating terms. HRC is trying to stay vertical.
kidneystones 08.08.16 at 6:55 am
News photographers cooperated in concealing Roosevelt's disability, and those who did not found
their camera views blocked by Secret Service agents, according to the FDR Presidential Museum
and Library's website.
Roosevelt's mastered the art of radio. Visual representations were tightly controlled. HRC's press
corps self-censors, much as they did for Obama.
First press conference in 240 days and the media show-up to applaud.
kidneystones 08.08.16 at 9:09 am
Head injuries, vertigo, memory loss, 'short-circuiting brains', are very different from polio.
Unless you believe all injuries/illnesses are the same. Of course, you never said you did, any
more than I 'stated' head injuries, vertigo, and memory loss disqualified you
You raise claims that you alone make, and then expect others to respond. Collapsing in a six-mile
race no more disqualified Carter to be re-elected as president.
It was you, not I who equated FDR and HRC. You sidestep entirely the question of press bias,
and FDR's concern with allowing the press to publicized images suggesting weakness.
But you and the few reading the thread see all this for themselves.
I don't expect, however, you understand and appreciate that your double standards re: gold
star families, etc, and those of the press, make the possibility of a Trump presidency more likely.
The WAPO is one of the few HRC organs to understand the dynamic. There are several good WAPO
articles on HRC's real failures as a senator.
Tilting the playing field in favor of HRC created most of her problems with the Dem base. Continuing
to tile the playing field may cost Dems the election.
"... In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. ..."
"... The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. ..."
"... Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? ..."
"... It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard Nixon, who also had a plan. ..."
"... Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted ..."
"... The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine (an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares. ..."
Criticizing Clinton from the right is just as reactionary as criticizing Trump from the right.
Further, assigning an individual such personal responsibility denies the reality of a bipartisan
system that administers an imperialist government with only a formal simulacrum of popular support.
That is, this "criticism" is fundamentally from the right.
In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's
policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy
for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. The careers of Stevenson and Bolton alone
show that the potential importance of security council veto means the President reserves direct
supervision for himself, no matter what an organizational chart may say.
The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama
who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued
after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. The implication that
for a Secretary of State to sell weapons to foreign nations isn't constituent service borders
on the silly. Besides, isolationism is not left win, never has been, never was.
And the implication that the any US government would ever favor supporting a leftish president
in Latin America because of its commitment to democracy thoroughly falsifies the nature of the
US government. Disappearing left criticism of Obama is thoroughly reactionary.
Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting
all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry
Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? Buying into this is
buying decades of reactionary propaganda. I suppose this is mindlessness enough to satisfy people
who alleged that SYRIZA was going to save Greece (the rock that should by the way have sunk Jacobin
magazines credibility, leaving next to the Titanic,) or Bernie Sanders was starting a revolution.
It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard
Nixon, who also had a plan. I suppose F. Foundling eager awaits Trump's great "Nixon goes
to China" moment. I have no idea why.
Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted.
As to which one it is, there has really never been much doubt that Clinton in the end will gain
enough minority support to carry the big cities. But if the reactionaries depress the turnout
enough, Trump has a shot at an electoral college victory, especially given the precedents on how
votes are counted.
The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine
(an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares.
I don't think its bipolar disorder. I think she is incapable of improvising and totally
reliant on her script-writers who cannot agree on a stylistic approach.
Its not insanity, its just that she's completely and utterly fake.
On the subject of Trump, Stone said that "the Trump you see on TV is the only Trump there is,
he doesn't have two personalities, he has one personality."
He contrasted this with Hillary Clinton, who he described as having "two personalities."
"Publicly, she pretends to be the warm, likeable grandmother. But privately she is a foul
mouthed, short-tempered, nasty, vicious, extraordinarily abusive, maniac. I think she has
bipolar, at least."
"... individuals' innate psychological predispositions to intolerance ("authoritarianism") interacting with changing conditions of societal threat. The threatening conditions, particularly resonant in the present political climate, that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include, most critically, great dissension in public opinion and general loss of confidence in political leaders. Using purpose-built experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme authoritarians and libertarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete account of political conflict across the ostensibly distinct domains of race and immigration, civil liberties, morality, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be most heated. ..."
"... But the latent authoritarianism within them is triggered when they perceive a threat to the stable moral order. ..."
"... It's at this point in the talk when Haidt surely began to make his audience squirm. He says that in his work as an academic and social psychologist, he sees colleagues constantly demonizing and mocking conservatives. He warns them to knock it off. "We need political diversity," he says. And: "They are members of our community." ..."
"... The discourse and behavior of the Left, says Haidt, is alienating millions of ordinary people all over the West. It's not just America. We are sliding towards authoritarianism all over the West, and there's really only one way to stop it. ..."
"... we can reduce intolerance and defuse the conflict by focusing on sameness. We need unifying rituals, beliefs, institutions, and practices, he says, drawing on Stenner's research. The romance the Left has long had with multiculturalism and diversity (as the Left defines it) has to end, because it's helping tear us apart. ..."
"... If we don't have a feasible conservative party, we open the way for authoritarianism. ..."
"... I don't think the center can hold anymore. It's too late. The cultural left in this country is very authoritarian, at least as regards orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. On one of the Stenner slides, we see that she defines one characteristic of authoritarians as "punishing out groups." Conservative Christians are the big out group for the cultural left, and have been for a long time. ..."
"... The threat to the moral order is very real, and not really much of a threat anymore; it's a reality. ..."
"... Haidt says that the authoritarian impulse comes when people cease trusting in leaders. Yep, that's where a lot of us are, and not by choice. ..."
If you look back far enough in humankind's history, you will observe that you don't see civilizations
starting without their building temples first. Haidt, who is a secular liberal, is not making a theistic
point, not really. He's saying that the work of civilization can only be accomplished when a people
binds itself together around a shared sense of the sacred. It's what makes a people a people, and
a civilization a civilization. "It doesn't have to be a god," says Haidt. Anything that we hold
sacred, and hold it together, is enough.
The thing is, this force works like an electromagnetic
field: the more tightly it binds us, the more alien others appear to us, and the more we find it
impossible to empathize with them. This is what Haidt means by saying that morality binds and blinds.
Haidt quizzes the 700-800 people in the hall about their Hillary vs. Trump feelings. The group
- all psychologists, therapists, professors of psychology, and so forth - were overwhelmingly pro-Hillary
and anti-Trump. No surprise there. But then he tells them that if they believe that they could treat
without bias a patient who is an open Trump supporter, they're lying to themselves. In the America
of 2016, political bias is the most powerful bias of all - more polarizing by far than race, even.
Haidt turns to the work of social psychologist Karen Stenner, and her 2005 book
The Authoritarian Dynamic. The publisher describes the book like this (boldface emphases
mine):
What are the root causes of intolerance? This book addresses that question by developing a
universal theory of what determines intolerance of difference in general, which includes racism,
political intolerance, moral intolerance and punitiveness. It demonstrates that all these seemingly
disparate attitudes are principally caused by just two factors: individuals' innate psychological
predispositions to intolerance ("authoritarianism") interacting with changing conditions of societal
threat. The threatening conditions, particularly resonant in the present political climate,
that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include, most critically, great dissension in
public opinion and general loss of confidence in political leaders. Using purpose-built
experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme
authoritarians and libertarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete
account of political conflict across the ostensibly distinct domains of race and immigration,
civil liberties, morality, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be most
heated.
Haidt says Stenner discerns three strands of contemporary political conservatism: 1) laissez-faire
libertarians (typically, business Republicans); 2) Burkeans (e.g., social conservatives who value
stability); and 3) authoritarians.
Haidt makes a point of saying that it's simply wrong to call Trump a fascist. He's too individualistic
for that. He's an authoritarian, but that is not a synonym for fascist, no matter how much the Left
wants to say it is.
According to Haidt's reading of Stenner, authoritarianism is not a stable personality trait. Most
people are not naturally authoritarian. But the latent authoritarianism within them is triggered
when they perceive a threat to the stable moral order.
It's at this point in the talk when Haidt surely began to make his audience squirm. He says that
in his work as an academic and social psychologist, he sees colleagues constantly demonizing and
mocking conservatives. He warns them to knock it off. "We need political diversity," he says. And:
"They are members of our community."
The discourse and behavior of the Left, says Haidt, is alienating millions of ordinary people
all over the West. It's not just America. We are sliding towards authoritarianism all over the West,
and there's really only one way to stop it.
At the 41:37 point in the talk, Haidt says that we can reduce intolerance and defuse the conflict
by focusing on sameness. We need unifying rituals, beliefs, institutions, and practices, he says,
drawing on Stenner's research. The romance the Left has long had with multiculturalism and diversity
(as the Left defines it) has to end, because it's helping tear us apart.
This fall, the Democrats are taking Stenner's advice brilliantly, says Haidt, referring to the
convention the Dems just put on, and Hillary's speech about how we're all better off standing together.
Haidt says this is actually good advice, period. "It's not just propaganda you wheel out at election
time," he says. If we don't have a feasible conservative party, we open the way for authoritarianism.
To end the talk, Haidt focuses on what his own very tribe - psychologists and academics - can
do to make things better. They can start by being aware of their own extreme bias. "We lean very
far left," he says, then shows a graph tracking how far from the center the academy has become over
the past 20 years.
Haidt says we don't need "equality" - that is, an equal number of conservatives and liberals in
the academy. We just need to have diversity enough for people to be challenged in their viewpoints,
so an academic community can flourish according to its nature. But this is not what we have. According
to the research Haidt presents, in 1996, liberals in the academy outnumbered conservatives 2:1. Today,
it's 5:1 - and the conservatives are concentrated in engineering and other technical fields. Says
Haidt: "In the core areas of the university - in the humanities and social sciences - it's 10 to
1 and 40 to 1."
The Right has left the university faculties, he said - and a lot of that is because they got tired
of the "hostile climate and discrimination"
"People who are not on the left … are often in the closet," says Haidt. "They can't speak up.
They can't criticize. They hear somebody say something, they believe it's false, but they can't speak
up and say why they believe it's false. And that is a breakdown in our science."
Until they repent (my word, not his), university professors will continue to be part of the problem,
not the solution, says Haidt. He ends by calling on his colleagues to "get our hearts in order."
To stop being moralistic hypocrites. To be humble. To be more forgiving, and more open to hearing
what their opponents have to say. Says Haidt, "If we want to change things, we need to do it more
from the perspective of love, not of hate."
I don't think the center can hold anymore. It's too late. The cultural left in this country is
very authoritarian, at least as regards orthodox Christians and other social conservatives.
On one of the Stenner slides, we see that she defines one characteristic of authoritarians as "punishing
out groups." Conservative Christians are the big out group for the cultural left, and have been for
a long time.
We are the people who defile what they consider most sacred: sexual liberty, including abortion
rights and gay rights. The liberals in control now (as distinct from all liberals, let me be clear)
have made it clear that they will not compromise with what they consider to be evil. We are the Klan
to them. Error has no rights in this world they're building.
If you'll recall my blogging about Hillary Clinton's convention speech, I really liked it in theory
- the unity business. The thing is, I don't believe for one second that it is anything but election
propaganda. I don't believe that the Democratic Party today has any interest in making space for
us. I wish I did believe that. I don't see any evidence for it. They and their supporters will drive
us out of certain professions, and do whatever they can to rub our noses in the dirt.
I know liberal readers of this blog will say, "But we don't!" To which I say: you don't,
maybe, but you're not running the show, alas.
The threat to the moral order is very real, and not really much of a threat anymore; it's a reality.
As I've written in this space many times, this is not something that was done to us; all of
us, Republicans and Democrats, Christians and non-Christians, have done this to ourselves. At this
point, all I want for my tribe is to be left alone. But the crusading Left won't let that happen
anymore.
They don't even want the Mormons to be allowed to play football foe the Big 12, for heaven's
sake. This assault is relentless. Far too many complacent Christians believe it will never hurt them,
that it will never happen where they live. It can and it will.
There is no center anymore. Alasdair MacIntyre was right. I may not be able to vote in good conscience
for Trump (and I certainly will not vote for Hillary Clinton), but I know exactly why a number of
good people have convinced themselves that this is the right thing to do. Haidt says that the authoritarian
impulse comes when people cease trusting in leaders. Yep, that's where a lot of us are, and not by
choice.
This week, I've been interviewing people for the Work chapter of my Benedict Option book. In all
but one case, the interviewees - lawyers, law professors, a doctor, corporate types, academics -
would only share their opinion if I promised that I wouldn't use their name. They know what things
are like where they work. They know that this is going to spread. That fear, that remaining inside
the closet, tells you something about where you are. When professionals feel that to state their
opinion would be to put their careers at risk, we are not in normal times.
The center has not held. I certainly wish Jon Haidt well. He's a good man doing brave, important
work. And I hope he proves me wrong on this. I honestly do. Because if I'm right, there goes America.
On the other hand, reasoning that this must not be true therefore it is not true is a good
way to get run over.
This article was written two years ago. Still current...
Notable quotes:
"... She was responding, but seemed a little off. I figured she was just distracted and didn't feel like it was worth her time. ..."
"... I kept going, but was starting to get frustrated. I decided I would ask her something I hadn't really planned on. I said, 'Ms. Clinton, some have suggested that you aren't healthy enough or are too old to pursue the presidency. Do you have a comment on that?' ..."
"... I knew I had crossed a line for her right away. She snapped back, 'It's my turn. I've done my time, and I deserve it.' Then she stormed off. ..."
"... When you consider her history of fainting spells, likely the result of strokes and the verbal gaffes she's made recently, you have to wonder if she isn't losing her mental faculties. ..."
"... Let's face it, she's not a rank amateur when it comes to politics. She's always demonstrated a talent for verbal manipulation and deception. But suddenly it's as if her mask has slipped exposing her ugly, arrogant sense of entitlement. ..."
"... I guarantee there's a lot of hand wringing going on in Democrat circles right now. They have a lot invested in Hillary as their best and only shot at replacing Obama. Between revelations about her health, her age, the gaffes she's made, the failure of her book, her low approval numbers… They're sweating bullets. ..."
The story goes that a freelance journalist Samuel Rosales-Avila was granted a short interview with
Hillary after her LA book signing. He wanted to do a article for a Hispanic publication and was
surprised when Hillary granted him a 20 minute meeting.
He got more than he bargained for…
I started asking Ms. Clinton questions. Mostly policy stuff, really focused on immigration.
She was responding, but seemed a little off. I figured she was just distracted and didn't feel
like it was worth her time.
I kept going, but was starting to get frustrated. I decided I would ask her something I hadn't
really planned on. I said, 'Ms. Clinton, some have suggested that you aren't healthy enough or
are too old to pursue the presidency. Do you have a comment on that?'
I knew I had crossed a line for her right away. She snapped back, 'It's my turn. I've done
my time, and I deserve it.' Then she stormed off.
After she left, one of her handlers came up to me and told me he would need the recording of
our interview and that it was now 'off the record'. I was shocked and disappointed, but it was
clear that it wasn't a negotiation.
Hillary's posse isn't denying that the meeting took place, but without that recording we only
have his version of what transpired.
When you consider her history of fainting spells, likely the result of strokes and the verbal
gaffes she's made recently, you have to wonder if she isn't losing her mental faculties.
Let's face it, she's not a rank amateur when it comes to politics. She's always demonstrated a
talent for verbal manipulation and deception. But suddenly it's as if her mask has slipped exposing
her ugly, arrogant sense of entitlement.
I guarantee there's a lot of hand wringing going on in Democrat circles right now. They
have a lot invested in Hillary as their best and only shot at replacing Obama. Between
revelations about her health, her age, the gaffes she's made, the failure of her book, her low
approval numbers… They're sweating bullets.
Events of 2012 and 2013 now definitely come into forefront. Here is old
National Enquirer speculation that now got new currency.
EconomicPolicyJournal.com " The tabloids often express truth that cannot be expressed for political
reasons in the MSM. 1987 the National Enquirer nailed Gary Hart in the Donna Rice affair. 2007
the National Enquirer nailed John Edwards over the Rielle Hunter and bastard baby affair. 1992
the Globe nailed deadbeat dad Bill Clinton over his affair and baby with black street hooker
Bobbie Ann Williams (that story has been completely confirmed and his son Danny Williams is age 29 today
in year 2014). The tabloids have for decades said the JFK assassination was a high level domestic plot
- again 100% correct with the recent tabloids fingering VP Lyndon Johnson as the primary culprit. The
tabloids also nailed Jesse Jackson with his mistress and love child. Tabloids are very good when it
comes to exposing adultery, medical problems and when a celebrity is dying. Digging up and exposing
personal dirt is the forte of tabloids."
"... Only days after The ENQUIRER exclusively reported that Secretary of State HILLARY CLINTON was at the center of a shocking brain cancer drama and was undergoing extensive secret medical tests, her reps went public with the news on Sunday night Dec. 30 that she was indeed hospitalized in New York City and disclosed that she was battling a blood clot that had formed following her head concussion earlier this month! ..."
"... The 65-year-old former First Lady fainted earlier this month and after an exhaustive investigation by The ENQUIRER, we broke a bombshell cover story that hit newsstands a few days ago that revealed insiders believe Hillary is battling brain cancer, and sources said she was facing a hush-hush battery of medical tests to confirm the diagnosis. ..."
"... "Behind the scenes, Hillary has suffered blinding headaches, problems with her vision and memory, plus terrifying blackouts – and those closest to her say she's hiding a brain cancer secret," a source revealed, according to our bombshell report. ..."
"... "This has been covered up for months, but details of Hillary's cancer situation are beginning to leak out, and it's the real reason she's giving up her position as Secretary of State." ..."
UPDATE : 1/2/13 6:30PM EST - HILLARY CLINTON has been discharged from New York-Presbyterian
Hospital.
UPDATE : 1/2/13 5:30PM EST - HILLARY CLINTON briefly left the hospital building where
she is being treated for a blood clots in order to have tests done at another location on the medical
campus at New York-Presbyterian Hospital on Wednesday afternoon. She was back about an hour later.
Her husband Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea accompanied her as she was transported in a van with
the Secret Service.
UPDATE : 12/31/12 4:54PM EST - DATELINE NEW YORK - A rep for hospitalized Secretary of
State HILLARY CLINTON confirms the blood clot is lodged near her brain confirming The NATIONAL ENQUIRER's
special reports on her condition.
Doctors said the clot is located in the vein in the space between the brain and the skull
behind the right ear.
Only days after The ENQUIRER exclusively reported that Secretary of State HILLARY CLINTON
was at the center of a shocking brain cancer drama and was undergoing extensive secret medical tests,
her reps went public with the news on Sunday night Dec. 30 that she was indeed hospitalized in New
York City and disclosed that she was battling a blood clot that had formed following her head concussion
earlier this month!
"Her doctors will continue to assess her condition, including other issues associated with her
concussion, " Philippe Reines , a State Department senior advisor said. "They will
determine if any further action is required."
Clinton is being treated with anti-coagulants at New York-Presbyterian Hospital and she will be
monitored there for the next 48 hours, Reines said.
The 65-year-old former First Lady fainted earlier this month and after an exhaustive investigation
by The ENQUIRER, we broke a bombshell cover story that hit newsstands a few days ago that revealed
insiders believe Hillary is battling brain cancer, and sources said she was facing a hush-hush battery
of medical tests to confirm the diagnosis.
"Behind the scenes, Hillary has suffered blinding headaches, problems with her vision and memory,
plus terrifying blackouts – and those closest to her say she's hiding a brain cancer secret," a source
revealed, according to our bombshell report.
"If Hillary is indeed diagnosed with brain cancer, the fear that she could die in a manner of
months has devastated those in her inner circle.
"This has been covered up for months, but details of Hillary's cancer situation are beginning
to leak out, and it's the real reason she's giving up her position as Secretary of State."
I'm not a fan of Hillary but strokes work differently depending on their intensity. I had
one in my late 20's from medication. I did not slur words but for a time I forgot words, I
knew what I wanted to say I just couldn't put things to words for a long time. I do believe
she has something serious going on that she is not disclosing but I don't think its Parkinson.
Roger Stone I do believe is showing signs of Parkinson however. Watch his videos and watch his
hands.... I think Hillary is having seizures, what kind?? I don't know I'm not a doctor. The
other weird thing is the abrasion on her tongue...why? again I don't know.
MsPony65
Not all Parkinson's patients have the tremors.
jane25449
You're right. You shouldn't be making diagnoses, but what the hay, it's important to know,
right? The medical records supposedly leaked from Dr. Lisa Bardack, says she has been
diagnosed with subcorticalvascular dementia with complex partial seizures ( Binswanger's
disease.) and she was put on anticonvulsants in 2013.
The big black guy who jumps on stage with her has been identified as Dr. Akunola , a
neurologist with the Neuroscience Group of New Jersey. The guy following behind him is seen
pulling out of his pocket what looks like a injection pen. There are other videos of her
surfacing out there you need to take a look at, especially showing her frequent falls. I think
because you are familiar with Parkinson's, you see a few symptoms that are indicative of it,
and automatically think it's that. You asked what may be the cause of her having to be helped
up the stairs.
Benswanger's causes one to have an unsteady gate, clumsiness and frequent falls and there
are vids showing her falling a lot , especially lately. I agree with you, they should reveal
their medical records, and I think years ago that was a requirement.
Binswanger's Disease
Information Page National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
Binswanger's
disease (BD), also called
subcortical vascular dementia
, is a type of dementia caused by
widespread, microscopic areas of damage to the deep layers of white matter in the brain. The damage
is the result of the thickening and narrowing (atherosclerosis) of arteries that feed the
subcortical areas of the brain. Atherosclerosis (commonly known as "hardening of the arteries") is a
systemic process that affects blood vessels throughout the body. It begins late in the fourth decade
of life and increases in severity with age. As the arteries become more and more narrowed, the blood
supplied by those arteries decreases and brain tissue dies. A characteristic pattern of BD-damaged
brain tissue can be seen with modern brain imaging techniques such as CT scans or magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI). The symptoms associated with BD are related to the disruption of subcortical neural
circuits that control what neuroscientists call
executive cognitive functioning
: short-term
memory, organization, mood, the regulation of attention, the ability to act or make decisions, and
appropriate behavior. The most characteristic feature of BD is psychomotor slowness - an increase in
the length of time it takes, for example, for the fingers to turn the thought of a letter into the
shape of a letter on a piece of paper. Other symptoms include forgetfulness (but not as severe as
the forgetfulness of Alzheimer's disease), changes in speech, an unsteady gait, clumsiness or
frequent falls, changes in personality or mood (most likely in the form of apathy, irritability, and
depression), and urinary symptoms that aren't caused by urological disease. Brain imaging, which
reveals the characteristic brain lesions of BD, is essential for a positive diagnosis.
Notable quotes:
"... Collected via e-mail, August 2016 ..."
"... early onset Subcortical Vascular Dementia ..."
"... According to these alleged "medical records," Hillary Clinton was diagnosed with early-onset Subcortical Vascular Dementia in 2013, and subsequent doctor visits suggested the condition was worsening. Additionally, the records noted that Clinton suffered intensified Complex Partial Seizures between 2013 and 2014. ..."
Right after the name of Hillary Clinton's
physician appeared in the news, suspect medical records attributed to that
doctor were "leaked" online.
Claim:
Leaked medical records document that Hillary
Clinton exhibits signs of dementia and serious illness.
unproven
Example:
[
Collected via e-mail, August 2016
]
Hillary Clinton diagnosed with "Complex Partial Seizures" and "
early
onset Subcortical Vascular Dementia
" as per a letter authored by
Lisa R. Bardack, M.D., Chairman of the Department of Medicine, Mount
Kisco Medical Group
Origin:
On 8
August 2016, a new Twitter account titled
@HillsMedRecords
appeared and published what the user behind the account claimed were leaked
medical records attesting to the poor health of Hillary Clinton.
The account was quickly deleted by its owner, but screenshots of the
purported records continued circulating on Twitter, allegedly showing
documents prepared by Dr. Lisa Bardack on 5 February and 20 March 2014:
According to these alleged "medical records," Hillary Clinton was
diagnosed with early-onset Subcortical Vascular Dementia in 2013, and
subsequent doctor visits suggested the condition was worsening.
Additionally, the records noted that Clinton suffered intensified Complex
Partial Seizures between 2013 and 2014.
One suspect aspect of the "leak" was that just days earlier, Dr. Bardack
was widely named in real press reports as having attested to Clinton's
medical fitness to serve as president. On 31 July 2016,
TIME
mentioned Bardack by name in an article about a letter she had released
documenting Clinton's physical health:
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is in "excellent
physical condition," her doctor said in a letter.
According to Dr. Lisa Bardack, her physician, Clinton, is in good
health, currently diagnosed with only hypothyroidism and seasonal pollen
allergies. The letter is the first of its kind to be released in the 2016
cycle, and comes as Clinton, 67, has come under scrutiny from some
Republicans for her age and questions about her health stemming from a
2012 incident in which she suffered from a blood clot and concussion.
Quite conveniently (and suspiciously), Bardack's name wasn't prominent in
the news as Clinton's physician prior to the release of that
letter, and just over a week later her name was used to give credibility
to "leaked" records (unusually coincidental timing, to say the least):
The "leaked" documents exhibited some obvious formatting differences from
the official letter issued by Dr, Bardack. In the "leaked" documents Bardack
is listed as "Chairman of the Department of Medicine, Mount Kisco Medical
Group," while the letterhead of the verified document referenced her as
"Chair of Internal Medicine[,] Diplomate of the American Board of Internal
Medicine." The official letter used real letterhead, whereas the purportedly
"leaked" documents were printed on plain paper. The "leaked" documents also
don't look like medical records, but rather like a report provided for
purposes extrinsic to a standard medical charting (with no indication to
whom or for what purpose such a report might have been provided).
We contacted the Mount Kisco Medical Group to ask whether the displayed
documents matched internal formatting of medical records or reports but were
unable to immediately reach anyone there who could answer that question. In
addition to contacting the practice, we've also asked doctors to review the
"leaked" records to determine whether they contained obvious signs of
fabrication visible to physicians (but not necessarily laymen).
Dr. Holland also gets the endocrinology wrong (hope she's got it right in
her book) when she refers to estrogen a "stress hormone that helps a woman be
resilient during her fertile years."
Stress hormones are part of the "flight or fight" response, and the major
stress hormones include
cortisol and epinephrine. Stress hormones can be released rapidly by the
body in response to a threat of some kind (running the gamut from a broken toe
to reading an article on how hormones make or break a woman's ability to be
president). This is not estrogen. Estrogen thickens the lining of the uterus,
affects breast tissue, and of course (like most hormones) has a multitude of
effects everywhere in the body. It is not, however, a stress hormone. It may
be able to counteract oxidative stress in some tissues, but that doesn't make
it a stress hormone).
The major source of estrogen before menopause is the developing egg and how
far the egg is in the cycle is what governs the release of estrogen, not stress.
The female endocrine system is just not built to churn out large amounts of
estrogen in response to stress. Also, girls don't have estrogen before puberty
so it would be a pretty poor evolutionary design for a stress hormones to only
kick in at puberty. Bad luck if you get chased by a saber-toothed tiger at the
age of eight!
... ... ...
Postmenopausal women are not biologically primed to handle stress any more
or less than premenopausal women. Hillary Clinton's hormones have nothing to
do with her qualifications, and I find any connection between the two, whether
well-intentioned or simply a book plug, an insult.
To say a woman's hormones are in some way related to her fitness to be president
then also means at some time you think she is less fit to be president. You
can't have it both ways.
There is no wisdom in menopause. There is wisdom, and then there is menopause.
All I care about is Ms. Clinton's wisdom, and that's all you should care about
too.
Jennifer Gunter is an obstetrician-gynecologist and author of
The Preemie Primer. She blogs at her self-titled site,
Dr. Jen Gunter.
Hillary Clinton reportedly has chronic health issues that may interfere with
the presidency, according to one political insider. The 68-year-old presumptive
Democratic nominee has never been too open about her medical history, but the
coughing fits alone may be enough to indicate that Clinton has some
serious health problems. Radar Online issued a report on Wednesday
that has an insider close to Hillary Clinton saying the presidential hopeful
is facing "mounting health issues."
Several coughing fits have been caught on camera as Hillary Clinton has campaigned
across the nation for the 2016 primary elections and caucuses. The Washington
Post reported in April that Clinton had
two public coughing fits in one week, leaving Democratic constituents wondering
if she's even healthy enough to become president. Actress Susan Sarandon even
said in May during an interview with Larry King that she won't endorse Hillary
Clinton as a presidential candidate because "she may have health issues."
... ... ...
In April, an article published on
KevinMD.com outlined some concerns about Hillary Clinton's health records,
but said that Clinton's health risks aren't anything that should disqualify
her from being president. However, "they are certainly something to ponder."
Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign released a letter on Friday from her doctor attesting to
Mrs. Clinton's good health and fitness to serve as president based on a full medical evaluation.
The letter from Dr. Lisa Bardack of Mount Kisco, N.Y., summarized Mrs. Clinton's history of
treatment for a brain concussion, blood clots affecting her legs and brain on separate occasions,
an underactive thyroid gland and a family history of heart disease.
Mrs. Clinton, 67, regularly takes thyroid hormone to bring her levels to normal as well as the
anticoagulant drug Coumadin to help prevent new blood clots, Dr. Bardack wrote. Mrs. Clinton also
takes antihistamine drugs for seasonal pollen allergies and vitamin B-12.
Mrs. Clinton has faced questions about her health since 2012, when, as secretary of state, she
suffered a concussion and a blood clot - known as a transverse sinus venous thrombosis - in her
brain. Those were a result of a series of events caused by a stomach virus Mrs. Clinton acquired
while traveling abroad. While alone in her home after returning, she became dehydrated and then
fell from a faint, striking her head. She subsequently experienced double vision and temporarily
wore glasses with a Fresnel Prism to ease the difficulty with her eyesight.
Mrs. Clinton was treated at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, and then went to
NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia hospital in Manhattan before returning to her home in Chappaqua,
N.Y.
The concussion symptoms and double vision resolved within two months and Mrs. Clinton stopped
using the prism, Dr. Bardack wrote.
But former President Bill Clinton told a reporter that his wife's concussion "required six months
of very serious work to get over" and that she had "never lowballed" the severity of her head
injury.
Follow-up testing in 2013 showed "complete resolution of the effects of the concussion, as well
as total dissolution" of the blood clot, Dr. Bardack wrote. Mrs. Clinton did not release
statements from a neurologist, neurosurgeon or other specialist involved in her medical care in
Washington or New York.
Mrs. Clinton is the first presidential candidate in this cycle to make public a medical history.
But in the past many candidates have released copies of extensive records, agreed to personal
interviews or allowed their doctors to be interviewed.
Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, did not reply to an email request to interview Dr.
Bardack.
While Mrs. Clinton experienced blood clots in 1998, 2009 and 2012, tests showed that she did not
have any underlying disorder that put her at an increased risk of the clots. Tests are performed
to monitor the dose of Coumadin she takes and ensure that she has not experienced side effects,
Dr. Bardack wrote.
Mrs. Clinton's electrocardiogram was reported as normal, as were her blood lipids. Cancer
screening tests, including mammography, breast ultrasound, colonoscopy and gynecological
examination were normal.
Dr. Bardack did not disclose Mrs. Clinton's height and weight, which are standard items in
medical histories.
She said Mrs. Clinton eats a diet rich in lean protein, vegetables and fruits. She exercises
regularly, including yoga, swimming, walking and weight training.
Find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get politics news
updates via Facebook, Twitter and the First Draft newsletter.
"... Videos widely circulated on the internet are, if authentic, very concerning. One shows prolonged, inappropriate laughter; another, strange head movements. In a third, she appeared momentarily dazed and confused, and lost her train of thought. ..."
Strangely silent is the mainstream media about the fitness of the Democrat
candidate. And causes for concern are growing. Without considering any statements she
has made or positions she has taken, and without presuming to speculate on
psychiatric diagnoses, one can point to certain observations. ..
Videos widely circulated on the internet are, if authentic, very concerning. One
shows prolonged, inappropriate laughter; another, strange head movements. In a third,
she appeared momentarily dazed and confused, and lost her train of thought.
"... *About the author: Michael Snyder is the founder and publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog and End Of The American Dream. Michael's controversial new book about Bible prophecy entitled "The Rapture Verdict" is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.* ..."
Hillary Clinton's health is starting to become a major political issue, and there are many that believe
that her health problems may force her to drop out before we even get to election day. On Sunday
evening, the Drudge Report ran a photo of Hillary struggling to get up a set of stairs along with
this headline: "2016: Hillary conquers the stairs". Well, it turns out that particular photo was
about six months old, but it sparked a much deeper debate about Hillary Clinton's health. As you
will see below, Clinton has been having seizures even while in public, she has been regularly having
horrible coughing fits, she has a very large hole in her tongue that has not been explained, and
she has been falling down way too often for a woman her age. No matter whether you are for her or
against her, it should be apparent to everyone that this is a woman that has some very serious health
issues.
Let's start with Clinton's very curious behavior during a recent campaign stop. When she
suddenly froze up, she was rapidly approached by a large African-American man that appeared at first
glance to be a Secret Service agent. The following comes from
Gateway Pundit…
In a recent campaign stop in a Union Hall in front of a
sparse crowd, at about the time when some liberal protesters began to protest, Hillary
Clinton suddenly froze. She looked dazed and lost. Seeing this, a group of men rushed to assist
the candidate on the stage. One man however gently pats the candidate's back and then says, "Keep
Talking."
An expert on Secret Service tactics told TGP Secret Service agents would not touch a candidate
in the manner that this individual did and especially Hillary Clinton. It has been
widely reported on Hillary's disdain for the agents who work to protect her. The man who touches
Hillary may be a member of Hillary's close staff – but he is NOT a Secret Service agent.
Since that time, it has been reported that the very large African-American gentleman that was
initially reported to be a Secret Service agent is actually a doctor instead, and
as you can see here it appears that he is carrying with him the kind of auto-injector that is
commonly used to inject someone with Diazepam…
Since that time, it has been reported that the very large African-American gentleman that was initially
reported to be a Secret Service agent is actually a doctor instead, and as you can see here it appears
that he is carrying with him the kind of auto-injector that is commonly used to inject someone with
Diazepam…
Secret Service agent was carrying an auto-injector with Diazepam pic.twitter.com/6d3B5mmaOe
- Azusa (@PositiveInt) August 8, 2016
If you are not familiar with Diazepam, it was originally called Valium. Here is more on this particular
drug from Wikipedia…
Diazepam, first marketed as Valium, is a medication of the benzodiazepine family that typically produces
a calming effect. It is commonly used to treat a range of conditions including anxiety, alcohol withdrawal
syndrome, benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome, muscle spasms, seizures, trouble sleeping, and restless
legs syndrome.[3]
It may also be used to cause memory loss during certain medical procedures.[4][5]
It can be taken by mouth, inserted into the rectum, injected into muscle, or injected into a vein.[5]When
given into a vein, effects begin in one to five minutes and last up to an hour.[5] By mouth, effects
may take 40 minutes to begin.[6]
It is quite noteworthy that this drug is often used to treat "seizures", because Clinton seems to
be having them with frightening regularity these days. In this video, you can watch Clinton go into
a seizure in public with a bunch of reporters around…
*About the author: Michael Snyder is the founder and publisher of The Economic Collapse
Blog and End Of The American Dream. Michael's controversial new book about Bible prophecy
entitled "The Rapture Verdict" is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.*
"... This is something sometimes caused by stress or overstimulation. At the end of the DNC, I noticed a very odd reaction of Hillary's to all the things happening around her. At the time I played it off as her attempting to look like a normal person surprised by all the great things, but after a while I started to wonder. ..."
"... Her cognitive illness doesn't stop at seizures and facial tics. In an email from Hillary's right hand gal, Huma Abedin, mentioned to staffer Monica Hanley that Hillary is "often confused." ..."
"... It all amounts to a woman who is likely not all there. Someone who is prone to actions not wholly voluntary. No matter how you paint it, Hillary Clinton has some issues we should be very concerned about, and the media should be looking very closely into her health. ..."
"... While speculation about Hillary's health is nothing new, the recent uptick in concern is noticeable. Especially with all the recent footage of Clinton's physical oddities. ..."
Between Hillary's repeated
coughing fits,
incredibly low energy, and very odd reactions that seem more like she's overacting worse than
Jim Carrey, people have begun to question both Hillary's physical and mental health. Some speculate
that these odd behaviors stem from Hillary's concussion suffered in 2012, after having another one
of her fainting spells. Since then, there have been signs that she hasn't been quite right.
One
solid example is her sudden seizure when reporters asked her questions simultaneously. Clinton tries
to play it off, but to little effect.
This is something sometimes caused by stress or overstimulation. At the end of the DNC, I noticed
a very odd reaction of Hillary's to all the things happening around her. At the time I played it
off as her attempting to look like a normal person surprised by all the great things, but after a
while I started to wonder.
Her cognitive illness doesn't stop at seizures and facial tics. In an email from Hillary's right
hand gal, Huma Abedin, mentioned to staffer Monica Hanley that Hillary is "often confused."
It all amounts to a woman who is likely not all there. Someone who is prone to actions not wholly
voluntary. No matter how you paint it, Hillary Clinton has some issues we should be very concerned
about, and the media should be looking very closely into her health. If she isn't well, then we're
going to have a President who will often be MIA, or worse, make decisions that defy logic and reason,
pulling our nation into directions we don't want it going.
While speculation about Hillary's health is nothing new, the recent uptick in concern is noticeable.
Especially with all the recent footage of Clinton's physical oddities.
Paul Joseph Watson of Info Wars (just bear with me) released a video about it as well that covers
much of the concerns people are having about Hillary.
"... All this signs says this is a symptom of a much deeper health problem that she is trying to disguise. (My best guess is that the cough is a side-effect of industrial strength ACE inhibitors she takes to manage the raging hypertension that caused here "minor" strokes.) ..."
Clinton, like Donald Trump, has been very cagey about her medical history.
I noted a while
back that all evidence indicated that she has chronic health problems that are only barely
being held in check.
...We know that Hillary Clinton has suffered from fainting spells since at least 20o5. In
that year
she passed out, presumably sober, while giving a speech. In 2012, she passed out yet again
and suffered a
concussion.
Radar Online has reported that sources close to Hillary Clinton say she has suffered minor
strokes and may have multiple sclerosis. The book on Hillary by Ed Klein says that she
suffers from
depression and migraines.
... ... ...
She has also gained about thirty pounds during the course of the campaign and
is
suffering from mange
Hillary Clinton has had at least six of these public
coughing fits since the campaign started. Most of them did not take place
during "allergy season." And there is never any sneezing that accompanies the
cough which is a good indicator the problem is not allergies. And if allergies
were actually an issue, she'd take a megadose of benadryl or other
antihistamine before these public appearances. All this signs says this is a
symptom of a much deeper health problem that she is trying to disguise. (My
best guess is that the cough is a side-effect of industrial strength ACE
inhibitors she takes to manage the raging hypertension that caused here "minor"
strokes.)
"... While serving as President Barack Obama's secretary of state in mid-2009, Hillary Clinton fell and fractured her right elbow while walking to her car in the basement of the State Department, The New York Times reported . Clinton, 61 at the time, underwent surgery to repair the elbow ..."
"... Secretary Clinton fell again in 2011 while boarding a plane to Oman, but did not sustain injury. ..."
"... Secretary Clinton was hospitalized in December 2012 after doctors discovered a blood clot during a follow-up exam related to her concussion. "Mrs. Clinton's blood clot formed in a large vein along the side of her head, behind her right ear, between the brain and the skull," The New York Times reported , noting that Clinton also had a blood clot in her leg in 1998. She began taking blood thinners around the time of her hospital discharge. The concussion and subsequently discovered blood clot forced Clinton to ultimately take a month-long absence from her role as secretary of state. ..."
"... Prism glasses for double vision - "As she testified about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, the secretary of state appeared to have tiny vertical lines etched onto the left lens of her new brown specs," the New York Daily News wrote in January 2013. "Clinton's spokesman confirmed Thursday night she is wearing the special glasses as a result of the fall and concussion she suffered last month, but he did not elaborate. Experts told the Daily News that Clinton likely has a Fresnel prism placed on her glasses. The adhesive panel is used to treat double vision." Fresnel prisms can be ground into a lens for longer term use, and the prism is not visible when built into the lens itself. ..."
"... Bill says recovery took six months - Fox News reported in May of 2014 that "Bill Clinton said earlier this week there's 'nothing to' the [Hillary] health questions - though at the same time, he revealed her recovery took about six months, which is much longer than the State Department had indicated." ..."
Hillary Clinton appeared to be wearing her corrective eyeglasses while campaigning Thursday in Las
Vegas, the same ones she used after suffering a fall and concussion a few years ago.
"Hillary Health Drama: Prism Glasses Back on Day After Coughing Seizure,"
the
Drudge Report tweeted Thursday morning, accompanied by a photo from The Associated Press.
The photo, which showed the 68-year-old Clinton meeting with employees at the Caesars Palace casino,
reignited questions about her health as it pertains to her public duties.
Gathered below are 10 times Hillary Clinton's health has been the subject of public discussion.
1. Coughing fits - In February 2016, presidential candidate Clinton suffered
her third public coughing fit during a speech in Harlem. "Clinton had to dig out a lozenge at last
year's Benghazi hearings,"
noted the Daily Mail, and "also suffered a coughing fit in Iowa back in January,
something she attributed to speaking a lot on her campaign tour." The fits prompted many to speculate
as to what could be causing them. Ear, nose, and throat specialist Dr. Jonathan Aviv
told "Inside Edition," "It's not just cough. There's some hoarseness, there's
some throat clearing, in fact there's frequent throat clearing. When you have these trio of symptoms,
you have to think of what I call throat burn reflux, which is acid reflux affecting the throat."
... ... ...
3. Fall fractures elbow - While serving as President Barack Obama's secretary
of state in mid-2009, Hillary Clinton fell and fractured her right elbow while walking to her car
in the basement of the State Department,
The
New York Times reported. Clinton, 61 at the time, underwent surgery to repair the elbow,
and missed at least one meeting with Obama as a result. "Having broken my right arm as secretary
of defense, and had the left arm operated on, I think I can truthfully say, I feel her pain," said
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates at the time. Secretary Clinton fell again in 2011 while boarding
a plane to Oman, but did not sustain injury.
4. Faint causes concussion - In late 2012, Secretary Clinton "sustained a concussion
after fainting,"
The Associated Press reported. The incident came just days before her scheduled
testimony about the Sept. 11 attack against a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Other officials from the department attended in her stead.
The State Department said Clinton was dehydrated because of a stomach virus, which had recently caused
her to back out of a trip to North Africa and the Persian Gulf.
5. Blood clot - Secretary Clinton was hospitalized in December 2012 after doctors
discovered a blood clot during a follow-up exam related to her concussion. "Mrs. Clinton's blood
clot formed in a large vein along the side of her head, behind her right ear, between the brain and
the skull,"
The New York Times reported, noting that Clinton also had a blood clot in her
leg in 1998. She began taking blood thinners around the time of her hospital discharge. The concussion
and subsequently discovered blood clot forced Clinton to ultimately take a month-long absence from
her role as secretary of state.
6. Prism glasses for double vision - "As she testified about the Sept. 11 attack
on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, the secretary of state appeared to have tiny vertical lines etched
onto the left lens of her new brown specs,"
the New York Daily News wrote in January 2013. "Clinton's
spokesman confirmed Thursday night she is wearing the special glasses as a result of the fall and
concussion she suffered last month, but he did not elaborate. Experts told the Daily News that Clinton
likely has a Fresnel prism placed on her glasses. The adhesive panel is used to treat double vision."
Fresnel prisms can be ground into a lens for longer term use, and the prism is not visible when built
into the lens itself.
7. Prescription blood thinner - In August 2015,
The Associated Press reported that Clinton was still taking Coumadin, a blood
thinner used to prevent blood clots. "Her Coumadin dose is monitored regularly and she has experienced
no side-effects from her medications," wrote Dr. Lisa Bardack, an internist who practices near Clinton's
suburban New York home. Previously, in a 2014 interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, Clinton said she
was "probably" on blood thinners for life.
8. Thyroid - Along with her blood thinner, Clinton takes Armour Thyroid, a thyroid
hormone replacement, antihistamines, and vitamin B12, the AP reported.
9. Brain damage comment - In May 2014,
The Washington Post reported that Republican strategist Karl Rove "distanced
himself from a provocative report in Monday's New York Post, saying he does not believe - as the
newspaper asserted he had said - that Clinton suffered 'brain damage' when she fell and sustained
a head injury in December 2012." Rove had been commenting on Clinton's prism glasses.
10. Bill says recovery took six months -
Fox News reported in May of 2014 that "Bill Clinton said earlier this week there's
'nothing to' the [Hillary] health questions - though at the same time, he revealed her recovery took
about six months, which is much longer than the State Department had indicated."
The questionable health condition of Hillary Clinton should be a major issue of the 2016 campaign.
The latest evidence comes in the form of Clinton being helped up a set of stairs by multiple individuals
outside what appears to be a home. The photos, published by Reuters and Getty, show the 68-year-old
candidate with aides holding her arms as she ascends the stairs.
Winchester1300
Literally Unfit For the Presidency!
Can't Walk, Needs Assistance, Can't Think, Often Confused, Can't See, Has Double Vision, Wears
Long Coats to Hide Her Adult Diapers, Has Multiple Seizures On Camera, Left in Middle of Debate
For Unexplained Reason, Called Donald Trump Her Husband, Massive Coughing Fits During Speeches...
rick > Winchester1300
Is she this FEEBLE or just DRUNK AGAIN!!??
John (magnum) > rick
Results of Lyin' Crooked Cankles 'short circuit' !!
The questionable health condition of Hillary Clinton should be a major issue of the 2016
campaign," wrote American Mirror editor, Kyle Olson.
"The latest evidence comes in the form of Clinton being helped up a set of stairs by multiple
individuals outside what appears to be a home.
"The photos, published by Reuters and Getty, show the 68-year-old candidate with aides holding
her arms as she ascends the stairs."
The Trump campaign has yet to offer up any of its own evidence that Clinton is suffering from any
sort of ailment, but the gambit may have been successful nonetheless.
While trying to stay unbiased, there was a response politically by some who doubted the legitimacy
of Clinton's concussion, as she was scheduled to testify about Benghazi in the weeks following. Most,
of course, have focused on the political lean of those people, and what they may or may not stand
to gain by criticizing Clinton, but more than anything, I think their statements underline the continued
misunderstanding of TBI and how dangerous it can be, and I strangely felt parallels to my own concussion.
Because of an absence of any apparent physical ailments, many people believe concussions are non-serious
issues that you can "get over" very quickly. Beyond that, many doubt any non-tangible symptoms you
may have because there is no physical proof. Political opponents to Clinton did exactly that claiming
it was a suspiciously convenient time for Clinton to become injured. My friends and co-workers kept
telling me they thought I was playing up symptoms to get extensions on deadlines or get out of doing
things, because to the plain eye everything was fine.
Hillary's concussion does seem to be as minor as one could hope for; she suffered no brain damage
or any other complications aside from the discovery of the clot. But only Clinton and a few others
know exactly what symptoms she may be dealing with, and public skepticism to the serious nature of
TBI needs to be dealt with.
That isn't the only lesson to be learned from Clinton's concussion, however. As Doctor Ann Engelland
shows, there is more to glean from the recent headlines. While trying to recover from the concussion,
Hillary Clinton was told by doctors to work from home, and to rest. While the Secretary of State
could by no means completely neglect her duties, one of the most important factors in healing from
a concussion is "brain rest" and withdrawal from activities.
Concussions are more common than most people realize, and they aren't just an issue for athletes.
Complications, however, are rare. After being examined by a professional, there is no major need
for multiple scans unless the doctors report finding anything outside the normal.
Noting reports Mrs. Clinton had suffered a blood clot after a fall in December 2012, the New York
Post reported Rove said, "Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she's wearing glasses
that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what's up with that."
Rove is now distancing himself from the remark, telling the
Washington Post on Tuesday, "Of course she doesn't have brain damage."
But Rove told the Washington Post it's apparent Clinton suffered "a serious health episode," adding
if she jumps in the 2016 presidential race, "she is going to have to be forthcoming" on details of
where, how and when it happened.
"She didn't feign illness," Rove said of Clinton's failure to appear at an early round of congressional
hearings on Benghazi, an absence referred to by some as "Benghazi flu."
A representative for the former first lady was quoted as saying, "Please assure Dr. Rove she's
100 percent."
Limbaugh noted, "The left is fit to be tied over what Rove said about Mrs. Clinton."
The broadcaster suggested, "If you're gonna start going down this road with Mrs. Clinton, you
gotta go back a lot farther than December of 2012. I mean, you remember how Hillary couldn't remember
where she put the Rose Law Firm billing records. She couldn't remember how she got a hold of those
900 FBI files that she and Bill had somewhere."
Listen to Rush Limbaugh's comments by clicking below:
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/hillarys-brain-damage-what-difference-does-it-make/#5I6etdg6ScTl7WKJ.99
"... they make the point that Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate, notably so in matters related to national security. Clinton is surely correct that allowing Trump to make decisions related to war and peace would be the height of folly . Yet her record in that regard does not exactly inspire confidence. ..."
"... When it comes to foreign policy, Trump's preference for off-the-cuff utterances finds him committing astonishing gaffes with metronomic regularity. ..."
"... By comparison, the carefully scripted Clinton commits few missteps, as she recites with practiced ease the pabulum that passes for right thinking in establishment circles. But fluency does not necessarily connote soundness. Clinton, after all, adheres resolutely to the highly militarized "Washington playbook" that President Obama himself has disparaged - a faith-based belief in American global primacy to be pursued regardless of how the world may be changing and heedless of costs. ..."
"... First, and most important, the evil effects of money: ..."
"... Republic Lost, Version 2.0 ..."
"... Second, the perverse impact of identity politics on policy ..."
"... Third, the substitution of "reality" for reality ..."
"... The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America ..."
"... According to Boorstin, more than five decades ago the American people were already living in a "thicket of unreality." By relentlessly indulging in ever more "extravagant expectations," they were forfeiting their capacity to distinguish between what was real and what was illusory. Indeed, Boorstin wrote, "We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake them for reality." ..."
"... While ad agencies and PR firms had indeed vigorously promoted a world of illusions, Americans themselves had become willing accomplices in the process. ..."
"... "The American citizen lives in a world where fantasy is more real than reality, where the image has more dignity than its original. We hardly dare to face our bewilderment, because our ambiguous experience is so pleasantly iridescent, and the solace of belief in contrived reality is so thoroughly real. We have become eager accessories to the great hoaxes of the age. These are the hoaxes we play on ourselves." ..."
"... Real Housewives of ..."
"... Game of Thrones ..."
"... The Apprentice ..."
"... "The making of the illusions which flood our experience has become the business of America," wrote Boorstin. It's also become the essence of American politics, long since transformed into theater, or rather into some sort of (un)reality show. ..."
"... This emphasis on spectacle has drained national politics of whatever substance it still had back when Ike and Adlai commanded the scene. It hardly need be said that Donald Trump has demonstrated an extraordinary knack - a sort of post-modern genius - for turning this phenomenon to his advantage. ..."
"... The thicket of unreality that is American politics has now become all-enveloping. The problem is not Trump and Clinton, per se. It's an identifiable set of arrangements - laws, habits, cultural predispositions - that have evolved over time and promoted the rot that now pervades American politics. As a direct consequence, the very concept of self-government is increasingly a fantasy, even if surprisingly few Americans seem to mind. ..."
"... I know Clinton is one of this gang. And I am sure that given his personality, Trump will succumb to this madness almost at once. Give a narcissistic jerk that much power and good luck to all of us (of course, give that much power to a rabid insider like Clinton and good luck to all of us). Of course, their partisans will say, "Trump will just ignore the entire vast apparatus of the permanent government and the security state and do whatever he likes" or "Nixon went to China, and Clinton can metaphorically do the same when she realizes she's no longer a cheerleader at State and the buck stops at her desk", but I don't believe either of those assertions. ..."
"... Thanks james, to the annoying chest thumpers the image of dems chanting USA USA to drown out No More Wars really signals an alternate reality. I think AB went way too easy on clinton, ..."
"... It's depressing to see Andrew Bacevich, one of our country's most astute observers of the national security scene and a retired military officer, come down on the side of Hilary Clinton as the lesser evil candidate. He can only do so by totally ignoring her central role in the ignition of Cold War 2.0 in his litany of her liabilities. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton offers more of the same bad news, only worse. Trump scares everybody from the MIC, which includes Bacevich, who after all draws a hefty monthly pension from the Defense Dept., because he indicates he actually wants to be the boss, to call the shots, to shake things up, to rattle some cages. The last prez who actually tried to boss around the MIC was JFK, and he had his brain tissue splattered onto the Dallas street in broad daylight. Trump was kind of a stealth candidate in the primaries, in that the bigwigs were unable to take him seriously, even after he won some primaries. By the time they marshaled enough opposition to stop him, it was too late. ..."
"... The people, in the eyes of miscreants like Obama, are mere pawns to be manipulated, stolen from, etc. He's implying the GOP should have had a superdelegate fix, like the dems, to overcome any spurt of independent thinking from the electorate. ..."
"... Clinton may be a non-introspective narcissist who has an poor understanding of the historical results of policy and current affairs, who never admits mistakes/grievous wrongs ("Libya needs more time") and whose most significant personal decision was to recognize that, after failing the bar exam in Washington DC, it was time to go to Arkansas and hitch her wagon to Bill Clinton's career. ..."
"... Trump is a novice at government, yes, but he has experienced dealing with foreign countries as a businessman. HRC is much scarier-she is capable of rattling off the neocon doctrine as it pertains to a lot of countries. Great. I'd much prefer the novice. I would love to have the neocons and neolibs destroyed. ..."
"... Hillary is scary because I think she and Victory Nuland are going to push us into a war with Putin – Trump is an idiot, but we already know that Hillary has a taste for blood. Libya and Iraq are two prime examples. ..."
Even by Washington standards, Secretary Clinton exudes a striking sense of entitlement combined
with a nearly complete absence of accountability. She shrugs off her
misguided vote in support of invading Iraq back in 2003, while serving as senator from New York.
She neither explains nor apologizes for pressing to depose Libya's Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, her most
notable "
accomplishment " as secretary of state. "We came, we saw, he died," she
bragged back then, somewhat prematurely given that Libya has since fallen into anarchy and become
a haven for ISIS.
She clings to the demonstrably false claim that her use of a private server for State Department
business compromised
no classified information . Now opposed to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP) that she
once described as the "gold standard in trade agreements," Clinton rejects charges of political
opportunism. That her change of heart occurred when attacking the TPP was helping Bernie Sanders
win one Democratic primary after another is merely coincidental. Oh, and the big money accepted from
banks and
Wall Street as well as the
tech sector for minimal work and
the bigger money still from leading figures in the Israel lobby? Rest assured that her acceptance
of such largesse won't reduce by one iota her support for "working class families" or her commitment
to a just peace settlement in the Middle East.
Let me be clear: none of these offer the slightest reason to vote for Donald Trump. Yet together
they make the point that Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate, notably so in matters
related to national security. Clinton is surely correct that allowing Trump to make decisions related
to war and peace would be the
height of folly . Yet her record in that regard does not exactly inspire confidence.
When it comes to foreign policy, Trump's preference for off-the-cuff utterances finds him
committing astonishing gaffes with metronomic regularity. Spontaneity serves chiefly to expose
his staggering ignorance.
By comparison, the carefully scripted Clinton commits few missteps, as she recites with practiced
ease the pabulum that passes for right thinking in establishment circles. But fluency does not necessarily
connote soundness. Clinton, after all, adheres resolutely to the highly militarized "Washington playbook"
that President Obama himself has
disparaged - a faith-based belief in American global primacy to be pursued regardless of how
the world may be changing and heedless of costs.
On the latter point, note that Clinton's acceptance speech in Philadelphia included not a
single mention of Afghanistan. By Election Day, the war there will have passed its 15th anniversary.
One might think that a prospective commander-in-chief would have something to say about the longest
conflict in American history, one that continues with no end in sight. Yet, with the Washington playbook
offering few answers, Mrs. Clinton chooses to remain silent on the subject.
So while a Trump presidency holds the prospect of the United States driving off a cliff, a Clinton
presidency promises to be the equivalent of banging one's head against a brick wall without evident
effect, wondering all the while why it hurts so much.
Pseudo-Politics for an Ersatz Era
But let's not just blame the candidates. Trump and Clinton are also the product of circumstances
that neither created. As candidates, they are merely exploiting a situation - one relying on intuition
and vast stores of brashness, the other putting to work skills gained during a life spent studying
how to acquire and employ power. The success both have achieved in securing the nominations of their
parties is evidence of far more fundamental forces at work.
In the pairing of Trump and Clinton, we confront symptoms of something pathological. Unless Americans
identify the sources of this disease, it will inevitably worsen, with dire consequences in the realm
of national security. After all, back in Eisenhower's day, the IEDs planted thanks to reckless presidential
decisions tended to blow up only years - or even decades - later. For example, between the 1953 U.S.-engineered
coup that restored the Shah to his throne and the 1979 revolution that converted Iran overnight from
ally to adversary, more than a quarter of a century elapsed. In our own day, however, detonation
occurs so much more quickly - witness the almost instantaneous and explosively unhappy consequences
of Washington's post-9/11 military interventions in the Greater Middle East.
So here's a matter worth pondering: How is it that all the months of intensive fundraising, the
debates and speeches, the caucuses and primaries, the avalanche of TV ads and annoying robocalls
have produced two presidential candidates who tend to elicit from a surprisingly large number of
rank-and-file citizens disdain, indifference, or at best hold-your-nose-and-pull-the-lever acquiescence?
Here, then, is a preliminary diagnosis of three of the factors contributing to the erosion of
American politics, offered from the conviction that, for Americans to have better
choices next time around, fundamental change must occur - and soon.
First, and most important, the evil effects of money: Need chapter and verse? For a tutorial,
see this essential 2015 book by Professor Lawrence Lessig of Harvard:
Republic
Lost, Version 2.0 . Those with no time for books might spare 18 minutes for Lessig's brilliant
and deeply disturbing
TED talk . Professor Lessig argues persuasively that unless the United States radically changes
the way it finances political campaigns, we're pretty much doomed to see our democracy wither and
die.
Needless to say, moneyed interests and incumbents who benefit from existing arrangements take
a different view and collaborate to maintain the status quo. As a result, political life has increasingly
become a pursuit reserved for those like Trump who possess vast personal wealth or for those like
Clinton who display an aptitude for persuading the well to do to open their purses, with all that
implies by way of compromise, accommodation, and the subsequent repayment of favors.
Second, the perverse impact of identity politics on policy : Observers make much of the
fact that, in capturing the presidential nomination of a major party, Hillary Clinton has shattered
yet another glass ceiling. They are right to do so. Yet the novelty of her candidacy starts and ends
with gender. When it comes to fresh thinking, Donald Trump has far more to offer than Clinton - even
if his version of "fresh" tends to be synonymous with wacky, off-the-wall, ridiculous, or altogether
hair-raising.
The essential point here is that, in the realm of national security, Hillary Clinton is utterly
conventional. She subscribes to a worldview (and view of America's role in the world) that originated
during the Cold War, reached its zenith in the 1990s when the United States proclaimed itself the
planet's "sole superpower," and persists today remarkably unaffected by actual events.
On the campaign trail, Clinton attests to her bona fides by routinely reaffirming her belief in American
exceptionalism , paying fervent tribute to "
the world's greatest military ," swearing that she'll be "listening to our generals and admirals,"
and vowing to get tough on America's adversaries. These are, of course, the mandatory rituals of
the contemporary Washington stump speech, amplified if anything by the perceived need for the first
female candidate for president to emphasize her pugnacity.
A Clinton presidency, therefore, offers the prospect of more of the same - muscle-flexing and
armed intervention to demonstrate American global leadership - albeit marketed with a garnish of
diversity. Instead of different policies, Clinton will offer an administration that has a different
look, touting this as evidence of positive change.
Yet while diversity may be a good thing, we should not confuse it with effectiveness. A national
security team that "looks like America" (to use the phrase originally coined by Bill Clinton) does
not necessarily govern more effectively than one that looks like President Eisenhower's. What matters
is getting the job done.
Since the 1990s women have found plentiful opportunities to fill positions in the upper echelons
of the national security apparatus. Although we have not yet had a female commander-in-chief, three
women have served as secretary of state and two as national security adviser. Several have filled
Adlai Stevenson's old post at the United Nations. Undersecretaries, deputy undersecretaries, and
assistant secretaries of like gender abound, along with a passel of female admirals and generals.
So the question needs be asked: Has the quality of national security policy improved compared
to the bad old days when men exclusively called the shots? Using as criteria the promotion of stability
and the avoidance of armed conflict (along with the successful prosecution of wars deemed unavoidable),
the answer would, of course, have to be no. Although Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Susan
Rice, Samantha Power, and Clinton herself might entertain a different view, actually existing conditions
in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and other countries across the Greater
Middle East and significant parts of Africa tell a different story.
The abysmal record of American statecraft in recent years is not remotely the
fault of women; yet neither have women made a perceptibly positive difference. It turns out that
identity does not necessarily signify wisdom or assure insight. Allocating positions of influence
in the State Department or the Pentagon based on gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation -
as Clinton will assuredly do - may well gratify previously disenfranchised groups. Little evidence
exists to suggest that doing so will produce more enlightened approaches to statecraft, at least
not so long as adherence to the Washington playbook figures as a precondition to employment. (Should
Clinton win in November, don't expect the redoubtable ladies of
Code Pink to be tapped for
jobs at the Pentagon and State Department.)
In the end, it's not identity that matters but ideas and their implementation. To contemplate
the ideas that might guide a President Trump along with those he will recruit to act on them - Ivanka
as national security adviser? - is enough to elicit shudders from any sane person. Yet the prospect
of Madam President surrounding herself with an impeccably diverse team of advisers who share her
own outmoded views is hardly cause for celebration.
Putting a woman in charge of national security policy will not in itself amend the defects exhibited
in recent years. For that, the obsolete principles with which Clinton along with the rest of Washington
remains enamored will have to be jettisoned. In his own bizarre way (albeit without a clue as to
a plausible alternative), Donald Trump seems to get that; Hillary Clinton does not.
Third, the substitution of "reality" for reality : Back in 1962, a young historian by
the name of Daniel Boorstin published
The
Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America . In an age in which Donald Trump and
Hillary Clinton vie to determine the nation's destiny, it should be mandatory reading. The Image
remains, as when it first appeared, a fire bell ringing in the night.
According to Boorstin, more than five decades ago the American people were already living in a
"thicket of unreality." By relentlessly indulging in ever more "extravagant expectations," they were
forfeiting their capacity to distinguish between what was real and what was illusory. Indeed, Boorstin
wrote, "We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake them for reality."
While ad agencies and PR firms had indeed vigorously promoted a world of illusions, Americans
themselves had become willing accomplices in the process.
"The American citizen lives in a world where fantasy is more real than reality, where the image
has more dignity than its original. We hardly dare to face our bewilderment, because our ambiguous
experience is so pleasantly iridescent, and the solace of belief in contrived reality is so thoroughly
real. We have become eager accessories to the great hoaxes of the age. These are the hoaxes we play
on ourselves."
This, of course, was decades before the nation succumbed to the iridescent allure of Facebook,
Google, fantasy football, " Real Housewives of _________," selfies, smartphone apps,
Game of Thrones , Pokémon GO - and, yes, the vehicle that vaulted Donald Trump to stardom,
The Apprentice .
"The making of the illusions which flood our experience has become the business of America," wrote
Boorstin. It's also become the essence of American politics, long since transformed into theater,
or rather into some sort of (un)reality show.
Presidential campaigns today are themselves, to use Boorstin's famous term, "pseudo-events" that
stretch from months into years. By now, most Americans know better than to take at face value anything
candidates say or promise along the way. We're in on the joke - or at least we think we are. Reinforcing
that perception on a daily basis are media outlets that have abandoned mere reporting in favor of
enhancing the spectacle of the moment. This is especially true of the cable news networks, where
talking heads serve up a snide and cynical complement to the smarmy fakery that is the office-seeker's
stock in trade. And we lap it up. It matters little that we know it's all staged and contrived, as
long as - a preening Megyn Kelly getting under Trump's skin, Trump himself denouncing "lyin' Ted"
Cruz, etc., etc. - it's entertaining.
This emphasis on spectacle has drained national politics of whatever substance it still had back
when Ike and Adlai commanded the scene. It hardly need be said that Donald Trump has demonstrated
an extraordinary knack - a sort of post-modern genius - for turning this phenomenon to his advantage.
Yet in her own way Clinton plays the same game. How else to explain a national convention organized
around the idea of "
reintroducing to the American people" someone who served eight years as First Lady, was elected
to the Senate, failed in a previous high-profile run for the presidency, and completed a term as
secretary of state? The just-ended conclave in Philadelphia was, like the Republican one that preceded
it, a pseudo-event par excellence, the object of the exercise being to fashion a new "image" for
the Democratic candidate.
The thicket of unreality that is American politics has now become all-enveloping. The problem
is not Trump and Clinton, per se. It's an identifiable set of arrangements - laws, habits, cultural
predispositions - that have evolved over time and promoted the rot that now pervades American politics.
As a direct consequence, the very concept of self-government is increasingly a fantasy, even if surprisingly
few Americans seem to mind.
At an earlier juncture back in 1956, out of a population of 168 million, we got Ike and Adlai.
Today, with almost double the population, we get - well, we get what we've got. This does not represent
progress. And don't kid yourself that things really can't get much worse. Unless Americans rouse
themselves to act, count on it, they will.
Americans are annoying chest-thumpers but the average Jane or Joe has no power in their own
lives. In contrast, the Washington foreign policy elite has power, the power of life and death,
over billions across the globe, and they exercise it regularly. This power has utterly corrupted
the elite and gone to their heads. That is why any defiance is met with such rage. They are used
to getting their own way, and woe to the country that acts or even thinks otherwise.
I know Clinton is one of this gang. And I am sure that given his personality, Trump will succumb
to this madness almost at once. Give a narcissistic jerk that much power and good luck to all
of us (of course, give that much power to a rabid insider like Clinton and good luck to all of
us). Of course, their partisans will say, "Trump will just ignore the entire vast apparatus of
the permanent government and the security state and do whatever he likes" or "Nixon went to China,
and Clinton can metaphorically do the same when she realizes she's no longer a cheerleader at
State and the buck stops at her desk", but I don't believe either of those assertions.
Thanks james, to the annoying chest thumpers the image of dems chanting USA USA to drown out
No More Wars really signals an alternate reality. I think AB went way too easy on clinton, and
the misogyny claim was one cheap shot (True, antipathy directed toward Hillary Clinton draws some
of its energy from incorrigible sexists along with the "vast right wing conspiracy" whose members
thoroughly loathe both Clintons. Yet the antipathy is not without basis in fact.) but I think
he retakes that ground when he labels her "utterly conventional", On balance a good article but
as with many prominent figures he can make a laundry list of her downsides and still come out
sounding like a supporter of hers. I share your conclusion, good luck
It's depressing to see Andrew Bacevich, one of our country's most astute observers of the national
security scene and a retired military officer, come down on the side of Hilary Clinton as the
lesser evil candidate. He can only do so by totally ignoring her central role in the ignition
of Cold War 2.0 in his litany of her liabilities.
Hillary Clinton offers more of the same bad news, only worse. Trump scares everybody from the
MIC, which includes Bacevich, who after all draws a hefty monthly pension from the Defense Dept.,
because he indicates he actually wants to be the boss, to call the shots, to shake things up,
to rattle some cages. The last prez who actually tried to boss around the MIC was JFK, and he
had his brain tissue splattered onto the Dallas street in broad daylight. Trump was kind of a
stealth candidate in the primaries, in that the bigwigs were unable to take him seriously, even
after he won some primaries. By the time they marshaled enough opposition to stop him, it was
too late.
Obama, for his part, has indicated the republican party was negligent in its duties
by letting the people vote this guy into the nomination. The people, in the eyes of miscreants
like Obama, are mere pawns to be manipulated, stolen from, etc. He's implying the GOP should have
had a superdelegate fix, like the dems, to overcome any spurt of independent thinking from the
electorate.
Clinton may be a non-introspective narcissist who has an poor understanding of the historical
results of policy and current affairs, who never admits mistakes/grievous wrongs ("Libya needs
more time") and whose most significant personal decision was to recognize that, after failing
the bar exam in Washington DC, it was time to go to Arkansas and hitch her wagon to Bill Clinton's
career.
Trump is a novice at government, yes, but he has experienced dealing with foreign countries
as a businessman. HRC is much scarier-she is capable of rattling off the neocon doctrine as it
pertains to a lot of countries. Great. I'd much prefer the novice. I would love to have the neocons
and neolibs destroyed.
As Bacevich says, Ike was not a bad president, and he had no gov't experience before he was elected.
My dad was a democrat, I guess, but the one thing I remember hearing him utter regarding politics
was praise of Ike: " Things were good in the 50's-we had General Motors, General Electric, and
General Eisenhower!"
Hillary is scary because I think she and Victory Nuland are going to push us into a war with
Putin – Trump is an idiot, but we already know that Hillary has a taste for blood.
Libya and Iraq are two prime examples.
"... Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East." ..."
"... The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.) ..."
"... Finally, George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of "regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. ..."
"... Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades. ..."
"... "Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S. interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists, token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East. ..."
"... The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible. ..."
"... The final lesson of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect." ..."
Bacevich's latest book, America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History,
is a bookend of sorts to American Empire. The earlier work was heavy on theory and institutional
development, the groundwork for the wars of the early 21st century. The new book covers the history
itself-and argues persuasively that the Afghanistan, Iraq, and other, smaller wars since 9/11 are
parts of a larger conflict that began much earlier, back in the Carter administration.
Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's
account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of
World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that
region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no
American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East."
Operation Eagle Claw, Carter's ill-fated mission to rescue Americans held hostage in Iran, was
the first combat engagement in the war. Iran would continue to tempt Washington to military action
throughout the next 36 years-though paradoxically, attempts to contain Iran more often brought the
U.S. into war with the Islamic Republic's hostile neighbor, Iraq.
The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it
weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq
War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement
with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.)
Weakened and indebted by that war, and thinking the U.S. tolerant of his ambitions, Saddam then
invaded Kuwait, leading to full-scale U.S. military intervention against him: Operation Desert Storm
in 1991. (By Bacevich's count, the second Gulf War.) President George H.W. Bush stopped American
forces from pushing on to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait, however, because-among other things-toppling
Saddam would have created a dangerous vacuum that Iran might fill.
A decade of sanctions, no-fly zones, and intermittent bombing then ensued, as Washington, under
Bush and Clinton, would neither depose Saddam Hussein nor permit him to reassert himself. Finally,
George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of
"regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put
into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the
void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. This would set a
precedent for America to democratize every trouble-making state in the region, including Iran.
Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change
in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled
as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer
to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in
the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades.
Iran released its American hostages the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president: January 20,
1981. So what accounts for another 35 years of conflict with Iran and Iraq? The answer begins with
oil.
Bacevich takes us back to the Carter years. "By June 1979, a just-completed study by a then-obscure
Defense Department official named Paul Wolfowitz was attracting notice throughout the national security
bureaucracy." This "Limited Contingency Study" described America's "vital and growing stake in the
Persian Gulf," arising from "our need for Persian-Gulf oil and because events in the Persian Gulf
affect the Arab-Israeli conflict."
"Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which
in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in
the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S.
interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging
Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists,
token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East.
(Bacevich is fair to Wolfowitz, acknowledging that Saddam Hussein was indeed an expansionist,
as the Iraqi dictator would demonstrate by invading Iran in 1980 and seizing Kuwait a decade later.
Whether this meant that Iraq was ever a threat to U.S. interests is, of course, a different question-as
is whether the Soviet Union could really have cut America off from Gulf oil.)
Wolfowitz was not alone in calling for the U.S. to become the guarantor of Middle East security-and
Saudi Arabia's security in particular-and President Carter heeded the advice. In March 1980 he created
the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), predecessor to what we now know as the U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM), which has military oversight for the region. The RDJTF's second head, Lt. Gen.
Robert Kingston, described its mission, in admirably frank language, as simply "to ensure the unimpeded
flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf."
Iraq and Iran both posed dangers to the flow of oil and its control by Saudi Arabia and other
Arab allies-to use the term loosely-of the United States. And just as the U.S. was drawn into wars
with Iran and Iraq when it tried to play one against the other, America's defense of Saudi Arabia
would have grave unintended consequences-such as the creation of al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden was outraged
when, in 1990, Saudi Arabia's King Fahd declined his offer to wage holy war against Saddam Hussein
and instead turned to American protection, even permitting the stationing of American military personnel
in Islam's sacred lands. "To liberate Kuwait," writes Bacevich, bin Laden had "offered to raise an
army of mujahedin. Rejecting his offer and his protest, Saudi authorities sought to silence the impertinent
bin Laden. Not long thereafter, he fled into exile, determined to lead a holy war that would overthrow
the corrupt Saudi royals." The instrument bin Laden forged to accomplish that task, al-Qaeda, would
target Americans as well, seeking to push the U.S. out of Muslim lands.
Bin Laden had reason to hope for success: in the 1980s he had helped mujahedin defeat another
superpower, the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan. That struggle, of course, was supported by the U.S.,
through the CIA's "Operation Cyclone," which funneled arms and money to the Soviets' Muslim opponents.
Bacevich offers a verdict on this program:
Operation Cyclone illustrates one of the central ironies of America's War for the Greater Middle
East-the unwitting tendency, while intently focusing on solving one problem, to exacerbate a second
and plant the seeds of a third. In Afghanistan, this meant fostering the rise of Islamic radicalism
and underwriting Pakistan's transformation into a nuclear-armed quasi-rogue state while attempting
to subvert the Soviet Union.
America's support for the mujahedin succeeded in inflicting defeat on the USSR-but left Afghanistan
a haven and magnet for Islamist radicals, including bin Laden.
Another irony of Bacevich's tale is the way in which the end of the Cold War made escalation of
the War for the Greater Middle East possible. The Carter and Reagan administrations never considered
the Middle East the centerpiece of their foreign policy: Western Europe and the Cold War took precedence.
Carter and Reagan were unsystematic about their engagement with the Middle East and, even as they
expanded America's military presence, remained wary of strategic overcommitment. Operation Eagle
Claw, Reagan's deployment of troops to Lebanon in 1983 and bombing of Libya in 1986, and even the
meddling in Iran and Iraq were all small-scale projects compared to what would be unleashed after
the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to
redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time
were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation
Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible.
The
Greater Middle East of Bacevich's title centers strategically, if not geographically, upon Saudi
Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. But its strategic implications and cultural reach are wide, encompassing
Libya, Somalia, and other African states with significant Muslim populations; Afghanistan and Pakistan
(or "AfPak," in the Obama administration's parlance); and even, on the periphery, the Balkans, where
the U.S. intervened militarily in support of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. That Clinton-era
intervention is examined in detail by Bacevich: "Today, years after NATO came to their rescue," he
writes, "a steady stream of Bosnians and Kosovars leave their homeland and head off toward Syria
and Iraq, where they enlist as fighters in the ongoing anti-American, anti-Western jihad."
Much as George W. Bush believed that liberal democracy would spring up in Saddam Hussein's wake,
the humanitarian interventionists who demanded that Bill Clinton send peacekeepers to Bosnia and
bomb Serbia on behalf of the Kosovars thought that they were making the world safe for their own
liberal, multicultural values. But as Bacevich notes, the Balkan Muslims joining ISIS today are "waging
war on behalf of an entirely different set of universal values."
Bacevich's many books confront readers with painful but necessary truths. The final lesson
of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American
freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect."
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative.
"... The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally. ..."
"... Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big setback for the US and a big gain for Russia ..."
"... The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts" get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous. These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR. ..."
"... NATO gets aggressive and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions. ..."
"... I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to invade or start a war!" ..."
"... US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria (by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable reaction. Same goes for Ukraine. ..."
"... The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development, they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college. ..."
"... If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists, strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged: ..."
"... Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well. ..."
"... While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement. ..."
"... But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen, as Edmonds says. ..."
"... Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing to speak out about it. ..."
"... Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial, cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded within the USA and Congress. ..."
"... For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point. ..."
"... Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin? ..."
"... Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the 9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period (i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte"). ..."
"... But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all a happy one. ..."
It's rather improbable to see a Russo-Turkish alliance against US and NATO. The US and the
Russians have probably already agreed on the new Middle East map which includes Kurdish state.
This explains to a great extent why Erdogan is so nervous, making sloppy and dangerous moves.
Um, given reports that the Turks
briefly closed the airbase that the US uses to conduct operations in Syria over the weekend,
Erdogan seems plenty pissed with the US for not turning over Gulen, as he has repeatedly requested.
Europe has agreed to give him only 3 billion euros to halt the refugee flow into Europe, which
is hardly adequate, and a vague promise that maybe the EU will give Turks the freedom of movement
too. The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend
not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally.
Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big
setback for the US and a big gain for Russia
Thanks for mentioning the Real News Network fundraiser, Yves. They have a dollar-for-dollar
matching grant going on as well, doubling the impact of every donation.
The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts"
get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous.
These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is
the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR.
They take it on faith that the US/West and Russia MUST be at odds, no matter what, to the point
that they create out of whole cloth conflicts where none existed before. NATO gets aggressive
and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets
its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions.
Personally, I couldn't care less if Turkey and Russia get kissy-faced with each other. Big
wup. Russia is NOT preparing to invade Western Europe (as much as NATO WISHES it were). Russia
is NOT invading countries and overthrowing their governments to install puppet regimes, that's
the USA and NATO ONLY. The West transgresses, grossly, again and again and when Russia coughs
or clears its throat in opposition, it is "RUSSIAN AGGRESSION! Yaaaa! The Russians are coming!
The Russians are coming!!!!"
I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet
Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to
invade or start a war!" On the other hand, I've seen nothing BUT war starting by the West.
First NATO takes something that wasn't, in all actuality, THAT bad a situation (the breakup of
Yugoslavia) and turns it into a complete hell in Europe.
US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military
bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order
to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be
the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria
(by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable
reaction. Same goes for Ukraine.
The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether
Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system
than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping
the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development,
they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt
to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make
the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more
retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college.
If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs
to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists,
strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into
an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold
War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay
in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged:
There is now only one way out. The time has come for the United States to make
common cause with the Soviet Union. The bringing together of the Soviet landmass (with all
its natural resources) and our island empire (with all its technological resources) would be
of great benefit to each society, not to mention the world. Also, to recall the wisdom of the
Four Horsemen who gave us our empire, the Soviet Union and our section of North America combined
would be a match, industrially and technologically, for the Sino-Japanese axis that will dominate
the future just as Japan dominates world trade today. But where the horsemen thought of war
as the supreme solvent, we now know that war is worse than useless. Therefore, the alliance
of the two great powers of the Northern Hemisphere will double the strength of each and give
us, working together, an opportunity to survive, economically, in a highly centralized Asiatic
world.
Rereading this it sacrifices coherence to venting. The premise is that historical contiguity
with the racial residues of empire could be confronted or not if they were more simply transparent.
The bigger point I wanted to make is the current demographic disaster may be intentional if
one looks at the recent Russian experience as an experiment. Broken Force? Then social pressure
through thwarting the traditional modes of reproduction of labor leading to a reinvigorated military
economy in 15 years.
Yeah the whole "soviet threat" issue vanished the day Stalin passed. But i fear that the US,
and thus NATO, needed it to maintain compliance within their own nations.
And thus the threat was stoked until the 90s, then it was eased back as they thought they had
the old bear chained down while Yeltsin was in office, only for their antics to cause a blowback
that is still ongoing once Putin took over.
Last week I got curious to have a better understanding of the Turkey situation than what I
was getting from MSM. I decided to see if Sibel Edmonds had spoken up–and discovered that she
predicted this coup 18 months ago.
The "BellingTheCat" website with WhatsApp translated messages of Turkish military during the
coup, which Helmers also mentions,
are here . Helmers says this website is a NATO-sponsored website and that it is not always
trustworthy, but isn't sure in this case. Edmonds doesn't mention this website being linked to
NATO.
For background on Edmonds see "
Kill the Messenger ",
a 2006 documentary about her whistleblowing within the FBI.
Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and
the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or
green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well.
While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case
officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with
the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including
the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen
has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged
the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement.
But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen,
as Edmonds says.
Within the CIA there are therefore different angles / understandings / strategies. The upper
echelon strategy seems to be about supporting Gulen (including helping clandestinely Gulen–or
his puppet-master(s)–to effect regime change). LIHOP is too weak an argument, given the kind of
support Gulen receives from his USA base. Probably he's just a figurehead and the real power is
out of view. (USA? Off-world?)
Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported
this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked
Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's
pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became
disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention
of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a
certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites
were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign
governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile
activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of
our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing
to speak out about it.
Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about
Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to
replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both
the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial,
cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded
within the USA and Congress.
A longer post with a number of links has been sidetracked to moderation. In case it disappears
I'm posting this short comment.
For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her
whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point.
How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to
try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there?
Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States
or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states
and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect
it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability
could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this
game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians
decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies
using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin?
This thread seems to have petered out rather early on, not sure how much to add.
For those (if anyone is still out there) interested, Pat Lang's site SST has been posting regularly
on Turkey, and he has commenters from the region and who are knowledgeable about ME/NE military
and political affairs.
I had read the John Helmer piece on his blog when it was first posted, and forwarded it to
a friend who's similar in many respects to Lang (career military officer, now retired; author
of historical studies and books; keen student of the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey, Cyprus, the
Balkans) except that he's Greek.
In return he sent me a link to his own latest two pieces on a Greek blog. One discusses the
"coup" in considerable detail. Some random factoids I picked up on, in no particular order or
hierarchy:
-Russia is not interested in regime change in Turkey at the moment;
-Russia is very interested in maintaining its buffer zone (called "The Rimland" by the
late Nicholas Spykman, a geopolitics theoretician), of which Turkey forms perhaps the key part
(historically, and now);
-Russia turned the shooting down of that SU 24 into an opportunity to install S400s or
possibly, S500s, in Syria;
-The current situation in Syria is more or less a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia;
-Russia has recently become very active in the so-called "Northern Corridor" (aka, the
Arctic Circle), something most analysts forget;
-By 2020, Russia will be 100% self-sufficient in food production;
-It is likely that Russian surveillance technology picked up the news of the impending
coup and informed Erdogan of it;
-The presence of nuclear weapons at Incirlik is in violation of Article 2 of the 1975 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
-Russia wants/needs a "southern corridor" to move LNG to the Med. Turkey is in the right
geographic location to serve this purpose.
The historical relationship between Turkey and Russia comes out a bit garbled in Helmer's (original
post) title, i.e. "The New Byzantine Alliance: The Kremlin and the Porte," etc.
Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the
9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course
Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated
relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople
to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding
Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship
between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period
(i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte").
Short version: when you start messing around in somebody else's backyard, trouble ensues.
The 2016 election offers voters two rather stark choices. Another blog I read, LGM, recently
had a comment on a thread about Trump-Clinton (there are so many, one loses count) that laid out
why voters are choosing one or the other candidate very neatly. If one is in the U.S. and is relatively
or very well-off, the Democrats' championing (qualified, I would say) of identity politics looks
pretty good, or at least, not as bad as the Republicans' (I'm still aghast at how black voters
are so staunchly supportive of someone whose husband shoved TANF through in place of AFDC, but
hey). But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical
hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all
a happy one.
"... Hillary fainted while she was working in her seventh-floor office at the State Department, not at home, as Reines told the media. She was treated at the State Department's infirmary and then, at her own insistence, taken to Whitehaven to recover. ..."
"... She had a right transverse venous thrombosis, or a blood clot between her brain and skull. She had developed the clot in one of the veins that drains blood from the brain to the heart. The doctors explained that blood stagnates when you spend a lot of time on airplanes, and Hillary had clocked countless hours flying around the world. ..."
"... According to a source close to Hillary, a thorough medical examination revealed that Hillary's tendency to form clots was the least of her problems. She also suffered from a thyroid condition, which was common among women of her age, and her fainting spells indicated there was an underlying heart problem as well. A cardiac stress test indicated that her heart rhythm and heart valves were not normal. Put into layman's language, her heart valves were not pumping in a steady way. ..."
The true story of what happened to Hillary, which is being recounted in these
pages for the first time, was radically different from Reines's version.
To begin with, Hillary fainted while she was working in her seventh-floor
office at the State Department, not at home, as Reines told the media. She was
treated at the State Department's infirmary and then, at her own insistence,
taken to Whitehaven to recover. However, as soon as Bill appeared on the scene
and was able to assess Hillary's condition for himself, he ordered that she
be immediately flown to New York–Presbyterian Hospital in the Fort Washington
section of Manhattan. When Reines subsequently released a statement confirming
that Hillary was being treated at the hospital over the New Year's holiday,
it naturally intensified speculation about the seriousness of her medical condition.
While she was at the hospital, doctors diagnosed Hillary with several problems.
She had a right transverse venous thrombosis, or a blood clot between her
brain and skull. She had developed the clot in one of the veins that drains
blood from the brain to the heart. The doctors explained that blood stagnates
when you spend a lot of time on airplanes, and Hillary had clocked countless
hours flying around the world.
To make matters worse, it turned out that Hillary had an intrinsic tendency
to form clots and faint. In addition to the fainting spell she suffered in Buffalo
a few years before, she had fainted boarding her plane in Yemen, fallen and
fractured her elbow in 2009, and suffered other unspecified fainting episodes.
Several years earlier, she had developed a clot in her leg and was put on anticoagulant
therapy by her doctor. However, she had foolishly stopped taking her anticoagulant
medicine, which might have explained the most recent thrombotic event.
"The unique thing about clotting in the brain is that it could have transformed
into a stroke," said a cardiac specialist with knowledge of Hillary's condition.
Page 195
According to a source close to Hillary, a thorough medical examination revealed
that Hillary's tendency to form clots was the least of her problems. She also
suffered from a thyroid condition, which was common among women of her age,
and her fainting spells indicated there was an underlying heart problem as well.
A cardiac stress test indicated that her heart rhythm and heart valves were
not normal. Put into layman's language, her heart valves were not pumping in
a steady way.
When the author attempted to contact the Clintons' cardiologist, Dr. Allan
Schwartz, he refused to comment, which made it impossible to determine the exact
nature of Hillary's medical status or its long-term significance. However, sources
who dis- cussed Hillary's medical condition with her were told that Hillary's
doctors considered performing valve-replacement surgery. They ultimately decided
against it. Still, before they released Hillary from the hospital, they warned
Bill Clinton: "She has to be carefully monitored for the rest of her life."
the former First Lady took a long bathroom break, but now a law-enforcement source with inside
connections is alleging that Clinton was missing from the stage due to health issues stemming from
a previous brain injury.
These long-lasting symptoms stemming from a concussion and blood clot, according to a neurologist,
suggest Clinton is suffering from post-concussion syndrome, which can severely impact her cognitive
abilities.
All that said, however, Clinton's campaign maintained to Breitbart News that she is in good health
and can serve as President of the United States.
"Strong source just told me something I suspected. Hillary's debate 'bathroom break' wasn't that,
but flare up of problems from brain injury," wrote John Cardillo on
Twitter
.
Cardillo, who previously worked as an officer who provided VIP security details for the New York
Police Department (NYPD), told Breitbart News that he knows of two additional sources who have commented
about Clinton's health problems, which have even impacted her ability to walk to her car after delivering
a speech.
"I got this from both a [federal agent] … and I also got it from a New York [NYPD] guy who worked
security at a Hillary event in New York City," Cardillo told Breitbart News, adding:
These are two people that aren't just personal friends. I worked with one and then post law-enforcement
worked with another on some related things. So, these aren't anonymous people. These are good
friends. Both of them told me the same thing, that after her speeches, whether she did a talk
or a policy speech, she had to sit behind – she would come off the podium backstage – and have
to sit and rest before making it back to the car because she was so fatigued, dizzy and disoriented.
Cardillo said these two security officials don't know each other and do not live in the same state,
but "their stories were almost identical."
One of the men told him that Clinton was "very pale, kind of disoriented. He said she looked like
she was about to faint. She was very pale, almost sweaty."
Cardillo said one of the incidents occurred while she was Secretary of State. The event worked
by the NYPD official was roughly a year ago.
Veteran Republican strategist Roger Stone, who previously worked with GOP frontrunner Donald Trump,
told Breitbart News that he has also heard about Clinton's long-term health problems.
"A number of New York Democrats, very prominent, well-known, wealthy New York Democrats, told
me last year that Hillary had very significant health issues and that they were surprised that she
was running in view of her health problems and her lack of stamina," Stone told Breitbart News. "So
far, she's run a very controlled campaign,"
"I don't think she has the physical stamina to be president," he stated. "I have no doubt that
Marco Rubio won't call her on it, but Trump certainly would."
"We also know that in the emails, of course, Huma Abedin… says that she is easily confused," Stone
added, referencing Clinton's close confidant Abedin
comment in an email , "She's often confused," referring to Clinton.
Trump, Stone's former boss, certainly hasn't been shy in questioning whether Clinton has the "stamina"
to be president.
"She goes out and she sees you guys for about 10 minutes, she sees you for a little while, it's
all rehearsed and staged," Trump said in a recent interview on Fox News' Media Buzz.
"They'll pick a couple of people out of the audience that are like, you know, 100 percent. She'll
sit around a little plastic table, they'll talk to the people for a while. It's ridiculous," Trump
added. "And then she goes away for five or six days and you don't see her. She goes to sleep."
Neurologist Dr. Daniel Kassicieh, D.O., reviewed news reports of Clinton's head injury in light
of the recent information revealed from the security sources that are raising questions about her
current health status.
Kassicieh, who has run his own Sarasota, Florida, practice for 20 years, is a board-certified
neurologist and the medical director of the Florida Headache and Movement Disorder Center. He is
a doctor of osteopathic medicine, which is similar to a medical doctor but can involve at a minimum
of 100 more classroom hours of specific training. That additional training is focused on the osteopathic-or
the musculoskeletal system-aspects of medicine. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Neurology
(FAAN) and a Fellow of the American College of Neuro-psychiatrists (FACN). Kassicieh is a registered
Republican in Sarasota, but his purely medical analysis is troubling for Clinton.
"They were trying to poo-poo this off as a minor concussion, but I would just say that reading
it and trying to take all the politics out of it, and just read it purely from a medical standpoint,"
Kassicieh explained:
Considering the point of what happened with Hillary over this time period… the timeline… and
then what has happened here more recently… the break at the debate, I saw that and even the commentators
that were sitting there made a comment that, 'Gee, that seems awful long for a break.' Just looking
at it from a neurological standpoint, the risk factors for developing post-concussion syndrome,
one of them is age, and she was 65 when this happened… just from a physiologic standpoint that's
an older individual. Being female is a risk factor for post-concussion syndrome as well.
"For someone who has treated many post-concussion syndrome patients and that's what I really believe
she's suffering from based on reading these reports and reading what's happened," Kassicieh said.
"I think she has latent
post-concussion syndrome , and I can understand that as a politician they would want to be covering
that up." He stated:
I would say as a neurologist having seen many post-concussion syndrome patients that I would
not want a president who I knew had post-concussion syndrome being president because their super
high-level cognitive abilities are clearly impaired and even their routine multitasking high-stress
abilities are affected because post-concussion syndrome patients in general don't tolerate even
moderate work, stress-related environments.
Kassicieh added that if suffering from post concussion syndrome, Clinton's symptoms could appear
"well beyond a year" after her concussion.
"A transverse sinus thrombosis [blood clot] is a rare condition of a clot forming in the venous
sinus cavities surrounding the brain," Kassicieh told Breitbart News, referencing an
ABC News report from 2012 that detailed Clinton's head injury and blood clot following a fall.
He explained:
These venous sinuses drain blood out of the brain. The [injury] incidence is only about 3 per
1,000,000 adults. The transverse sinus is less commonly affected than the main sagittal venous
sinus. The cause of transverse sinus clots is not well understood although trauma and dehydration
have been described as risk factors. Mrs. Clinton suffered from both.
Dr. Nicholas C. Bambakidis also analyzed the facts for Breitbart News. He is the director of cerebrovascular
and skull base surgery, and the program director of neurological surgery at University Hospitals
Case Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, and a professor of neurosurgery and radiology at the CWRU
School of Medicine in Cleveland,
"These types of clots are usually formed spontaneously without an obvious cause," Bambakidis said
in an email:
They can be associated with dehydration, a predisposition to blood clotting disorders, are
more common in women and may be associated with oral contraceptive medication, severe head trauma,
brain surgery, or infection. If untreated, they can progress and lead to bleeding in the brain
or swelling, and a stroke or even death. The treatment is generally anticoagulation and treatment
of any underlying cause.
Bambakidis said that if treated early and quickly, there are no longstanding issues with a person's
health.
"Typically, if caught early and treated adequately (as seems to have been done in this incident)
there is a full recovery without any consequences (normal cognition, memory, etc)," he said.
Dr. Jane Orient, the executive director of the politically conservative Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons also reviewed the 2012 ABC News report about Clinton's concussion and blood
clot. She said she thought the ABC report appeared medically accurate.
"Factors predisposing to clots include air travel, dehydration, hormones, immobilization as during
surgery, blood abnormalities, cancer," Orient said. "Concussions can cause long-term damage including
cognitive problems, even when standard studies including CT or MRI look normal."
"Not saying Mrs. Clinton has any of the above–just speaking generally and hypothetically," she
clarified.
One former member of Orient's group is Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), an ophthalmologist. He was a member
of AAPS for more than 20 years before his election to the U.S. Senate. He is now also running for
president on the Republican side in 2016.
Neurologist Kassicieh agreed with Orient about the possibility of Clinton suffering from long-term
cognitive symptoms.
"Concussions in older adults can be more serious, resulting in a condition known as post-concussion
syndrome. This condition can be characterized by symptoms of persistent dizziness, complaints of
memory difficulties, forgetfulness, loss of ability to focus on complex tasks or concepts and indecisiveness,"
Kassicieh explained. He added, "Latent depression and overt anxiety are also common in this condition."
Kassicieh noted that although a Clinton spokesperson told the press that Clinton "got over this
quickly," another
ABC report quotes former President Bill Clinton saying that his wife's injury "required six months
of very serious work to get over."
"Other reports in the same article show an interesting timeline for Hillary over the next several
months, showing that she was not fully functional in her capacity as [Secretary of State]," Kassicieh
added:
As a neurologist, I would interpret these and more recent events involving Hillary as possibly
showing signs of post-concussion syndrome. This condition could have serious impact on the cognitive
and intellectual functioning of an individual, particularly a high level job as [President of
the United States].
Dr. Drew Pinsky, nationally syndicated radio talk show host heard on KABC radio "Dr. Drew Midday
Live," also spoke to Breitbart News about Clinton's health and explained that experiencing symptoms
for more than a year after a head injury is very serious.
"In my clinical experience, it's very common for them to have six months and even up to a year
of exercise intolerance, and sort of [needing] frequent rest, and can easily get overwhelmed," he
said of head injury patients. "But after a year, that's something else."
He said symptoms like Clinton's, as an elderly person in her 60s, "are very serious."
"Those are not trivial symptoms," Pinsky stressed:
If my patient came in with that, the first thing I would do is put them on a treadmill. I would
get a sleep study, make sure they don't have sleep apnea. I would do all sorts of metabolic studies
and make sure there wasn't something metabolic. I would actually do some extensive cancer screenings.
Why is this person suddenly having exercise intolerance?
Pinsky added that if Clinton is overworking herself, "I hope she has a medical team attending
to her."
Breitbart News sent a detailed set of questions regarding these questions raised by law enforcement
and medical professionals to Clinton's campaign.
The specific questions sent to Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, include:
1.) Does Secretary Clinton have difficulty with fatigue, dizziness and being disoriented? Does
she have difficulty after speeches and during debates continuing for lengthy periods of time–or
for instance walking back to her car after events?
2.) Is she suffering from latent post concussion syndrome?
3.) Is she being completely honest with the public about her health? Does she have a clean
bill of health?
4.) Is she able to conduct high level cognitive abilities on the same level she has been able
to throughout her life? Is she able to conduct routine multitasking high stress abilities on the
same level she has been able to throughout her life?
5.) Does she have or did she have a transverse sinus thrombosis, or blood clot?
6.) Is she capable of serving as President of the United States with these conditions and symptoms?
7.) Has she done tests with a doctor on a treadmill? Has she gotten a doctor-supervised sleep
study? Has she worked with a doctor on metabolic studies? Has she gotten cancer screenings?
8.) Does she have a medical team attending to her? What are the details of that?
In response, Merrill told Breitbart News that Clinton's doctors have already answered the questions
in Clinton's health statement.
"These questions are all addressed in her health statement," Merrill told Breitbart News, referring
to a letter from Clinton's doctor, Dr. Lisa Bardack-the chair of internal medicine at the Mount Kisco
Medical Group in New York.
The letter, labeled a "healthcare statement" and dated on July 28, 2015-which was released along
with Clinton's tax filings-is two full pages long and includes a complete description from Dr. Bardack
clearing Clinton as fit to serve as president.
"This letter summarizes the health history and current medical evaluation of Hillary Rodham Clinton,"
Dr. Bardack wrote. "I am an internist and the Chairman of the Department of Medicine at the Mount
Kisco Medical Group in Mount Kisco, New York. I have served as Mrs. Clinton's personal physician
since 2001, during which time I have been involved in all aspects of her healthcare."
The letter states that Clinton is a "healthy 67-year-old female whose current medical conditions
include hypothyroidism and seasonal pollen allergies."
"Her past medical history is notable for a deep vein thrombosis in 1998 and in 2009, an elbow
fracture in 2009 and a concussion in 2012," Dr. Bardack continues.
"In December of 2012, Mrs. Clinton suffered a stomach virus after traveling, became dehydrated,
fainted and sustained a concussion," the doctor wrote:
During follow-up evaluations, Mrs. Clinton was found to have a transverse sinus venous thrombosis
and began anti-coagulation therapy to dissolve the clot. As a result of the concussion, Mrs. Clinton
also experienced double vision for a period of time and benefitted from wearing glasses with a
Fresnel Prism. Her concussion symptoms, including the double vision, resolved within two months
and she discontinued the use of the prism. She had follow-up testing in 2013, which revealed complete
resolution of the effects of the concussion as well as total dissolution of the thrombosis. Mrs.
Clinton also tested negative for all clotting disorders. As a precaution however, it was decided
to continue her on daily anticoagulation.
The letter continues by detailing her current medication list, which includes Armour Thyroid-a
hormone used to treat an under-active thyroid– plus various antihistamines, Vitamin B12 and the blood-thinner
Coumadin.
"She was also advised in 1998 to take Lovenox, a short-acting blood thinner, when she took extended
flights; this medication was discontinued when she began Coumadin," Dr. Bardack continued:
Her Coumadin dose is monitored regularly and she has experienced no side effects from her medications.
She takes no other medications on a regular basis and has no known drug allergies. She does not
smoke and drinks alcohol occasionally. She does not use illicit drugs or tobacco products. She
eats a diet rich in lean protein, vegetables and fruits. She exercises regularly, including yoga,
swimming, walking and weight training.
Dr. Bardack noted that Clinton's family history also complicates matters: her father "lived into
his 80s and died after having a stroke" while her mother "lived into her 90s and passed away after
having congestive heart failure." One of her brothers-it's not clear whether it's Tony or Hugh Rodham,
according to this letter-"had premature heart disease," Dr. Bardack wrote.
"Due to her family history, she underwent a full cardiac evaluation, which was negative," the
doctor wrote. "She had a coronary calcium score of zero and a normal carotid ultrasound."
She's also had cancer screenings: "Her routine health maintenance is up to date, and has included
a normal colonoscopy, gynecologic exam, mammogram, and breast ultrasound."
She had a physical on March 21, 2015, which revealed, according to Dr. Bardack, that Clinton was
in top-notch health.
"In summary, Mrs. Clinton is a healthy female with hypothyroidism and seasonal allergies, on long-term
anticoagulation," Dr. Bardack wrote. "She participates in a healthy lifestyle and has had a full
medical evaluation, which reveals no evidence of additional medical issues or cardiovascular disease.
Her cancer screening evaluations are all negative. She is in excellent physical condition and fit
to serve as President of the United States."
Clinton's own campaign manager Robby Mook wouldn't commit during a mid-June 2015 interview on
CBS's Face The Nation to release Clinton's full health records.
"I will let Hillary decide that," Mook replied when John Dickerson asked him if Clinton would
release her full healthcare records. "But I can tell you she has been hitting the campaign trail
hard."
The letter from Clinton's doctor-not her full healthcare records, but just a mere statement-came
after that Mook interview.
Hillary Clinton's health issues are drastically worse than she has revealed publicly - and the
potential presidential candidate tried to keep her medical information private for fear that it would
damage her bid for the White House in 2016, according to a new book.
The 66-year-old former secretary of state has suffered more fainting spells than publicly known,
is prone to have blood clots, and may be at serious risk of a stroke, according to the book, "Blood
Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas," by Edward Klein.
Modal Trigger
The medical scare that forced Clinton to be rushed to New York-Presbyterian Hospital on Dec. 30,
2013, revealed how serious the situation is.
"She has to be carefully monitored for the rest of her life," doctors warned former President
Bill Clinton before Hillary was released from the hospital, according to the book.
The book claims Hillary was taken to New YorkPresbyterian after a fainting spell and concussion
that she suffered in her seventh-floor office at the State Department - not at her home, as claimed.
Hillary was initially treated at a State Department facility and was transferred to her home to
recover. Bill Clinton, however, insisted Hillary be flown to New York City and be treated by specialists
there, Klein claims.
During her visit to the Manhattan hospital, the presumed 2016 Democratic front-runner was diagnosed
with several problems, including the clots.
Hillary had a right transverse venous thrombosis, or a blood clot, between her brain and skull.
"The unique thing about clotting in the brain is that it could have transformed into a stroke,"
a cardiac specialist with knowledge of Hillary's condition says in the book.
The clots are especially a threat while flying, when blood pools while sitting, and she did a
lot of flying while at the State Department.
In addition to a 2005 fainting spell during a speech in Buffalo, Hillary also fainted while boarding
her plane in Yemen in 2009, which caused her to fall and fracture her elbow.
Meanwhile, coming after Hillary's recent comments that she was "dead broke" when she left the
White House, she played the poor card again, telling The Guardian that she is not "truly well off"
when compared to the super rich.
"We pay ordinary income tax," she told the paper, "unlike a lot of people who are truly well off,
not to name names; and we've done it through dint of hard work."
Among her issues are "blinding headaches" that have "frequently plagued her," he claimed. As Radar
reported, other insiders have claimed she has had a series of strokes and
may be suffering from MS.
In fact, the friend claimed, Clinton even turned to sleeping pills like Ambien and Lunesta in
her desperation, but they offered no relief. Said the friend, "She said they made her less sharp
the next day.
"There were incidents on the campaign trail when she felt faint and nearly swooned," he claimed.
"Those incidents were kept secret."
Clinton's health has long been an issue in this year's election cycle, most recently when the
candidate disappeared from the ABC Democratic presidential debate stage in December for an extended
period of time for what her campaign said was an
extended bathroom break.
Breitbart News previously
reported that a law enforcement source believed the extended break stemmed from a flare-up of
a previous brain injury, though the Clinton campaign refuted the report.
I'm Hillary goddamn Clinton. I'm a political prodigy, have been since I was 16. I have an insane
network of powerful friends. I'm willing to spend the next eight years catching shit on all sides,
all so I can fix this fucking country for you. And all you little bitches need to do is get off your
asses one goddamn day in November.
"Oh but what about your eeeemaaaaillls???" Shut the fuck up. Seriously, shut the fuck up and listen
for one fucking second...
But you know what? I don't fucking care. If I gave two shits about the haters I would've dropped
the game decades ago.
"... "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us." ..."
"... Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it. ..."
"... I've always thought the US inherited the hatred of Russia from the Brits and the Brits hated Russia at least back as far as the Crimean War in 1853. Not saying this as fact and am happy to get updated. ..."
"... Official Brit hatred of Russia got started right after the Napoleonic Wars. About 4 centuries of Brit hatred of France got transferred, lock, stock, and barrel, to Russia, since Russia then became the most powerful land power in the world. ..."
"... Russia's primary offense is that it has dared to have its own national interests. ..."
"... Today, all those "freedom-loving" people of former USSR, even including all those scores of West Ukrainians who hate Russian guts and Middle Asian "nationalists" flock to Russia "in pursuit of happiness". ..."
"... I am not saying that all those people are bad, but the question I do ask sometimes is this: you hated us, you evicted (sometimes with bloodshed) us, Russians, from your places. You got what you asked for, why then, do you come to Russia in millions (I am not exaggerating, in fact, most likely underestimating)? What happened? Of course, we all know what happened. ..."
"... I read before that Obama was pushing back against this lunacy. Now the HRC-NEOCON camp are in full attack mode. I honestly think I'll be voting for Trump because I feel he can't do all of the things that I would hate for him to do. I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious. ..."
"... "I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious." It has already happened on this watch, see the case of MH-17. ..."
"... The American talking point about the Crimea is a laughable piece of High School Debating Team rhetoric. The people in charge know full well the truth about Ukraine's claim to the Crimea. The thing that hurts is that the whole point of the "Nuland Putsch",and the rise of a western aligned govt., was to provide the crown jewel in Nato's (read America) crown: Eliminating Russia's naval base at Sevastopol completing the encirclement of Russia in the west (except for the always vulnerable Kaliningrad). ..."
"... Once the FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers were removed from power, Russia began to recover. The birth rate started to improve immediately, and Russia's death rate started to decline in 2006. By 2009, the gap between Russia's births and deaths closed sufficiently that immigration could fill it, and so the Russian population was growing. By 2012, births in the Russian Federation exceeded deaths, for the first time since 1991. ..."
"... In the mid-2000s, Putin proposed measures to support families having children. Western politicians and demographers poured scorn on the very idea that Russian demographics might improve. In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau's population projections had Russia's population declining by 500,000/year as recently as 2015. Now Western politicians and demographers are reduced to claiming that "Putin had nuthin' to do with it!" ..."
"... Putin inherited a helpless, bankrupt, dying Russia. ..."
"... Russia, for all the Borg media grandstanding, seems to only be concerned with Russian related interests. There is no indication of greater plan for global domination. They are upgrading and preparing for a future war, sure. Any country would be smart to prepare accordingly to defend itself (and their interests). ..."
"... Russia became the enemy of United States in early 2000's after Putin started cracking down on the oligarchs that had taken over Russia's economy during Yeltsin's privatization efforts. It is estimated that seven individuals were controlling as much as 50% of Russia's economy at its peak during the late 90's: ..."
"... The ruling ideology of the West is the free movement of capital and people together with the dismantling of sovereign states and replacing them with global institutions and corporate trade pacts. Donald Trump's "America First" threatens this so he is subject to full throated attacks by the media and the connected. Vladimir Putin stands in the way of the global hegemony and the return of Russia to the 1990s. Thus, the western hybrid war for a Kremlin regime change. ..."
"... If Clinton takes over for Obama it will only mean continued escalation by the US against any country resisting a unipolar world. There are a lot more than Russia and China resisting US hegemony and that attacks, subtle as they are, continue unabated. If Trump dials that back this can only be a good thing for world peace. The neocons apparently are betting the farm on Hillary. Good, I pray they lose and are cleansed permanently from the US political landscape. Personally, I see a win by Clinton as the end of mankind. ..."
"... I remember the end of Cold War extremely well, when the relations warmed up and the danger of nuclear exchange faded. In Russia, at that time, this was precisely the idea what you described but, as Pat Buchanan wrote several days ago "The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away." ..."
"... In the early 1880s the U.S. government decided to become a global seapower. Hostility towards the world's largest landpower followed, as night follows day. ..."
The Democratic Party convention and the media are full of the assumption that Russia is the enemy
of the United States. What is the basis for that assumption?
Russian support for the Russian ethnic minority in eastern Ukraine? How does that threaten
the United States?
Russian annexation of the Crimea? Khrushchev arbitrarily transferred that part of Russia to
Ukraine during his time as head of the USSR. Khrushchev was a Ukrainian. Russia never accepted
the arbitrary transfer of a territory that had been theirs since the 18th Century. How does this
annexation threaten the United States?
Russia does not want to see Syria crushed by the jihadis and acts accordingly? How does that
threaten the United States?
Russia threatens the NATO states in eastern Europe? Tell me how they actually do that. Is
it by stationing their forces on their side of the border with these countries? Have the Russians
made threatening statements about the NATO states?
Russia has made threatening and hostile statements directed at the United States? When and
where was that?
Russia does not accept the principle of state sovereignty? Really? The United States is on
shaky ground citing that principle. Remember Iraq?
Russian intelligence may have intercepted and collected the DNC's communications (hacked)
as well as HC's stash of illegal e-mails? Possibly true but every country on earth that has the
capability does the same kind of thing every single day. That would include the United States.
The Obama Administration is apparently committed to a pre-emptive assertion that Russia is a world
class committed enemy of the United States. The Borgist media fully support that.
We should all sober up. pl
Valissa
"In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate,
so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order
to mobilize us."
-- Thich Nhat Hanh
Not to mention the financial advantages to the Military-Industrial-Thinktank complex (I'm including
NATO in this) and all the politicians that benefit from the lobbying monies from that complex.
Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for
the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it.
Grizziz -> Ghostship...
I've always thought the US inherited the hatred of Russia from the Brits and the Brits
hated Russia at least back as far as the Crimean War in 1853. Not saying this as fact and am happy
to get updated.
rkka said in reply to Grizziz...
Official Brit hatred of Russia got started right after the Napoleonic Wars. About 4 centuries
of Brit hatred of France got transferred, lock, stock, and barrel, to Russia, since Russia then
became the most powerful land power in the world.
Maritime empires hate, with undying passion, the most powerful land power in the world.
And its a funny thing, the U.S. hatred of Russia dates from the early 1880s, right when the
U.S. began laying down a new steel navy to replace the rotting wooden navy built for the Civil
War, started with the explicit intention of making the U.S. a global power.
Tel said in reply to Valissa...
Quote: "Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame
for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it."
Clinton and Obama are busy campaigning that the USA has been completely successful, nothing
is going wrong, everyone has jobs, etc.
I dunno who would believe this, but that's their story and for the time being they are sticking
to it. You have never had it so good.
Dave Schuler
Russia's primary offense is that it has dared to have its own national interests.
SmoothieX12 -> kooshy ...
Today, all those "freedom-loving" people of former USSR, even including all those scores
of West Ukrainians who hate Russian guts and Middle Asian "nationalists" flock to Russia "in pursuit
of happiness".
I am not saying that all those people are bad, but the question I do ask sometimes is this:
you hated us, you evicted (sometimes with bloodshed) us, Russians, from your places. You got what
you asked for, why then, do you come to Russia in millions (I am not exaggerating, in fact, most
likely underestimating)? What happened? Of course, we all know what happened.
NotTimothyGeithner said...
Moscow is large enough to be a mommy figure for a small country with an interest in dealing
with China which doesn't want to be swamped by Beijing's sheer size. Moscow is a threat to U.S.
financial and military domination without firing a shot, engaging in a trade war, or leading a
diplomatic revolt.
The average American doesn't care about a loss of hegemony. We naturally want cooperation and
hippie peace, love, dope. The Western industries with effective monopolies abroad would see immense
profits under threat because the Chinese and Russian competitors would drive prices down in finance,
defense, pharmaceuticals, tech, and so forth. So they are turning to the Goering play book to
keep the Russians out of the world stage. The professional Risk players in the neoconservatives
would see their plans fall apart if the Erdogan-Putin meeting is a positive one.
Also, Putin embarrassed Obama over Syria in 2013 and then was magnanimous. Obama hasn't forgotten
that perceived slight.
SmoothieX12 -> NotTimothyGeithner...
Moscow is large enough to be
A medium-size European country herself. It is also a very peculiar economic entity. I do, however,
have a question on what do you mean by a "mommy for a small country"? No matter how small the
country is, in my understanding, it still will have a fair degree of freedom when building trade
relations with any entity, even of such mammoth size as China.
Cee:
Col. Lang,
I read before that Obama was pushing back against this lunacy. Now the HRC-NEOCON camp
are in full attack mode. I honestly think I'll be voting for Trump because I feel he can't do
all of the things that I would hate for him to do. I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder.
I'm quite serious.
"I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious." It has already happened
on this watch, see the case of MH-17.
Erik
The American talking point about the Crimea is a laughable piece of High School Debating
Team rhetoric. The people in charge know full well the truth about Ukraine's claim to the Crimea.
The thing that hurts is that the whole point of the "Nuland Putsch",and the rise of a western
aligned govt., was to provide the crown jewel in Nato's (read America) crown: Eliminating Russia's
naval base at Sevastopol completing the encirclement of Russia in the west (except for the always
vulnerable Kaliningrad).
All the rest about Russia's alleged expansionism is similar debating team poppycock.
Looking at the history of empire building and aggressive wars, one is well served to think
in terms of the 3 legged stool of criminology (for aggressive wars are simply, as Jackson said
at Nurnberg, the supreme international crime) and consider means, opportunity, and motive.
We have motive, the Russians do not. The motive in this case is theft, plain and simple. Russia
with its small population and vast real estate holdings is already provided with more resources
than she knows what to do with. We, on the other hand are not, and have not been since at least
the seventies. Russia has its work cut out for it to develop what it owns already and why would
they want to conquer populous resource poor neighbor states?
Not only has Putin snatched away the score of the century by re-asserting Russian control over
Crimea, but he had since 2000 or so been forestalling the western feeding frenzy on the carcass
of the Soviet Union that had Americans creaming their jeans. Re assertion of Russian true sovereignty
was his real offense.
What's so poignant is the long standing western ambition to be able to steal what Russia has.
2 centuries of western aggression against Russia, and all dedicated to theft. Same now, and the
drumbeat of warmongering rhetoric now directed at Russia is hilarious in a dangerous way. We really
are using the Goering argument to drag our unwilling population towards war.
James said...
If I might be permitted to express some thoughts about why Russians feel the way they do about
Putin ...
Median income in Russia increased 260% (in inflation adjusted terms) during the first 10 years
that Putin was in power. That is a staggering increase in people's financial well being. The Economist
and its brethren like to dismiss this achievement as being "solely due to the increased price
of oil" - but if you look at Canada, its oil production per capita was and is equal to that of
Russia yet Canada's median income only increased 9% during the same time period.
I think a good way to get a better sense of how the Russian's feel about Putin is to watch
the Russian film "Bimmer" (if you can get access to a copy with English subtitles):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimmer_(film)
I took a trip in Africa where our white South African guides favorite catch phrase was "In
Africa, anything is possible." Dystopias are terribly messed up and most people living in them
suffer greatly - but there is something really sexy about them, about the feeling that anything
is possible.
Russia was dystopic like this before Putin came to power - utter anarchy, crime, poverty, worse
corruption than now despite what you hear from the Borg ... but at the same time, anything was
possible. Bimmer depicts the transition from the anarchy of the Yeltsin years to the greater prosperity
and rule of law that Russia now enjoys - while at the same time communicating the fact that many
Russians can't help but feel some nostalgia for the time when anything was possible.
(I visited Russia before, during, and after this transition. I have friends who live there.)
kao_hsien_chih said in reply to James...
The 260% increase in the Russian median income (an important point--the middle Russian became
financial secure under Putin) under Putin's watch underscores the other point: before Putin, Russia
was a total and complete economic wreck. People who saw economic ruin firsthand don't cavalierly
dismiss hard won economic security.
rkka -> Ulenspiegel...
While Russia was being run by FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers, Russians were dying off at the
rate of nearly a million/year.
Once the FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers were removed from power, Russia began to recover.
The birth rate started to improve immediately, and Russia's death rate started to decline in 2006.
By 2009, the gap between Russia's births and deaths closed sufficiently that immigration could
fill it, and so the Russian population was growing. By 2012, births in the Russian Federation
exceeded deaths, for the first time since 1991.
In the mid-2000s, Putin proposed measures to support families having children. Western
politicians and demographers poured scorn on the very idea that Russian demographics might improve.
In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau's population projections had Russia's population declining by
500,000/year as recently as 2015. Now Western politicians and demographers are reduced to claiming
that "Putin had nuthin' to do with it!"
Putin inherited a helpless, bankrupt, dying Russia.
Russia now has a future. That's what Putin did, and he is rightly popular with Russians, Russians
who pine for the days of the drunken incompetent comprador buffoon Yeltsin excepted.
SmoothieX12 -> Ulenspiegel...
Putin is judged by his ability to transform the Russian economy from an exporter of oil, gas
and academics to something more sustainable.
It seems like you are one of those thinkers who thinks that repeating popular BS will create
new reality. FYI, Russia now is #1 exporter of grain in the world. If you didn't catch real news
from Russia, Rosatom's portfolio of contracts exceeds 100 billion USD. Evidently you also missed
the fact that Russia is #2 exporter of many #1 weapon systems in the world, some of which are
beyond the expertise (industrial and scientific) of Europe (I assume you are from that part of
the world). Do you know what it takes and what host of real hi-tech goes into production of a
top fighter jet or modern SSK? Russia is an active and a dominant player at the commercial space
launch business, in fact whole US Atlas program flies on Russian-made RD-180 rocket engines. I
will repeat again, learn facts on the ground, which is relatively easy to do in the world of global
IT. And finally, Russia will never live as well as US or Canada, for starters--there is a colossal
difference in consumer patterns between Russians and North Americans (albeit there are many similarities
too) but there is very little doubt that standard of living in Russia grew tremendously and a
lot of it has very little to do with gas or oil prices. It has, however, a lot to do with retooling
and re-industrialization of the country, which was ongoing since circa 2008. It is a very significant
year. Last, but not least--Russia is huge own consumer market (and then some due to markets of
former USSR) and that is a key. German MTU followed sanctions, well, guess what--it will never
appear again on Russian markets. Thales loved to sell IR matrices to Russia, well, guess what.....you
may fill in the blanks.
SmoothieX12 said in reply to different clue...
In terms of pork and poultry Russia produces 100% of that and, which did surprise me, even
exports turkey. Beef--about 80% covered. Most of what Russia consumes in food stuff is home grown
or made. Exceptions are some luxury food items and things like well-aged cheeses. Russian food
stores can give any best US or European grocery chain a run for their money. Variety is excellent
and most of it affordable. Per salmon, as far as I know it is both farm-raised and wild. What
are the proportions, I don't know. I can, however, testify to the fact that, say, in Troitsky
supermarket you can buy alive strelyad' (sturgeon). ...
SmoothieX12,
This is good to hear. When the "sanction Russia" crowd began embargoing various food-items
being sold to Russia, they unintentionally began without realizing it an economic experiment in
Protectionism. The food embargo against food going into Russia amounts to a kind of Protectionism
for Russian food production within a protectionized and defended Russian market.
If it ends up allowing more monetizable food-as-wealth to be produced withIN Russia, that will
allow all sorts of sectors and people to buy and sell more monetizable non-food goods and non-food
services FROM withIN Russia TO withIN Russia as well. If that allows Russia to become more all-sectors-in-balance
wealthier, that fact would be hard to hide eventually. And various farm-sector advocates in America
could seize upon it and point to it as evidence that Protectionism WORKS to allow a country to
increase its own net production and enjoyment of overall wealth withIN its own borders. And it
might inspire more people to suggest we try it here within America as well. And through the abolition
of NAFTA, allow Mexico to revive Protectionism for its agricultural sector as well. It might allow
for enough broad-based ground-up revival of economic activity withIN Mexico that some of the millions
of NAFTAstinian exiles in America might decide they have a Mexican economy to go back to again.
And some of them might go back.
IF! NAFTA can be abolished and Mexico set free to re-protectionize its own agricultural economy.
Perhaps if enough Mexican political-economic analysts look at events in Russia and see the ongoing
success there, they too might agitate for the abolition of NAFTA and the re-protectionization
of farm-country Mexico.
SmoothieX12 -> different clue...
Protectionism WORKS to allow a country to increase its own net production and enjoyment of
overall wealth withIN its own borders
Free Trade fundamentalism (which is a first derivative of liberalism) is what killing USA and,
I assume, Mexico. Most "academic" so called economists and bankers (monetarists) are clueless
but it is them who set the framework of discussion on economy. It is a long discussion but let
me put it this way--all their "theories" are crap. As for Russia--she is largely self-sustainable
for years now.
kao_hsien_chih -> Ulenspiegel...
That Russia before Putin provides for better explanation of his support than even the 260%.
Yes, Russia is still a relatively poor country, but only a decade before, it was a total and complete
basketcase and people remember that Putin is responsible for putting things back to a semblance
of normalcy.
Daniel Nicolas
In another thread, it was mentioned that countries have no friends, only interests.
Russia, for all the Borg media grandstanding, seems to only be concerned with Russian related
interests. There is no indication of greater plan for global domination. They are upgrading and
preparing for a future war, sure. Any country would be smart to prepare accordingly to defend
itself (and their interests).
Obama's USA has been far too hostile to Russia without apparent cause. A Clinton administration
would likely swing even further. While Russia has openly declared that it not want a new hot war,
they are preparing accordingly because they have no choice but to prepare for the possible future
USA being even more hostile.
The Germans are obviously still sore about it all.
EricB
Russia became the enemy of United States in early 2000's after Putin started cracking down
on the oligarchs that had taken over Russia's economy during Yeltsin's privatization efforts.
It is estimated that seven individuals were controlling as much as 50% of Russia's economy at
its peak during the late 90's:
The ruling ideology of the West is the free movement of capital and people together with
the dismantling of sovereign states and replacing them with global institutions and corporate
trade pacts. Donald Trump's "America First" threatens this so he is subject to full throated attacks
by the media and the connected. Vladimir Putin stands in the way of the global hegemony and the
return of Russia to the 1990s. Thus, the western hybrid war for a Kremlin regime change.
Hillary Clinton is supremely qualified to maintain the status quo. If Donald Trump wins, it
has to be due to the perfidious Russians hacking the election; not Globalism's Losers voting against
their exploitation by the insanely wealthy and the enabling technocrats. Meanwhile, the "War of
Russian Aggression" heats up, Turkey turns Islamist and the EU splinters due to the war refugees
and austerity.
Old Microbiologist -> Bill Herschel...
Bill,
I am with you all the way. It, of course, goes much further. There are ongoing US-manufactured
destabilization events unfolding all around Russia. Then you have the economic attacks via sanctions
and trade which have arguably crippled Russia. On top of that you have these insipid attacks via
things like SWIFT bank transfers, IMF, World Bank and idiocy such as attempting to ban the entire
Russian Olympic team from the Olympics. Russia senses these attacks on all fronts and was unfortunately
caught early being unprepared. During the Soviet Union Russia was 100% self sufficient but as
mentioned in other comments under Yeltsin's "privatization" programs an awful lot of that industry
was sold or closed. Now Russia has had to start from scratch replacements for things not available
in Russia and yet still has a budget surplus (unlike the US with a near $20 trillion deficit).
They have created alternates to SWIFT, VISA/Mastercard, the IMF and even the G8.
The Crimea debacle was a clear attempt to kick Russia out of their base in Sevastopol which
was brilliantly countered. However, the cost has been enormous. Little commented on is that Ukraine
under US leadership has cut off water, gas, and electricity to the peninsula and blocked all traffic
to the mainland. Russia is nearing the completion of the bridge to Crimea from Russia and water/power
are already being delivered. This is a huge effort which shows the dedication to their control
of Crimea.
Then they have undertaken to directly thwart the anti-Assad US-led coalition in Syria and have
hoisted the US on its own petard. It hasn't been easy nor cheap and all of this has been happening
simultaneously. On top of all of this we have buildups on the Russian borders so Putin also has
to upgrade his military to counter any potential EU/NATO/US invasion of Russia. The aggression
has all been one sided but delusional citizens in the US see our aggression as defensive as bizarre
as that is. Outside the US people see US aggression for what it is and are not fooled into believing
that we are trying to help anyone except the rich plutocrats. The immigrant invasion of Europe
is seen as a US caused problem for these continuous insane wars that never end nor apparently
have any actual purpose.
If Clinton takes over for Obama it will only mean continued escalation by the US against
any country resisting a unipolar world. There are a lot more than Russia and China resisting US
hegemony and that attacks, subtle as they are, continue unabated. If Trump dials that back this
can only be a good thing for world peace. The neocons apparently are betting the farm on Hillary.
Good, I pray they lose and are cleansed permanently from the US political landscape. Personally,
I see a win by Clinton as the end of mankind.
Peter Reichard said...
Have always thought Russians and Americans were more like each other than either of us were
like Europeans. Both a little crude, crazy, traditionally religious and musical with big countries
created from an expanding frontier and thinking big in terms of infrastructure and vehicles. We
ought to be natural allies as we were in the nineteenth century in opposition to the British Empire
and again in World War 2. Russia, a land power in the heart of the world island in balance with
the US, an ocean power on the other side of the planet with mutual respect could create a stable
multi-polar world.
SmoothieX12 -> Peter Reichard...
That is generally true. There are a lot of similarities. And I remember the end of Cold
War extremely well, when the relations warmed up and the danger of nuclear exchange faded. In
Russia, at that time, this was precisely the idea what you described but, as Pat Buchanan wrote
several days ago "The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand
in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away."
kao_hsien_chih -> SmoothieX12...
In mid-19th century, Russia was extremely friendly to United States, where many remained deeply
suspicious of the British Empire. Somehow, by the end of 19th century, United States became peculiarly
fond of the British Empire and inexplicably hostile to Russia--Mahan was both an Anglophile and
Russophobe, as I understand, and his sentiments shows up in his ideas, or so I've heard. (I imagine
SmoothieX12, as an ex Soviet navy man, is far more familiar with this than I ever could). How
did that happen?
rkka -> kao_hsien_chih...
"How did that happen?"
In the early 1880s the U.S. government decided to become a global seapower. Hostility towards
the world's largest landpower followed, as night follows day.
his does not look like a common seizure, unless seizures are so common to her that she already
knows how to control it. It is strange, but the lady behind her is even more strange, she keeps looking
at the journalists, she glances at Hillary but shows no surprise at all, nor try to help. It is almost
as if she is part of it.
The expression of one reporter seems to be pure fear:
A sociopath,
by definition, is a person devoid of positive human emotions. They are incapable of love, empathy,
sympathy, compassion, mercy, and therefore cannot express shame, guilt, remorse or simple regret.
But they do tend to be smart, even brilliant. They quickly understand how they're different from
normal people and learn to mimic emotions in order to pass as normal. Because they have no emotions
to leaven or guide their thoughts they typically see themselves as superior, which often translates
into a megalomanic personality cleverly disguised as charm, wit, warmth and self-confidence.
Power-seeking bullies who want to be as successful, dominating, controlling, wealthy and popular
as sociopaths but are not themselves sociopaths must find a way to keep their emotions from interfering
with their ambitions.
Rationalization is simply a way of neutralizing normal human emotions by explaining away evil
so a person can engage in evil successfully.
The most common examples of sociopath and sociopath-wannabe just may be found in America's best
known power couple: Bill and
Hillary Clinton.
Bill was famously known as a "compartmentalizer,"
a form of rationalizing that one writer called "the neurosis of our time" and another called
The Clinton Syndrome.
Want to evade some moral, ethical or emotional issue? Lock it away in a separate compartment in
your mind.
If Bill is the sociopath wannabe Hillary is likely the real thing.
She gives it away when she laughs. It's almost maniacal, laughing too hard, too long at marginally
humorous comments, as though she taught herself to laugh but without emotional context she doesn't
have the nuance to make it sound believable.
She gives it away when she speaks unscripted, in anger, like when she responded to the Benghazi
deaths with "What difference at this point does it make?" or when
she speaks off-script almost anytime.
Ultimately it's impossible for laymen to distinguish true sociopaths from rationalizers, and it
can be incredibly unfair to label people.
But a libertarian doesn't
have to label people anyway; all that's needed is to judge them on the basis of their publically
stated beliefs and on their actions.
Chances are, if they're power-seekers they're either sociopaths or sociopath wannabes.
Don't miss a NATIONAL LIBERTARIAN NEWS EXAMINER article: subscribe to my email
alerts and then have fun hitting all those other social media buttons too. Libertarians! What's happening in your area? Send me stories, photos, videos to
publish in Libertarian News Examiner. [email protected]. Read more Reed: North Texas news and commentary at
Dallas Libertarian
Examiner.
Also twiddling with Twitter, fiddling
with
Facebook and gabbing on
Google+.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her health after Republican Karl Rove suggested
she may have traumatic brain damage.
Drew Tobasco
the woman is 69 years old it's unrealistic to think she doesn't have any medical conditions
the same can be said for trump who is 70 these are old people grandma age people
Some have noted Clinton's change in appearance, including the addition of thick glasses, since
her hospitalization. "One doesn't need to be a physician… to have seen that Clinton has not
appeared exactly bright-eyed and bushy-tailed of late," Mary Stanik, a former Minnesota health
care spokeswoman,
wrote in 2013. "She looks to have gained a significant amount of weight since 2008. She seems
pale, tired, and yes, aged. She's said that she would like to know again what it's like to not be
tired."
Yesterday Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines explained that Clinton's doctors found a clot
during a follow-up examination on Sunday. She was then admitted to New York-Presbyterian Hospital
for at least 48 hours so she could be monitored and treated with anti-coagulants. "Her doctors
will continue to assess her condition, including other issues associated with her concussion,"
Reines said. "They will determine if any further action is required."
When the concussion occurred two weeks ago, a senior State Department official said the
concussion was "not severe," which eased the worries of Democrats hoping Clinton will run in
2016. Clinton, 65, was not hospitalized at the time, but taking what they called the necessary
precautions, doctors asked the secretary of state to work from home. She was also suffering from
a stomach virus at the time.
"At the [doctors'] recommendation, [Hillary Clinton] will continue to work from home next week,
staying in regular contact with Department and other officials. She is looking forward to being
back in the office soon," Reines said two weeks ago.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
unproven
