Two myths pervade the NATO-aligned accounts of the Syrian conflict with greater persistence than all others. First is the “peaceful uprising” suppressed by “violent and brutal government security forces, armed to the teeth,” and the second is the 2013 Ghouta chemical attacks.

Both have been largely discredited and dismantled by the evidence and testimony from Syrians inside Syria and a number of respected researchers and analysts such as Professor Tim Anderson in his universally acclaimed book, the Dirty War  on Syria.

“The popular myths of this dirty war – that it is a ‘civil war’, a ‘popular revolt’ or a sectarian conflict – hide a murderous spree of ‘regime change’ across the region. The attack on Syria was a necessary consequence of Washington’s ambition, stated openly in 2006, to create a ‘New Middle East’. After the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, Syria was next in line.” ~ Prof. Tim Anderson

Independent journalist, Eva Bartlett who has traveled many times to Syria to report from on the ground, wrote an in depth article about the US Coalition lies and propaganda.  In her detailed analysis, “Moderate Terrorists. Deconstructing the NATO Narrative on Syria. Leftists Keeping the Myth Alive”, Bartlett says:

“Yet, it is known that from the beginning, in Dara’a  and throughout Syria, armed protesters were firing upon, and butchering, security forces and civilians. Tim Anderson’s “Syria: how the violence began, in Daraa” pointed out that police were killed by snipers in the March 17/18 protests; the Syrian army was only brought to Dara’a following the murder of the policemen. Additionally, a storage of protesters’ weapons was found in Dara’a’s al-Omari mosque.”

Father Franz van der Lugt. (Photo: Screenshot)
Staunch defender of Syrian sovereignty, Father Franz van der Lugt was murdered by extremist factions on the 7th of April 2014. These factions had infiltrated the ranks of the “moderate” Free Syrian Army and had occupied the priest’s parish of the Bustan al-Diwan neighborhood in Homs.

In a letter published in January 2012 on the Dutch-Flemish Mediawerkgroep Syriëwebsite, Father Frans wrote:

“From the start, the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.”

In the same letter, Father Frans insisted that what was occurring in Syria could not be described as a “popular uprising,” since the majority of Syrians do not support the opposition and “certainly not” its armed component.

During my recent 4 weeks spent traveling inside Syria, including Aleppo, I had the opportunity to meet with and interview the REAL Syria Civil Defence crews in various governorates across Syria.

Part I of a series of articles on the REAL Syria Civil Defence, exposing the NATO-state multi million funded, Al Qaeda-linked, White Helmets as imposters who fraudulently use the Syria Civil Defence name: The REAL Syria Civil Defence Exposes Fake White Helmets as Terrorist Linked Imposters

Among the crews I met with, were the Syria Civil Defence of Latakia.  To follow and support their brigade, please go to their Facebook page, Latakia Fire Brigade. 

Part II of the series on the REAL Syria Civil Defence will be published at 21st Century Wire very shortly.

img_0376
Latakia Fire Brigade centre, Latakia. Syria August 2016. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)
The following is a testimony written by one of the Latakia crew members on 25th March 2016 to commemorate the events of 25th March 2011 when the “peaceful” protestors invaded the coastal areas of Latakia, Jableh and Tartous.

25th March 2016

“On this black day five years ago, we witnessed the negotiations in Jableh Al Duraibeh, to resolve issues between “peaceful protestors” and security forces. Back then, none of us knew what was really happening.  In the early days of “peaceful freedom protests” witnessed by Latakia, many members of the security forces were murdered by the “peaceful bullets” of protestors.  Back then, the only arms allowed for the security forces and civil defence, were batons, plastic riot shields and the fire brigade water cannon.

Negotiations were being held with the “children of freedom” who brought the demand that we release one person from the Al-Harmoush family.  Our only task, as the Syria Civil Defence was to take position in front of the Jableh prison in case of any emergency.

We were shocked when we saw the protestors. People dressed in foreign looking religious garb with long beards that reached their chests.  On this first day of “freedom” in Latakia, it was also the first time we witnessed Syrians of such extreme appearance. Naively we asked ourselves, what do they have to do with this whole process.  Of course, in the end, all our misery came from those beards.

What follows is the Lattakia Fire Brigade documentation of that black day.  Some details have been omitted as they are too horrifying to be shared:

Every year on this day we have a duty to remember what happened in Latakia and we must learn from what befell our dear city.

On this day in 2011, began a dark period for our city and for its people. We have an obligation to remember and to remind everyone of what happened on that day and how we witnessed it as Latakia Syria Civil Defence.

Firstly, our brigade was divided into two groups. One to cover Latakia city and one for Jableh city in order to be ready for any possible riot.

On that day, the protests began in Al Amara square in Jableh city, after Friday prayers. Two protests met in the square, one supporting the Syrian government and the other against it.

Security forces took up position in between the two factions, “armed” only with batons and plastic shields.

We had instructions to use the water cannon to disperse the crowds if violence erupted.  This instruction included both sides without any exceptions.

When the situation calmed down in Al Amara square we were told to move to the Corniche (coastal road) in the Al-Duraybeh area.

When we arrived we saw two security force members rescuing two civilians whose faces were disfigured by heavy beating after being kidnapped. We went to help them and immediately put the civilians into an ambulance.

We were shocked to see that all shops on the Corniche had been destroyed, litter bins were on fire and the road was littered with rocks.

Standing in front of us were the “freedom fighters” with their “freedom weapons”.  They started advancing towards us and pelting us with their rocks.

One of our colleagues was injured in his leg.

Our only protection were the security forces with their plastic shields and batons.  All of a sudden we heard gunfire.  It was aimed at us and the security forces.  One security force member was fatally shot in the chest, he died immediately.

Another was shot in the shoulder.

The first day of protests, these freedom fighters used live ammunition.  This was the “peacefulness” of the first day.

Like thunder, the news of the protests rolled in from different areas of Latakia, our colleagues told us what was happening in Al-Sheikh Daher Square during one of the protests.

We rushed to the square to be confronted by burning tyres & litter bins and we saw that the entrance to the square was blocked on the opposite side to Jol Jammal school.

On the same side as the school we stood shoulder to shoulder with the security forces who had nothing more than batons to protect themselves, [during early protests] no guns had been allowed by the government.

On the opposite side, stood the “peaceful protestors” with knives, swords, daggers, clubs and assorted weapons.  Many were holding signs that read:

“Peaceful freedom: we sacrifice our blood for Deraa”

We received the order to turn the water cannon on the people. We stress that this was only potable water, nothing more dangerous than that. We opened the water hoses on the people and the gates of hell opened for us.

They started running towards us, throwing stones, burning tyres and litter bins. The slogans they chanted changed from peaceful to sectarian slogans that made no sense to us.

Editors note: “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave” is one of the most “harmless” slogans that were being chanted at “peaceful demonstrations” in March or April 2011.

The protestors headed for A-Qowatly street and we followed them with the water.

They retreated to Ugarite square, crushing cars and overturning the litter bins, destroying everything in their path to block the road behind them.

As we reached Ugarite Square, we had run out of water, and here they turned and began advancing towards us.  They started to use bigger rocks, all the car windows in the street were smashed. Our colleague [Maxim Rihan] fell off the fire truck and was set upon by the “peaceful protestors” armed with knives. They attacked him mercilessly.

His leg was broken from the fall, his thigh tendon was severed by their knives and they stabbed him repeatedly in the back. Thank God, he was physically strong enough to survive this onslaught.  He was pulled to safety by Badr Shreqi, chief of the Al Slaybeh Syria Civil Defence. Shreqi saved our colleague’s life and we are eternally grateful for his intervention.

They attacked the security forces and murdered four of them, causing others multiple injuries with their “peaceful knives”.

Miraculously, we survived.  Another colleague, Daniel Salman, was injured, the tendons of one of the fingers of his right hand were severed and he was stabbed in his left shoulder.  He also had additional wounds from the debris of a car being destroyed next to him.

Ten of our colleagues sustained serious head injuries from the “freedom rocks” and were taken to Latakia hospitals.

One fire engine was stolen and the driver was severely beaten but survived against all odds. The vehicle was later restored to the fire service.

One public transport bus was set alight and the Syriatel (telecommunication company) service centre in Al Sheikh Daher square was burned to the ground.

People were trapped inside the building and evacuation was being impeded by the “peaceful protestors”

We were told it was too dangerous for us to attend the fire so we were forced to “stand down”.

That night, the fire brigade depot was surrounded.  Tyres were burned in front of it and we were blockaded inside, cars were not allowed to leave. The chanting was insulting and sectarian, our lives were threatened.  We are fire-fighters, humanitarian workers, yet we were targeted by these “peaceful” protestors.

We resisted the provocation because we understood that if we reacted to their taunting, we could have caused a catastrophe.

According to Jamila Assi of Jamila Eyes, who was in Latakia during the protests and who translated this testimony for 21st Century Wire:

“All city inhabitants were locked in their houses for almost two weeks.  It feels like a century away now, you brought back memories I have not thought of for a long time”

One other US Citizen who has been a resident of Latakia for the past 24 years also told me:

“I personally know an 18 year old soldier, from a nearby village, who was under orders from his commanders, to not bring a gun/rifle, but just a stick.  He was brought back to  his home in a plastic garbage bag, literally chopped to pieces by those men welding knives and machetes.”

Jamila Assi also translated a message from the REAL Syria Civil Defence in Latakia, published at 21st Century Wire on the 8th October 2016: Message from the REAL Syria Civil Defence about White Helmet Frauds

The testimony from Syrians on the ground during the early “peaceful” protests is utterly denied and “disappeared” by western NATO-aligned media outlets and state sponsored NNGOs (Non-non Governmental Organisations) such as Human Rights Watch (HRW).

Taken from an early HRW report on the initial violent protests in Syria, misleadingly entitled, Syria: Security Forces Fire on Protesters:

“Anti-government demonstrators in Latakia who spoke to television outlets accused the security forces of opening fire on them, while officials and pro-government protesters accused the anti-government protesters of having guns and shooting at police.” ~ Human Rights Watch report on early “protests” 

This disturbing disparity in narrative between Syrian witnesses to the early protests and the media vilification of the Syrian security forces, including the neutral, genuinely humanitarian Syria Civil Defence,  has never been accepted by the left-wing supporters of the Dirty War on Syria and hawkers of the “moderate rebel, peaceful revolution” myths.

Many of the calls for a ‘No Fly Zone’, ‘Safe Zone’, ‘No Bomb Zone’ which are widely accepted to be a declaration of war against Syrian ally, Russia, & the harbinger of a failed statehood for Syria, are based upon the relentless adherence to these two pivotal narratives that are widely proven to be untrue and obscurantist.

The perpetual conflict in Syria is being maintained by these narratives.  We witnessed a recent interrogation of Dr Bouthaina Shaaban, by Channel 4’s Cathy Newman that could only be described as an inquisition designed to refresh the Chemical Weapon lies in public perception, denying all evidence that points clearly to the “moderate rebels” being responsible for the majority of chemical attacks across Syria, including the divided city of Aleppo. Recent chemical attackscarried out by the Nusra Front (Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria) led brigades of militants in East Aleppo have devastated the majority civilian population of West Aleppo.

“From my research and analysis, I have come to the conclusion that the UN report as well as human rights organizations like the Human Rights Watch were influenced by bloggers and analysts closely tied to the US and its allies to prove that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attacks. Consequently, they produced reports that are of questionable quality and not above reproach. This is especially true about the UN team’s comments about the rockets being the delivery vehicles for the nerve agent. ” ~ Subrata Ghoshroy MIT (Massachusett Institute of Technology). Full report here.

As the evidence builds against the NATO-aligned media propaganda, the cracks are starting to appear in their accounts and public exposure of their lies is increasing. Syria has been mercilessly targeted by the various false flags and demonization policies of western media and governments, designed to undermine the Syrian national forces, the Syrian government and the Syrian state humanitarian organisations who work tirelessly to defend and offer respite to their people under siege by US/EU punishing economic sanctions and US Coalition proxy militant forces.

The REAL Syria Civil Defence witnessed the beginning of the “peaceful” demonstrations and they were targeted by the “peaceful” bullets, rocks, knives and sectarian insults. They survived because they refused to respond to the extreme provocation being directed at them by militant factions inside Syria.  The crew members I met this year told me, despite all this, they continue to respond to emergency calls from both government and terrorist areas.  For them, being humanitarian means not succumbing to sectarianism and defending the right of any human being to receive attention and medical care regardless of their ideology.

As one Latakia crew member said to me ” we have no idea who is calling when we take an emergency call, we respond to everyone

LINKS & MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE WHITE HELMETS:

Original investigative report:
The REAL Syria Civil Defence Exposes Fake White Helmets as Terrorist-Linked Imposters

White Helmets: ‘A Pseudo NGO’
CrossTalk: ‘White Helmets, Really?’ with Vanessa Beeley, Eva Bartlett & Patrick Henningsen

Report by Patrick Henningsen
AN INTRODUCTION: Smart Power & The Human Rights Industrial Complex

Open Letter by Vanessa Beeley
White Helmets Campaign for War NOT Peace – Retract RLA & Nobel Peace Prize Nominations

Staged Rescue Videos
(VIDEO) White Helmets: Miraculous ‘Rag Doll Rescue’

Mainstream Media: Fake News
CNN’s Claim That ‘White Helmets Center in Damascus’ Was Hit by a Barrel Bomb

White Helmets and Mayday Rescue:
The Syrian Civil Defence: Wikipedia

21st Century Wire compilation of key information on the White Helmets:
Who are the Syria White Helmets?

21st Century Wire article on the White Helmets:
Syria’s White Helmets: War by Way of Deception ~ the “Moderate” Executioners

Cory Morningstar report:
Investigation into the funding sources of the White Helmets, Avaaz, Purpose, The Syria Campaign

Report by Scott Ritter:
The ‘White Helmets’ and the Inherent Contradiction of America’s Syria Policy

Open letter to Canada’s NDP Leader on Nobel Prize:
Letter to NDP from Prof. John Ryan protesting White Helmet nomination for RLA and Nobel Peace Prize

White Helmets: Bogus Claims:
‘We Saved 60,000’ – Bogus Claim by Syria’s White Helmets Raises Even More Questions

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria’s ‘Peaceful’ Protests and “Freedom Bullets,” Testimony from the REAL Syria Civil Defence

Riding a wave of anti-establishment sentiment, Donald Trump has won 276 electoral votes, becoming the 45th president of the United States. His rival Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party candidate, did not concede the election from her headquarters in New York but instead chose to do so by telephone. Rumor has it she originally planned to do so by email, but someone took her server.

Clinton suffered a major setback when the traditionally Democratic blue-collar states of Michigan and Wisconsin swung behind Trump, giving the Republican candidate a convincing lead in Electoral College votes. Both states were hit hard by a decline in manufacturing jobs as a result of corporate greed and, significantly, were lost by Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. The Clinton camp then went on to use dirty tricks to deny Sanders the Democratic nomination, pushing voters into the arms of Trump.

Trump started the night with only a 16 percent chance of victory, while Clinton was given 84 percent. Following the victories in Florida, North Carolina and Ohio, the predictions were reversed.

In a speech to supporters after he secured enough electoral votes to win, Trump graciously applauded Clinton for her “great work for this country”, despite the fact that she is a corrupt warmonger and supporter of jihadi terrorism through her love of Saudi Arabia (and its money). Time will tell if Trump has any intention to make good on his campaign promise to open a (new) criminal investigation against the war harpy.

Meanwhile the liberal ‘left’ and ‘godless’ democrats of all stripes, in particular the rich and famous among them, grew increasingly hysterical as the count progressed and it became obvious that Trump would win.

Actress Mia Farrow re-tweeted a NYT poll showing that, as of 9:40 pm, Trump had a 55-percent chance of winning the election. As a comment on the tweet, she simply posted: “Xanax.” The Hollywood Reporter writer Lacey Rose declared “So. Much. Anxiety.” Jewish comedian Sarah Silverman seemed to despair further. “Someone give me hope,” she pleaded. Rapper/Singer and Hamilton star Lin Manual Miranda tried to calm the bunch. “Breathe,” he wrote above an attached picture with the words: “We will survive.”

Sarah Silverman finally gave up around 11 p.m with the alarmist comment: “Putin’s gonna win this thing.”

The silicon valley elite, ensconced in the rarefied Californian and pro-Hillary air, also showed signs of mounting stress and disbelief as the results came in

Shervin Pishevar, cofounder of venture capital firm Sherpa Capital, an investor in some of the biggest names in tech, including Uber, Airbnb and Slack, tweeted that if Trump wins he would start funding a campaign for California to become its own country.

1/ If Trump wins I am announcing and funding a legitimate campaign for California to become its own nation.

— Shervin #VOTE (@shervin) November 9, 2016

@shervin I was literally just going to tweet this. I’m in and will partner with you on it.

— DAVE MORIN (@davemorin) November 9, 2016

Others were quick to chime in. Path founder Dave Morin quickly chimed in with his support and offered to partner on the effort.

Markets will melt with a Trump win. Regardless of who wins this is a turning point in our nation. Serious systemic changes must happen.

— Shervin #VOTE (@shervin) November 9, 2016

Elsewhere, Jason Calcanis was freaking out about the New York Times’ real-time election forecasts.

#Nightmare #ElectionNight pic.twitter.com/SbTnyfH4FD

— jason (@Jason) November 9, 2016

And Box CEO Aaron Levie was equally frustrated with 538 founder Nate Silver’s predictions.

Nate Silver, we trusted you.

— Aaron Levie (@levie) November 9, 2016

Sam Altman, head of the influential startup incubator Y Combinator was just all around nervous.

Can’t remember the last time i felt so anxious 🙁

— Sam Altman (@sama) November 9, 2016

Andreesen Horowitz’z Benedict Evans was ready to give up on Twitter entirely.

I prefer my Instagram feed

— Benedict Evans (@BenedictEvans) November 9, 2016

Google Ventures general partner M.G. Siegler was starting to sound despondent.

…so, we’re gonna have to learn the hard way then.

— M.G. Siegler (@mgsiegler) November 9, 2016

Meanwhile, most of the ‘liberal’ media in the USA echoed these sentiments. Distinguished Professor of Economics and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman had a bit of a meltdown on his twitter account, claiming that the likely Trump win had “killed the planet” and calling it a “horrible new world” and that “life as we know it may soon be changed beyond recognition”.

In a NY Times editorial late in the evening, Krugman opined:

“We still don’t know who will win the electoral college, although as I write this it looks — incredibly, horribly — as if the odds now favor Donald J. Trump.”

adding that it seems “truly possible” that the USA is a “failed state and society”

Last time we checked, the term “failed state” was used by US government officials to describe countries that it had earmarked for ‘regime change’ by way of a US bombing campaign and/or military invasion. Perhaps then Americans should look on the bright side, the Trump victory may have effected ‘regime change’ in the USA without a shot being fired.

While many establishment media pundits like Krugman are attributing the Trump win to the level of “hate in the country”, the truth seems to be that a majority of American voters rejected the policy of warmongering and destruction of living standards (especially for the poor) pursued by the Bush and Obama administrations, and strongly resonated with Trump’s promise to root out rampant corruption in Washington.

Whether or not Trump was sincere about his campaign promises and will be allowed to ‘drain the swamp’ to any significant degree remains to be seen. Under a Trump administration, there is, however, reason to expect a reduction in the level of dangerous anti-Russian rhetoric that became the hallmark of the Obama administration in recent years. And that can only be a good thing for the USA and the world.

Joe Quinn is the co-author of 9/11: The Ultimate Truth (with Laura Knight-Jadczyk, 2006) and Manufactured Terror: The Boston Marathon Bombings, Sandy Hook, Aurora Shooting and Other False Flag Terror Attacks (with Niall Bradley, 2014), and the host of Sott.net’s The Sott Report Videos and co-host of the ‘Behind the Headlines’ radio show on the Sott Radio Network.

An established web-based essayist and print author, Quinn has been writing incisive editorials for Sott.net for over 10 years. His articles have appeared on many alternative news sites and he has been interviewed on several internet radio shows and has also appeared on Iranian Press TV. His articles can also be found on his personal blog JoeQuinn.net.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Donald Trump Elected President, Democrats and Liberals Freak Out

Selected Articles: The Coming Trump Revolution in The United States

November 9th, 2016 by Global Research News

Trump-PencePolitical Earthquake: The Trump Revolution in The United States

By Prof Rodrigue Tremblay, November 09 2016

Trump’s rhetoric and proposals have been squarely anti-establishment and anti-status quo, both domestically and internationally. As such, Trump’s victory is a political revolution in the making because it announces a break from American policies pursued by both Republican and Democrat U.S. administrations since the 1990’s. For this reason, Trump’s election inspires both fear and hope.

trump

Who is Donald Trump? Why the US Globalist Elites Dread President-Elect Donald Trump

By Joachim Hagopian, November 09 2016

This article was first published in March 2016 under the title Ruling Elite Grows Desperate to Destroy Trump’s Presidential Bid In the wake of the November 8 elections, it is important to reflect upon the prospects of a Trump presidency.

trumpFirst Thoughts On The “Not-Hillary” Election Results. World War IIII Was Called Off…

By Moon of Alabama, November 09 2016

My “not Hillary” hunch for the election was right. That is, I believe, how Trump won. No so much by gaining genuine votes but by taking them from the crappiest candidate the Democrats could send into the race. This was not a “white vote”. Trump did better with black (+5) and latino (+2) voters than Romney. Racism does not explain that. Clinton promised more wars. Those who would have to fight them on the ground rejected that position.

Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_2Hillary versus Donald: Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead! Victory for the Wizard of Oz!

By Diana Johnstone, November 09 2016

The real meaning of this election is not, as bitterly disappointed Hillary supporters still maintain with tears in their eyes and fear in their throats, a victory for racism and sexism. The real meaning of this upset is that Wall Street’s globalization project has been rejected by the citizens of its homeland. This has major implications for the European nations that have been dragged along into this ruinous project.

trump

Trump’s Victory, “Stripping and Flipping” the Vote, Election Report from Ohio

By Bob Fitrakis and Michael Welch, November 09 2016

Global Research’s Michael Welch reports from Columbus, Ohio The pontificating about what happened on the evening of November 8, 2016 has begun, and will no doubt continue for years to come. The mechanics of ‘stripping and flipping’ the vote is well understood. Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman have written extensively on this subject. The disenfranchisement of racially and economically marginalized voters who would likely have voted for Democratic candidates is a factor the pundits are not discussing.

russia-usa

Will Improved US-Russia Relations Follow Trump’s Electoral Triumph? “Will Putin Become my New Best Friend?”

By Stephen Lendman, November 09 2016

The greatest risk of a Hillary electoral triumph was possible nuclear war on Russia – perhaps China and Iran to follow. Her defeat lets peace activists exhale for the first time in the campaign – but not relax. He wants increased military spending at a time America’s only enemies are ones it invents. How aggressive he’ll be geopolitically remains to be seen.

Mr_Donald_Trump_New_Hampshire_Town_Hall_on_August_19th,_2015_at_Pinkerton_Academy,_Derry,_NH_by_Michael_Vadon_02

American Liberals Unleashed the Trump Monster

By Jonathan Cook, November 09 2016

The earth has been shifting under our feet for a while, but all liberals want to do is desperately cling to the status quo like a life-raft. Middle-class Britons are still hyperventiliating about Brexit, and now middle-class America is trembling at the prospect of Donald Trump in the White House.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Coming Trump Revolution in The United States

American Liberals Unleashed the Trump Monster

November 9th, 2016 by Jonathan Cook

The earth has been shifting under our feet for a while, but all liberals want to do is desperately cling to the status quo like a life-raft. Middle-class Britons are still hyperventiliating about Brexit, and now middle-class America is trembling at the prospect of Donald Trump in the White House.

And, of course, middle-class Americans are blaming everyone but themselves. Typifying this blinkered self-righteousness was a column yesterday, written before news of Trump’s success, from Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland, Britain’s unofficial stenographer to power and Washington fanboy. He blamed everyone but Hillary Clinton for her difficult path to what he then assumed was the White House.

Well, here is some news for Freedland and American liberals. The reason Trump is heading to the Oval Office is because the Democratic party rigged the primaries to ensure that a candidate who could have beaten Trump, Bernie Sanders, did not get on the ticket. You want to blame someone, blame Clinton and the rotten-to-the-core Democratic party leadership.

But no, liberals won’t be listening because they are too busy blaming Julian Assange and Wikileaks for exposing the truth about the Democratic leadership set out in the Clinton campaign emails – and Russia for supposedly stealing them.

Blame lies squarely too with Barack Obama, the great black hope who spent eight years proving how wedded he was to neoliberal orthodoxy at home and a neoconservative agenda abroad.

While liberals praised him to the heavens, he poured the last US treasure into propping up a failed banking system, bankrupting the country to fill the pockets of a tiny, already fabulously wealthy elite. The plutocrats then recycled vast sums to lobbyists and representatives in Congress to buy control there and make sure the voice of ordinary Americans counted for even less than it did before.

Obama also continued the futile “war on terror”, turning the world into one giant battlefield that made every day a payday for the arms industry. The US has been dropping bombs on jihadists and civilians alike, while supplying the very same jihadists with arms to kill yet more civilians.

And all the while, have liberals been campaigning against the military-industrial complex that stole their political system? No, of course not. They have been worrying about the mass migrations of refugees – those fleeing the very resource wars their leaders stoked.

Then there is the liberal media that served as a loyal chorus to Clinton, trying to persuade us that she would make a model president, and to ignore what was in plain sight: that Clinton is even more in the pocket of the bankers and arms dealers than Obama (if that were possible) and would wage more, not less war.

Do I sound a little like Trump as I rant against liberals? Yes, I do. And while you are busy dismissing me as a closet Trump supporter, you can continue your furious refusal to examine the reasons why a truly progressive position appears so similar to a far-right one like Trump’s.

Because real progressives are as frustrated and angry about the status quo as are the poor, vulnerable and disillusioned who turned to Trump. And they had no choice but to vote for Trump because there was no one aside from him in the presidential race articulating anything that approximated the truth.

Sanders was ousted by Clinton and her corrupt coterie. Jill Stein of the Greens was made invisible by a corrupt electoral system. It was either vote for Clinton and the putrid status quo, or vote for Trump and a possibility for change.

Yes, Trump is very bad. He is as much a product of the plutocracy that is now America as Clinton. He, like Clinton, will do nothing to fix the most important issue facing humankind: runaway climate change. He is a climate denier, she is a climate evader.

But unlike Clinton, Trump understood the rising popular anger at the “system”, and he was articulate enough to express it – all it took was a howl of pain.

Trump isn’t the antithesis of liberal America. You liberals created him. You unleashed this monster. It is you in the mirror. You stayed silent, you took no stand while your country was stolen from you. In fact, you did worse: you enthusiastically voted time after time for those who did the stealing.

Now the path is clear and the route fast. The precipice is ahead, and American liberals are firmly in the driving seat.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on American Liberals Unleashed the Trump Monster

Russia is ready and looks forward to restoring bilateral relations with the United States, Russian President Vladimir Putin said, commenting on the news of Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election.

“We heard [Trump’s] campaign rhetoric while still a candidate for the US presidency, which was focused on restoring the relations between Russia and the United States,” President Putin said, speaking at the presentation ceremony of foreign ambassadors’ letters of credentials in Moscow.

“We understand and are aware that it will be a difficult path in the light of the degradation in which, unfortunately, the relationship between Russia and the US are at the moment,” he added.

Speaking about the degraded state of relations between the countries, the president once again stressed that “it is not our fault that Russia-US relations are as you see them.”

Earlier today, in a message to Donald Trump the Russian President expressed confidence that the dialogue between Moscow and Washington, in keeping with each other’s views, meets the interests of both Russia and the US.

The Russian leader noted in the message that he hopes to address some “burning issues that are currently on the international agenda, and search for effective responses to the challenges of the global security,” RIA Novosti reported.

On top of it, Putin has expressed confidence that “building a constructive dialogue between Moscow and Washington, based on principles of equality, mutual respect and each other’s positions, meets the interests of the peoples of our countries and of the entire international community.”

Russian State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin has also expressed hope that Trump’s victory in the presidential election will help pave the way for a more constructive dialogue between Moscow and Washington.

“The current US-Russian relations cannot be called friendly. Hopefully, with the new US president a more constructive dialogue will be possible between our countries,” he said.

“The Russian Parliament will welcome and support any steps in this direction,” Volodin added on Wednesday.

Commenting on Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia will judge the new US administration by its actions and take appropriate steps in response.

“We are ready to work with any US leader elected by the US people,”the minister said on Wednesday.

“I can’t say that all the previous US leaders were always predictable. This is life, this is politics. I have heard many words but we will judge by actions.”

According to many observers, US-Russia relations are now at their lowest point since the Cold War. Putin has repeatedly noted that the worsening of Russia’s relations with the US“was not our choice,” however.

For things to improve between Moscow and Washington, the US should first and foremost start acting like an equal partner and respect Russia’s interests rather than try to dictate terms, Putin said last month.

The US will have to negotiate with Russia on finding solutions to international issues as no state is now able to act alone, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said last week, adding that problems in bilateral relations began to mount long before the Ukrainian crisis broke out in 2014.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Putin on Trump Victory: Russia is Ready to Restore Relations with US

So I just woke up and found that the world has changed. World War III was called off. Trump won, Clinton conceded. His victory speech is fair and integrating.

My “not Hillary” hunch for the election was right. That is, I believe, how Trump won. No so much by gaining genuine votes but by taking them from the crappiest candidate the Democrats could send into the race. This was not a “white vote”. Trump did better with black (+5) and latino (+2) voters than Romney. Racism does not explain that. Clinton promised more wars. Those who would have to fight them on the ground rejected that position.

The people voted against corruption, against international warmongering, against attacks of the culture of their life and against Zionist and Arab potentate manipulation. In short – they voted against Hillary.

The media with their outright and widespread manipulation and one sided reporting against Trump and for Clinton lost too. People did not believe the partisan crap that fact-checked Trump on every minor issue but hardly reported on the huge, huge scandals and corruption Wikileaks revealed about the Clintons. Fact-checkers ain’t a good weapon in a culture war. The people want authenticity – lying is not seen as bad – if it is fairy open and authentic. Clinton is not authentic even when she tells the truth. The polls, but the one of the LA Times, turned out to be systematic manipulation.

The leading politicians in Europe will crap their pants. Nearly all but Putin bet heavily on Clinton. The European media were also strongly pro Clinton, even more so than in the U.S. There was zero reporting about Trump’s real political positions and support. Only tiny bits about Clinton’s corruption were revealed on the back pages. They always believe what the NYT writes is the essence of U.S. thinking. It is far from it. No one but a few east-coast party goers and the NYT cares about some 16 year old girl, who thinks she is “transsexual” and wants to use a men’s public toilet. The average people think that such craziness deserves zero attention if not a hefty kick in the ass. Pro-migration and other political correctness movements in Europe will have a difficult stand now. They can no longer work against the instincts of the people by pointing to the soothing, fake words of an Obama or Clinton.

The Democratic party failed. The outright corruption of the party heads, who pushed Sanders out to move Clinton in by manipulating the primaries, blocked the natural development that went on at the base. They even wanted Trump as a candidate because they though Clinton could easily beat him. They were totally detached from real life. I am sure that post-mortem analysis will show that many, many potential pro-democratic voters were just disgusted and stayed at home or voted for a third party. The establishment of the Republican party were no better. They failed their voters just as much by shunning Trump and working for Clinton. All the neo-cons that flocked to Clinton will now scramble to get back to Trump. They will have little chance.

But the election also created huge new dangers. People around Trump, including his vice-president, are not sane realist but fairly extreme ideologues. Trump himself isn’t. He is, in my estimate, fairly pragmatic. The Republicans also won the Senate and House. There is a danger that extreme policies will be implemented with huge and terrible long-term consequences. But remember that Obama had the same chance in his first two years of his Presidency. He never used it. From a progressive view he blew it.

Winning back the House and Senate in two years is a must for anyone with some middle-of-the-road thinking.

I believe that this result is good for Syria and the non-Jihadi and non-Zonist Middle East. Al-Qaeda in Syria will have a sad. Their main supporters leave the stage. The result is likely good for Europe including for Russia. It is bad for economic equality and other important issues in the United States and elsewhere. But would Clinton have been really better on these?

I for one feel mightily eased (with a not-so-small dose of Schadenfreude).  The U.S. voters knocked over a chessboard that brought war and misery to many people. We do not know how the new game will look, but I think there is a fair chance now that it, in total, will be somewhat less devastating for the global good.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on First Thoughts On The “Not-Hillary” Election Results. World War IIII Was Called Off…

Illegal Israeli Settlers Steal Palestinian Olive Harvest

November 9th, 2016 by Middle East Monitor

Israeli settlers stole the harvest of 400 olive trees planted on private Palestinian land, farmers in Nablus reported yesterday.

Ghassan Daghlas, a Palestinian official who monitors settlement activities in the northern West Bank, told Ma’an that more than 30 Palestinian families from the Nablus district village of Deir Sharaf entered their agricultural lands yesterday after being banned since Friday by Israeli authorities.

According to Daghlas, the families “were shocked to find out that Israeli settlers had picked the olives of 400 olive trees planted in their lands,” near the illegal Israeli settlement of Shavi Shamron.

“Israeli settlers stealing olive harvests is a crime against Palestinian farmers and their properties,” Daghlas said, denouncing “the Israeli government’s knowledge [of settlers’ actions] and the complete silence of international society and human rights organisations.”

Daghlas also demanded compensation for the Palestinian families who lost their olive harvest.

The olive harvest is an important economic and cultural event for Palestinians, with nearly half of all cultivated land in the occupied Palestinian territory planted with olive trees, according to the United Nations.

However, due to illegal settlement expansion, land confiscation, mobility restrictions due to Israel’s Separation Wall, and various permit laws, Palestinian farmers are often unable to access their land and the number of olive trees is dwindling.

This year’s olive harvest season, which began early last month, has already witnessed attacks by Israeli settlers and Israeli government restrictions on Palestinian farmers and their lands.

The Palestinian government has no jurisdiction over Israelis in the West Bank, and violent acts carried out by Israeli settlers go unpunished.

Israeli human rights groups Yesh Din and B’Tselem have previously condemned Israeli authorities for failing to protect Palestinians from settler violence or to investigate attacks, particularly during olive harvest season when incidents of attacks occur on an almost daily basis.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Illegal Israeli Settlers Steal Palestinian Olive Harvest

Two partners at major law firms have likely been holding their breath since WikiLeaks released an email on November 1 showing that Obama had vetted Hillary Clinton for Vice President and the review came back “too critical,” thus leading Obama to select Joe Biden as his Vice Presidential pick during the 2008 campaign. The vetting memorandum on Clinton shows in the email thread to have been transmitted with the email but WikiLeaks has not provided it – yet.

According to the email, which carries a capitalized heading of “CONFIDENTIAL,” the vetting of Clinton had been done by James Hamilton, then a law partner at Bingham McCutchen LLP. Hamilton is now a partner at Morgan Lewis, a firm with a long history of ties to Wall Street. His official bio shows that he “served as the Clinton-Gore transition counsel for nominations and confirmations,” “as the principal Clinton White House vetter for Supreme Court nominations,” “was in charge of vetting vice presidential candidates in 2000 for Al Gore,” did the same for John Kerry in 2004 and for Obama in 2008. His bio also indicates that he “vetted candidates for Cabinet, the Department of Justice, White House, and Supreme Court for the Obama administration.”

Michael Froman

Michael Froman

Upon receipt of the email and memorandums on September 4, 2008, Michael Froman issued an email to other members of Obama’s Transition Team stating: “Per our discussion, please do not circulate any further.” Froman was an executive at the insolvent Wall Street behemoth, Citigroup. At the time of this email, Citigroup had been secretly receiving tens of billions of dollars in below-market-rate loans from the Federal Reserve to prop up its insolvent carcass and stood as the poster child for gross mismanagement. Citigroup would go on to receive the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S. history. Froman was employed at the very division of the bank that blew it up before the year was out.

Notwithstanding Froman’s ties to Citigroup, Froman was in charge of staffing the cabinet and subcabinet positions for Obama’s first term. Among the emails released by WikiLeaks, there are 351 emails which show the tight reins Froman held in the selection of Obama’s administration. (See related articles below.)

The September 4, 2008 email was forwarded to Cassandra Butts, a member of Obama’s Transition Team, who responded to Froman as follows:

“Yes, of course. It should be noted that Mark Patterson didn’t share the Biden, Clinton or Edwards memos with me when he gave me the hard copies on Tuesday. He was concerned that the Clinton memo was too critical in ways that didn’t need to be shared outside of the vp process, the Biden memo was no longer relevant to our process and the same for Edwards. I agreed with Mark’s judgment on this, and it definitely raises the importance of keeping these memos very closely held.”

The reference to the Biden memo no longer being relevant is because Obama had already announced his pick of Biden as his Vice President on Saturday, August 23, 2008.

Read complete article

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Here’s the WikiLeaks Bombshell on Clinton that Is Still to Come… In the Wake of Her Electoral Defeat

I watched Donald Trump’s presidential victory speech. He spoke a lot about unity, the potential of ordinary, marginalised people and about making the US great again. He spoke about rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, creating jobs and about finding common ground with other nations. He can be quite charismatic and, taken at face value, quite convincing. His victory was, to a large extent, achieved because many (white) working class folk could identify with much of his rhetoric.

After watching his speech, I was immediately reminded of something I wrote back in 2012 about Donald Trump and his actions in Scotland. The piece is presented below because it is a timely reminder of what the Trumps of this world are capable of and ultimately just who and what they represent.

You’ve Been Trumped: A Case Study in Liberal Capitalist Democracy

If you have not yet watched the documentary ‘You’ve been Trumped’ (2012) by Anthony Baxter, you should try to. It’s a film about how money and power, with the collusion of politicians, the media and the instruments of state, have complete contempt for and ride roughshod over ordinary people. It’s a lesson in how capitalist ‘democracy’ functions.

Here is the synopsis.

A group of proud Scottish homeowners take on a celebrity tycoon. At stake is one of Britain’s very last stretches of wilderness. US billionaire Donald Trump has bought up hundreds of acres on the northeast coast of Scotland. Trump needs to get some locals to move out of their homes to make the deal come true. He is going to build two golf courses alongside a 450-room hotel and 1,500 luxury homes. The trouble is the land he has purchased occupies one of Europe’s most environmentally sensitive stretches of coast and sand dunes, described by one leading scientist as Scotland’s Amazon rain forest. The handful of local residents who reside there don’t want to move out or have the land destroyed.

Despite the local council rejecting the proposal, the Scottish Government overturns its own environmental laws to give Trump the green light. This causes much consternation as the area is a designated ‘Site of Special Scientific Interest’. As the bulldozers spring into action to demolish the dunes and dig up the land, local residents’ water and power is cut off, land disputes erupt, and some residents have mountains of earth piled up next to their homes to try to force them out. Complaints go ignored by the police, who instead arrest the film’s director, Anthony Baxter. Apparently, filming in public constitutes a ‘breach of the peace’! The police are firmly in Trump’s court.

Adding insult to injury, Trump also gets an honorary doctorate from a local university, even as his tractors turn wild, untouched dunes into fairways.

‘You’ve Been Trumped’ encapsulates the chasm between the powerful, glamorous, jet-setting Donald Trump and a deeply rooted, relatively powerless Scottish community. For Trump, the golf course is just another money-making deal. For the residents, it represents the destruction of a globally unique landscape that has been the backdrop for their lives and an eventual influx of rich foreigners who will jet in and out for a quick round or two on their newly constructed millionaire playground.

The film raises issues that strike at the very heart of democracy. Seduced by Trump’s wealth, it’s the politicians, the media, much of the business community, a local university and the police that kow-tow to the billionaire. The police are his protector. Politicians overturn their own laws in the face of dubious promises of jobs, which are never genuinely investigated by them to see if they actually stand up to scrutiny.

Someone like Trump does not get to where they are without knowing how to play the media, or the politicians for that matter. The film shows his half truths, untruths, tacky PR gloss and ridiculous slurs against local residents who stand in his way are taken as facts by much of the media and many of those in authority. The rich have the knack of talking absolute rubbish, but say it with utter conviction that it becomes accepted as ‘fact’. That much was clear in the film.

‘You’ve been Trumped’ shows what most of us already know: money talks and officialdom – often ‘public servants’ – listens and looks the other way when the ordinary people they are supposed to serve end up paying the price.

The film is a depressing case study of how the ‘one per cent’ is able to control the world for its own benefit. Acting alone, the Trumps of this world exert enormous power.

But when they come together to forward a collective agenda, their influence is even more grotesque. Look no further than the International Crisis Group. Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institute and any other number of bodies populated, funded or controlled by big corporate interests on behalf of supremely wealthy individuals. Forget about the power of one billionaire to exert his influence in Scotland. Forget about one Donald Trump ever becoming US president. We already have a plethora of multi-billionaire interests dictating national and international policies.

Although Trump now has his golf course, something positive can be taken from the film: the spirit of ordinary people and their fortitude in standing up to money, wealth and power and its corrupting influences. They may not have prevented Trump’s scheme, but residents stood firm in the face of intimidation and threats. And they garnered the support of thousands of local people who knew wrong when they saw it.

What happened in Scotland is on one level similar to what is taking place right now in other parts of the world, not least in India: the corruption of democracy by power and wealth.

Thousands of ordinary people have been protesting against the building of nuclear plants in India. Notwithstanding safety concerns, unconstitutional land grabs resulting in people being booted off their lands have acquired headline status. The full force of the state has been brought to bear on protesters via police and paramilitary violence and intimidation.

In South India for example, local people are peacefully protesting against the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant. More than 56,000 have been falsely charged, including 6,000 for the offence of ‘sedition’. 53 have been imprisoned.

Why? Again, because of the influence of money; because of unaccountable power.

India’s expanding multi-billion dollar nuclear sector represents rich pickings for the key players both within India and abroad. The Indian government has agreed to buy US$150 billion worth of nuclear reactors, equipment and other materials from the US, whose companies will benefit for decades from Indian orders for military equipment. It has also promised various other countries that their companies will receive lucrative contracts in India. The French company Areva, US companies GE Hitachi and Westinghouse and the Russian company Atomstroy export are all building nuclear plants in the country. In return, the US lobbied to allow India to engage in civilian nuclear trade, despite not being a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

What is happening concerning the expansion of nuclear sector is however symptomatic of the wider situation in India. Anti-nuclear activist Neeraj Jain says the Indian elite’s vision for the country is to freely allow Western multinationals to access the Indian market and hand over thousands of hectares of land to them to set up projects like mines, refineries, airports, shopping malls and expressways, while dispossessing people from their mineral-rich lands in rural areas, and demolishing slums in urban areas.

Some like to call this ‘progress’. Others choose to call it ‘development’.

But let’s state it for what it actually is: self-serving, powerful, wealthy elite interests acting in collusion with politicians and demonstrating utter contempt for democracy and ordinary folk.

Whether we live in Scotland, India or elsewhere, it begs the question: Are we willing to be ‘Trumped’ on a massive scale?

Well, that all depends on us, the 99 per cent, and what we are prepared to do about it.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Congratulations America: Have You Just Been Trumped? The Influence of Money…

Russian Navy Is Ready to Strike Terrorists in Aleppo

November 9th, 2016 by South Front

The Russian Navy’s aircraft carrier group is ready to launch military strikes targeting terrorists in the province of Aleppo in the next 24 hours, Gazeta.ru reported Tuesday, citing a source in the Russian Ministry of Defense.

The attack will likely target militants outsde the city of Aleppo, with Kalibr cruise missiles. According to the report, the Admiral Kuznetsov battlegroup has completed its deployment to the Mediterranean Sea and is getting ready to strike.

After the success in the 1070 Apartment Project and nearby areas, the Syrian army and its allies attacked Jaish al-Fatah militants in the area of Minyan in the western part of Aleppo city. Following a series of firefights, the government forces seized a large part of Minyan and pushed Jaish al-Fatah militants to retreat from the area. According to pro-government sources, Jaish al-Fatah is on the verge of losing of Minyan to the army.

The Russian Aerospace Forces delivered a series of air strikes on the Al-Nusra(Al-Qaeda)-led militant coalition, Jaish al-Fatah, in the province of Idlib. Since November 8, Russian warplanes made up to 55 air strikes on militant weapon depots and supply lines. 3 weapon depots and a convoy, consisting of 4 vehicles, and 5 militant tactical units were reported destroyed. The Russian Aerospace Forces’ activity in the province is linked with reports that Jaish al-Fatah is deploying reinforcements to western Aleppo where the militant coalition has recently lost the area of 1070 Apartment Project and the strategic Motah Hill to the Syrian government forces.

The recently released video depicts a militant vehicle that has been targeted by an Iranian Toophan anti-tank on the road between Daer Mkaren – Efreh in the western countryside of Damascus. Iran provides to the Syrian army’s troops and other pro-government groups a wide range of supplies, including anti-tank guided missiles. Toophan is a series of Iranian-made anti-tank guided missiles. Toophan 1 was a reverse-engineered copy of the US-made BGM-71 TOW missile.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russian Navy Is Ready to Strike Terrorists in Aleppo

The greatest risk of a Hillary electoral triumph was possible nuclear war on Russia – perhaps China and Iran to follow. Her defeat lets peace activists exhale for the first time in the campaign – but not relax.

He wants increased military spending at a time America’s only enemies are ones it invents.

How aggressive he’ll be geopolitically remains to be seen.

Hopefully his election means improved Russia/US relations after years of hostility under Obama. Here are some Trump quotes about Vladimir Putin, positive signs:

October 2007: “Look at Putin – what he’s doing with Russia – I mean, you know, what’s going on over there. I mean this guy has done – whether you like him or don’t like him – he’s doing a great job in rebuilding the image of Russia and also rebuilding Russia period.”

December 2011: Trump praised Putin’s “intelligence (and) no-nonsense way,” adding he “has big plans for Russia. He wants to edge out its neighbors so that Russia can dominate oil supplies to all of Europe.”

“I respect Putin and Russians but cannot believe (Obama) allows them to get away with so much…Hats off to the Russians.”

June 2013: Trump tweeted “(w)ill (Putin) become my new best friend?”

October 2013: “I think he’s done a really great job of outsmarting our country.”

July 2015: “I think I’d get along very well with Vladimir Putin. I just think so.”

October 2015: He and Putin “are very different,” but they’d “get along very well. I think that I would probably get along with him very well. And I don’t think you’d be having the kind of problems that you’re having right now.”

December 17, 2015: Trump called Putin a “talented person…It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond.”

“I have always felt that Russia and the United States should be able to work well with each other towards defeating terrorism and restoring world peace, not to mention trade and all of the other benefits derived from mutual respect.”

December 18, 2015: “He’s running his country and at least he’s a leader, unlike what we have in this country. I think our country does plenty of killing also.”

February 2016: I have no relationship with him other than he called me a genius. He said Donald trump is a genius and he is going to be the leader of the party and he’s going to be the leader of the world or something.”

“These characters that I’m running against said, ‘(w)e want you to disavow that statement.’ I said what, he called me a genius, I’m going to disavow it? Are you crazy? Can you believe it? How stupid are they.”

“And besides that, wouldn’t it be good if we actually got along with countries. Wouldn’t it actually be a positive thing. I think I’d have a good relationship with Putin. I mean who knows.”

April 2016: “…I’d possibly have a good relationship (with Putin). He’s been very nice to me. If we can make a great deal for our country and get along with Russia that would be a tremendous thing. I would love to try it.”

July 2016: “I would treat Vladimir Putin firmly, but there’s nothing I can think of that I’d rather do than have Russia friendly, as opposed to the way they are right now, so that we can go and knock out ISIS with other people.”

“President Trump would be so much better for US/Russian relations. It can’t be worse.”

“I don’t think he has any respect for Clinton. I think he respects me. I think it would be great to get along with him.”

If nothing else, Trump deserves credit for ending Hillary’s political career, preventing a third Clinton crime family administration. And that’s a good thing, as he might put it.

Putin welcomed his triumph, saying

“(w)e heard (him say he) would treat Vladimir Putin firmly, but there’s nothing I can think of that I’d rather do than have Russia friendly, as opposed to the way they are right now, so that we can go and knock out ISIS with other people.”

“We understand and are aware that it will be a difficult path in the light of the degradation in which, unfortunately, the relationship between Russia and the US are at the moment.”

“(I)t is not our fault that Russia/US relations are as you see them.”

Putin believes “building a constructive dialogue between Moscow and Washington, based on principles of equality, mutual respect and each other’s positions, meets the interests of the peoples of our countries and of the entire international community.”

Humanity can breathe a little easier with Trump’s triumph over Hillary. An emotionally unstable neocon war goddess won’t succeed Obama.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will Improved US-Russia Relations Follow Trump’s Electoral Triumph? “Will Putin Become my New Best Friend?”

“There’s no place like home.”

That’s the lesson. Even when home is Kansas.

The real meaning of this election is not, as bitterly disappointed Hillary supporters still maintain with tears in their eyes and fear in their throats, a victory for racism and sexism.

The real meaning of this upset is that Wall Street’s globalization project has been rejected by the citizens of its homeland.  

This has major implications for the European nations that have been dragged along into this ruinous project.

Hillary Clinton was the candidate of the military industrial complex and international finance capital.  She designed herself to be the figurehead of those forces, as queen of regime change. She aspired to be the one to remake the world in the image Wall Street dictates. It was a project enthusiastically and expensively supported by the one percent who profit from arms contracts and the trade deals they write themselves for their own interests.

To distract from the genuine significance of her candidacy, the Clinton campaign appealed to the desire for respectability of educated city dwellers, portraying Trump supporters as racist yokels motivated by a hateful desire to scapegoat minorities as revenge for their own inadequacies.  They were “deplorables”, and you wouldn’t want to be one of them, would you?

Trump was sexist, because he referred to certain women as “bimbos”.  Elizabeth Warren called him out for this, on a platform where Hillary sat listening, mouth wide open in delight – she who had referred to Bill’s girlfriends as “bimbo eruptions”.  Sleaze and hypocrisy drowned out policy discussions. The worst the Clinton campaign could come up with was an eleven-year-old locker room exchange – just words, hardly comparable to Bill’s chronic actions.

Still, millions who were taken in by the Clinton campaign line are devastated, terrified, convinced that the only reason Trump won was the “racism” and “sexism” of that lower caste in globalized society: white heterosexual working class males.

But no, Virginia, there were other reasons to vote for Trump.  Racism and sexism are surely low on the list.

Trump voters were scandalized by Hillary’s lies and corruption.  Many of them would have voted for Bernie Sanders if they had the choice.  That choice was taken away from them by Democratic Party manipulators who were sold on their own advertising campaign to elect “the first woman President.” A brand new product on the Presidential election market!  Be the first to vote for a woman President!  New, improved!

Bernie’s success already showed that millions of people didn’t want that woman.  But the Democratic Party manipulators and their oligarch sponsors went right ahead with their plans to force Hillary Clinton on an unwilling nation.  They brought this defeat on themselves.

Contrary to what you could believe by reading the New York Times, there were even intellectuals who voted for Trump, or at least refused to vote for Hillary, for the simple reason that Trump appears less likely to lead the world into its third and final Great War.  He said things giving that impression, but such statements were ignored by mainstream media as they worked overtime to inflate the ogre image.  No war with Russia?  You must be a Putin puppet!

Trump voters had several reasons to vote for Trump other than “racism”.  Most of all, they want their jobs back, jobs that have vanished thanks to the neoliberal policy of transferring manufacturing jobs to places with low wages.

But racism is the only motive recognized by the globalized elite for rejecting globalization.  British citizens who voted to leave the European Union in order to recover their traditional democracy were also stigmatized as “racist” and “xenophobe”.  Opposition to racism and xenophobia is the natural moral defense of a project of global governance that deprives ordinary citizens of any important power of decision.

This extraordinarily vicious campaign has brought out and aggravated sharp divisions within the United States.  The division between city and countryside is most evident on the electoral maps. But these real divisions are exacerbated by a campaign that portrayed Donald Trump as a racist madman, a new Hitler about to bring fascism to America. The antiracism of this campaign, denouncing “hate”, has actually spawned hate.

No, Virginia, Trump is not Hitler.  He is the Wizard of Oz.  He is a showman who pulled off an amazing trick thanks to the drastic moral and intellectual decline of the American political system.

He is neither as dangerous as his opponents fear, nor as able to “make American great again” as his supporters hope.  He is the Lesser Evil.  What will become of him in Washington is anybody’s guess.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hillary versus Donald: Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead! Victory for the Wizard of Oz!

Political Earthquake: The Trump Revolution in The United States

November 9th, 2016 by Prof Rodrigue Tremblay

“When you give [money to politicians], they do whatever the hell you want them to do… As a businessman, I need that.” Donald J. Trump (1946- ), in an interview to the Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2015.

We [the United States] spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives. … Obviously, it was a mistake… George W. Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East… —They [President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney] lied… They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.” Donald J. Trump (1946- ), during a CBS News GOP presidential debate, on Saturday, Feb. 13, 2016.

In my opinion, we’ve spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could’ve spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the other problems we’ve had, we would’ve been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now. 

—We have done a tremendous disservice, not only to the Middle East; we’ve done a tremendous disservice to humanity.

—The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away, and for what? It’s not like we had victory.

It’s a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized. —A total and complete mess.

—I wish we had the $4 trillion or $5 trillion. I wish it were spent right here in the United States, on our schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart.” Donald J. Trump (1946- ) in a GOP presidential debate, on Tues. Dec. 15, 2015, in Las Vegas, NV.

Throughout history, any profound political and social change was preceded by a philosophical revolution, at least among a significant section of the population.” M. N. Roy (1887-1954), in ‘The Future of Democracy’, 1950.

There has just been a generational political earthquake in the United States and the after shocks are potentially going to be huge. Indeed, on November 8, 2016, against all odds, the Republican candidate Donald Trump (1946- ) was elected to serve as the 45th American President, repeating ad nauseam his main slogan “Make America Great Again”. He will be the first American president since Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969) to occupy the White House without having personal political experience.

Trump’s rhetoric and proposals have been squarely anti-establishment and anti-status quo, both domestically and internationally. As such, Trump’s victory is a political revolution in the making because it announces a break from American policies pursued by both Republican and Democrat U.S. administrations since the 1990’s.

For this reason, Trump’s election inspires both fear and hope. Fear among the established elites, especially among the dominating Washington media- financial establishments, because the Trump victory will undoubtedly be seen as a repudiation of their values and policies. And after last June’s Brexit, the writing may also be on the wall for the current crop of European elites, who have also actively pushed for a globalized world, with open frontiers, illegal immigration, technological changes, and the deindustrialization of the more advanced economies.

Election night data, November 8, 22.oopm

There is hope, however, among those who have been left behind economically, politically and socially, especially among those in the American middle class whose real incomes have been stagnant or declining, and who have suffered badly from the agenda and policies pursued during the last three decades. Over the last 30 years, indeed, the upper 10 % and the super-rich 1 % segments of the U.S. population have greatly benefited from a shift from a manufacturing to a service economy, while the bottom 90 % was left behind.

Many disenfranchised American workers, especially those with less than a high school diploma, saw in Republican candidate Donald Trump and in defeated Democratic primary candidate Bernie Sanders the hope to see things change for the better. It is symptomatic that Americans in large urban areas voted massively democratic, while industrial and rural areas voted massively republican. Contrary to polls, the forecasting models that included the historical context and the desire for change in their prediction had it right. This is the case of American University professor Allan J. Lichtman’s model.

Trump’s Herculean task ahead

President-elect Donald Trump and his team have a Herculean task ahead of them if they are to deliver on the promises they made.

1- Let us begin with the main foreign policy changes to be expected. 

The biggest losers of the November 8 election will be the foreign policy hawks and the Neocons in the previous U.S. administrations, from the Bill Clinton administration to the current Obama administrations. They are the ones who have pushed to rekindle the Cold War with Russia and who have designed the interventionist policies, which are destroying the Middle East.

It is expected that a Trump administration will reverse the U.S.-led NATO policy to provoke Russia by multiplying hostile military moves at its borders. Also, it can be expected that a Trump administration will strike a deal with the Russian government of Vladimir Putin to bring the disastrous Syrian conflict to an end. This is bad news for the murderous Middle-Ages style ISIS organization.

Of course, a Trump administration can be expected to turn U.S. trade policy on its head. Trade policy would likely be paired with an industrial policy. In practice, this could mean that the two large multilateral free trade and free investment treaties, the Transatlantic Free Trade agreement (TAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) will be stopped in their tracks.

In this sense, the Trump revolution could mean that economic and financial globalization is dead.

2- The main domestic policy shifts expected from a Trump administration.

A Trump administration will attempt to prime-pump the U.S. economy through a series of economic policies. After all, candidate Trump has promised to boost the U.S. growth rate to an average of 3.5 percent and to create 25 million jobs over the next decade. He has also promised the “overhaul of our tax, regulatory, energy and trade policies.”

How can a Trump administration stimulate growth? First, by proposing a massive $ 4.4 trillion tax cut to spur growth, not dissimilar from the 2001-2003 Bush-Cheney administration $1.3 trillion tax cut program, which met with dubious results, besides increasing the U.S. government fiscal deficit.

Second, a Trump administration will attempt to boost U.S. manufacturing jobs. For that, it would have to do better than the record achieved during the two Bush-Cheney terms, when the United States lost over six million manufacturing jobs. To reverse that trend, Trump may attempt to force the repatriation of the $2.1 trillion profits that U.S. companies are holding overseas and induce those corporations to invest more within the United States. He may also raise some import taxes to persuade American-owned corporations to create jobs in the U.S. — To what extent a Republican-controlled Congress will acquiesce to such a protectionist trade policy remains to be seen.

Finally, candidate Trump has promised to launch a massive infrastructure investment program, stating that he wanted to “build the next generation of roads, bridges, railways, tunnels, seaports, and airports.”

3- The Trump government’s social challenges 

By far, the biggest challenge that a Trump administration will face will be to make good on candidate Trump’s promise to abolish the national health program known as the Obamacare. He has proposed to replace the American health care law with a transfer of Medicaid to the states, accompanied by a state block grant program, and to provide tax exemption for employer-based health insurance plans, to be extended to individuals who purchase coverage on their own. Candidate Trump has even flirted with the idea of having the U.S. adopt a single-payer health care system. It remains to be seen how such a complex issue can be resolved.

Conclusion

It will take weeks and months before the Trump administration’s real agenda becomes clear. Under a Donald Trump presidency, the United States can be expected to change direction on many policies. As this revolution unfolds, the eyes of the world will be on the Trump administration and on the new policies it will attempt to implement. Let us hope that this will be done with care and intelligent thinking, and not in precipitation and chaos.

Economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, and of The New American Empire.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Political Earthquake: The Trump Revolution in The United States

Trump’s Win Wasn’t Ideological. It Was Brilliant

November 9th, 2016 by Eric Zuesse

CNN explained well “5 surprising lessons from Trump’s astonishing win”, and the historic crushing failure of traditional Presidential-year American politics, but it really boils down to one simple fact: In the battleground states, where most of the advertising dollars and get-out-the-vote money was being spent, the Trump organization made use of the Republican-Party organization in those portions of the campaign-operation that benefited from those established contacts and its tried-and-tested methods and techniques, but not in the portions of the campaign-operation that needed to be improved and to function better than in all prior U.S. Presidential elections.

The simple fact is that Trump’s understanding of U.S. national politics was transcendent, better even than that of the candidate whom all of the polls during the political primaries showed to be the most preferred by the most people and thus to be able to beat any of the other contestants in a one-on-one electoral choice against any of the others: Bernie Sanders. (See this and this for the evidence on that.) (And if there were any remaining doubt as to why he was, consider this report from Reuters near 3AM on Wednesday November 9th, right after the voting: “U.S. voters want leader to end advantage of rich and powerful – Reuters/Ipsos poll”. For example, this poll of 10,000 people leaving their polling-places showed:

“75 percent agree that ‘America needs a strong leader to take the country back from the rich and powerful.’”

That had been Bernie Sanders’s message, too. Trump’s campaign brought people like that out to vote.) Sanders may have been right to think that highest net approval-rating is generally the biggest single predictive factor determining a Presidential candidate’s winning the White House (and he had the highest net-approval rating), but he (like his opponent Hillary Clinton) missed the importance of the emotional-intensity factor, which Trump made virtuosic use of. (This can be seen clearly when you look further at the exit-poll results: the actual people who went to the polls — the people sampled in the exit-polling — were fundamentally different from the cross-section of America’s ‘likely voters’ that were sampled in the pre-election polling! Trump trumped all traditional politics. This achievement is simply astounding.)

Whereas Sanders failed to recognize that in Democratic Party primaries there was more emotional intensity for the existing, Clinton-Obama, anti-FDR, Democratic Party, than there was for ideological progressivism (FDR’s legacy, which dominated the Democratic Party prior to Bill Clinton’s win in 1992) (and Hillary’s understanding of that turned out to have been correct), and so the incompetent but aristocracy-backed politician Hillary Clinton was able to steal the Democratic Party nomination from him, Trump was able easily to garner the most primary votes in a crowded 17-candidate field and so to become the nominee of one of the two major political Parties and go on to face the incompetent Hillary in the general election.

From Bernie Sanders’s standpoint, such a general-election contest, between two candidates both of whom had hugely net-negative approval-ratings, couldn’t have made much political sense, and so he chose to endorse the thief Hillary and become a non-entity in the post-1992 and profoundly corrupt Democratic Party, instead of to found an authentically independent political movement — not political Party but political movement — which would honestly and without partisanship cherry-pick which candidates, from which of the two political Parties, will, on balance, as against the given candidate’s opponent, provide the highest benefit and least harm toward advancing the progressive cause. (That was the only constructive path forward for him after Hillary robbed him.) He chose the stick-in-the-mud route.

Sanders opted to become just a cog in an ugly greasy pro-aristocracy machine, the Democratic Party wing of the U.S. aristocracy.

After the Republican Party’s nomination was won by Trump (which he did honestly), he went on to build on that success an authentic anti-aristocracy (or ‘anti-Establishment’) movement, beside and outside the Republican Party.

His basic anti-aristocracy message remained unchanged, and he, as the Republican nominee, faced the biggest decision-point in his entire campaign: whether now to reach out to the millions of Sanders’s voters (i.e., the largest of all voting-segments) by joining with now Hillary’s — the post-1992, Bill Clinton’s, Democratic Party’s — emphasis upon both race and gender over economic class as what’s posing the biggest barrier to achieving equality of economic opportunity in America (in which case, Trump would have adopted Hillary Clinton’s basic campaign message), or, instead, to stay with his original message that economic class (and the elite’s “corruption” behind that) poses the biggest barrier against achieving “the equal-opportunity society.”

Trump — wisely, as it now turns out — chose the latter path (the original Bernie Sanders’ basic message): he was determined to retain the intensity-advantage (the ‘populist’ thrust), so as to be able to bring the largest numbers of voters to the polls on Election Day in the toss-up states and crush his opponent who was looking to win a ‘coalition’ of voting-segments: women, Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, etcetera. She thought that those people’s personal group-identification would sufficiently surmount any negative feelings they might have regarding her long history of corrupt use of public office to advantage her financial supporters, so that she would beat ‘the bigot’, Donald Trump; she turned out to be wrong.

What will be the important consequences of Trump’s win? 

I, a Bernie Sanders voter, voted for Trump against Hillary, for the reasons that I have earlier stated, describing the consequences that a Trump win would have. (See: “I’m a Bernie Sanders Voter: Here’s Why I’ll Vote Trump”.) I summed up, on that occasion:

Trump is rapidly moving America’s political center in the opposite direction from the direction that Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, did, which was toward conservatism, away from progressivism: those conservative Democratic Presidents and (now) would-be President, have moved America’s political center considerably toward the right (the international-corporate agenda). A President Trump would reverse the political direction that this country has been heading in ever since 1993.

If we progressives don’t help Trump to do that, we shall be throwing away the only such opportunity that the U.S. oligarchy (slipped-up and) allowed us to have. A President Hillary Clinton would have the support of almost all congressional Democrats no matter how right-wing her proposals are, and her big-money financial backers will buy enough congressional Republicans to make her the most effective most conservative Democratic President in decades if not centuries. The prospect is chilling.

The biggest objection I hear to that from my fellow progressives is: “But think of the people he’ll appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court!” And my answer to that is: “This Is No ‘Cold War’; It’s Far Worse Than That.”

Hillary Clinton has been intensely committed to completing Barack Obama’s drive toward nuclear war against Russia, and even the question of the Supreme Court is trivial in comparison to that. Furthermore, as I argued in “I’m a Bernie Sanders Voter: Here’s Why I’ll Vote Trump”, Trump might actually turn out to be a far more progressive President than he is expected to be. But, even if that turns out not to be the case, Trump is thoroughly committed to halting America’s aggression against Russia: the biggest loser in this Presidential election is George Herbert Walker Bush, the person who in 1990 secretly established the U.S. plan to conquer Russia, which plan every U.S. President since has been carrying out, and Hillary Clinton was expecting to complete that operation.

This was thus a historic U.S. election: finally, the U.S. government will turn away from the path toward war against Russia, upon which path the United States has been leading the world ever since 1990. I am shocked, and enormously relieved, at the result — even if Trump turns out to be a bad (i.e., a conservative, the opposite of a progressive) President on all other matters (including the Supreme Court).

Even in the worst-case scenario, Trump will be a much better President than would the neoconservative, Hillary Clinton.

Thank you, Donald Trump! Without your achievement here, the likely result now would be catastrophic, even worse than what Hillary Clinton did as U.S. Secretary of State.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s Win Wasn’t Ideological. It Was Brilliant

CNN reported at about 2:45 AM Eastern Standard Time that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had made a concession call to her Republican opponent Donald Trump, acknowledging that the billionaire real estate mogul had won the presidential election in a stunning upset and debacle for the Democratic Party.

Trump’s victory was accompanied by a rout of the Democrats in the congressional races, with the Republicans retaining control of the Senate and suffering only a small reduction in their majority in the House of Representatives.

When the concession call came, vote counting was continuing in a handful of states, but Trump had effectively secured a victory in the Electoral College. According to television network projections, Trump had 244 electoral votes and was leading in states with enough electoral votes to give him the 270 required to win.

Some 45 minutes before the announcement of Clinton’s concession, the Hillweb site reported that Trump had won Pennsylvania, one of the industrial states that had been chalked up by pollsters and the media as firmly in the Clinton column. The win in Pennsylvania brought Trump’s electoral vote total to 264.

Shortly thereafter, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta told the gloomy crowd gathered at Clinton campaign headquarters in Manhattan that the candidate would not make an appearance until the morning.

The result came as a political shock, as pre-election polls and media commentators had almost unanimously predicted a Clinton victory by a relatively comfortable margin. Financial markets went into convulsions, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average futures market plunging 900 points in overnight trading. The NASDAQ market halted futures trading as prices fell through preset triggers.

According to network projections, Clinton was trailing by 1.2 million in the national popular vote. She could retake the lead in the popular vote after late vote counts in the Pacific Coast states, where she was winning by wide margins. It is the Electoral College, however, that determines the outcome of the presidential race.

When CNN announced Clinton’s concession, the networks had not yet called the major industrial states of Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes, Michigan (16) and Wisconsin (10), as well as New Hampshire (4) and Arizona (11). There were two other undecided electoral votes, one each in Nebraska and Maine—states that award electoral votes by congressional district as well as statewide.

By 11 PM on Tuesday, Trump had won five of the closely-contested “battleground” states, including Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio and Iowa, while taking substantial leads in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona. Clinton won only Virginia, Colorado and Nevada, while taking a narrow lead in New Hampshire.

Trump carried every Southern state except Virginia, which he lost narrowly, as well as the less populated states of the Great Plains and Mountain West, except for Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. He also won Ohio, Indiana, Missouri and Iowa in the Midwest, and took leads in Wisconsin and Michigan, while Clinton won only Illinois and Minnesota outright.

In the Midwest and Pennsylvania, Trump broke through in previously Democratic strongholds in the presidential race by combining large majorities in traditionally Republican rural areas with victories in smaller industrial cities that had voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. These included Eau Claire and La Crosse in Wisconsin; Saginaw, Bay City and Battle Creek in Michigan; Erie, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre in Pennsylvania.

Fueling Trump’s lead in the polls was a further shift by whites without a college education—characterized as “working-class whites” by the media, although many workers have a college degree—against the Democratic Party. While 40 percent of this demographic voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and he won a majority on their votes outside the South, only 27 percent voted for Hillary Clinton.

This reflects both the impact of the financial crash and the pro-corporate policies of the Obama administration on the jobs and living standards of the poorest sections of white workers, and the complete indifference of the Democratic Party to the plight of the working class as a whole. The Clinton campaign sought to mobilize voter turnout among black and other minority workers on the basis of identity politics, while offering no policies to benefit workers as a class.

Voter turnout was at record levels in many states—Florida alone saw one million more votes cast than in 2012—and there were long lines at polling places both in urban centers and in rural areas.

In the contest for control of the US Senate, where the Republican Party was widely expected to lose its 54–46 majority because 24 Republican seats were at stake compared to only 10 Democratic seats, the Democratic debacle was as pronounced as in the presidential race. As of this writing, only one Democratic challenger, Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, had ousted a Republican incumbent.

The networks confirmed that the Republicans would retain at least 51 seats in the Senate, guaranteeing their continued control of the upper legislative chamber. This puts a Trump administration in a position to determine the successor on the US Supreme Court to Antonin Scalia, the ideological leader of the far-right faction on the court who died earlier this year.

Heavily favored Democratic former senators Russ Feingold and Evan Bayh went down to defeat in Wisconsin and Indiana, and Democratic challengers were trailing in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Missouri, three other closely contested seats. Republican Senator Marco Rubio, a former challenger to Trump for the presidential nomination, retained his seat in Florida.

In the House of Representatives, the Democrats hardly made a serious dent in the huge 60-seat Republican majority, gaining only a half-dozen scattered seats.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Billionaire and Real Estate Mogul Donald Trump Wins US Presidential Election

Vote Machines Audit Function Disabled – and Worse

November 9th, 2016 by Greg Palast

For two decades, computer touch-screen voting machines have been derided as “push and pray” voting. You had to take it on faith that the machine records your vote as you intend. The machines lacked a “paper record” to audit and recount.

So, voting rights attorney Robert Fitrakis was thrilled to learn that many of Ohio’s voting machines would, for this election, have a brand-new anti-hacking capability. The computers could now take a photo of every voter card loaded in, time stamp each marking and keep the images in an order that allows an audit and recount.

But there’s one thing wrong with the new tamper-proof voting machines. “They’ve decided to TURN OFF the security.”

What? In 2004, Ohio’s “push-and-pray” machines produced suspect tallies that won President George W. Bush’s re-election victory over Sen. John Kerry—although Kerry had a comfortable lead in exit polls. And in this year’s contest, the FBI has raised fears of fiddling these machines by Russian hackers.

Yet, the Republican Secretary of State of Ohio, Jon Husted, is allowing county officials to simply turn off these security functions—with no explanation as to why.

The counties, Fitrakis discovered, “bought state-of-the-art equipment and turned off the security,” both the ballot imaging function and the audit application that can detect and record evidence of machine tampering.

Fitrakis, Green Party candidate for Franklin County Prosecutor, sought a temporary restraining order to require voting officials to simply turn on the ballot integrity functions on the machines. As a reporter for Democracy Now, I was permitted to observe, though not film, the hearing in the judge’s chamber in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in Columbus, Ohio’s capital.

Lawyers for the Republican Secretary of State as well as county officials from around the state gave no reason for turning off the ballot protection functions on the machines. Instead, they pleaded that turning them on “would cause havoc.”

Fitrakis, armed with a copy of the machine’s instructions noted that the “havoc” was no more than clicking on a drop-down computer menu and choosing “record” images instead of “do not record.” The menu has a similar yes/no option for the audit application.

Nevertheless, Judge David Cain, a Republican, ruled that Fitrakis’ demand was “borderline frivolous.” Counsel for the state’s GOP Attorney General argued, successfully, that Fitrakis would have to return after the election and prove the election was stolen. Of course, he’d have no audit trail nor ballot images with which to make the case.

Fitrakis told me, “It’s Catch-22. It’s Ohio.”

And the stakes are high. This is the ultimate swing state that could decide not only the Presidency but the balance in the US Senate.

Long Lines for Black Votes; Zero Lines for whites

On Sunday, I joined the members of the Freedom Faith Missionary Baptist Church of Dayton for early voting. All over Ohio, churches bus the faithful to the polls for early voting. Nearly 70% of Ohio’s African-Americans vote on “Souls-to-the-Polls” Sunday as many do not have the transport nor the day off to vote on Tuesday.

They arrived at the one and only early polling station and waited. And waited. And waited. And waited. The lines for several thousand voters at the one poll snaked up and down three floors of the county building and spiraled through the multi-story garage. At the end of the line they were given numbers to wait in an auditorium to be called to vote.

Yet, today, on Election Day Tuesday, when the majority of white Ohioans vote, there will be 176 polling stations in Montgomery County (Dayton) alone. For many whites the lines are not short—they are non-existent, with more poll workers than voters.

The system was created by that same GOP official, Jon Husted, who had permitted counties to turn off ballot protection applications on the voting machines. Husted had wanted to eliminate Sunday voting completely.

But Husted ran into resistance. I located Dennis Lieberman, until recently, a Dayton County elections board member. Lieberman told me, “We had voted, both Republicans and Democrats, for long [voting] hours on weekends so that people, like this” – he gestured to the church groups – could come and vote.”

But Secretary Husted was none too pleased.

“After we did that [voted for Saturday and Sunday voting], we were told by the Secretary of State that if we didn’t change our vote, that he would fire us.”

Lieberman and the others refused to give in. And, as a result, said the voting official, “I got fired.”

Secretary Husted has refused several requests for an interview.

The Purge begins of half a million suspected “duplicate” voters

Donald Trump claims that, the election is “rigged”—specifically because, “You have people …voting many, many times.”

Trump’s accusations simply repeats the claim of more than two dozen Republican state voting chiefs who have created a secret list of those suspected of voting twice or registering twice with the intent of voting a second time. Altogether, there are an astonishing 7.2 million names on the GOP blacklist, labeled “Crosscheck” by Republican operatives.

Ohio’s Secretary of State has a whopping 497,000 suspects on his list in that one state – and he is systematically removing them. Of these, approximately 60,000 Ohioans will find their names simply removed from the swing state’s voter rolls—and they will have no idea of the accusation against them.

Crucially, the list is racially loaded—tagging an astounding one in six voters of color in the GOP states using Crosscheck.

Voting twice is a felony crime—and, despite the humongous list, only one Ohioan has been convicted. Yet thousands are losing their vote.

Although it is “confidential,” our team obtained over 100,000 of Ohio’s blacklisted voters facing disenfranchisement. We spoke to several—and one, Donald Webster, agreed to speak to us on camera.

Donald Alexander Webster Jr. of Dayton, Ohio, is accused of having registered a second time in Virginia as Donald Eugene Webster Sr.

He claims that he never used the name “Eugene” – and he can’t imagine why someone would vote a second time when, to fix an election, he would have had to conspire with thousands of others.

So I asked, “Well, do you? Are you part of a large conspiracy?”

“No, no. No I am not, sir.”

Yet he and the other Donald Webster are at risk of losing their vote—and will not know why.

Rights attorney Fitrakis said of Husted’s “Crosscheck” game,

“He knows what he’s doing is illegal. What he’s doing is counting on bigotry to get away with it. He’s picking first and last names only because he doesn’t want to actually [catch double voters]. He wants to purge Blacks and Hispanics. And he’s trying to make Ohio winnable in the only way he knows how: by stealing American citizens’ votes.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vote Machines Audit Function Disabled – and Worse

Reasons to Risk Nuclear Annihilation

November 9th, 2016 by Robert Parry

Obviously, I never wanted to see a nuclear war, which would likely kill not only me but my children, grandchildren, relatives, friends and billions of others. We’d be incinerated in the blast or poisoned by radiation or left to starve in a nuclear winter.

But at least I always assumed that this horrific possibility would only come into play over something truly worthy, assuming that anything would justify the mass extinction of life on the planet.

Peter Sellers playing Dr. Strangelove as he struggles to control his right arm from making a Nazi salute.

Peter Sellers playing Dr. Strangelove as he struggles to control his right arm from making a Nazi salute.

Now, however, Official Washington’s neocons and liberal interventionists are telling me and others that we should risk nuclear annihilation over which set of thieves gets to rule Ukraine and over helping Al Qaeda terrorists (and their “moderate” allies) keep control of east Aleppo in Syria.

In support of the Ukraine goal, there is endless tough talk at the think tanks, on the op-ed pages and in the halls of power about the need to arm the Ukrainian military so it can crush ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who dared object to the U.S.-backed coup in 2014 that ousted their elected President Viktor Yanukovych.

And after “liberating” eastern Ukraine, the U.S.-backed Ukrainian army would wheel around and “liberate” Crimea from Russia, even though 96 percent of Crimean voters voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia – and there is no sign they want to go back.

So, the world would be risking World War III over the principle of the West’s right to sponsor the overthrow of elected leaders who don’t do what they’re told and then to slaughter people who object to this violation of democratic order.

This risk of nuclear Armageddon would then be compounded to defend the principle that the people of Crimea don’t have the right of self-determination but must submit to a corrupt post-coup regime in Kiev regardless of Crimea’s democratic judgment.

And, to further maintain our resolve in this gamble over nuclear war in defense of Ukraine, we must ignore the spectacle of the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev wallowing in graft and corruption.

While the Ukrainian people earn on average $214 a month and face neoliberal “reforms,” such as reduced pensions, extended years of work for the elderly and slashed heating subsidies, their new leaders in the parliament report wealth averaging more than $1 million in “monetary assets” each, much of it in cash.

A Troubling Departure

The obvious implication of widespread corruption was underscored on Monday with the abrupt resignation of former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili who was the appointed governor of Ukraine’s Odessa region.

A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

A scene from “Dr. Strangelove,” in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

Though Saakashvili faces charges of abusing power back in Georgia, he was nevertheless put in charge of Odessa by current President Petro Poroshenko, but has now quit (or was ousted) amid charges and counter-charges about corruption.

Noting the mysterious wealth of Ukraine’s officials, Saakashvili denounced the country’s rulers as “corrupt filth” and accused Poroshenko and his administration of sabotaging real reform.

“Odessa can only develop once Kiev will be freed from these bribe takers, who directly patronize organized crime and lawlessness,” Saakashvili said. Yes, that would be a good slogan to scribble on the side of a nuclear bomb heading for Moscow: “Defending the corrupt filth and bribe takers who patronize organized crime.”

But the recent finger-pointing about corruption is also ironic because the West cited the alleged corruption of the Yanukovych government to justify the violent putsch in February 2014 that drove him from office and sparked Ukraine’s current civil war.

Yet, the problems don’t stop with Kiev’s corruption. There is the troubling presence of neo-Nazis, ultranationalists and even Islamic jihadists assigned to the Azov battalion and other military units sent east to the front lines to kill ethnic Russians.

On top of that, United Nations human rights investigators have accused Ukraine’s SBU intelligence service of hiding torture chambers.

But we consumers of the mainstream U.S. media’s narrative are supposed to see the putschists as the white hats and Yanukovych (who was excoriated for having a sauna in his official residence) and Russian President Vladimir Putin as the black hats.

Though U.S. officials, such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, helped organize or “midwife” the coup ousting Yanukovych, we are told that the Ukraine crisis was a clear-cut case of “Russian aggression” and Crimea’s decision to secede (and rejoin Russia) was a “Russian invasion” and an “annexation.”

So, all stirred up with righteous indignation, we absorbed the explanation that economic sanctions were needed to punish Putin and to destabilize Russian society, with the hoped-for goal of another “regime change,” this time in Moscow.

We weren’t supposed to ask if anyone had actually thought through the idea of destabilizing a nuclear-armed power and the prospect that Putin’s overthrow, even if possible, might lead to a highly unstable fight for control of the nuclear codes.

Silencing Dissent

Brushing aside such worries, the neocons/liberal-hawks are confident that the answer is to move NATO forces up to Russia’s borders and to provide military training to Ukraine’s army, even to its neo-Nazi “shock troops.”

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

After all, when have the neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks ever miscalculated about anything. No fair mentioning Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or other lucky countries that have been on the receiving end of a benighted “regime change.”

An American who protests or even mentions the risk of nuclear war is dismissed as a “Kremlin stooge” or a “Putin puppet” or a “useful fool” repeating “Russian disinformation” and assisting Moscow’s “information war” against the U.S. government.

But if you’re still a bit queasy about risking nuclear annihilation to keep some Ukrainian kleptocrats in power, there is the other cause worth having the human race die over: protecting Al Qaeda terrorists and their “moderate” rebel comrades holed up in east Aleppo.

Since these modern terrorists turn out to be highly skilled with video cameras and the dissemination of propaganda, they have created the image for Westerners that the Syrian military and its Russian allies simply want to kill as many children as possible.

Indeed, most Western coverage of the battle for Aleppo whites out the role of Al Qaeda almost completely although occasionally the reality slips through in on-the-ground reporting, along with the admission that Al Qaeda and its fellow fighters are keeping as many civilians in east Aleppo as possible, all the better to put up heartrending videos and photos on social media.

Of course, when a similar situation exists in Islamic State-held Mosul, Iraq, the mainstream Western media dutifully denounces the tactic of keeping children in a war zone as the cynical use of “human shields,” thus justifying Iraqi and U.S. forces killing lots of civilians during their “liberation.” The deaths are all the enemy’s fault.

However, when the shoe is on the Syrian/Russian foot, we’re talking about “war crimes” and the need to invade Syria to establish “safe zones” and “no-fly zones” even if that means killing large numbers of additional Syrians and shooting down Russian warplanes.

After all, isn’t the protection of Al Qaeda terrorists worth the risk of starting World War III with nuclear-armed Russia? And if Al Qaeda isn’t worth fighting a nuclear war to defend, what about the thieves in Ukraine and their neo-Nazi shock troops? Calling Dr. Strangelove.

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).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Reasons to Risk Nuclear Annihilation

Donald Trump named former CIA director and extremist neoconservative James Woolsey his senior adviser on national security issues on Monday. Woolsey, who left the CIA in 1995, went on to become one of Washington’s most outspoken promoters of U.S. war in Iraq and the Middle East.

As such, Woolsey’s selection either clashes with Trump’s noninterventionist rhetoric — or represents a pivot towards a more muscular, neoconservative approach to resolving international conflicts.

Trump has called the Iraq War “a disaster.”

Woolsey, by contrast, was a key member of the Project for the New American Century — a neoconservative think tank largely founded to encourage a second war with Iraq. Woolsey signed a letter in 1998 calling on Clinton to depose Saddam Hussein and only hours after the 9/11 attacks appeared on CNNand blamed the attacks on Iraq. Woolsey has continued to insist on such a connection despite the complete lack of evidence to support his argument. He also blames Iran.

Weeks before the invasion of Iraq, Woolsey called for broader war in the Middle East, saying “World War IV” was already underway.

Woolsey has also put himself in a position to profit from the wars he has promoted. He has served as vice president of Pentagon contracting giant Booz Allen, and as chairman of Paladin Capital Group, a private equity fund that invests in national security and cybersecurity.

He chairs the leadership council at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a hawkish national security nonprofit, and is a venture partner with Lux Capital Management, which invests in emerging technologies like dronessatellite imaging, and artificial intelligence.

Woolsey went on CNN on Monday and said that he was principally motivated to support Trump because of his plans to expand U.S. military spending.

Trump gave a speech last week in which he proposed dramatic expansions of the Army and Marines, and hundred-billion-dollar weapons systems for the Navy and Air Force. He offered no justification — aside from citing a few officials who claimed they wanted more firepower.

Woolsey stood by Trump’s proposal on Monday.

“I think the problem is her budget,” Woolsey said of Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton. “She is spending so much money on domestic programs — including ones that we don’t even have now, and the ones we have now are underfunded — I think there can be very little room for the improvements in defense and intelligence that have to be made.”

Woolsey has previously called for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden to be “hanged by the neck until he’s dead, rather than merely electrocuted.”

In the past, Woolsey has publicly disagreed with Trump on a number of national security issues — including Trump’s plan to ban Muslim immigration. On Monday, Woolsey told CNN that such a plan would raise First Amendment issues, but that he supported a temporary immigration block from certain Muslim countries.

Thus far, at least, most prominent war hawks have found they had more in common with Clinton than Trump. “I would say all Republican foreign policy professionals are anti-Trump,” leading neoconservative Robert Kagan told a group in July.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Donald Trump, After Blasting Iraq War, Picks Top Iraq Hawk James Woolsey as National Security Adviser

Now that the 2016 election campaign is at long last over, an examination of the reckless, fact-free, innuendo-laden McCarthyite rhetoric which Hillary Clinton’s campaign surrogates deployed over the past several months is in order.

The first and most obvious point to be made is that the anti-Russia hysteria that characterized the election, particularly in its final weeks, did not come out of nowhere; in fact, it should be seen as part of a natural progression of the elite media’s Russophobia which took root in and around the Ukraine crisis of late 2013-early 2014 and led, almost ineffably, not only to charges of Russian election-rigging in the United States but in the identification, in the pages of Newsweek and the Washington Post, of Russian fifth-columns within the United States.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

How the Ukraine crisis poisoned America political discourse is by now well known. As I reported in The Nation almost 18 months ago, the cottage industry of unscrupulous neo-McCarthyites which has grown up around Washington, London and Manhattan in recent years has sought to stifle debate by bandying charges of unpatriotic disloyalty against anyone questioning the wisdom of U.S. policy toward Russia. (It bears noting that something similar regarding Syria policy is happening as I write, driven, for the most part, by the usual suspects.)

As one long time political scientist told me at the time, “The atmosphere here in the U.S. created by the Ukraine crisis is poisonous – and I say this having been an academic for 37 years.”

The millennial careerists who help staff the ranks of the New Cold Warriors instinctually reach for ad hominem attacks over reasoned argument – and in so doing helped make way for the tactics the Clinton campaign unleashed in 2016.

By the time the nominating conventions rolled around this summer, the Clinton campaign was engaged in a Twenty-first Century witch hunt against any Trump adviser who had so much as visited Russia. Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and foreign policy adviser Carter Page were both hounded out of the campaign by Clinton-inspired media smears.

Clinton’s campaign, which was run by Robby Mook, a 36-year-old hot shot who clearly relished his role as a kind of millennial Roy Cohn, repeatedly attacked former Ambassador to Germany and arms control negotiator under Ronald Reagan, Richard Burt.

Burt was singled out, not only by the Clinton camp, but by Salon and Newsweek, because he had served as an adviser to Alfa Bank, the Russian bank which played a starring role in former New Republic editor’s Franklin Foer’s thoroughly debunked article on the Trump Organization’s (non-existent) “secret” email server.

Yet what is most interesting isn’t so much the smears – phrases like “useful idiot” and “Kremlin stooge” which are mostly warmed-over fare from the first Cold War – but the mindset of the New Cold Warriors. How is it that these self-anointed crusaders for “humanitarian intervention” and “democratization,” these self-appointed enemies of tyranny, end up on the side of neo-Nazis in Ukraine, Al Qaeda and al-Nusra affiliate in Syria, all the while stirring up sectarian and nationalist pathologies across the Middle East and Eastern Europe?

Cold War Nostalgia

The first thing to recognize is that our New Cold Warriors suffer from la nostalgie de la guerre froide. The historian John Lukacs has written at length on this pathology. In his destined to be classic The End of The Twentieth Century, Lukacs cast a gimlet eye on what he saw as the tendency of academic and media types during the first Cold War to practice “anti-Communism at a safe distance.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin answering questions from Russian citizens at his annual Q&A event on April 14, 2016. (Russian government photo)

Russian President Vladimir Putin answering questions from Russian citizens at his annual Q&A event on April 14, 2016. (Russian government photo)

This tendency, according to Lukacs, sprang from two sources: first, from a “sense of self-satisfaction: knowing that one is on the right side, on the respectable side together with all of those right-thinking people.”

Lukacs, himself no apologist for Communism, also observed that this tendency is driven by “the exaggeration of the diabolical powers and machination of Communism and the Communists.” Substitute “Communism and the Communists” for “Putin and the Kremlin” and you have a perfect precis of New Cold Warrior thinking.

No better example of this tendency to talk a tough game against post-Communist Russia by academics and journalists safe in the knowledge that they will never be called upon to fight, was a conference convened by Franklin Foer’s New Republic in Kiev in May 2014.

Some background may be in order: The Ukrainian crisis – involving the violent ouster of elected President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 22, 2014 – escalated into a full-scale civil war in and around April 6 in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk. The Western-supported government in Kiev, depicting the indigenous anti-coup movement for a Russian invasion, sent its military and privately funded militias to crush the uprising in what was called an “Anti-Terrorism Operation” or ATO.

To some, it was a tragedy of the first order that Kiev chose war and missed an opportunity to earn – via negotiation and compromise – much needed legitimacy in the east for what was, after all, a junta government.

Yet others, like Yale University historian Timothy Snyder and the New Republic’s literary editor Leon Wieseltier, embraced the ouster of Yanukovych and were positively exultant; so much so that they wasted little time in making their way to Kiev, “rallying to democracy’s side.”

The conference, “Ukraine: Thinking Together,” featured several luminaries of the liberal-interventionist left including Franklin Foer; Iraq War apologist Paul Berman; National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman;  a founding father of Poland’s Solidarity movement, Adam Michnik; a historian of Eastern Europe, Timothy Garton Ash; and the preening cheerleader of NATO’s war on Libya, Bernard Henri Levy.

In a note announcing the conference, Wieseltier, sounding an awful lot like Christopher Hitchens in the run-up to the Iraq War, declared: “We cannot just sit back and watch Putin’s imperialism and repression. There are times and places where one must stand up and be counted.”

From where did this impulse to “stand and up and be counted” arise? Well, Wieseltier’s remarks in Kiev are revealing and are worth quoting at length. In his rhetoric we can hear a not-so-faint echo of Edward Arlington Robinson’s Miniver Cheevy:

“I watched the progress of Putin’s imperialism beyond his borders and fascism within his borders, I ruefully remarked to Frank Foer that the moment reminded me of what I used to call my Congress for Cultural Freedom-envy — my somewhat facile but nonetheless sincere regret at having been born too late to participate in the struggle of Western intellectuals, some of whom became my teachers and my heroes, against the Stalinist assault on democracy in Europe. And all of a sudden, pondering the Russian aggression in Crimea, and the Russian campaign of destabilization in Ukraine, I realized that I had exaggerated my belatedness. I was not born too late at all.”

That explains rather a lot. Wieseltier – and in all likelihood Levy and Foer – were suffering from a bad case of history-envy and saw in the crisis in Ukraine a chance to assuage their consciences and prove their worth on the world-historical stage. It is, it must be admitted, an odd way to go about it, socializing in Kiev with a Facebook billionaire, your friends and neocon fellow travelers from the magazine all the while homes, schools and hospitals in eastern Ukraine were being shelled to bits by the very government you traveled so far to “demonstrate solidarity” with.

Putin Hatred

If Cold War nostalgia plays a role in shaping the weltanschauung of the New Cold Warriors, so too does their uncritical embrace of anyone who opposes Russian President Vladimir Putin. The New Cold Warriors are, in effect, blinded by pseudo-solidarity for Putin’s “victims” like the crass performance artists Pussy Riot and the wondrously corrupt former oligarch-turned-sainted dissident Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

Screen shot of the fatal fire in Odessa, Ukraine, on May 2, 2014, that killed scores of ethnic Russians while Ukrainian nationalists cheered. (From RT video)

And then, of course, there is the new Ukraine where the government, so enthusiastically embraced by Franklin Foer’s New Republic, has embarked on program of de-Communization which, since Ukraine and Communism parted ways a quarter of a century ago, means, in practice, a program of de-Russification, with all that entails, including, a conscious erasure of the Soviet Union’s role in defeating the Nazis and a whitewashing of Ukraine’s ugly history of anti-Semitism, including the role of Stepan Bandera, the wartime leader of the nationalist OUN which was responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews and Poles.

As the magazine The Forward reported: “The whitewashing, now a disturbingly widespread phenomenon, ramped up in earnest after Ukraine’s 2013–2014 Maidan uprising and the ensuing conflict with Russia. On January 1, 2014, 15,000 ultra-nationalists marched through Kiev carrying placards with [Ukrainian nationalist Stepan] Bandera’s image and chanting OUN slogans; today, marches honoring Bandera, the OUN and Ukrainian SS units take place regularly across Ukraine.

“In the spring of 2015, Ukraine’s parliament passed a highly controversial law, mandating that Bandera and his groups be regarded as Ukrainian patriots, and making denial of their heroism a criminal offense.”

In a way, these developments were probably a long time in coming and have been facilitated by the effective disenfranchisement of a large share of the Russo-phone east. Consider the spike in nationalist sentiment in Eastern Europe in the post-Cold War years.

We return briefly to the historian Lukacs who observed in 1993 “a growing nostalgia and appreciation of nationalist Eastern European governments before and during the Second World War.” He observed that in the years following the fall of the Berlin Wall, “schools and streets” in Slovakia and Croatia were being renamed in honor of Nazi collaborators, while in Romania “the murderous Iron Cross now enjoys a recurrent wave of nostalgic prestige.”

The American media has willfully turned a blind eye to these similar and ominous developments in Ukraine (to say nothing of the recent torchlight parades in NATO-allied Estoniabecause what matters among the New Cold Warriors is to appear to be “taking a stand” against the Russian bogeyman.

Ignoring Reality

And then there is the inability or unwillingness of the New Cold Warriors to take realpolitik considerations into account when it comes to Russia. This is odd, since they are as of one mind when it comes to far more sinister regimes like Saudi Arabia, where people quite literallyhave their heads chopped off in the middle of the street in broad daylight.

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

But, they will say, the U.S. needs Saudi Arabia because a) they have oil and b) they oppose the Iranians. As arch-neoconservative Bret Stephens recently said in an exchange with Sen. Rand Paul on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” we are “lucky” to have the Saudis as allies.

Leave that nonsense aside for the moment: the point is that the facility to think in terms of geo-strategy abandons the New Cold Warriors when it comes to Russia and Vladimir Putin. And so, the fact that Russia does not threaten American interests in our hemisphere; that it did more than most NATO allies to assist in the fight in Afghanistan (via the Northern Distribution Network); that it was a crucial player in the Iranian P5+1 negotiations (which the New Cold Warriors probably hold against the Russians, since they are nearly all opposed to the deal); and that it brokered the deal to dismantle Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons program in Syria are all studiously ignored in their analyses.

In other words, panic and handwringing over the alleged “cyber war” aside, Putin’s Russia does not threaten U.S. interests, properly defined. Indeed, Russia has, whether we find its domestic politics and widespread government corruption distasteful or not (and I do), proved to be an important partner when its core interests coincide with ours – which is more often than not.

Interests should drive policy not ephemeral, so-called “shared values” to which the New Cold Warriors themselves only fitfully adhere.

Twenty-five years ago, one U.S. president sketched out an alternative path to the one that the U.S. has been pursuing since Bill Clinton took office. In a speech much derided by those who practiced “anti-Communism at a safe distance,” President George H.W. Bush traveled to Kiev on Aug. 1, 1991, to warn against succumbing to the siren song of ethno-nationalism.

“Freedom, democracy, and economic liberty,” said Bush, “No terms have been abused more regularly, nor more cynically than these. Throughout this century despots have masqueraded as democrats, jailers have posed as liberators.” He continued in a vein almost unthinkable by an American president today: “Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.”

Bush was prescient: the steady diet of Russophobia and anti-Putin hysteria now underway (and de rigueur among the New Cold Warriors) is fanning the flames of ethno-nationalist hatred within Europe. Does this development enhance or detract from pan-European stability and U.S. national security?

The answer is clear. And yet the new crusaders persist, and worryingly, as of Tuesday, may have a commander-in-chief who completely shares their views waiting in the wings.

James W Carden is a contributing writer for The Nation and editor of The American Committee for East-West Accord’s eastwestaccord.com. He previously served as an advisor on Russia to the Special Representative for Global Inter-governmental Affairs at the US State Department.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Anti-Russia Hysteria, Moscow Election-Rigging: Hillary Clinton’s Exploits in McCarthyism

Global Research’s Michael Welch reports from Columbus, Ohio

The pontificating about what happened on the evening of November 8, 2016 has begun, and will no doubt continue for years to come.

The mechanics of ‘stripping and flipping’ the vote is well understood. Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman have written extensively on this subject. The disenfranchisement of racially and economically marginalized voters who would likely have voted for Democratic candidates is a factor the pundits are not discussing.

Bob Fitrakis – lawyer, author, editor of Columbus Free press and political candidate, offers his comments on Trump’s victory in the context of a history of elites stealing elections, and a declining US Empire, with words of wisdom for American Progressives.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s Victory, “Stripping and Flipping” the Vote, Election Report from Ohio
  • Tags: , ,

El sobrino de Sigmund Freud, el padre del psicoanálisis, el periodista Edwards Bernays acuñó el término “relaciones públicas” como un eufemismo para definir sus artimañas.

Haciendo gala de sus recursos, en 1929 Bernays convenció a algunas feministas para que promovieran el consumo de cigarrillos fumando en el desfile de Pascua en Nueva York , un comportamiento considerado entonces totalmente descabellado. Logro incitar a Ruth Booth quien proclamó: “¡Mujeres! La lumbre de tu cigarrillo es otra antorcha de la libertad. ! Lucha contra otro tabú del sexismo!”

La influencia de Bernays se extendió mucho más allá de la publicidad. Su mayor éxito fue persuadir a la población estadounidense que para que aceptara la masacre que significó la Primera Guerra Mundial. En privado, reconoció más de una vez, que su metodología de propaganda era “ingeniería del consentimiento” con el fin de “controlar y regir los sentimientos, de acuerdo a nuestra voluntad, sin que las personas se lleguen a enterar”. 

Ésta técnica la describió como “el verdadero poder en nuestra sociedad” y la bautizo como “el gobierno invisible”.

Hoy en día, el gobierno invisible es más potente que nunca y peor aún, es menos comprendido. En mi larga carrera como periodista, nunca había visto como la propaganda manipula con éxito nuestras vidas y se queda sin réplica.

Imagine dos ciudades. Ambos están bajo el asedio de las fuerzas del gobierno. Ambas ciudades están ocupadas por fanáticos, que cometen atrocidades terribles, como la decapitación de personas.

Pero hay una diferencia vital. En un sitio, los periodistas occidentales informan con entusiasmo sobre las batallas y los ataques aéreos, llegando a describir a los soldados del gobierno como liberadores. Mientras la primera página de los medios están llenas de fotografías de heroicos soldados que con una V de la victoria no hay una mínima mención de las bajas civiles.

En la segunda ciudad -en un país vecino- está ocurriendo casi exactamente lo mismo. Las fuerzas del gobierno han puesto cerco a una ciudad controlada por la misma sexta de fanáticos.

La diferencia es que estos fanáticos son compatibles con “nosotros” -el Reino Unido y Estados Unidos- que les proporcionamos las armas. Inclusive estos fanáticos tienen su centro de comunicación y espionaje financiado por una entente entre Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña.

La diferencia es que los soldados del gobierno que ponen cerco a esta segunda ciudad son los malos, a los que hay que condenar por agredir y bombardear – que es exactamente lo que los buenos soldados hacen en la primera ciudad.

¿Confuso? Realmente no. Este doble estándar básico, es la quinta esencia de la propaganda. Me refiero, por supuesto, al sitio de Mosul por las fuerzas del gobierno de Irak, respaldados por los Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña y al asedio de Alepo efectuado por las fuerzas del gobierno de Siria, apoyados por Rusia. Un asedio es bueno; el otro es malo.

Lo que rara vez se informa es que ambas ciudades no estarían ocupadas por fanáticos y devastadas por la guerra, si Gran Bretaña y Estados Unidos no hubieran invadido Irak en 2003, una empresa criminal que se puso en marcha con mentiras, sorprendentemente similares a la propaganda que ahora distorsiona nuestra comprensión de la guerra civil en Siria.

Sin la formidable batería de propaganda disfrazada de noticias, el monstruoso ISIS, Al-Qaida, Al-Nusra y el resto de las bandas yihadistas no existirían, y el pueblo de Siria no tendría que estar luchando por sus vidas.

Algunos recordarán que en 2003, los reportajes de la BBC aupaban a un Blair, por lo que finalmente resultó ser uno de los crímenes de guerra de este siglo. Por su parte las cadenas de televisión estadounidenses promovieron con el mismo entusiasmo las falsedades de George W. Bush y de Colin Powell –respaldadas efusivamente por H. Kissinger.

El mismo año, poco después de la invasión, grabe una entrevista en Washington con Charles Lewis, reconocido periodista de investigación estadounidense. Le pregunté, “¿Qué habría ocurrido si los medios del mundo hubieran investigado y denunciado documentadamente aquello que resultó ser solo burda propaganda?”

Respondió que si los periodistas hubiesen hecho su trabajo con seriedad ; “habría habido una oportunidad para la paz y posiblemente no hubiéramos ido a la guerra en Irak”.

Fue una declaración impactante, ratificada por periodistas famosos a los que les hice la misma pregunta ; Dan Rather, de la CBS, David Rose del Observador y otros periodistas de la BBC, que por ahora desean permanecer en el anonimato.

En otras palabras, si los periodistas hacen su trabajo, deberían haber desafiado la propaganda en lugar de amplificarla, y seguramente, hoy en día, cientos de miles de hombres, mujeres y niños estarían vivos y, no habría ISIS ni estaría bajo asedio Alepo o Mosul.

Tampoco se habría producido el atroz atentado del metro en Londres el 7 de julio de 2005. No habrían millones de refugiados muertos o en campamentos miserables.

Como respuesta al ataque terrorista ocurrida en París , el pasado noviembre, el presidente François Hollande envío inmediatamente aviones para bombardear Siria. Como era previsible, sobrevino más terrorismo, producto entre otras cosas de la ostentación de Hollande que declaro “Francia esta en guerra” y “no mostrará piedad”. Que la violencia estatal y la violencia yihadista se retro-alimentan es una verdad que ningún líder político internacional tiene el valor de reconocer.

“Cuando la verdad se sustituye por el silencio”, dijo el disidente soviético Yevtushenko, “el silencio es una mentira.”

El ataque a Irak, el ataque a Libia, el ataque a Siria han ocurrido porque los líderes de estos países no aceptaron ser marionetas de Occidente. El historial de derechos humanos de Saddam o Gadafi no fue relevante. En realidad ellos se negaron a entregar el control de sus países. No obedecieron las ordenes de occidente.

La misma suerte esperaba a Milosevic una vez que se negó a firmar un “acuerdo” que reclamaba prácticamente la ocupación de Serbia y su conversión en una economía de mercado. Su pueblo fue bombardeado, y el fue procesado en La Haya. Un arresto de independencia de este tipo era intolerable.

Tal como WikiLeaks ha revelado, sólo cuando el líder sirio Bashar al-Assad (en 2009) rechazó un oleoducto ,que iba atravesar su país desde Qatar a Europa, fue atacado.

A partir de ese momento, la CIA planeó destruir el gobierno de Siria con los fanáticos jihadistas –que son los mismos fanáticos que ocupan actualmente Mosul y el este de Alepo y que mantienen a su población como rehenes.

¿Por qué esto no es noticia? El ex funcionario del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores británico Carne Ross, que fuera responsable de las sanciones contra Irak, me confeso en su momento: “Alimentamos a los periodistas con noticias de inteligencia convenientemente esterilizadas, o bien silenciamos toda información, Así funciona esto”.

La nación cliente de Occidente, la medieval Arabia Saudí -a la que EE.UU y Gran Bretaña vende miles de millones de dólares en armas’- en la actualidad está bombardeando y destruyendo Yemen, un país tan pobre que en el mejor de los casos, la mitad de sus niños están desnutridos.

Busque en YouTube y verá el tipo de bombas masivas -“nuestros” bombas- que los saudíes lanzan contra los pobladores de pobres aldeas de tierra y contra bodas y funerales.

Las explosiones se ven como pequeñas bombas atómicas. Codo a codo con los quienes lanzan las bombas desde Arabia Saudita trabajan oficiales británicos. Este hecho no es noticia, No la encontrara en el noticiero de la noche.

La propaganda más efectiva – para nuestro adhesión- es la que está diseñado por profesionales con alta cultura – Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia – y con carreras en la BBC, The Guardian, el New York Times, el Washington Post.

Estas organizaciones periodísticas son conocidas como “medios liberales”. Se nos presentan como tribunas ilustradas, progresistas, acordes con el espíritu moral de esta época. Son antirracistas, feministas y pro-LGBT.

Pero ellos aman la guerra.

Mientras se manifiestan en pro del feminismo, apoyan guerras rapaces que niegan los derechos de un sinnúmero de mujeres, incluido el derecho a la vida.

En 2011, Libia, un estado moderno, fue destruido con el pretexto que Muammar Gaddafi estaba a punto de cometer un genocidio contra su propio pueblo. Esa era la noticia permanente y machacona, Y… no había pruebas. Fue una mentira.

De hecho, Gran Bretaña, Europa y los Estados Unidos querían, lo que les gusta llamar, “un cambio de régimen” en Libia, el mayor productor de petróleo en África. La influencia de Gadafi en ese continente y, sobre todo, su independencia era intolerable.

Así que fue asesinado ,con un cuchillo por su parte trasera, por un comando de fanáticos apadrinados por Estados Unidos, Gran Bretaña y Francia. Hillary Clinton aplaudió esta espantosa muerte ante las cámaras de televisión, declarando: “Vinimos, vimos, murió!”

La destrucción de Libia fue un triunfo de los medios de comunicación. A medida que sonaban los tambores de guerra, Jonathan Freedland escribió en The Guardian: “Aunque los riesgos son reales, la decisión por la intervención sigue siendo fuerte.”

Intervención – The Guardián utilizó una palabra amable, cuyo significado real, para Libia, era y es muerte y destrucción.

De acuerdo con sus propios registros, la OTAN lanzó 9,700 vuelos de “ataque” contra Libia, de los cuales más de un tercio estaban dirigidos contra objetivos civiles. Estos bombardeos incluyeron misiles con ojivas de uranio.

Mirad las fotografías de los escombros de Misurata y Sirte, o las fosas comunes identificadas por la Cruz Roja. Un informe de UNICEF sobre los niños muertos, dice, “la mayoría de ellos tenía menos de diez años”.

Como consecuencia directa de la “intervención” , Sirte se ha convertido en la capital del ISIS.

Ucrania es otro triunfo de los medios de comunicación. Periódicos liberales respetables como el New York Times, el Washington Post y The Guardian, y emisoras tales como la BBC, NBC, CBS, CNN han jugado un papel crítico en el acondicionamiento de sus espectadores para que acepten una nueva y peligrosa guerra fría.

Han falsificado los acontecimientos en Ucrania, calificándolo como un acto maligno de Rusia cuando, en realidad, el golpe de Estado, en Ucrania en 2014, fue obra de los Estados Unidos, con la ayuda de Alemania y la OTAN.

Esta inversión de la realidad es tan penetrante que la intimidación militar de Washington a Rusia no es noticia; se ahoga detrás de una campaña de difamación y del miedo que vivimos durante la primera guerra fría.

Una vez más, los Ruskies vienen a invadirnos, conducido por otro Stalin, a quien The Economist describe como el diablo.

La supresión de la verdad sobre Ucrania es una de las más completas negaciones informativas de las que puedo recordar. Los fascistas que diseñaron el golpe de estado en Kiev son la misma mala ralea que apoyó la invasión nazi de la Unión Soviética en 1941.

Ante las alarmas sobre el ascenso del fascismo antisemita en Europa, ningún líder occidental menciona a los fascistas en Ucrania -con excepción de Vladimir Putin, pero esto no cuenta.

Muchos de los medios occidentales han trabajado duro para presentar la población de habla rusa de Ucrania como extraños en su propio país, como agentes de Moscú, nunca como ucranianos en busca de una federación dentro de Ucrania y como ciudadanos ucranianos que resisten un golpe de estado -orquestado desde el extranjero- contra un gobierno elegido.

No hay descanso para los hacen sonar los tambores de guerra. Los que incitan a la guerra desde el diario Washington Post, contra Rusia, son los mismos escritores de editoriales que publicaron la mentira que Saddam Hussein tenía armas de destrucción masiva.

Para la mayoría de nosotros, la campaña presidencial estadounidense es un espectáculo en los medios de comunicación, en la que Donald Trump es el villano. Pero Trump es odiado por los que tienen el poder en los Estados Unidos por razones que tienen poco que ver con su comportamiento y sus desagradables opiniones.

Para el gobierno invisible en Washington, el impredecible Trump es un obstáculo para el diseño de los Estados Unidos para el siglo 21.

Es decir; mantener la dominación de los Estados Unidos, someter a Rusia, y, si es posible, a China.

Para los militaristas en Washington, el verdadero problema con Trump es que, en sus momentos de lucidez, parece no querer una guerra con Rusia; dice que es necesario hablar con el presidente de Rusia, no luchar contra él; también afirma que quiere hablar con el presidente de China.

En el primer debate con Hillary Clinton, Trump se comprometió a no ser el primero en introducir armas nucleares en un conflicto, dijo: “Yo ciertamente no lo haría primero. Una vez que la alternativa nuclear ocurre, se acabó todo.” Esta declaración no fue noticia.

¿Que quiso decir realmente? ¿Quién lo sabe ? A menudo se contradice a sí mismo. Pero lo que está claro es que Trump es considerado una grave amenaza por el gran aparato de seguridad nacional que gobierna Estados Unidos, independientemente de quién esté en la Casa Blanca.

La CIA lo quiere nockeado. El Pentágono lo quiere derrotado. Los medios de comunicación le quiere en el suelo. Incluso su propio partido lo quiere golpeado. Él es una amenaza para los que dominan del mundo -a diferencia de Hillary Clinton, que no ha dejado ninguna duda que está dispuesta a ir a la guerra, con armas nucleares, contra Rusia y China.

Clinton es lo que la gente intuye, una belicista. De hecho, con sus acciones lo ha demostrado. Como senadora, apoyó el baño de sangre en Irak. Cuando era candidata contra Obama, en 2008, amenazó con “borrar del mapa” a Irán. Como Secretario de Estado, actuó en connivencia ,con los halcones, para destruir los gobiernos de Libia y Honduras y puso en marcha un dispositivo agresivo contra China.

Ahora se ha comprometido a apoyar una zona de exclusión área en Siria –en una provocación directa contra Rusia. Hillary Clinton puede llegar a ser la más presidente más peligrosa de los Estados Unidos en mi vida, una distinción para ella atroz.

Sin una sola prueba, ha acusado a Rusia de apoyar Trump por el pirateo de sus correos electrónicos. Los mensajes de correos electrónicos, dados a conocer por WikiLeaks, relatan lo que Clinton dice en privado a ricos y poderosos, es exactamente lo contrario de lo que dice en público.

Por eso el silenciamiento y las amenazas a Julián Assange son tan importantes. Como editor de WikiLeaks, Assange sabe la verdad. Y permítanme asegurarles que WikiLeaks está funcionando a toda máquina.

Hoy en día, la mayor acumulación de fuerzas encabezadas por Estados Unidos desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial está en marcha – en el Cáucaso y en el este de Europa, en la frontera con Rusia, en Asia y en el Pacífico, donde China es el objetivo.

Tenga esto en cuenta cuando el circo presidencial llegue a su fin el 8 de noviembre, si el ganador es Clinton, un coro griego de comentaristas necios va a celebrar su coronación como un gran paso adelante para las mujeres. Ninguno mencionará las víctimas de Clinton: las mujeres de Siria, las mujeres de Irak, las mujeres de Libia.

Ninguno mencionará los ejercicios de defensa civil que se están llevando a cabo en Rusia ante el temor a una guerra . Ninguno recordará a Edward Bernays y las “antorchas de la libertad”.

El portavoz de prensa de George Bush llamó una vez a los medios de comunicación “facilitadores cómplices”. Viniendo de un alto funcionario de una administración cuyas mentiras, facilitadas por periódicos y cadenas de televisión , ha causado tanto sufrimiento, esa descripción es una advertencia de la historia.

En 1946, el fiscal del Tribunal de Núremberg dijo de los medios alemanes: “Antes de cada agresión importante, iniciaron una calculada campaña de prensa para debilitar a sus víctimas y para preparar al pueblo alemán psicológicamente para el ataque con un sistema de propaganda, donde la prensa diaria y la radio eran las armas más importantes”.

John Pilger

 Articulo en inglés :

hillary-clinton-donald-trump

Inside the Invisible Government: War, Propaganda, Clinton and Trump27 octobre 2016

Traduzido por Rebelion.org

John Pilger, periodista y cineasta australiano

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on G​obierno invisible: guerra, propaganda. Clinton y Trump

A night to remember! Talk about an Alfred Hitchcock ending!  A future Hollywood film awaits about this year’s campaign.

Other than for Trump diehards, the ending was a real shocker, following months of one-sided media pro-Hillary advocacy – journalism the way it’s supposed to be entirely discarded.

My assessment of the outcome is as follows. Hillary, the establishment candidate, was chosen to succeed Obama last year, likely before she announced her candidacy.

Trump, an anti-establishment sounding candidate, unexpectedly emerged last man standing in a field of 17 GOP aspirants.

Election rigging in America is longstanding, fraud commonplace at least since the 1824 “corrupt bargain” race – John Quincy Adams emerging triumphant over Andrew Jackson, a future US president.

Bush v. Gore was the most brazen electoral theft in US history. Five right-wing Supreme Court justices illegally stopped the Florida recount (later showing Gore won the state), overrode his popular vote triumph, choosing Bush to be president – showing US voters are disenfranchised without their knowledge.

Deep state power brokers decide who holds high-level elected and appointed positions. Elections are easily rigged with electronic ease, voter-role stripping and other dirty tricks.

In my judgment, Hillary lost because power brokers decided she was damaged goods, too contentious to lead. They cut a deal with Trump, assuring he’ll continue dirty business as usual, perhaps cutting him a little slack – letting him win by fair or foul means, in his case likely fair because Hillary is so overwhelmingly reviled.

At 2:29AM Eastern standard time on November 9, AP News headlined “The Latest: Donald Trump Elected President.” It’s crow-eating time for America’s deplorable media scoundrels. Some early morning headlines are as follows:

New York Times: “TRUMP TRIUMPHS”

Washington Post: “TRUMP TRIUMPHS”

Wall Street Journal: “Populist Surge Fuels Trump Upset”

Chicago Tribune: “Associated Press says Donald Trump elected president of the United States”

Los Angeles Times: “DONALD TRUMP WINS THE PRESIDENCY CLAIMING VICTORY AFTER UNORTHODOX CANDIDACY”

Reuters: “Trump takes the White House in upset, global markets tumble”

Financial Times: “Donald Trump wins historic US election victory”

London’s Guardian: “Trump stuns world”

Haaretz: “Donald Trump shocks the world, elected 45th president of the United States”

RT International: “Donald Trump secures enough votes to become 45th US president”

Sputnik News: “Trump secures enough votes to win 2016 presidential election”

Tass: “Trump elected president of the United States”

Press TV: “Trump crosses finish line in White House Race”

Addressing supporters, he stressed getting along with other countries, among other remarks, his tone and demeanor remarkably subdued compared to how he campaigned.

Key is if he follows through on his pledge for better geopolitical relations. The greatest threat of a Hillary presidency is possibly waging unthinkable nuclear war on Russia, perhaps China and Iran to follow.

Trump wants to partner with Russia in defeating ISIS. Hopefully he means it. “I promise you I won’t let you down,” he said.

His triumph won’t end vicious scoundrel media bashing. It’ll continue, especially after his January 20, 2017 inauguration and begins governing.

Hillary abstained from addressing supporters Tuesday night. She conceded by calling Trump and congratulating him.

RT International said Vladimir Putin “(i)n a message to Donald Trump, expressed confidence that the dialogue between Moscow and Washington” will improve.

Sputnik News quoted the Kremlin, saying “(i)n a telegram, Putin expressed hope toward joint work to lift Russian-US relations from the state of crisis, as well as to address the pressing issues of the international agenda and the search for effective responses to global security challenges.”

A previous article said one issue dwarfs all others in importance – possible humanity threatening nuclear war under Hillary v. Trump’s sense enough to shun the unthinkable.

He saved the world from the scourge of her threat to humanity.  In the aftermath of Thursday’s vote, it’s a relatively safer place than if Hillary emerged triumphant.

Trump defeated Hillary by a 48 – 47% margin nationally. Gary Johnson won 3% of the electorate, Jill Stein a disappointing 1%.

Electoral-vote.com gives Trump 305 Electoral College votes to Hillary’s 233. Republicans retain House and Senate control.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on President-Elect Trump: Hillary Lost because Power Brokers decided She was Damaged Goods

This article was first published in March 2016 under the title

Ruling Elite Grows Desperate to Destroy Trump’s Presidential Bid

In the wake of the November 8 elections, it is important to reflect upon the prospects of a Trump presidency

*      *      *

This presentation examines why the globalists dread Trump as president. Like every human, Trump possesses his share of petty flaws and weaknesses. But the wave of exaggerated dispersions and insults slung on him say more about the slingers than about Trump. With this piece I’m neither advocating nor endorsing Donald Trump for president. Its aim is to simply examine the extreme reactivity coming from the elite to desperately plant another puppet as president fearing that an outsider of the Trump order could lead to a national uprising and revolt against globalism’s tyranny. Thus, it’s of critical importance for the American electorate to not be blindsided by the over-the-top cheating and nefarious barrage of subversive tactics being executed at the feverish, frenzied pace as we head toward home stretch to Election Day. 

Donald Trump is no saint. He was born with a silver spoon to a real estate developer father. He has enriched himself engaging in high profile real estate deals in New York and Atlantic City, and by the very nature of his profession as a real estate tycoon owning casinos, he has allegedly been involved in some shady deals.  

How much of his past will be investigated and uncovered in the coming weeks and months as he closes in on a possible GOP nomination for president remains to be seen.

Forget all the labels… Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, left, right. In 21st century American politics, they’re all totally non-relevant, meaningless sleight of hand, divide and rule weapons used by a handful of controlling families who’ve owned this planet for centuries with Europe’s Rothschilds and America’s Rockefellers most readily coming to mind. These ideological tags and labels have been an extremely effective means of neutralizing any and all potential threats from ever uniting to challenge or oppose the status quo power monopoly maintaining absolute control over planet earth increasingly during this last century. During the Great Depression nearly a century ago the globalist bankster J.P. Morgan boasted:

When through a process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an imperialism of [crony] capitalism to govern the world.  By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us.

Like the Democrats and Republicans forever squabbling to get nothing done in Congress as passable legislation that actually benefits the American people and not the special interests they’re beholding to. Since the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision six years ago, every powerful lobby group like AIPAC or every billionaire globalist can legally bribe politicians with unlimited campaign donations to vote according to their personal interests rather than the interests of the voting constituents. The Princeton-Northwestern study a couple years ago made it official, confirming that the United States federal government operates as an oligarchy, no longer the democratic republic historically taught in Civics 101.

The last US president that seriously threatened the ruling elite’s status quo was John F. Kennedy and Washington insiders within the shadowy government elite assassinated him and ever since have been firmly in control of America. But the turning point for the elite actually arrived exactly a half century earlier than 1963 with the passing of the Federal Reserve Act, followed eight years later by the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the raw power driving the aggressively imperialistic US foreign policy. Virtually every president over the last century has either been a blue blood Anglo-elitist CFR man, a Yale Skull and Bones-er or high degree Freemason, and if the president wasn’t any of the above, you can bet the vast majority of his key cabinet posts were filled with these elitist members especially heading the Defense, the Treasury and State Departments.

A covert group of shadowy figures have virtually owned the US government for a very long time. We just know more about them now than ever before as the elite’s designated handlers of America’s top elected leaders. The elite’s favored candidate for president this year Hillary Clinton (with Bill and Chelsea CFR members) unabashedly disclosed who she receives her marching orders from when she addressed the CFR fresh off its second branch office opening in Washington in 2009 after founding member the Rockefellers had donated the land and building to the CFR in 1921 as its original New York headquarters. Here are Hillary’s exact words:

I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mothership in New York City. But it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as hard a go to be told what we should be doing, and how we should think about the future.

But business as usual amongst the most powerful people on earth appear to be seriously disrupted should anyone but Hillary become the next US president. This year’s meteoric rise of populist presidential candidate Donald Trump as the eccentric, unpredictable, cantankerous outsider as of late graphically illustrates the desperate dynamics currently in play threatening to potentially derail the globalist New World Disorder agenda. Recent news events nakedly reveal the elite’s lowdown subversions to defame and undermine Donald Trump’s increasing popularity amongst the American disenfranchised have-nots. Regardless of his enormously vain ego, vitriolic remarks and ambitious thirst for fame and power, Trump poses a serious threat to the current power broking neocons entrenched in DC as the elite’s chosen puppets fast implementing its design for one world government tyranny.

Because Trump’s run for presidency in 2012 was viewed as laughable political theater that abruptly went nowhere, his candidacy this year was customarily dismissed by elitists as yet more court jester buffoonery, totally miscalculating Trump’s potential surge to steal their thunder. With Super Tuesday’s results now in, Trump the jester is Trump the most probable Republican nominee inasmuch as he’s on pace to legitimately capture enough party delegates to numerically secure the nomination prior to the convention just four months away. NYT has him with 673 delegates to Cruz’ 410.

 Meanwhile for the first time, Economist/YouGov Poll indicates the majority of Republican Americans at 53% now favor Trump over any other elitist club GOP candidate. The latest poll out of New York state has Trump winning 65% of New York Republicans’ support to Cruz’ 12%. Like no other presidential contender or front-running party favorite in modern history, Donald Trump singlehandedly threatens to create such havoc within the plutocratic existing global order that those at the top of the power pyramid will literally stop at nothing to remove him from wrecking their long plotted prize of a one world government.

So in the face of this “crisis,” what does the Republican Party establishment do? They bring their 2012 loser Mitt Romney out of moth balls to throw dirt in Trump’s face… pretty impotent response that if anything, will only increase Trump support. Yet no doubt Mitt will be hoping and waiting from the wings of the convention as their go-to loser again.

 Trump’s populist candidacy is acting as a catalyst driving the rapid changing dynamics of the American population that for decades has been lulled asleep allowing the dark forces in power to deceptively enslave them. Trump has brought more people to register and vote in the state primaries than any other candidate in modern times. A Pew Research Center poll surveying the first dozen state primaries show that near twice as many Republican voters are participating than did four years ago. But prior to delving further into the desperado, “stop-Trump-at-all-cost” measures the powers-that-shouldn’t-be are now conjuring up, a brief look at where American citizens are currently at shapes what may unfold in coming months.

Clearly US citizens who are too often the last to know are starting to wake up from their stupefied doldrums and dumbed down ignorance. Results from another revealing poll released earlier this year found that for the second year in a row, Americans view their own federal government as their biggest problem, not the flatlined economy, unemployment, immigration or terrorism. Four out of five Americans feels “angry or frustrated” toward their government that increasingly views its own citizens as potential terrorists and extremist threats in its lockdown of our freedoms. Two decades ago most US citizens saw the feds as a friend, not an enemy. But as we move deeper into the twenty-first century, those numbers have largely reversed, especially amongst Independents and Republicans. 76% of Americans accurately believe that Washington’s run by a few big special interests strictly out for themselves rather than for the benefit of all people. In other words, Abraham Lincoln’s “of the people, by the people, for the people” long embedded as a defining principle of our democracy, did in fact “perish from the Earth,” by PNAC design right after the Mossad-neocons’ inside job of 9/11 . 

People from not just the US but all Western countries are becoming increasingly fed up and angry with their federal governments, more aware of how they’ve insidiously encroached and stolen our privacy and freedoms and clearly do not represent our interests. In last weekend’s state elections German Chancellor Angela Merkel took a furious thrashing from her voting public after she’d welcomed with open arms over a million refugees into Germany. Increasingly the masses are waking up to the cold hard reality that their governments have been hijacked by treasonous puppets handpicked by the ruling elite and that national elections merely serve the deceitful purpose of offering the voting public an “illusion” of choice.

Trump’s appeal is tapping into this deepening divide between citizens and their oppressively dishonest and secretive government. Working class white males are his prototypical supporter, angry over feeling pushed around and disenfranchised by a government that doesn’t give a shit about them. The Trump campaign promise to make America great again and calling the political system broken due to selling out to special interests resonates with a growing number of Americans who believe Obama and Clinton have sold America out to foreign interests and the ruling elite.

Big business and big government are ruining the nation, and Trump’s volatile thunder is outcompeting the usual fluff and distraction fare that normally consumes the apathetic apolitical public. Even the latest antics of the Kardashian family, recent modern gladiator-big sports events and mesmerizing appeal of the latest electronic gadgetry the elite constantly serves up to preoccupy, hypnotize and otherwise deceive the dumbed down masses from paying attention to disturbing, elite orchestrated world events and machinations are no longer working as they always have in the past.

Meanwhile, instead of investing in the well-being of their own people living in Western nations, the elite has willfully destroyed the middle class, shrinking it to no longer be the majority population in America and refusing to maintain US infrastructure of highways and bridges as they literally crumble apart. Once the wealthiest city in the nation with its auto making empire, Detroit is another prime example of crumbling metropolitan infrastructure left to decay in apocalyptic ruin. With last year’s headlines Detroit’s water as a universal right denied its citizens for months at a time and this year nearby Flint’s foul brown water forsaking human health of poor Americans, these disgraceful tragedies are the story of modern America.  The globalists have willfully chosen to destroy America’s once vibrant, robust manufacturing sector that supported the world’s largest thriving middle class.

And now just as their climate change hoax with its global carbon tax presently being codified into UN law gains momentum towards global governance as a final step to formalized one world government, the elite’s uninterrupted programmed brainwashing and unobstructed, accelerated planetary destruction suddenly finds itself in serious jeopardy if an unruly, potentially uncontrollable outsider like Donald Trump gets elected as the visibly most powerful man in the world.

In recent weeks we’ve been witnessing an unheard of stampeding backlash of desperate name-calling, slings and arrows, all blatant, over-the-top attempts to assassinate Trump’s character, subdue, smear and silence his campaign, and even go so far as to plant the seed to assassinate him. A few weeks ago after New York Times columnist Ross Douthat in a tweet joked about how Trump’s campaign will end, both alternative and mainstream media had a field day reacting and speculating over whether Donald Trump will become a KIA (killed in action) while running for president of the United States.

Before he’s ever held an elected office, an ABC op-ed written by Australian John Keane is already calling the Donald a “demagogue and threat to American democracy.” The only threat to our so called democracy already killed it, and that’s oligarchy, something that one of six oligarch owned mega-media corps like ABC imparting its own biased, elitist special interest propaganda knows all about. The article drives home the common theme blaming Trump the candidate for violence displayed by the elitist Soros’ hired “brown shirts” as a staged setup that’s designed to then elicit demands to remove Trump’s candidacy and then suggests almost as wishful thinking the all too familiar assassination theme:

If the elimination of the same candidate for high office happened illegitimately, for instance by means of assassination – a disturbing but not an unrealistic possibility in a country riddled with guns and a history of political violence – would this produce equally polarising effects that kill off the give-and-take ethic of elections, perhaps even pushing the whole country down the path of un-governability, towards law-and-order rule?

See how the line of thinking goes? It’s not only sewing the seed but suggesting authoritarian control must be summoned to quell the coming unrest. This endgame scenario is exactly what the globalists are intentionally provoking and been preparing for a long time. ABC as part of the elite is engaging in more demonizing of the enemy as the pretext for increasing absolute tyrannical control… be it against Putin, Assad, Trump or violent Americans. Finally the author speaks in terms of how the elite’s choice Hillary should deal with “taming the devils of demagogic power.” This is how the MSM brainwash is spun in subtle and not so subtle ways 24/7.

The current and two former Mexican presidents have called Trump “the next Hitler,” perhaps the ultimate name in demonology. Longtime historian James Thurber whose expertise is American presidents says that such vehement reactions from foreign leaders against a candidate still in the primary season are unprecedented. Trump’s statements calling for a wall to be built at the Mexican border (despite the fact one already exists for miles in some places and that this sentiment is nothing new), after Obama’s two term open border policy allowing any and all undocumented illegal aliens, including criminals and terrorists, to freely swarm across the border (not unlike the unvetted MENA refugees coming into both Europe and America), many US citizens feel exactly the same way as Trump. And it doesn’t make anyone a racist to simply want the immigration laws already on the books to be practiced and enforced.

Trump is going for rhetorical overkill demanding the border wall be paid by Mexico, justifying it by citing the $58 billion trade deficit and subsidies Mexico receives. The trade deficits to China and Japan also provide trade war cannonball fodder meant to even up the trade ratio. Trump’s mission to balance the trade deficits includes offering incentives to US companies to return home, supply US jobs and increase US export products. With systemic offshore tax evasion and slave labor abroad driving the corporate profit motive, transnationals will stay short on loyalty to either the US or its people. But disenfranchised Americans like what they hear in Trump’s promise to “make America great again,” the same way that their “hope” was temporarily propped up by Obama until he got elected in 2008.

Indeed leaders from a host of other nations around the world have also expressed their upset toward the presidential frontrunner for what they regard as his racist views, among them Canada, Ireland, Britain, Germany, France, Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Of course these Trump critics are members of the same governments that per their globalists’ “multiculturalism” agenda have welcomed over a million refugees that are now overloading the system and potentially destroying Europe. And Israel and Saudi Arabia as the very home of Wahhabi terrorism, they’re about the only nations refusing to take in any refugees except for terrorists as two of the biggest supporters for both terrorism and the wars that created the migration crisis in the first place. And Turkey’s provided the terrorist safe haven and training ground. So in view of the harm that their policies have caused, none of them should have anything to say about Trump.

China’s party controlled Global Times chimed in, “The rise of a racist in the US political arena worries the whole world,” adding how the West electing leaders brought the likes of Mussolini and Hitler to power. This cheap shot comes in retaliation for Trump stating that he wants to start levying tariffs on China’s exported goods to America. The Communist Party leaders and state run media are having a good laugh at the “racist buffoon’s” expense, gloating how democracy doesn’t work. On another level, China should welcome a TPP-buster to the White House since the main thrust of that 12-nation Pacific trade agreement was designed to isolate and punish China by explicitly omitting it from membership. Trump has declared himself a nationalist vehemently opposed to all the globalist trade agreements like NAFTA and the latest TPP and TTIP that are the final nail in the coffin to America’s national sovereignty. He knows they’ve taken away countless American jobs and has promised to undue them all if elected.

Even the globalist pope who pushed the climate change and global governance agenda slammed Trump last month insinuating he was “not Christian” for Trump’s tough talk on immigration and wall building. Pope Francis supports the globalist agenda of mass migration regardless of negative consequences it’s currently causing in Europe wedging a racial-religious divide that could also financially break the EU bank. When Trump got word about the pope’s criticism, he said it’s “disgraceful” a religious leader would make such a comment, quickly pointing out the hypocrisy that the Vatican City has a wall around it – built to keep the Muslims out. A day later the Vatican spokesman became the pope’s apologist clarifying that the pope was not personally attacking Trump but was simply reacting to what he’d been told. Trump figured aloud that while Francis was visiting Mexico he’d been unduly influenced by Trump bashing for his “let’s build a wall” in a case of tit for tat.

Earlier this month it was 60 national security experts’ turn to take their licks against the Republican frontrunner. In a highly publicized open letter with chicken hawk and ISIS terrorist fraternizer John McCain, they all warned America that Trump would “diminish our standing in the world,” “making us far less safe.” Overflowing with fearmongering scare tactics, in their letter condemning Trump was found among the 60 signatures that of globalist Michael Chertoff’s, former head of Homeland Security. As an attorney prior to 9/11 Chertoff once legally represented a terrorist arms smuggler while heading a Bush commission on terrorist financing. This is also the same man who while in charge of Homeland Security also owned the company that won the bid to radiate you and me every time we pass through TSA airport security checkpoints and the mastermind of the underwear bomber false flag at the Detroit airport on Christmas Day. Turns out the young Nigerian Muslim wannabe terrorist was carrying out his patsy role wearing nonexplosive underwear meant to be caught as a CIA staged publicity stunt just to scare Americans into worrying about flying terrorists again timed perfectly so Chertoff could make his deal selling his airport X-ray machines to every airport in the world – all in a day’s work.

Speaking of work, it turns out that the NSA director Michael Hayden who just happened to let 9/11 occur under his watch of course also signed the attack Trump letter, he and Chertoff are now partners raking in big profits cashing in on their standup job as treasonous 9/11 conspirators peddling of all things a security consultant business. Hayden told the press that the CIA director could ignore Trump’s torture statement because “it’s against the law.” Back when General Hayden was CIA director (2006-2009) under the Bush regime, it was against the law then too. But Obama not only looked the other way and let Hayden and his CIA torturers walk free for their crimes, per whistleblower John Kiriakou, Obama only continued the torture practice after signing an executive order making it unlawful on paper only, not unlike he’s kind of going after the terrorists but in words only. So all the criminals went free but Kiriakou who let the world know about the torture and did two and a half years in federal prison for his good behavior courageously and morally trying to stop it. With that kind of miscarriage of justice operating every day in our crime cabal government, you can see that all these anti-Trump war “experts,” are nothing but bumbling war criminals and convictable traitors who have yet to be held accountable for their heinous war crimes, much less possess even a smidgen of any credibility. But here’s Donald’s response to General Hayden’s swipe:

I’ll tell you how good our military is doing under Michael Hayden and people such as this. We’ve been fighting wars in the Middle East for 15 years, 18 years… for four or five trillion dollars, we don’t know what we’re doing, we don’t know who we’re fighting, we’re arming people that we want on our side, we don’t know who they are. When they take over a country they’re worse than people they depose. Give me a break!

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Who is Donald Trump? Why the US Globalist Elites Dread President-Elect Donald Trump

As we go to press, Donald Trump is leading to becoming the next president of the United States, with a tense battle in the so-called swing states. 

We have published several articles on the role of FBI director Comey’s  letters to the US Congress and their impact on the election campaign.  

The final statement by James Comey issued on Sunday, 2 days before the November 8 elections exonerates Hillary Clinton from alleged criminal wrongdoings, providing a green light to the Democratic Election Campaign to uphold the integrity and honesty of their candidate.  

The media applauds in chorus without examining the details of the FBI investigation: the 650,000 Emails, the Weiner-Epstein connections, what is the content of emails, etc. Moreover, the fraudulent undertakings of the Clinton Foundation are not mentioned.

FBI Director Comey was instructed by the highest levels of government to confirm that Hillary Clinton was “clean”, despite internal pressures emanating from within the FBI.

While the email scandal as well as the Clinton Foundation have been “talking points” by the media as well as by the US Congress, there are two important issues which did not make the headlines, which are outlined below.

1. Hillary Bribed a Senior Official of the FBI

Amply documented Hillary bribed a senior official of the FBI,  who was then promoted to the rank of deputy director of the FBI. Following his appointment he was put in  charge of the Clinton email investigation. How convenient.

On October 24, the WSJ revealed that “Clinton friend [Virginia Governor] Terry McAuliffe donated money to a [senior] FBI investigator’s wife when she ran for office” . Governor Terry McAuliffe transferred the money on behalf of Hillary Clinton:

“Last night’s revelation that close Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe authorized $675,000 to the wife of a top official at the FBI, who conveniently was promoted to deputy director, and helped oversee the investigation into Clinton’s secret server  is deeply disturbing…

The fact that this was allowed to occur shows either outright negligent behavior by the FBI or a level of corruption that is beyond belief. The FBI needs to fully address these issues as soon as possible,The Wall Street Journal broke the story  on Sunday. The FBI has been under fire for not recommending indictment against Hillary Clinton.”(Breibart October 24, 2016)

We are talking about nearly half a million dollars from Clinton to the wife of  FBI official Andrew deputy director of the FBI  Andrew McCabe.

Hillary had bought out the police chief, who in January 2016 was promoted Number Two Man of the FBI and put in charge of investigating her alleged wrongdoings. How convenient. Needless to say Andrew McCabe was NOT the object of a police investigation. If he had things would have turned out differently.

Bribery of a senior police official by a candidate to highest office of the land is the unspoken truth, which will haunt Hillary Clinton in the wake of the November 8 election.

Latest election results indicate that Trump is in the lead… How will a Trump presidency handle Clinton’s alleged criminal undertakings.

2. The Clinton Foundation Received Money From the State Sponsors of the Islamic State (ISIS-Daesh)

The second unspoken truth is that the Clinton Foundation received money from the State sponsors of the ISIS-Daesh (Saudi Arabia and Qatar), while waging a campaign against the Islamic State (ISIS-Daesh).

“Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

Hillary Clinton is now on record saying Saudi Arabia and Qatar fund and support ISIS. So what did she do about it? She took their money, and sent them weapons, Made in America.

WikiLeaks have released an email in which Hillary Clinton admits that Qatar and Saudi Arabia – two of her mega-donors – provide financial and logistical support to ISIS.

Salon, October 11, 2016

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Bribed FBI Official, Received Money from State Sponsors of Terrorism, Trump in the Lead to becoming President of the United States

Global Research’s Michael Welch reports on Faulty Election Machines in Ohio which is a Battleground State

Late afternoon on election day, Prof. Bob Fitrakis received calls from election observers in Columbia. OH. (Eastern Ohio)

Several election machines were causing complications due to the tape rolls for each machine running out.

The following video was captured during a call with one of his election observers.

Latest reports at 21.40pm confirm that Trump is in the lead in Ohio State with 55% of precincts reporting.

.

Ohio Results at 21.59pm. Trump is leading by more than 10 percent

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Breaking: Faulty Election Machines in Ohio. Global Research Report

With each near daily bombshell blast in the final two weeks before the US presidential election on November 8th, millions of Americans desiring to understand the real truth of the “bigger picture” are consumed in speculation overdrive to arrive at a clear explanation of why these perplexing major turn of events are unfolding as they have at this critical time in history. In other words, beyond surface appearance, what are the underlying dynamics driving these critical events and decisions directly shaping both our immediate and long term future?

Foremost amongst these developments has been FBI Director James Comey’s (image right) letter to Congress leaked on Friday October 27th just eleven days prior to the election stating the FBI after Comey “cleared” Hillary last July was suddenly reopening its investigationover Hillary’s unsecured internet server based on new evidence found on Hillary’s top aide husband Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

Then from that bombshell came the torrent of speculated reasons why Comey would bother to reopen Hillary’s can of worms so close to Election Day along with predictable cries of foul play from the Hillary camp, like Senator Harry Reid’s proposed lawsuit allegedly violating the Hatch Act which prohibits FBI officials from influencing election outcomes. And now only two days before Election Day, Comey has once again closed the investigation with yet another feeble false claim that Hillary never engaged in anycriminal behavior, essentially assuring she will win Tuesday’s election.

On Sunday Comey wrote to Congress:

Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton. I am very grateful to the professionals at the FBI for doing an extraordinary amount of high-quality work in a short-period of time.

Comey praises his FBI for analyzing 650,000 emails in eight days, that’s less than one second per email. His flip flopping mind-fuck game strategically timed less than 48 hours before American citizens began casting their votes begs for honest explanation that we already know will not be forthcoming from a rancidly corrupt deep state.

What is absolutely clear based on released emails is that Hillary jeopardized national security repeatedly, a felony involving espionage that makes her unfit to even run for office. When whistleblowers unprotected by the federal whistleblower act serve prison time for far less, disclosing governmental wrongdoing of the worst order, and Hillary gets off scot free, that’s a travesty of justice that makes a mockery of our two-tiered justice system.

Secondly, Clinton even ordered her maid to print classified material.

Thirdly, Hillary and her top aides have perjured themselves repeatedly.

Fourthly, her “pay for play” racket with her Clinton Foundation in 2014 giving less than 6% to charities and otherwise filling millions into her and Bill’s coffers, even using it to pay for daughter Chelsea’s wedding, racking up yet more serious crimes. As of a year ago, their corrupt tax exempt foundation, which the FBI is still investigating, has swindled nearly $2 billion.

As Secretary of State she sold America down the drain to foreign state interests as well as corrupt foreign high-rolling bidders, arming the rest of the world for the global war she intends to launch against Russia and Iran. She even sold 20% of our nation’s uranium ore to her sworn enemy Russia. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf States gave millions in gifts to the Clinton’s unholy foundation after Hillary arranged sweet arms deals while she knew they actively financed ISIS terrorists, the largest terrorist organization that she and Obama created. That alone makes her and Obama US traitors for not only aiding and abetting the enemy but creating one too.

So Comey letting Hillary off the hook on Sunday [again] should come as no real surprise. The only real surprise arose on October 27th.

But the leaked contents from the NYPD investigators alleging that Bill and Hillary both participated in registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s child sex ring along with angry FBI factions leading an open rebellion against Comey’s weak corrupt leadership knowing Hillary was guilty as sin was what pushed Comey to reopen the investigation.

Moreover, recently leaked Hillary campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails include encrypted code words commonly pertaining to child sex ring lingo. Comey had far more to lose by not reopening it. So he did what all slimy technocrats do to cover his ass. And now that he once again has folded, expect those brave honest rank and file officers and agents from both NYPD and the FBI to risk their lives busting the murderous Clinton crime family wide open. The NYPD chief saying he will provide WikiLeaks with the hardcore evidence he said he made copies of or release it directly to the public himself. Hillary’s horrendous criminal track record and her rigged election have irreparably damaged America, staining our nation so corrupt and broken beyond repair to become a modern day Babylon.

Further tainting Comey and his FBI is his Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, selected to oversee the Clinton investigation. Just prior to his promotion to second in charge, the Clintons through their Super-PACS gave anywhere from a half up to a million dollars in campaign donations to McCabe’s wife running for state senate seat. This over the top conflict of interest also goes far to explain why the FBI leaders refuse to charge Hillary with a multitude of crimes for which she is so obviously guilty.

Just when it appeared the Clinton crime cabal was finally being held accountable, Comey once again succumbed to mounting pressures from the pro-Clinton forces, namely his boss Attorney General Loretta Lynch and her boss President Obama who both know that should the Clintons go down, so would they.

Obama and Lynch are equally guilty as corrupt servants serving their masters that insist on Hillary as their next presidential puppet, at least for a little while.

But Republican Congressman Steve King just said that Congress has access to all those Weiner laptop emails and will vigorously pursue investigating Hillary thoroughly where the FBI refuses, confirming she may be impeached on her first say in office. As the elite’s pedophile whore faces pending impeachment and jail time, the planet’s rulers would rather destroy America in a most egregious, humiliating way on full public display before the world. This method ensures that the US will become the global pariah receiving its karmic due for being the most bloodthirsty, bullying murderous nation in the history of the world.

Analyzed purely from the perspective that the mainstream media and to no small degree even the so called independent media is controlled by a half dozen mega-media giants owned and operated by six oligarch kingpins, the ruling elite is responsible for both engineering and manipulating virtually every major global event and development now unfolding anywhere and everywhere on earth as well as determining how each gets reported by the press.

Such tight control over both events and how they’re covered for the masses gives the public an extremely limited, completely biased and false information lens by which to discern the “truth.” And as such, over 90% of all news outflow disseminated to citizens of the world is incredibly locked in and controlled by just these six powerbrokers. This means very little truth has any chance of getting through to the people. And without the internet, there’d be no chance.

As far as CNN, AP, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA Times and Boston Globe go, divergent views amongst these MSM powerhouses are few and far between. During this election cycle they have all been flagrantly controlled by the Hillary crime cabal government with the possible exception of Rupert Murdock’s Fox and theNew York Post as the only Trump-friendly giants of the lot. In a recent study examining 588 news stories on the three major commercial networks, 91% of the news focused on negative Trump coverage while minimizing negative stories about Clinton despite WikiLeaks‘ relentless release of criminal evidence against her cartel.

But all this Orwellian spun deception and propaganda have not been enough to convince Americans that mainstream media tells the truth, which has only increased support for the outsider Trump. So in droves especially in the under 50 crowd are increasingly seeking news and information from internet sources, typically shared on various social networks like Twitter and Facebook although all the internet giants Facebook, Twitter, Google and Yahoo have been completely co-opted as invasive tentacles of an oppressive federal government, increasingly censoring, screening, spying and feeding the totalitarian control apparatus of NSA and Homeland Security. Privacy rights on the internet are now nonexistent.

But with the enormous email dumps that WikiLeaks has provided, the ugly truth of how corrupt and dishonest the political system is in America is plain for anyone possessing half a brain to see. And as shocking and lowdown as the sordid detailed leaks of our political machine so rigged by unscrupulous, immoral players are, exposing their cronyism, after nearly two years of nonstop email leaks, the American public has become desensitized to the sheer and vast amount of Clinton fraud and criminality. Similar to the saturation effects from mass media violence, sex and propaganda brainwashing generations through decades of social engineering and mind control, mass media consumers worldwide bombarded 24/7 are now living in a virtual world bubble, resulting in a dumbed down, detached numbness that has insidiously, unconsciously taken hold. As a result,passivity, apathy and short attention spanned escapism rule the day for mindless billions on this planet.

These are the globalized zombies, the walking dead incapable of critical thinking or expressing an original thought, glued to their electronic gadgetry, and lost to a virtual world non-reality superimposed on them by the earth’s rulers. By design, this sad and pathetic outcome is exactly what the elite wants us to become – docile, unthinking, obedient robots.

Also by preplanned design, America’s first black president has US citizens more polarized and at odds, divided and conqueredsince the Civil War along class, ideological, racial, religious and gender lines based partially on the cultural and social conditioning that’s elevated the artificial diabolical edifice of Political Correctness. Instead of free speech and freedom of thought, we now have PC thought police creating a culture of distrust, eliminating honest dialogue, coercing people to be afraid to express their true opinions and perceptions for fear of having their careers and lives destroyed by the militant PC machine led by the likes of Obama, his minions and his New World Order architects controlling both his and our every move and utterance.

In spite of a growing percentage of the global population turning to the internet for more objective news analyses and a more accurate accounting of reality in our increasingly truth-starved world, there remains a tendency to oversimplify power into a monolithic structure of totalitarian control when actually there are conflicting, competing, fragmented forces operating within both the government as well as the media.

Perhaps in the context of the on again/off again Hillary investigation, what we’re seeing is that dichotomy in action. Certain insider intelligence sources like Steve Pieczenik’s videos claiming responsibility for supplyingWikiLeaks (as opposed to the Democrats’ lame blame game of Putin) for all the hacked material incriminating the current deep state regime have been allowed to shake the tree but not tear out the  rotten roots of the elite’s power base.

Clearly at least some elements within deep state have made the decision to distance themselves from Hillary, moving forward to plant seeds of destruction designed to eventually take down the Clinton crime syndicate still entrenched in Washington. But the pervasive power structure behind her fixed presence in US power politics epitomizes her ruling masters, so in the end ultimately they decided to call off her rapid demise with another “no criminality” white flag issued Sunday by FBI puppet lackey James Comey.

So the American politic machine so thoroughly tainted, dripping in corruption still reigns supreme for Election Day.Electronically fixed voting machines combined with blatantly widespread election and voter fraud all meticulously put into place over this last year to ensure a fixed election outcome favorable to the ruling class remains unchanged.

As the long anointed successor of Obama as our nation destroyer, Hillary will finish the job he treasonously began. Yet that job was really the same globalist design operating over 50 years ago that pulled off the original inside job of the JFK assassination, eliminating the last vestige of an American leader truly operating on behalf of the people. So the then shadow rogue government that hijacked our nation in 1963 flourished under the JFK co-conspirator Johnson-Nixon Vietnam War era only to continue to seize unprecedented power under the globalist tutelage of Kissinger and Brzezinski throughout the seamless treasonous presidential dynasty of Bush1-Clinton1-Bush2-Obama-Clinton2.

Another key turning point in America’s downfall was the globalists’ inside job of 9/11. It became the preplanned pretext for their “new Pearl Harbor,” leading to their “endless war on terror.” After having secretly created Wahhabi jihadist terrorism with Saudi Arabia nearly four decades ago to fight Russians in the Afghan “graveyard of empires,” ever since the US has been backing terrorists and state sponsored terrorism globally while pretending to fight their mercenary terrorist allies in order to fully exploit “national security” as their false pretense for dismantling America’s rule of law – our no longer upheld Constitution that once guaranteed our civil rights and freedom.

Meanwhile, intelligence insider Steve Pieczenik is coming off as the cavalry to the rescue in several videos released this last week, taking credit for Comey reopening the Hillary investigation as validation of his counter-coup’s success. But now it appears it was nothing more than a brief weeklong tease as a deep state sendup suddenly giving citizens resurging false hope (and we all know how the last one turned out with Obama preying on our hope to ride his Trojan horse right into the White House). Instead of Pieczenik’s second revolution becoming the next shot heard around the world, it quickly died as the fizzle that never really was, despite touting that his “quiet bloodless revolution” promoting truth and justice will now just have to wait.

Comey’s Sunday announcement means that it’s back to business as usual in Washington with Hillary’s victory on Tuesday all but assured. The Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation projects the crime boss has a 90% chance of winning now.  Pieznezik has now backed off from making his initial bold counter-coup claim. Now he speaks in terms of someday taking the Clintons down and someday rooting out the evil elements in Washington. But we must realize that that “someday” will now have to wait until after the globalists first execute their Armageddon plan. Humanity’s once again back on the elite’s demonic path plunging straight towards World War III against Russia, China and Iran that will destroy America and its Western vassals timed with collapse of the elite’s Ponzi schemed global economy, that is if it doesn’t go nuclear and destroy all life on our planet. Tragically, it now appears as though America will go down first before the unholy Clinton-Bush-Obama trio burn in hell.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In recent years he has focused on his writing, becoming an alternative media journalist. His blog site is at http://empireexposed.blogspot.co.id/.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on FBI Director Comey’s “Flip Flop” Two Days before Election Succumbs to Pressures from Above….

When Prof. Bob Fitrakis visited  Ward 55B, in the largely black inner-city district  this morning he indicated improvements over the 2004 elections. No significant line-ups, or frustrated voters in evidence at that time. 

The Driving Park Polling Station, not too far away, also with a high African American population seemed mostly immune from significant interference. However, one concern raised by Suzanne Patzer, Executive Director for the Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism is that voters are being given provisional ballots at times when there are large turn-outs.

Provisional ballots are supposed to be used in the event where the voter’s ID is not sufficient at securing their residence in the district in question. According to Patzer, voters in past elections would fill out the provisional ballots and their ballots would be ignored.

According to one of the officials overseeing the Driving Park polling station,  47 provisional ballots were given out to voters, after less than a thousand had arrived. Patzer claimed this was an unusually high number.

Black Americans tend to favour Democrats.

Later in the day, starting around 5:30pm Columbus time,  reports to Fitrakis’s group started to come in indicating voting machine problems. These machines carried tape rolls which would independently track each vote. An election monitor at The Godman Guild Association station on East Sixth street in Columbus, a poor area of town located in the downtown area reported the paper rolls had run out.

There were similar reports all around town, including reports of touchscreens on the machines ‘freezing’ when pressed.

Officials told the monitors they didn’t have enough technicians to oversee the effort to repair the machines.

Contacts in other states are reporting similar problems.

Bob Fitrakis explained to this reporter that a certain amount of simple incompetence cannot be ruled out. But when pressed, he indicated that malfunctioning machines in districts that were majority black would discourage voters waiting in line and play to the advantage of Trump.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Breaking: Ohio Battleground State: Voter Registration Problems, Voting Machines Breaking Down. Global Research Reporter Michael Welch

DONALD TRUMP IS right — the U.S. voting system is totally rigged!

It’s not rigged against him, though. It’s rigged against people without much money, and people who are members of any number of minority groups.

Some of the rigging is by design, and dates all the way back to the Founding Fathers. Some of it is simply a byproduct of an economic system where the top 0.1 percent have almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Some falls somewhere in between.

Add it all up, and it constitutes a gigantic obstacle to regular people using their purported power to run our purported democracy.

Here are some of the ways in which the voting system is rigged, few of which are ever discussed in American elections — which some might say constitutes its own kind of rigging.

  1. You have to register to vote.

Between one-quarter and one-third of American adults, up to 50 million people, are eligible to vote but aren’t registered to vote.

That’s ridiculous. Why do American adults have to take a special, extra step to govern themselves?

Many other countries, including France, Italy, Chile, Israel, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, all register everyone to vote automatically. Not coincidentally, they have much higher voter turnout than we do.

The unregistered are younger, poorer and less white than registered voters. They’re also more likely to support progressive political policies, such as a higher minimum wage and a financial transactions tax.

The good news is that five states — Oregon, California, West Virginia, Vermont and Connecticut — now have near-automatic voter registration, and many other states are considering it. Hillary Clinton has called for the federal government to push all states to make it happen.

  1. Election Day is a work day

The less money and power you have, the harder it is to take time off from work to vote.

Many states now have early voting, but some do not. Even if you can vote early, the rules are different everywhere and often change. We should expand and standardize early voting but also, as Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed, make election day a national holiday.

  1. Gerrymandering and geography

In 2012, a slight majority of Americans voted for a Democrat for their congressional representative. Nevertheless, 54 percent of the elected representatives were Republicans.

This was thanks to both gerrymandering and the tendency of Democratic voters to live in dense cities. Currently Republican state legislatures use computer software to pack Democratic voters into as few districts as possible, creating the characteristically bizarre gerrymandered shape. But computers can also be used to create districts that look “fair” — i.e., compact and contiguous — and these would still put Democrats at a disadvantage because Democrats have by choice packed themselves into a few small places.

This is a problem that may not have an easy answer. Gerrymandering is to some degree in the eye of the beholder. Cities are probably going to remain highly Democratic. Some people believe it would be best to turn states into “multimember districts,” so that if the state sends seven representatives to the House, everyone in the state would get seven votes and would choose their top seven candidates.

  1. Many felons can’t vote.

6.1 million Americans can’t vote this year because they’ve been convicted of a felony. 2.2 million of them are African American; in Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia more than 1 in 5 black adults can’t vote.

No other country works like this. The solution here is simple: As in France, Germany, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Peru, Poland and Romania, everyone should be eligible to vote, including those convicted of felonies and even those currently in prison.

  1. Voter suppression.

Paul Weyrich, one of the founders of today’s conservative movement, cheerfully explained in 1980 that “I don’t want everybody to vote. … Our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

Republicans have taken this perspective to heart for decades, and are doing their best again in 2016 to reduce the number of people voting. Popular methods include purging voter rolls of eligible votersreducing polling times and placesrequiring photo ID to vote and voter intimidation.

  1. No Instant Runoff 

Instant runoff voting, which was recently used in the London mayoral election, lets third-party supporters vote for their first choice without fear they’ll act as spoilers and help elect their least favorite candidate.

Here’s how it works: Voters rank as many candidates as they like in the order of their preference, from first to last. If a candidate gets a majority of first choice ballots, he or she wins. If not, the last place candidate is eliminated – and his or her votes are distributed to the candidates who were the secondchoice of the eliminated candidate’s supporters. And so on. (If this sounds confusing, a Minnesota Public Radio video explains it in a clever way using post-its.)

In terms of this election, a Jill Stein voter who loathes Trump and lives in a swing state can’t vote for Stein without helping Trump. With instant runoff voting, such a Stein supporter could rank Stein as his or her first choice, Clinton as his or her second, and Trump last or not at all.

There is a built-in bipartisan consensus against any such move, however, since it would weaken the two-party duopoly that runs U.S. politics.

  1. The Senate

The Senate hugely magnifies the power of small states. Deep red Wyoming, population 582,000, has two senators. So does deep blue California, with a population of 38.8 million, 66 times greater than Wyoming’s.

That is so rigged!

The Senate’s ability to slow or stop change is why it was created in the first place. As James Madison, the main author of the Constitution, put it in 1787: “Our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation” and “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” The Senate, Madison said, should be the part of the government designed to do this.

  1. You can’t vote for the Federal Reserve

The U.S. economy is like a car with two gas pedals and two brakes. Congress controls one of each, but the Federal Reserve controls the others.

Its seven governors are appointed by presidents to 14-year terms. Even worse, the Federal Open Market Committee, which controls interest rates, is made up of the seven governors plus five members who are presidents of the regional Federal Reserve Banks. The regional presidents are chosen in a process that’s largely controlled by banks.

  1. Corporate America is more powerful than politicians

As John Dewey, one of America’s most important pro-democracy philosophers, wrote in 1931, “politics is the shadow cast on society by big business.”

This could be seen most clearly in the 2008 Wall Street bailout. Not only did the biggest banks have the power to destroy the U.S. economy in a way no politicians ever could, they easily forced the entire political system to stop everything and give them what turned out to be trillions of dollars.

On a smaller scale, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump hope to slash the tax rate on multinational corporations even though I’m guessing this is not one of your top priorities.Whew, that’s a long and depressing list. But don’t give up: That list used to be much, much longer, yet regular people have been successfully fighting to shrink it for 240 years. There’s no reason to believe we can’t make it shorter still or eventually eliminate it altogether.

So go vote! There’s a reason this list exists, which is that democracy is powerful and dangerous and lots of people want to limit it. Don’t let them.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Nine Ways the U.S. Voting System Is Rigged But Not Against Donald Trump

Al Qaeda will Vote for Hillary on November 8 ….

November 8th, 2016 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Image:  Fake photo of Hillary Clinton shaking hands with Osama. 2007 Photoshop contest by FreakingNews.com

First published on November 4, 2016

Al Qaeda is a fan of the Clintons who have supported them for more than twenty years. And before that, Brzezinski and Kissinger supported them.

Al Qaeda rebels, ISIS-Daesh, are unbending supporters of Hillary, because when she becomes President of the United States, “she’ll continue to support us, give us money and weapons, … “

“We’re voting for you, Hillary, on November 8. We’ll cast our absentee ballots from more than twenty countries where the CIA is helping us.”

“We’re not terrorists, we’re the “Moderate Good Guys”. We’re supported by Hillary Clinton, and Hillary is not a terrorist.”

“If she were a terrorist, we wouldn’t vote for her…  “

1. Hillary: Let’s Remember Al Qaeda…  

“Let’s remember here… the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago

let’s go recruit these mujahideen.

“And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.”  (Hillary Clinton)

  

And before Hillary, it was Brzezinski who was supporting Al Qaeda on behalf of the US Government…

 2. Osama bin Laden: “The Peace Warrior”

In the wake of the Cold War (during Bill Clinton’s Administration) Osama bin Laden was said to have abandoned the jihad. He was portrayed as a “Peace Warrior”, a Saudi Businessman involved in humanitarian undertakings.

 The byline of this 1993 photograph of Osama bin Laden,

describes Bin Laden as an “anti-Soviet warrior”  “on the road to peace”.

 3. Bill Clinton and Osama bin Laden: “Buddies”

Bill Clinton Worked Hand in Glove with Al Qaeda:

 “Helped Turn Bosnia into a Militant Islamic Base” according to a Republican Policy Committee Congressional Report.

At the height of the war in Bosnia, Bill Clinton and Osama bin Laden joined hands in recruiting Al Qaeda mercenaries and channelling weapons to the “jihadists” :

The Clinton Administration’s “hands-on” involvement with the Islamic network’s arms pipeline... [involved] The Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization … [which] has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. …

TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups.

(The original document was on the website of the US Senate Republican Policy Committee (Senator Larry Craig), 

emphasis added, no longer accessible, to access RPC Report click here

4. Bill Clinton Supported Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda Supported the KLA in Kosovo

Mujahideen mercenaries from the Middle East and Central Asia were recruited to fight in the ranks of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1998-99, largely supporting NATO’s war effort against Yugoslavia.

According to Ralf Mutschke of Interpol’s Criminal Intelligence division also in a testimony to the House Judicial Committee:

The State Department [under Bill Clinton] listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden” [leader of Al Qaeda].  (US Congress, Testimony of Ralf Mutschke of Interpol’s Criminal Intelligence Division, to the House Judicial Committee, 13 December 2000)

This did not prevent Clinton era secretary of state Madeleine Albright from Hugging Hashim Thaci, leader of the KLA (linked to the Mafia, on the Interpol list).

Several year later, it’s Hillary turn. Hashim Thaci is now president of Kosovo. He’s still on the Interpol list…

Many years later, Hillary with Hashim Thaci  

5. Secretary of State Hillary “Changed Sides in the War on Terrorism”: Weapons for her Al Qaeda friends

“The State Department under the management of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “changed sides in the war on terror” in 2011 by implementing a policy of facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-dominated rebel militias in Libya attempting to oust Moammar Gadhafi from power, the Citizens Commission on Benghazi concluded in its interim report. (Jerome Corsi, Global Research, January 2015)

“Secret Benghazi report reveals Hillary’s Libya war push armed al Qaeda-tied terrorists” 

Libyan officials were deeply concerned in 2011, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was trying to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power, that weapons were being funneled to NATO-backed rebels with ties to al Qaeda, fearing that well-armed insurgents could create a safe haven for terrorists, according to secret intelligence reports obtained by The Washington Times.

6. Because Al Qaeda is on the US “Terror List”, Doesn’t Mean We Shouldn’t Support Them…

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged that Al Qaeda and other organizations on the US “terror list” are supporting the Syrian opposition.

“We have a very dangerous set of actors in the region, al-Qaida [sic], Hamas, and those who are on our terrorist list, to be sure, supporting – claiming to support the opposition [in Syria].” [1] Transcript of Clinton interview on BBC, 26 February, 2012:   (Click here to watch video)

In the above 2014 Report of the US State Department, the following al Qaeda affiliated terrorist organization (among many others) are included.

Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi (AAS-B), Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah (AAS-D), Ansar al-Shari’a in Tunisia (AAS-T), Boko Haram (BH), Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Al-Shabaab (AS), Al-Nusrah Front (ANF), Al-Qa’ida (AQ), Al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), Al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)

All of the above Al Qaeda affiliated entities are supported covertly by US intelligence in violation of the US State Department “Terror List”

The State Department Report can be consulted online.

7. Al Qaeda are “Moderates”: More Money for the “Moderate Terrorists”

Clinton Pledges $45 Million in Aid to Al Qaeda in Syria:

[Former] US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the US would be providing an additional $45 million in “non-lethal aid” to the “opposition” in Syria, reported the Associated Press. Who’s the opposition?

8. 1700 Wikileaks Emails show that Hillary Clinton was Supporting Al Qaeda in Libya to Overthrow and Kill Gadaffi 

“In fact, Assange notes that the former Secretary of State was fully aware of the United States’ involvement in arming [Al Qaeda affiliated Libya Islamic fighting Group] rebels in Libya in a bid to help them overtake Qaddafi. Ultimately, it is alleged that those same weapons then made their way to the Islamic State in Syria.

“We came, we saw, he died”

9.  Hillary Also Supports the Islamic State (ISIS-ISIL-Daesh)

More than 100 pages of previously classified Department of Defense and Department of State documents implicate the Obama administration in a cover-up to obscure the role Hillary Clinton and the State Department played in the rise of ISIS. (Global Research, June 2015)

Source: screenshot Daily Mail

Screeshot Daily Mail 

10. Money for the Clinton Foundation Thanks to Al Qaeda

Hillary Admits Major Donors to Clinton Foundation Donors (Saudi Arabia and Qatar) ALSO Fund ISIS-Daesh:

“Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

Hillary Clinton is now on record saying Saudi Arabia and Qatar fund and support ISIS. So what did she do about it? She took their money, and sent them arms. Mainstream media won’t touch this with a 10-foot pole.

WikiLeaks have released an email in which Hillary Clinton admits that Qatar and Saudi Arabia – two of her mega-donors – provide financial and logistical support to ISIS.

Salon, October 11, 2016

In the extraordinary email, sent to John Podesta in 2014, Clinton lays out an eight point plan to defeat ISIS in Iraq, and mentions that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both giving financial and logistical support to the Islamic State and other extremist Sunni groups.

Saudi Arabia Qatar isis

“Hillary conveniently fails to mention that these two terror-funding states are both mega-donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Qatar has given between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and Saudi Arabia has donated upwards of $25 million dollars to the Foundation.

Wikileaks reveals that Clinton Foundation donors support ISIS

Nowhere in the email – sent, of course, through the notorious unsecured server – does Clinton address the staggering hypocrisy of continuing to provide Saudi Arabia with multiple billions in weapons, arms, aircraft, and other support in full knowledge of its active support for terrorists.(Baxter Dmitry, Global Research,  October 27, 2016)

11. “The Terrorists R Us”

From the horse’s mouth: “The new offensive was a strong sign that rebel groups vetted by the United States were continuing their tactical alliances with groups linked to Al Qaeda,” (New York Times, October 29, 2016)

Al Qaeda, ISIS-ISIL-Deash, Al Nusra et al  are the foot soldiers  of the Western military alliance. Their unspoken mandate is to wreck havoc and destruction in Syria and Iraq, acting on behalf of their US sponsors.

Al Qaeda is not only supported by Hillary, Senator John McCain has met up with terrorist leaders while on a flash “business trip” to Syria. (see picture right)

12. P.S. Many “Left Progressives” are Voting for Hillary.” The Nuclear Option is on the Table” and so is Al Qaeda 

“The leading lights of the so-called “progressive” movement argue that it is the left’s duty to vote for this neocon warmonger. But the consequences of this strategy may well lead directly to nuclear war.  

Hillary Clinton constitutes an existential threat against all of humanity.” 

(See GRTV with James  Corbett)

Author’s Note: The purpose of this article is “Counter-propaganda”, namely to break the lies and fabrications of the corporate media. To reveal the truth concerning Hillary and US foreign policy. “The Global War on Terrorism” is bogus.

Writing from Canada, the purpose is to inform, it is not to take sides in relation to the forthcoming US presidential election. That is for US citizens to decide upon.

This is a review of America’s “War on Terrorism” which is intent upon revealing Washington’s diabolical role as a “state sponsor of terrorism” and the use of terrorist entities as a means to destabilizing and destroying sovereign countries.

Hillary Clinton has played a central role in supporting and financing the Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists.

The twelve reasons presented in the article are carefully documented. They constitute a point by point summary. The purpose is to inform public opinion. Nothing more.

We nonetheless ask you to read carefully and draw your own conclusions. We call upon our readers to forward this article far and wide.

There is of course a vast literature behind these twelve points, which readers may which to consult.

Archive on US elections

Archive on The Global War on Terrorism

Archive on Media Disinformation and Propaganda 

Global Research will be initiating a Counter-Propaganda campaign. If you wish to support this endeavor, consider making a donation and/or becoming a Member of Global Research.


Michel Chossudovsky’s latest book entitled The Globalization of War: America’s Long War against Humanity can be purchase online

original

America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine —coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.

This “Long War against Humanity” is carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history.

It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy”.

 

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

Special Price: $15.00

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Al Qaeda will Vote for Hillary on November 8 ….

And just like that, Hillary Clinton is cleared. Or so it seems.  

For the second time, an FBI investigation has been squashed; an avalanche of new evidence swept under the rug by FBI Director James Comey. 

In his November 6, 2016 statement, Comey wrote:

“I write to supplement my October 28, 2016 letter that notified you [the Justice Department] the FBI would be taking additional steps with respect to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server. Since my letter, the FBI investigative team has been working around the clock to process and review a large volume of emails from a device obtained in connection to an unrelated criminal investigation. During that process, we reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State. Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.”

It took the FBI some twelve months to barely begin to analyze just 30,000 emails. And these are still being analyzed. Comey’s assertion that 650,000 emails were fully reviewed in just eight days is of course transparently preposterous.

Either Comey never were meant the material to be investigated, or he was intimidated into issuing a second flip-flop.  In any case, Comey is now a pariah, despised by players on all sides, as well by agents within the ranks of the FBI.

What now?

The skeptical view

In the opinion of former Clinton insider and whistleblower Larry Nichols, Comey’s investigation was a designed diversion, in which he would go through the appearance of opening a new investigation, only to clear Hillary of all wrongdoing and bury the case. Knock the air out of the opposition, give Hillary a final burst of momentum, and win the election.

This was a vicious con job that raised hopes, in order to utterly squash them in the most demoralizing fashion.  An energy-sapping wild goose chase, leading to emptiness. A masterful con.

In hindsight, Comey’s October 28 about-face seemed too noble, too hard to believe. Indeed, it should have been trusted, given the obvious connections linking him, a Clinton cohort, and the other so-called investigation leaders, all of them deeply connected to the Clintons:

  • Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, heads the private server/email probe is compromised.  After his wife, a political candidate, received large donations from a Democratic PAC headed by longtime Clinton colleague Terry McAuliffe, it is no coincidence that the investigation went nowhere.
  • Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik is a close personal friend of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta. Kadzik has been caught on multiple Wikileaks emails colluding with Podesta, who describes Kadzik to the Clinton team as “willing to help.”
  • Attorney General Loretta Lynch, servile to both the Clintons and President Barack Obama, met with Bill Clinton prior to Comey’s original announcement of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. After this clear breach of ethics, Lynch has been a handy obstructionist.
  • Obama also went along with the fakery, adopting neutral stance, all the while probably knowing that no new investigation was really taking place. He also wields the power to pardon Hillary Clinton in the event she is charged with anything.

The squashing of the investigation may have been a convenient method by which corrupted agents within the Department of Justice and the FBI could seize and control the incriminating evidence, in order to remove it from being pursued by honorable agents; to prevent these agents from doing their duty.

It may have also been a trap set up to expose the FBI agents who were showed any zeal in actually pursuing Clinton/Abedin/Weiner, in order to ultimately purge them. During a segment of a November 6 Infowars broadcast, Larry Nichols revealed on air that he just received a message from his FBI source that of five agents working on the Clinton case, two have now been “laid off for budgetary reasons”, and another will resign. The FBI team is dismantled along with the investigation.

This is how the government silences opposition, especially when crimes have been exposed and require a cover-up. This is how the Clintons and Bushes have always stopped investigations into their criminal activities.

The rank and file FBI agents, who have the evidence, and whose frustration forced Comey to “reopen” the case nine days ago, must now consider how to proceed. Will these honorable FBI agents mutiny? Would they choose to act in defiance of Comey, and “blow the whole thing open” along with the New York Police Department (which also possesses evidence against Clinton and her inner circle)?

Damaging information alone is not enough. A functioning law enforcement and judicial system, and a functioning federal government, are required, in order to act on the information. Clearly, the corrupted system does not function and has been commandeered by criminal forces. It appears to be over.

What about the alleged counter-coup on the part of military, intelligence and law enforcement, in conjunction with Wikileaks and other groups, that was supposed to stop Hillary Clinton? There is no sign that the counter coup, described by intelligence-related former official Steve Pieczenik, has succeeded. It is less than 24 hours until the election. Hillary Clinton is still intact, and she still holds a national lead over Trump, according to the mainstream media.

But the Clinton forces (which are connected to the Bushes) own the means to steal the election, including the technology, the voting machines, thugs manning the polls, and the corporate media. They will see that votes that are not for Hillary will not be counted. It won’t matter how many people turn out. It won’t matter if there is civil disobedience. In fact, civil disobedience plays into their hand. It offers the opportunity for the Obama administration to impose martial law.

Corruption and criminality are so deeply entrenched and pervasive, that it is over. The criminals have control of the system, and the law, and they have put themselves beyond reach.  Nothing short of a real revolution can “drain the swamp”. Are citizens truly ready to fight a civil war, and overturn the entire system from top to bottom?

 The hopeful view

Lost in the noisy gloating of Hillary Clinton’s sycophants is the fact that there are five open investigations, including the New York Police probe of Clinton/Clinton Foundation-related emails, the Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner emails, and a separate IRS probe into the Clinton Foundation. And this does not include the wealth of crimes that has been exposed by Wikileaks, to be pursued by law enforcement and government agencies.

What Comey refers to in his statement is merely a subset of material, the emails specifically “with respect to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server”, “to and from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State”.   What about the rest? What about emails sent to and from Clinton before and after her tenure? What about the Clinton Foundation? What about connections to pedophilia? What about the activities of Huma Abedin and the rest of the Clinton inner circle?

These and other ongoing investigations that will dog Hillary Clinton, even if she manages to steal the election. The election will be contested. Clinton will be opposed, vehemently. Any attempt on her part to crack down on opposition is likely to be met with even stronger resistance.

There is one more remote possibility that would cast Comey’s actions in a different light. Perhaps the counter coup has actually done its job, by having now publicly exposed the existence and possession of highly damaging evidence against the Clintons and much of Washington, capable of bringing the entire system down. The Hillary campaign did lose significant ground in the past week, while Trump has surged since Comey’s October 28 flip-flop. Maybe this “nudge” was enough. If the threat of exposure alone has been enough to force the Clinton campaign to “stand down”, even if the most damaging revelations never see the light of day, then the counter coup has given the Clintons and Washington a dose of their own blackmail poison. “Stand down, and we will let you go without exposing you. Or we will blow up the entire system.”

In this highly optimistic “peaceful surrender that leaves the system intact” scenario, which was suggested in the Steve Pieczenik video statement, the Establishment will permit Trump to win, and Hillary will be allowed to walk away like Richard Nixon: disgraced but not prosecuted.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Did FBI Director Comey Seal the Election for Hillary Clinton? Eleventh Hour Con Job or Something Else?

Sweden’s Business with Clinton Foundation in a Geopolitical Context

November 8th, 2016 by Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli

Ensuing a brief characterization of ties maintained between Sweden and the Hillary Clinton-led US Department, and summarily reviewing the Swedish political and media consensus on this and related issues, I present a list of Swedish state-owned and private companies contributing in the monetary transactions of the Clinton Foundation. The question is whether these were always ‘donations’ from the Swedish government, or corporations, or whether they were an exchange for favors that resulted in investments for both sides.

One illustration of the geopolitical/financial quid pro quo arising between the Swedish donors and the Clinton Foundation (or US State Department at the time) is provided by the deal represented by the giant Swedish company Ericsson. The company Ericsson paid nearly six million dollars to Bill Clinton for one speech, and, coincidentally, the US government excluded Ericsson from the list of companies banned for doing business with Iran.

Another main ‘donor’ is the Lundin Foundation (Lundin Oil). The Lundin Oil Company, where Carl Bildt was a board member 2000-2006, operated mining exploitation in South Africa in spite the UN boycott against the apartheid regime [See “A Nigger is a Nigger and a Swede is a Swede…“]. Adolf H. Lundin was once asked if he would have done business with Hitler, he replied, “That I certainly would have done.”  Adolf H. and Mrs Lundin were first-row guests at the White House in an older presidential installation.

sweden-clinton-foundation-illustration-sascha-klasanIllustration by Sascha Klasan; source: Omvärlden

The Clinton Doctrine and Sweden

The collaboration of the Swedish state and Swedish corporations with the Clinton Foundation and in particular with Hillary Clinton, is probably the largest in Europe considered per capita. It is not a purely monetary or financial connection. It is above all an ideological allegiance to the ex secretary of State geopolitical agenda. One illustration would be what – for instance in Middle East contexts – we have called the “Clinton doctrine”; namely, the strategy deployed by Hillary Clinton towards the replacement of secular governments by fundamentalist Islamic dictatorships.

For those endeavours it has been required arms dealing and providing, financing and training – directly or by proxy – towards the forces designed by the US agencies to depose the targeted secular regimes. [See in The Indicter, “Sweden’s unethical – and unlawful ­­– arms deals with ISIS-backing Saudis“, and “New Swedish arms deal with UAE will help bombing Yemen – Sweden following H. Clinton’s doctrine“]

There is nowadays a general consensus that the above was the modus operandi by which ISIS started, or Kaddafi succumbed, or the Yemen and Syria wars are now waged. Eventually, Hillary Clinton has admitted, “The people we’re ‘fighting’ today, we funded twenty years ago.”

Whether the initiative for this geopolitical agenda has been the initiative of Clinton, or vice versa, it was the implementation by the State Department of a design attached to state-donors and their respective country corporations, it is difficult to assess. Nevertheless, regarding countries in the Middle East, we have the testimony of Senator Richard Black on video [Click on image below for the video clip], which explains the government-shifts in the area on the great connection, “financial and otherwise”, of Hillary Clinton “with tyrannies of the Arab word.” The donations from Arab countries have consisted mainly from Saudi, Qatar and Morocco royal houses.

senator-black-the-indicter-channel

Sweden, for its part, has been a devoted instrument in the implementation of the formerly (Clinton’s) US department enterprises, militarily included. Eventually, the full defense strategy of Sweden was changed under the Reinfeldt/Bildt government, where the army was converted in a battalion-system to mainly operate in occupation wars under US-military lead. This was the case of Afghanistan. As one of the very few countries still contributing with troops placed under US-command in Afghanistan, Sweden was the only country which complied with the request from the US to the governments participating in the Afghanistan occupation to initiate a prosecution of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in August 2010.

Not to mention Clinton’s initiative of a no-fly zone in Libya, and bombing of the Libyans, which was implemented with participation of the Swedish air force. A striking feature – typically Swedish – was that all the established political parties, including the former communists [now the Left Party (Vänster)], approved in Parliament the Clinton proposition that was presented to them by the FM Carl Bildt. Only the Sweden Democrats, a small party at the time, opposed the participation of Sweden in the Libya military operation.

WikiLeaks

wikileaks-swedish-government-hid-anti-terror-operations

he organization WikiLeaks has not only published the ‘Diplomatic Cables’ which referred to activities of a variety of embassies under Clinton’s official leadership, including the Stockholm mission but also the exposures of the secret Intel agreements – on the back of the Swedish Parliament – between US agencies and the Swedish government. It should be also mentioned that several Swedish politicians, both from the right-wing (such as Carl Bildt) as well the center-left social democrats (such as the current Parliament speaker Urban Ahlin) figured prominently in the Diplomatic cables disclosures regarding their secretive talks with the representatives of Clinton’s State Department.

WikiLeaks also contributed to the exposures of a secret arms deal between Sweden and Saudi Arabia: FOA, an institution directly under the Swedish ministry of defense and in close interdependence with the Swedish arms industry; The cover Swedish activity was also initiated about the time Hillary Clinton was US State Department Secretary and the secret planning consisted in the construction of an arm factory in Saudi Arabia. It was for the production of “weapons of point”, of the type used by ISIS forces against the Iraq or Syria armies.

The duck-pond

And finally we have the Swedish media, an important factor in the pro-Clinton collaboration done in detriment of Sweden’s national interest.

The Swedish media, from the perspective of ownership, can be characterized as a plain monopoly: partly the state-owned monopoly (Swedish TV and Radio) and the two monopolies in control of most private stream media (Bonniers and Schibsted groups). A principal issue is that Swedish journalists, regardless in which state or private monopolies they are employed, have in the main a consensual, uniform and journalistic production characterized by a cultural e ideological subservience to the US interests represented by the Hillary Clinton ideology. Although this phenomenon was already evident during the trial by media against Julian Assange in Sweden, it has also portrayed the phobic media stances against Russia, exacerbated after the US-led putsch in Ukraine. This was an event in which the Swedish FM of the time, Carl Bildt, participated, instigated and vividly defended in Sweden. The Swedish media simply followed suit. And now of course the Swedish mainstream media are “all against Trump”.

Sweden and the Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton Foundation has currently its own enterprise in Sweden, where funds are collected even directly, through being a recipient of the Swedish Postcode Lottery (Postkodlotteriet). The Swedish Clinton-institution is called theWilliam J. Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse, and according to Washington Post, this Swedish entity “was never disclosed to or cleared by State Department ethics officials, even though one of its largest sources of donations was a Swedish government-sanctioned lottery.”

wl-swe-clinton-found

The contribution made by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), a governmental organization under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has a special significance, because that collaboration will continue at least until 2019, regardless the destiny the Clinton Foundation as such. Namely, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency donates to Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), where in its board of directors is found both Chelsea and Bill Clinton. The Board of directors chair is Bruce Lindsey, which is also member of the board in the Clinton Foundation.

The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency entanglement with the Clinton’s CHAI began in 2011. The Swedish state agency has paid to CHAI 150 million SEK. Another 75 million SEK have been promised.

A main Swedish donor to the Clinton Foundation is the Lundin Foundation. The Lundin Oil Company, in which board of directors sat Carl Bildt between 2000 and 2006, contributed with 100 million dollars to Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a part of the Clinton Foundation.

The Lundin Oil Company has been reported as having a sinister record in its Africa operations. The International Public Prosecution Office in Stockholm opened in 2010 a criminal investigation regarding Lundin Petroleum’s operations in Sudan.  In concrete, the investigation refers “crimes against humanity in Sudan 1997-2003.”

Another donor is the institution Postkodlotteriet, which, according to the Foundation’s homepage has given them from 1 to 5 million dollars between 2007 and 2010. The Swedish right wing paper SvD gives a figure of 6,5 million SEK; but according to a report by Erik Halkjaer in Omvärlden, the Clinton Foundation has received 73 million SEK from Postkodlotteriet.

Sweden’s largest bank, Swedbank, has retained its partnership with Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), a part of the Clinton Foundation. Both Ericsson and Swedbank have paid to CGI annual membership fees of 20,000 dollars. The Omvärlden report mentions that through its partnership med CGI, Swedbank’s wealthier clients had the opportunity to invest in the projects of CGI.

In these exchanges between Sweden and the Clinton Foundation –as we saw above, with participation of both state and corporate ‘donors’– the catch for Sweden has been a) privileged treatment by Hillary Clinton’s State Department towards Swedish companies (e.g. the case of Ericsson, that could continue having profits in Iran), and b) the support of Clinton’s State Department to Sweden’s positions at international forums. One illustration of this is the active support displayed by the US State Department in favor of Sweden’s candidacy to a seat  at the UN Human Rights Council in 2012. In spite of this support Sweden was not elected; in fact, Sweden received the lowest number of preferences in the voting.

But the allegiance to the Clinton doctrine, and the Swedish flow of cash to the Clinton Foundation has continued unabated until this day.

Sources

Diplomatic Cables, Podesta Emails

“A nigger is a nigger and a Swede is a Swede”. Top leaders of Sweden’s second largest party stating position on Mandela’s struggle against apartheid

“Analysis: Snowden document reveals Swedish prosecution of Assange was requested by the U.S.”

“Sweden versus Assange – Insider Analyses. Part II: Exporting Sweden’s “gender” perspective model”

Sweden’s unethical – and unlawful ­­– arms deals with ISIS-backing Saudis

New Swedish arms deal with UAE will help bombing Yemen – Sweden following H. Clinton’s doctrine

Criticism to Bildt’s foreign policy widens in Sweden

 

Professor Dr med Marcello Ferrada de Noli is chairman of Swedish Doctors for Human Rights and Editor-in-Chief of The Indicter. Also publisher of The Professors’ Blog, and CEO of Libertarian Books – Sweden. Author of Sweden VS. Assange – Human Rights Issues.

Reachable via email at [email protected][email protected]

Follow the professor on Twitter at @Professorsblogg

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sweden’s Business with Clinton Foundation in a Geopolitical Context

As if further proof could possibly be needed of the sorry state of the American electoral process, a new study just ranked the United States dead last in electoral integrity among established Western democracies.

The Electoral Integrity Project (EIP)’s 2015 Year in Elections report is an independent research project by 2,000 elections experts from Harvard University and the University of Sydney in Australia assembled to examine the world’s elections.

The EIP states that “the core notion of ‘electoral integrity’ refers to agreed international principles and standards of elections, applying universally to all countries worldwide throughout the electoral cycle, including during the pre-electoral period, the campaign, and on polling day and its aftermath. Conversely, ‘electoral malpractice’ refers to violations of electoral integrity.”

The report gathers assessments from over 2,000 experts to evaluate the perceived integrity of all 180 national parliamentary and presidential contests held between July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2015 in 139 countries worldwide. These include 54 national elections held last year.

“Forty experts were asked to assess each election by answering 49 questions. The overall 100-point Perceptions of Electoral Integrity (PEI) index is constructed by summing up the responses,” Salon explained.

According to the EIP, U.S. elections scored lower than Argentina, South Africa, Tunisia, and Rwanda — and strikingly lower than even Brazil. Specifically compared to Western democracies, U.S. elections scored the lowest, slightly worse than the U.K., while Denmark and Finland topped the list.

But, while certainly revealing, the U.S.’ low ranking — which places the nation in the second, or “good,” tier and perilously close to the “moderate” third tier of five possible — could hardly come as a shock to Americans.

Indeed, the 2016 elections have proven the system so rigged, even those who’d previously still harbored illusions our democracy is fair, have begun to come to terms with the truth: the political establishment’s corporatist plutocrats choose their own to install in the White House every four years.

Hillary Clinton ‘winning’ Wyoming’s primary despite being summarily trounced by Bernie Sanders in the popular vote — with her 44 percent to his 56 percent — simply evidence the latest example of the farcical illusion of choice revealed by EIP. Superdelegates — who aren’t beholden to vote for a candidate according to the popular choice and could potentially sway the nomination — are causing an even greater uproar among Democrats fed up with the establishment’s obvious favorite candidate, Hillary.

On the other side of the political spectrum, Trump’s challenge to the status quo has incited a furious scramble by the GOP establishment intent to thwart his nomination — no matter his sizable popular support. With rumors flying of a contested or brokered Republican National Convention, it’s possible the establishment will succeed — despite Trump’s own prediction the move will incite riots. To wit, Trump called out the delegate system as “rigged” on Thursday, following Colorado’s lack of primary and subsequent choice to award all of its delegates to Ted Cruz.

Though voting ostensibly remains a right instead of a privilege, as highlighted by John Oliver recently, voter ID laws have drastically curtailed people’s ability to simply vote for the leader of their choosing under the guise of fighting (effectively nonexistent) voter fraud. Even further to the point, many states requiring IDs to vote have such wildly inaccurate voter records that many people end up turned away at the polls — in some cases, when their information hadn’t changed since the previous election.

Though reasons why the United States has reached this new low in fair elections are complex, critics often point to the tidal wave of corporate cash after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. But this may be somewhat misguided. Would removing cash automatically bring some voting power back to the public? Perhaps to an extent. But it also ignores the will of the establishment to ensure its rulers always win — in other words, where there’s a will there’s a way.

Perhaps the EIP’s revealing report can convince people that participating in the illusion isn’t solving anything — and that ruling ourselves through the creation of such workable systems through agorism, among other ideas, are ultimately the most favorable for us all.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Land of the Free? Harvard Study Ranks America Worst in the West for Fair Elections

As Americans Vote, Will Hackers Pounce?

November 8th, 2016 by Laura Colarusso

Panelists at Kennedy School discuss DNC attacks and wider vulnerabilities

In late April, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) suspected that something was wrong with their network and called in the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike to investigate. A few weeks later, after routine testing, the suspicions were confirmed: The committee had been hacked by the Russians.

The DNC’s system “lit up like a Christmas tree,” said Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike’s chief technology officer. The culprits were bad actors CrowdStrike had seen before and given nicknames. “Cozy Bear,” Russia’s Federal Security Service, had been attacking the DNC since the summer of 2015. “Fancy Bear,” which refers to Russia’s military intelligence unit, had started its infiltration shortly before CrowdStrike did its test.

As DNC documents were leaked throughout the summer and into the fall, the episode put the United States on notice that Vladimir Putin’s government is intent on influencing the 2016 election, Alperovitch said during a panel discussion at Harvard Kennedy School (HKS). That could mean a couple of things, he said. Russia might try to hack voting machines or it could mount a disinformation campaign to discredit the eventual results.

“The fundamental objective here by the Russians is not necessarily to get one person or another elected as president,” said Alperovitch. “The fundamental objective is actually much more nefarious, which is to undermine the very idea of a free and fair election — the cornerstone of our democracy.”

The decentralized nature of the U.S. vote should protect against a widespread intrusion, said Pamela Smith, president of Verified Voting, a nonpartisan advocacy group. Each of the 9,000 election jurisdictions across the country has its own systems and procedures, meaning no single point of failure could disrupt the tally nationwide.

Additionally, many jurisdictions have mitigation systems that would help election officials reconstruct voters’ intent if electronic voting machines break down or are compromised by an attack. At least 75 percent of voters casting ballots between now and Nov. 8 will do so on machines that have either a paper ballot or a paper backup.

Moderator Michael Sulmeyer, Pamela Smith, Dmitri Alperovitch, and Ben Buchanan. Photo by Sarah Silbiger

Moderator and director of the Belfer Center’s Cyber Security Project Michael Sulmeyer (from left), Pamela Smith, Dmitri Alperovitch, and Ben Buchanan at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum. “The fundamental objective [of the hack] … is to undermine the very idea of a free and fair election,” said Alperovitch. Photo by Sarah Silbiger

However, five states — Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey, and South Carolina — have no paper trail whatsoever. Another nine, including swing state Pennsylvania, have some jurisdictions that rely on paperless voting.

Voting isn’t the only vulnerability. Every state has a computerized voter registration database that could be susceptible to hacking. Already this year, two states — Arizona and Illinois — have seen their registration systems breached. The questions now, according to Smith, include: Can records of who is registered to vote be tampered with or deleted? And, if so, how does that affect the election?

“The breaches … in June and July of the voter registration systems coupled with the DNC hack of the emails really brought a lot of people up short and made them realize this is not so much theoretical,” said Smith. “This is happening. We need to check our systems.”

The Department of Homeland Security is collaborating with election officials in 40 states to provide vulnerability scans and cyber-risk assessments. Yet U.S. voting systems are not classified as critical infrastructure, a designation that would allow for enhanced security.

No less urgent, said the Belfer Center’s Ben Buchanan, is the need for policymakers to assert consequences for bad actors intent on disrupting American voting.

“The United States needs to come out after this election and establish some kind of deterrent policy,” said Buchanan, a postdoctoral fellow with the center’s Cyber Security Project. “If you start to mess with the integrity of an election machine itself [or] the integrity of a voter registration database or of a dissemination system, we will take that very seriously, and we will retaliate. We consider elections so fundamental to our democracy that we are ready to defend them with force or whatever is required.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on As Americans Vote, Will Hackers Pounce?

A bombshell study released by Stanford University confirms evidence of election fraud during the 2016 Democratic Party primaries. 

According to a paper released this week entitled, “Are we witnessing a dishonest election?,” a state comparison based on the voting procedures used during the election reveals endemic election fraud within the system.

Given the stakes in the outcome of the American presidential elections, ensuring the integrity of the electoral process is of the utmost importance.

Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive.

At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate?

We contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide converging evidence for this claim.

First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls.

Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama.

As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support.

Full report: Are we witnessing a dishonest election?

Sean Adl-Tabatabai
Editor-in-chief at Your News Wire

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Stanford University Confirms Democratic 2016 Election Fraud… “In Favor of Hillary Clinton”

Interest groups and lobbyists have been busy peddling their client’s interests since 1816 when Delaware manufacturer Isaac Briggs teamed up with his colleagues in an attempt to convince federal lawmakers to impose tariffs on the import of foreign made manufactures.

Alexis de Tocqueville writing in his two volume set Democracy in America (1835, 1840) observed the unique American characteristic of banding together in civic and issue specific interest groups for the purpose of influencing lawmakers, regulators and public opinion at the local, state and national levels.

Congressional legislation to limit the influence of lobbyists in the US Congress and the federal government at large arguably did not being in earnest until the 20th Century. The landmark Foreign Agents Registration Act 1938, passed on the eve of World War II, “requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities requiring foreign company or government.”

That act remains in force today.

Nice Try

The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 are notable for their attempts to inform the public who was lobbying for what interest and for how much money. The Open Government Act of 2007 mandated a one year waiting period for federal public servants before they could make the move through the revolving door to lucrative for-profit opportunities.

President Barak Obama issued an Executive Order in 2009 known as the Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel. That decree sought to impose a two year waiting period for executive branch appointees.

US executive branch agencies can also write their own lobbying rules or modify those contained in legislative acts. Members of the US Congress can also play an active role above and beyond legislative actions. On December 18, 2008, then Senators John Kerry from Massachusetts and Richard Lugar of Indiana sent a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to the Clinton Foundation, and the soon to be confirmed US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, limiting the Clinton Foundation’s interactions with foreign governments.

In the MOU, the Clinton Foundation was instructed to spin off the Clinton Global Initiative placing strictures on Bill Clinton’s ability to accept contributions from foreign governments. It appears that the Clinton’s ignored the MOU with the recent revelations of Qatar’s $1 million gift which went unreported.

Thanks to Wikileaks, the DNC hack, Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and others, the internal workings of the US-Corporate State have been pried open to reveal a can of filthy worms entangled with each other in every which way. And not a damn thing will change no matter who runs the country. The American people, their constitution, Bill of Rights and ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence are being tortured by opportunists.

Besides that, they were written by “white people” back in the 1700’s and so they hold no weight with large segments of the American citizenry. That, of course, plays right into the hands of the ‘color of money’ tech and financial interests who seek to eliminate the US nation-state leaving only the military, intelligence and the dollar’s printing presses as backstops.

No Win Situation

In practice, all the well-intentioned federal legislation, tireless efforts of lobbyist watchdogs and anti-revolving door advocates had done little to inhibit much of the influence peddling undertaken by foreign agents and governments, US law firms, interest groups, trade associations, corporations and lobbying houses.

Nor have their efforts slowed the speed of the revolving door though which officials who on one day are protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States emerge on the other side claiming fealty to a corporation’s shareholders. The rules, regulations and procedures governing the process are not worth the paper they are printed on.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that influence peddling by individuals or non-profit organizations are protected by the free-speech First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In 2010 the court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission extended that concept to for-profit associations, corporations and labor unions.

Predictably, organizations and wealthy individuals have flooded the federal government and the 2016 election cycle with money.

According to the public interest website Opensecrets.org–which tracks lobbying and revolving door activity–from 2008 to 2016 over $15 billion was spent by assorted organizations for US federal level influence peddling for all manner of issues ranging from defense and finance to sports and healthcare. The National Football League works hard at the local, state and federal levels for public funds to get their stadiums subsidized at the expense of taxpayers

In 2016 alone $1.6Bln was billed by lobbyists to their clients. In that same year 10,498 individuals and organizations registered as lobbyists.

But even knowing how the system works, Americans see no alternative because they do not want to do the very difficult work of rebooting the system or holding their so called leaders accountable.

A Look at AT&T, Time Warner Merger & Influence

In October, the world’s third largest telecommunications giant AT&T, a creature of the former Ma Bell System monopoly, offered cable and content provider Time Warner shareholders an $85 billion merger package. Both Boards of Directors gleefully approved the deal. Now that merger must receive the approval of the US Department of Justice and assorted state and federal regulatory bodies. If approved by regulators, the merger would create one the world’s largest media conglomerates with one side of the monster, AT&T, very tight with the US National Security Agency.

To increase the likelihood of success, AT&T, for its part, has mobilized some 100 lobbyists in Washington, DC, and scores more across the nation to cajole public utility, state legislatures and governors into supporting the merger. The company is already on the march in the US congress and at federal agencies like the Federal Communications Commission. Even the self-proclaimed titans in the US Congress who decry the influence of money in politics or swarms of lobbyists are on the dole.

In 1999 Senator John McCain from the US state of Arizona and then Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, that oversees the telecommunications industry, introduced a bill that cleared the hurdles for the AT&T’s acquisition of MediaOne Group making AT&T, at the time, the largest cable company in the United States, the Center for Public Integrity said in a report. “His efforts did not go unrewarded: Two weeks after he introduced his bill, AT&T employees and their spouses contributed $10,000 to his presidential campaign in addition to $3,000 they gave him three days after AT&T announced its merger plans.”

AT&T’s federal influencers include revolving door types like former Senators John Breaux of Louisiana and Trent Lott of Mississippi who now work for heavyweight Washington, DC law-firm and influence house Squire, Patton and Boggs. AT&T will also apply pressure from its own Board of Directors, one of whom is former President Bill Clinton’s chief economic advisor Laura D’Andrea Tyson. Coincidently she once served as a board member for Ameritech Corporation, formerly part of the AT&T-Bell System and now owned by AT&T. And how about this? The Board also includes the former Chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission from 1997 to 200, William Kennard.

Inches or Sins?

America is bankrupt and on the highway to hell.

The outcome of the 2016 election will not halt that process unless the American people find a way out of the political, financial, cultural and military morass they and their leaders have created.  There are two paths forward for Americans, it seems.

The first is offered in dialogue from the movie SEVEN in which the serial killer John Doe (played by Kevin Spacey) innovatively murders seven people based on the Seven Deadly Sins. Sure, John’s methods are unsound but the ‘point’ he makes about the sickness and tolerance levels of society are spot on.

John Doe:

“A woman… so ugly on the inside she couldn’t bear to go on living if she couldn’t be beautiful on the outside. A drug dealer, a drug dealing pederast, actually! And let’s not forget the disease-spreading whore! Only in a world this shitty could you even try to say these were innocent people and keep a straight face. But that’s the point. We see a deadly sin on every street corner, in every home, and we tolerate it. We tolerate it because it’s common, it’s trivial. We tolerate it morning, noon, and night. Well, not anymore. I’m setting the example. What I’ve done is going to be puzzled over and studied and followed… forever.”

The second path and a better alternative to John Doe’s shock doctrine is from movie dialogue from Any Given Sunday in the famed inches speech by Coach D’Amato (played by Al Pacino). The football team has descended into the hell of cliques, internal clashes, off-field antics, and disagreements over play calling. No football team can be successful in such a situation. The team has to come together for some purpose.

Americans face that challenge now.

Coach D’Amato:

“Either we heal as a team or we’re ‘gonna’ crumble inch by inch, play by play until we’re finished. We’re in hell right now, gentlemen…we can stay here, get the shit kicked out of us, or we can fight our way back into the light. We can climb ‘outta’ hell… one inch at a time. You see life’s this game of inches, so is football. Because in either game – life or football – the margin for error is so small. I mean, one half a step too late or too early and you don’t quite make it. One half second too slow, too fast and you don’t quite catch it. I know if I’m ‘gonna’ have any life anymore it’s because I’m still willing to fight and die for that inch, because that’s what living is, the six inches in front of your face. The inches we need are everywhere around us. That’s a team, gentlemen, and either we heal, now, as a team, or we will die as individuals. That’s football guys, that’s all it is.”

John Stanton played US contact football from youth level through small college on the offensive line. He captained his youth and high school teams and contributed significantly to three conference championships in college. He coached the sport for 25 years. His most recent book is US Military’s Progressiveness Leaves Civil Society Behind. He’s at [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on USA Continues Drive to Plutocracy, Role of Lobbyists, Dismantling of the State

The ICC and Afghanistan: The “War Crimes Game” Continues

November 8th, 2016 by Christopher Black

A few days after Burundi, South Africa and The Gambia announced their intention to withdraw from the International Criminal Court an article appeared in the American journal, Foreign Policy, stating that the ICC is considering investigating allegations of war crimes that may have been committed in Afghanistan. The allegations are spread among the Afghan resistance to the western invasion and occupation of the country, the puppet government installed by the United States, and the United States itself.

This has caused some surprise among observers of the ICC who have correctly criticised the tribunal as an asset of the US and its allies since it has only gone after certain African leaders who stand in the way of western interests while providing complete immunity to other leaders who are useful agents of those interests. Some of have accused it of racism, a charge difficult to refute but misses the point that the objective is the projection of imperial power.

The United States, though not a member of the ICC, has established its dominating influence in the staff of the tribunal so that it and its Canadian and EU allies effectively control its machinery, most importantly the prosecution, the administration and the selection of judges. It is because of this influence that the ICC falsely accused Muammar Gadhafi with crimes in 2011 thereby helping it excuse the NATO aggression against Libya and also provoking and excusing his murder.

The ICC is meant to prevent war crimes and war but it has been used in fact to overthrow governments and throw their leaders in prison, or in the tragic case of Muammar Gadhafi, provoke war and excuse murder; just as the ICTY in The Hague was used to justify the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia and the arrest and death in NATO hands of President Milosevic. The ICC continues in that criminal tradition.

But is this announcement a surprise, a hopeful step that the ICC may live up to its claims? The answer is a clear no. The timing of the announcement and its delivery are interesting. It comes within a few days of the disastrous blows to its prestige and credibility with the withdrawal of the African countries. Something needed to be done to try to restore some credibility, some appearance of impartiality; and that is what the announcement does, or tries to do because it will soon be realised that it is a cheap trick, a charade, designed to save the ICC so that the United States and its allies can continue to use it as they see fit, as a means of control, not justice.

It is not a surprise in the first place because the ICC made public its Report on Preliminary Examination Activities on November 12, 2015. In that report there is a section on Afghanistan setting out more or less the contents in the Foreign Policy Report. It makes interesting reading and starts off with a lie that indicates where we can expect this investigation to go.

On page 26 the document states,

  1. “After the attacks of 11 September 2001, in Washington D.C. and New York City, a United States-led coalition launched air strikes and ground operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban, suspected of harbouring Osama Bin Laden. The Taliban were ousted from power by the end of the year. In December 2001, under the auspices of the UN, an interim governing authority was established in Afghanistan. “

This is a lie because the Taliban government, a government installed by the United States in the first place, was not “harbouring” Bin Laden. They stated to the US government, when it demanded they turn him over in 2001, that he was in the country but by law they were required to demand that the US provide them with evidence that he was involved in the events in New York. The US flatly refused to provide any evidence to form the basis of a legal extradition so the Afghanistan government refused to hand him over. Any country would have been required by law to do the same. Instead of a file containing evidence they received cruise missiles and exploding bombs. Bin Laden of course was just the excuse, not the reason for the war. So for the ICC to state a lie that serves the narrative of the United States and then to continue with the joke that instead of the US overthrowing the Afghan government, (they were “ousted from power” they say, but how and by who is not said), they in fact helped to reestablish government, with the help of the peace loving UN, is to give the United States immunity from prosecution of the ultimate crime of aggression against Afghanistan that still continues today and all the war crimes that have flowed from that aggression. They bear the ultimate responsibility. But since the ICC sees fit to rewrite history in favour of the United States in its investigation of the war how can we expect it to ever prosecute that nation for the crimes it has committed?

Most of the document discusses allegations of crimes and some attention is paid to allegations against US forces and Afghan government forces but most of it is concerned with crimes of the Taliban. Where it discusses war crimes allegedly committed by the United States it points out that the US is investigating those allegations and has taken disciplinary action against those responsible in hundreds of cases. The question then is whether the United States is properly investigating and then prosecuting those cases in its military discipline system. For if the United States were in fact properly investigating and actively prosecuting soldiers and officials then the ICC cannot step into the situation. Only if this is not being done and cases appear to be sham cases can the ICC claim jurisdiction. This writer cannot imagine the United States ever accepting a finding from the ICC that it is not acting correctly, and having regard to its rewriting of history, I do not expect it to make such a finding.

That this is a public relations exercise is supported by the source of the article, Foreign Policy, which is owned by the Washington Post; and the writer, David Bosco, who lectures on international law and the ICC at the Washington College of Law, in Washington D.C. has an interesting career. After graduating from Harvard he worked on “refugee issues” in Bosnia, first for an “ngo” then the UN and NATO and interned at NATO Military Headquarters in Belgium, then went to the State Department, and has largely been an editor at the journal and law lecturer ever since. You can understand my doubts of the bone fides of their intentions when you know that.

Why is it that this information had to come from this source and not the ICC itself? The answer is that if it came from the ICC no one would believe it. Its credibility is in tatters. It would look like the face-saving action it is. So it had to be made to look like a revelation of something daring that the ICC was reluctant to make it public, a bold step for mankind, all hush hush, so the US cannot get in the way of justice. But instead of a revelation it looks like a manipulation, a propaganda action to support the ICC as a tool of domination by the west against the rest of the world. And so, the game continues.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto, he is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and he is known for a number of high-profile cases involving human rights and war crimes, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The ICC and Afghanistan: The “War Crimes Game” Continues

San Francisco. This is penned on November 8, and the United States goes to the polls in a swell of turbulence. 

The milk has long soured, the wishes of the electorate curdled by dissatisfaction and disgust. The sense of wishing to vote for neither candidate – Hillary Clinton for the Democrats or Donald Trump for the Republicans – has been thrown in along with partisan voices and furious promises.

This, however, is only the tip of what is a vast, bulky structure that has been put into motion.  The outsider casting a cold eye on the proceedings will marvel at the various suggestions, multiplied through various formats, guides, and punditry.  Activism abounds in various shades. There are suggestions, and in some cases, all out endorsements for candidates at all levels of government.

Much of this has the tone of a fund drive for a struggling charity or radio station, and a desperate one at that.  In a society where voters may be discouraged, rendered irrelevant by helplessness and estrangement, the cry of “Vote!” is loud, incessant, and a source of unconvincing persuasion.

“Don’t stand still, vote,” goes a stilted slogan from the Clinton campaign, featuring Hillary, Bill and Bon Jovi, all taking the irony-free Mannequin challenge.  Each election, many are not convinced by what is seen as an essentially impotent exercise, and participation rates tend to be horrendously low.  Voters, in some instances, might as well be backing candidates in mid-freeze, dumb to their wishes.

In San Francisco, as with everything else, the activism has a singular slant. There are suggestions from such pundits as Broke-Ass Stuart (Stuart Schuffman), former mayoral candidate for the city, poet, and irate columnist for the SF Examiner.  He advises voters today to go raise money for the homeless and protect the arts. That is merely the start of it.

His suggestions are predictable at the federal level: Clinton for President; Kamala Harris for US Senator while two Congressional districts (12th and 14th) also feature. The State levels follow – California State Senate Districts 11, 17 and 19.  Within San Francisco itself come more cheat sheet recommendations that comprise more districts, the Board of Education, the City College Board, legal officers, and the BART Board. Democracy rings curiously, and variously, indeed.

While foreign presses and audiences tend to focus on the presidential election itself, with some concern of the composition of Congress, ballot initiatives tend to be ignored.  These tend to form an essential, and in some cases vital softening, of the result at the Presidential level.  Madness may prevail in the machinery of Washington, but that is hardly an excuse to not get hands dirty at the local level.

An overview of some of these suggests how extensive they potentially are. The complex fabric of the United Stateswarrants an understanding of what is happening at the elemental level. In California itself, there are propositions 51 to 67, among them the legalisation of marijuana (Proposition 64), and Proposition 62 (Death Penalty Abolition) and Proposition 66 (Death Penalty Procedures).

The wonder here is how some of these propositions ever reach the voter’s scrawl. Not all have the gravitas of abolishing the death penalty or feeding the libertarian instinct of having pot.  Proposition 60 covers the issue of condoms in Adult Films.  (Broke-Ass Stuart suggests voting No for this one.)

Then come the avalanche of Propositions A to X, finished by Measure RR dealing with safety for the BART train system. These are similarly as varied as the numbered propositions, with Prop H calling for a public advocate, and Prop F insisting on engaging youth in the electoral process.

Such bewildering options can be daunting, and may serve to do less for informed democratic practice than supposed. Voting is trumpeted as a sacredly held responsibility, but that does not mean it will be discharged before the mountain of considerations facing the voter.

Adding to that is the structural set up of polling stations, with variable voting equipment and facilities. These can be found in the most curious of places.  Restaurants, for instance, can be transformed on Election Day for reasons of proximity to the registered voter.  (Ala Turca Restaurant on Geary Street is one such venue.)

What matters in counting as a polling place are certain “management requirements” outlined by the Election Assistance Commission, including accessibility and adequate space for setting up the equipment for voting. Law requirements specific to the state also apply.

Last but not the very least for the voter today is the distinct nature of this particular election.  Brock Keeling, writing for San Francisco Curbed (Nov 7) suggested steps to take in the event of violence.  “Seeing as how this has been both a dividing and violent election season, it’s always a small possibility that there could be instances of voter intimidation on Tuesday.”  The recommendation is to call the California Secretary of State or Election Protection.  To the very last, this promises to be a day of fear and loathing, garnished with a good deal of paranoia.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on San Francisco, Election Day Analysis: The Presidency, “Voting American Style”

(update added 8 November 2016)

In a previous report, I indicated “Why Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speeches Are Relevant”, but not what they contained. The present report indicates what they contained. 

One speech in particular will be cited and quoted from as an example here, to show the type of thing that all of her corporate speeches contained, which she doesn’t want the general public to know about.

This is the day’s keynote speech, which she gave on Wednesday, 25 June 2014, to the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobbying organization in DC, at their annual convention, which in 2014 was held in San Diego. The announcement for attendees said:

“Wednesday’s Keynote session is sponsored by Genentech, and is open to Convention registrants with Convention Access and Convention Access & Partnering badges only. Seating is limited.”

Somehow, a reporter from a local newspaper, the Times of San Diego, managed to get in. Also, somehow, an attendee happened to phone-video the 50-minute interview that the BIO’s CEO did of Clinton, which took place during the hour-and-a-half period, 12-1:30, which was allotted to Clinton.

The Times of San Diego headlined that day, “Hillary Clinton Cheers Biotechers, Backing GMOs and Federal Help”, and gave an excellent summary of her statements, including of the interview. Here are highlights:

It was red meat for the biotech base. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a 65-minute appearance at the BIO International Convention on Wednesday, voiced support for genetically modified organisms and possible federal subsidies. …

“Maybe there’s a way of getting a representative group of actors at the table” to discuss how the federal government could help biotechs with “insurance against risk,” she said.

Without such subsidies, she said, “this is going to be an increasing challenge.” …

She said the debate about GMOs might be turned toward the biotech side if the benefits were better explained, noting that the “Frankensteinish” depictions could be fought with more positive spin.

“I stand in favor of using seeds and products that have a proven track record,” she said [at 29:00 in the video next posted here], citing drought-resistant seeds she backed as secretary of state. “There’s a big gap between the facts and what the perceptions are.” [that too at 29:00] …

Minutes earlier, Gov. Jerry Brown made a rousing 3-minute pitch for companies to see California as biotech-friendly.

“You’ve come to the right place.” …

Brown had some competition for biotech boosterism in the form of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the longtime Clinton ally who pitched his own state as best for biotech. …

[Clinton was] Given a standing ovation at the start and end of her appearance.

In other words: As President, she would aim to sign into law a program to provide subsidies from U.S. taxpayers to Monsanto and other biotech firms, to assist their PR and lobbying organizations to eliminate what she says is “a big gap between the facts and what the perceptions are” concerning genetically modified seeds and other GMOs.

In other words: she ignores the evidence that started to be published in scientific journals in 2012 showing that Monsanto and other GMO firms were selectively publishing studies that alleged to show their products to be safe, while selectively blocking publication of studies that — on the basis of better methodology — showed them to be unsafe. She wants U.S. taxpayers to assist GMO firms in their propaganda that’s based on their own flawed published studies, financed by the GMO industry, and that ignores the studies that they refuse to have published. She wants America’s consumers to help to finance their own being poisoning by lying companies, who rake in profits from poisoning them.

Her argument on this, at 27:00 to 30:00 in the video of the 50-minute interview of Clinton, starts by her citing the actual disinformation (that’s propagandized by the fossil-fuels industries, which actually back her Presidential campaign) that causes the American public to reject the view that humans have caused global warming.

At 27:38 in the video, she said:

“98% of scientists in the world agree that man has caused the problem” of global warming, and she alleged that the reason why there is substantial public resistance to GMOs is the same as the reason why there’s substantial public resistance to the reality that global warming exists and must be actively addressed:

Americans don’t know the science of the matter. She received several applauses from this pro-GMO audience, for making that false analogy. The reality, that it’s false, is that on 15 May 2013, the definitive meta-study, which examined the 11,944 published studies that had been done relating to the question of global warming and its causes, reported that “97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” The meta-study was titled “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”.

So, Clinton’s statement “98%” was only 0.9% off regarding the size of the scientific consensus. However, her implication that the public’s rejection of that actual 97.1% of experts’ findings on global warming, is at all analogous to the public’s rejection of the actually bogus finding by GMO industry ‘experts’ that GMOs are safe, is pure deception by her. The reality is the exact contrary: The fossil-fuels industries have financed the propaganda ‘discrediting’ the scientists’ consensus about global warming, much like the GMO industries have financed the deception of the public to think that ‘scientists’ ‘find’ that GMOs are safe. In fact, as was reported inScientific American, on 23 December 2013, “’Dark Money’ Funds Climate Change Denial Effort”, and the study they were summarizing, from the journal Climate Change, was titled “Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations”. It found that:

“From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding CCCM [climate change counter-movement] organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions to CCCM organizations. Instead, funding has shifted to pass through [two] untraceable sources [both of which had been set up by the Kochs: Donors Trust, and Donors Capital Fund].”

On 23 April 2016, Politico headlined “Charles Koch: ‘It’s possible’ Clinton is preferable to a Republican for president”, but this isn’t the only indication that Hillary is merely pretending to be their enemy. On 24 February 2016, I headlined “Hillary Clinton’s Global-Burning Record” and summarized and linked to news reports such as the opening there: “On 17 July 2015, Paul Blumenthal and Kate Sheppard at Huffington Post bannered, ‘Hillary Clinton’s Biggest Campaign Bundlers Are Fossil Fuel Lobbyists’ and the sub-head was ‘Clinton’s top campaign financiers are linked to Big Oil, natural gas and the Keystone pipeline.’”

In other words: the same pro-GMO lobbyists who applaud Hillary for verbally endorsing the science that affirms global warming, applaud her for endorsing their own fake ‘science’ which asserts that GMOs have been proven safe. They just love her lie, which analogizes them to the authentic scientists who (97.1%) say that global warming exists and is caused by humans’ emissions of global-warming gases.

Also, she expressed the wish that: “the federal government could help biotechs with ‘insurance against risk,’ she said. Without such subsidies, she said, this is going to be an increasing challenge,” because otherwise, biotech companies might get bankrupted by lawsuits from consumers who might have become poisoned by their products. She wants the consuming public to bear the risk from those products — not the manufacturers of them to bear any of the risks that could result from those manufacturers’ rigged ‘safety’ ‘studies’ (a.k.a.: their propaganda).

In other words: the reason why Hillary Clinton won’t allow her 91 corporate speeches, for which she was paid $21,667,000, to be published, is the lying political cravenness of her pandering to those corporations there. Each group of lobbyists is happy to applaud her lying, regardless of whether her lies include insults against another group of lobbyists, to whom she might be delivering similar lies to butter them up at a different annual convention or etc.

In other words: she’s telling all of them collectively: You’re my type of people, and the public who despise you are merely misguided, but as President I’ll set them straight and they’ll even end up paying part of the bill to be ‘educated’ about these matters, by my Administration, and even part of the bill to pay corporations’ product-liability suits.

The reason why Clinton doesn’t want those speeches to be made public is that she doesn’t want the voters to know that she intends to use their money to propagandize to them for the benefit of those corporations, and also to protect those corporations from liability for harms their products cause the public.

This is called (by the propagandists) ‘capitalism’ and ‘democracy’. Mussolini, with pride, called it sometimes “fascism,” and sometimes “corporationism.” But whatever it’s called, it’s what she supports, and what she represents, to the people who are paying her. And even most of her own voters would find it repulsive, if they knew about it. So: she can’t let them know about it. And she doesn’t.

UPDATE: On 5 October 2016, fifty-six food-related lobbying organizations, such as the American Soybean Association and the International Dairy Foods Association, and including some universities that receive large income from biotech firms to produce ‘scientific studies’ so they can promote their products as being ‘proven safe’, wrote a letter to the heads and ranking members of the Appropriations Committee in both the House and Senate, opening,

“The undersigned organizations support the inclusion of $3 million within the Fiscal Year 2017 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act to better inform the public about the application of biotechnology to food and agricultural production. Regrettably, there is a tremendous amount of misinformation about agricultural biotechnology in the public domain. Dedicated educational resources will ensure key federal agencies responsible for the safety of our nation’s food supply – the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) – are able to more easily convey to the public science- and fact-based information about food.”

That was exactly what Hillary Clinton had proposed on 25 June 2014 to the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (which was one of those 56 lobbying groups). As to whether the idea had originated with Clinton or with top executives in the biotech industry, one can, at the present time, only speculate. However, she was on record (privately) proposing it to the biotech industry more than two years before the biotech industry proposed it to Congress.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is This Person America’s New President? Here’s Why Hillary Clinton Won’t Allow Her Corporate Speeches to be Published, Supported by Monsanto

Michael Welch for Global Research, Reporting from Columbus, Ohio.

Election Day has finally arrived here in the United States.

Ohio was the site of numerous and significant  irregularities in the 2004 election.

Tens of thousands of voters were purged from the polls, major disparities between exit polls and election results persisted, and clear indications of hacking of the vote processed by election machines which swung the result toward the Republican candidate George W Bush.

Ohio is considered a ‘battleground state’ and a bellwether state.

That is, since 1964, the Buckeye State has always backed the presidential candidate who would emerge victorious.

It seemed like a logical place for me to locate myself to try to get a close-up view of the US elections.

One of my local guides to this political safari is Bob Fitrakis.

He lives in Columbus, Ohio, and is a political science professor at Columbus State Community College, editor of the Columbus Free Press,  and the Green Party’s candidate for County Prosecutor in Franklin County. He has authored or co-authored several books including: Did George W. Bush Steal America’s 2004 Election? Essential Documents  and  What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft And Fraud in the 2004 Election

Fitrakis was also one of four attorneys to file challenges to Ohio’s elections results.

Today, November 8, Prof. Fitrakis and a small collective of people is monitoring the election for irregularities. I met with him about two hours after the polls opened to record this interview.

Stay tuned for more Global Research election day coverage from Columbus, Ohio.

Selected Articles: War, Elections, and the Morning After

November 8th, 2016 by Global Research News

Trump Clinton

Race and Class in America: Social Unrest and Political Tensions in the Wake of the 2016 Elections

By Abayomi Azikiwe, November 08 2016

Irrespective of who wins the poll on November 8 it will not resolve the ongoing social and racial tensions in the U.S. Neither candidate has been seriously questioned by corporate journalists in regard to their specific policy proposals related to concrete conditions facing the majority of people inside the country.

Trump Clinton

Caricatures for President of the U.S.: Countering Despair, “Responsibility to Wake Up”, Taking a Complete View of History…

By Dr. Robert Rennebohm, November 08 2016

To counter the despair and fear generated by the American presidential campaign (and associated global chaos and wars), this essay presents a positive, constructive reaction to what is occurring.  The essay seeks to explain why the current state of affairs, as depressing and frightening as it may seem, may be viewed as an excellent learning opportunity that, if seized, can accelerate Social Progress and facilitate creation of Social Beauty.

trump-clinton 2

The Republican-stimulated Roaring 1920s: Will it Happen Again in 2016?

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls, November 08 2016

The infamous presidential campaign of 2016 has exposed many of the similarities between the American pro-business two party system and what happened during the evolution of European fascism. The fact that so many Americans are historically illiterate should be a concern of every serious voter.

Hillary-Clinton-6-septembre-2016

Oh, What a Lovely War! Delusional US Foreign Policy could bring Disaster

By Philip Giraldi, November 08 2016

In the election campaign there has, in fact, been little discussion of the issue of war and peace or even of America’s place in the world, though Trump did at one point note correctly that implementation of Hillary’s suggested foreign policy could escalate into World War III. It has been my contention that the issue of war should be more front and center in the minds of Americans when they cast their ballots as the prospect of an armed conflict in which little is actually at stake escalating and going nuclear could conceivably end life on this planet as we know it.

USA Empire

Thoughts about US Foreign Policy

By William Blum, November 08 2016

Since 1980, the United States has intervened in the affairs of fourteen Muslim countries, at worst invading or bombing them. They are (in chronological order) Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Kosovo, Yemen, Pakistan, and now Syria.

usa_nato

The Battle For Just Peace In A World of War Lies

By Mark Taliano, November 08 2016

It is known and documented, and has been for years, that the West and its allies support terrorism to destroy and control other countries and their (remaining) peoples. It is known and documented that the terrorists who behead, and rape, and pillage their way through the Middle East and elsewhere are our proxies.  We pay the bills, and we orchestrate the carnage.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: War, Elections, and the Morning After

GLOBAL RESEARCH ON US ELECTIONS 2016

November 8th, 2016 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on GLOBAL RESEARCH ON US ELECTIONS 2016

So we are on the eve of the 11th “Most Important Election of Our Lifetimes” (MIEoOL) since I was first eligible to vote in 1976.

This MIEoOL has me constantly shaking my head over the depths of corruption, scandal and abject mediocrity that both of the major candidates have sunken to. The “crap of the crop” has certainly risen to the top in POTUS2016 and I couldn’t be more ashamed to live in a country of 320 million that couldn’t find anyone with more on the ball than Woman (D) and Man (R).

Now, Clinton’s supporters would argue that she has a lot of experience and should be the one with her twitchy finger on the button of nuclear annihilation. Her “experience” is precisely my problem with her: She has risen to the top of a white male supremacist/capitalist nation by drenching herself in the blood of empire and the oppressive greed of Wall Street. Like being accused of being “racist” for not supporting Obama, the new smear is that one is a “sexist” for not supporting Clinton.

Is it really possible for someone like Clinton to be a feminist if she has no problem killing women and children in war? A liberal feminist…maybe…a liberation/radical feminist? Not even close!

 Image by Anthony Freda

Then, Trump supporters would argue that he is just a “regular” guy that loves America and will make her “great again.” Clinton and her minions will retort, “America has always been great,” and I say: “A state built on genocide and slavery that continues those policies hundreds of years later has NEVER been great.” Some of us on the left see Trump’s campaign as being neo-Fascist and are fear-mongering about Trump being too close to the mechanism of nuclear destruction; I see Trump as the perfect foil and guarantor of a Clinton victory. Like the late comedian George Carlin said, “It’s a big club, and we ain’t in it.”

This is not an essay to convince anyone of what member of the Twin Parties of War and Wall Street to vote for on Nov. 8th, but to be real about our “choices.”

Especially in the arena of POTUS politics, the voters don’t pick the candidates or the eventual winner: the establishment and billions of dollars do. In the end if you choose D or R, you are choosing to continue and participate in the vehicle of your own oppression and the subjugation and slaughter of billions of more people around the planet.

Bottom-line: Trump wants to deport Muslims, Clinton is happy to kill them; slimy Game Show Host vs. War Criminal.

Wow! In the words of the DNC in Philly, “USA!USA!USA!USA!” We’re number one in war and crappy elections.

No matter who “wins” on Tuesday night, the main thing to remember is that 99% of us are going to be Big Losers and the only way to for the people to win is to organize on a massive scale to oppose the policies of US empire and to join with the rest of the world in liberation struggles for freedom and equality.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Election 2016: On Empire and Feminism. Whatever the Outcome, “99% of Us are Going to be Big Losers… The Only Way to Win is to Organize and Oppose the policies of US Empire”

First published by Global Research in March 2016

America is a divided nation.

Consistently wracked by a recurring series of ‘culture wars’ and a general dissatisfaction felt by the electorate about its political elite, it is a country beset by uncertainty about the future of its global economic and military pre-eminence. This general feeling of malaise; a dip in the form and the spirit of a people inherently convinced about the exceptional foundations and rationales underpinning their conception of nationhood is so profound as to have led some to conclude that the currents in contemporary America bear something of a resemblance to the Weimer era in Germany.

There are deep fissures in the eternally vexed question regarding race and the observance of what some feel is a stifling obeisance to the strictures of political correctitude. While it has for long remained split down the middle on the question of abortion there are misgivings among a significant segment of opinion over what is perceived to be the prioritisation of the agenda of the gay and lesbian lobby. As is the case with abortion, the issue of gun control succeeds in producing heated and often bitter debate.

The economy, consistently defined by an extraordinary level of national debt and the apparent permanent loss of manufacturing jobs to foreign destinations, forms a central part of popular discontent and dissent. However, there is little consensus as to how to set things right.

America of course operates as a pluralistic society and has historically spawned a range of influential social movements acting to transform its ethics and social policies towards what is perceived as being for the greater good. But the rise of a succession of populist activist groups; each strident in its complaints about the perceived failings in government and society has been striking: The Tea Party, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street and American Border Control to name but a significant few.

Where the Black Lives Matter movement decries the relative expendability of the lives of American citizens of African-American extraction at the hands of trigger-happy law enforcement officers, the Tea Party ideology largely expounds on the supposed favouritism given to minorities in terms of opportunities for social and economic advancement. The mantra of wanting to “take back our country” is viewed by opponents not so much as being based on the idea of wishing to see government shorn of its powers as it is about wanting to halt the progress of minorities at a time when the White House is occupied by a black president.

While the Occupy Wall Street movement’s perception of the decline of America is rooted in the increasing disparities in wealth and income distribution in society as well as the malign influence of powerful corporate interests in the economic and political process, anti-immigration groups such as American Border Control posit the view that the country can never be put on the path of revival while there are what they claim to be hordes of Mexicans entering the United States illegally; bringing with them “crime, drugs and squalor.” For these groups, the very fabric of America as a nation with a majority European descended population and a particular set of mores is threatened by “immigration via the birth canal.”

The analogy made with the deepened social divisions during the Weimer Republic may not be totally misplaced, as indeed may be possible comparisons with the republican and conservative divide in pre-civil war Spain. As was the case with those traditionalists who in Spain of the 1930s looked on in askance at social innovations introduced by the Republican regime such as the legalisation of divorce, contraception and abortion, so too a large segment of present day Americans recoil at the perceived constricting tenets of ‘political correctness’ and the legalisation of gay marriage which along with other developments are viewed as the wholesale abrogation of traditional American values.

The polarized atmosphere of divisiveness and even outright hatred often on display in political wrangling and the general public discourse is clear to see. While most would agree to a general dissatisfaction with the state of affairs, there is no united consensus as how to tackle the root causes of the social and economic malaise.

In 1930s Germany and Spain, the proposed solutions were predicated on diametrically opposed rationales represented by the Left and Right of the conventional political spectrum. In both situations the resultant ‘revolutions’ led to the rise respectively of Hitler and Franco.

There is of course no suggestion of an imminent implosion in American society that would lead to an internal war –such a scenario is largely the concern of fiction in movies and in graphic comic book stories- albeit that Colin Woodard, a reporter for a newspaper in Maine, has perceptively argued the position of North America as being constituted of eleven separate stateless nations based on the dominant cultures of swathes of population concentrations in various regions.

Nonetheless, the rise on the one hand of the socialist Bernie Sanders in the Democrat Party and the populist Donald Trump in the Republican Party on the other speak towards a divide in terms of popular reactions to an unsatisfactory view of the prevailing system.

Those Americans attracted to Sanders’ message are angered by the licence given to profiteering corporations who outsource jobs outside of the United States. They hate the privileges conferred on beyond-the-reach-of-the-law bankers and the trends pointing to the concentration of wealth in the hands of an increasingly smaller percentage of the population. They are concerned about the concentration of mainstream media ownership in the hands of six corporations and are dismayed about student loans that are packaged with onerous interest rates.

But it is of course the campaign of billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump which has received the greatest amount of attention and also within whose populist agenda the deep cultural divide in America is laid bare.

Trump’s message has seen him become the leading candidate among those seeking the Republican Party nomination. Significantly, his campaign has also earned him the enmity of the political establishment; an entity encapsulated by the duopoly of the respective machineries of the Democrat and Republican Party Parties from which much of the electorate has increasingly become estranged.

That Trump has proved to be a magnet for popular discontent in America is clear enough.

An interesting array of persons and demographics has been energized into supporting him. On a personal level, some are impressed by his ‘no-nonsense’ talking style and ‘Alpha Male’ demeanour. So far as his capacity for executing the office of the presidency is concerned, some believe that a man for long enmeshed in the business world with success to go along with it could help cure America of its economic ills.

Trump some claim has surged ahead because he has had the temerity to challenge the status quo. The bland ‘business as usual’ form of electioneering that has for long constrained the discourse into a fixed set of parameters is gone. For others, Trump is a rabble-rouser; essentially a carnival barker who has turned over a rock that has revealed an ugly underbelly of intolerance and racism.

He has brought immigration to the fore in a way that otherwise would not have been the case. His criticism not only of illegal immigration but also of legal immigration to the United States has struck a chord among segments of the European-descended population who feel threatened by non-white immigration. For these people, the demographic shifts and changes portend towards a marked and irreversible change in America’s European-derived culture and mores.

For a man concerned with the preservation of the genetic purity of the white race which he continually asserts by their endeavours solely created the basis of America, the present discourse on the immigration issue is one that has captured the attention of the white nationalist David Duke.

For Duke, Trump’s intervention signifies a fundamental breach with the normally ‘timid’ and prescribed format of debate. For instance, Trump’s pledge to deport 12 million illegal immigrants marks a clear shift from the past; a past which according to Duke is littered with ostensibly tough-talking but ultimately insincere Republican candidates who inevitably capitulate by granting mass amnesties.

Duke has of course been made a point of discussion of the election campaign because he has applauded several of Trump’s stances while holding back from giving a formal endorsement. It is no surprise that this former member of a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan who later served as a legislator in his home state of Louisiana would become a figure of controversy.

Duke’s weltanschauung, which is predicated on the fundamental differences between racial groups, has as a central thesis the necessity of the neutralisation of Jewish power on both a national and global level. Trump’s strident views on immigration are extremely important to the likes of Duke who fear legal immigration –never mind immigration of the illegal sort- is irretrievably leading to the scenario of European-descended Americans becoming a minority population.

In this, Duke sees the hand of Jewish influence in engineering a shift toward a national policy of open immigration. Whereas Acts of Congress respectively in 1921, 1924 and 1952 had, he argues, sought to preserve a European majority, the Immigration Act of 1965 sponsored in both houses of Congress by Jewish figures such as Congressman Samuel Dickstein and Senator Jacob Javits ‘opened the gates’. The reason which he proffers to his followers is that of an “atavistic hatred” Jews have toward white European Christian culture which they blame for age-long persecutions.

Relegating whites to minority status would, he argues, serve Jewish interests because it enables them to supplant white Americans as the elite in American society and also puts a damper on the capacity for the revival of cohesive ethnic nationalist sentiments on the part of Christian whites from which Jews have historically borne negative consequences.

In the words of Kevin MacDonald, a retired professor of psychology and a guru of sorts for Duke and other white nationalists, “ethnic and religious pluralism serves external Jewish interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups…and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of Gentiles united in their opposition of Judaism.”

Duke’s obsession with the power allegedly wielded by members of the Jewish community in media, the economy and political influence has led him to praise some of Trump’s actions.

For instance, when Trump chided Hillary Clinton for being readily accepting of the necessity for Israel to build a wall to keep Muslims out while at the same time being dismissive of the right of America to do the same, Duke highlighted this as evidence of the hypocrisy of mainstream politicians who cravenly serve the interests of the Israel lobby at the expense of their own national interests.

Again, when in December of 2015 Trump went before the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Forum to tell them “I know that you don’t like me because I don’t want your money”, Duke was quick to interpret those comments as being profoundly revealing of the state of affairs in contemporary America. No political figure would have the courage to utter what he considers to be an ‘unmentionable truth;’ namely that of a preponderance of Jewish money in the electoral process.

He revels in the sorts of points of analysis as that given by Uri Avnery, a former member of the Knesset, who in his ‘Gush Shalom’ blog once accused casino magnate Sheldon Adelson of being like a figure “straight out of the pages of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Avnery was alluding to an event which occurred in March of 2014.

As part of what several mainstream media outlets have referred to as the “Sheldon Adelson Primary”, Adelson summoned four Republican politicians hopeful of running for the party’s presidential nominations in order to make a decision as to which candidate he would offer financial backing. All four including Jeb Bush and Chris Christie were present or former serving state governors. What followed Avnery described as “a shameless exhibition” during which “the politicians grovelled before the casino lord.”

Thus it is no surprise that Duke enthusiastically repeats his claim that Hillary Clinton’s top seven backers are Jewish and is encouraged by Trump’s sneering reference to a previously undisclosed loan given to his rival Ted Cruz: “Goldman Sachs own him. Remember that!”

While he expresses reservations about Trump, he appears persuaded by the fact of widespread media hostility towards Trump along with the concerted efforts by the Republican establishment to discredit him as ample evidence of Trump’s potential as a president who will not kowtow to what he sees as prevailing Jewish interests and will act in a manner that would go a long way in re-asserting the interests of European-descended Americans.

The Trump campaign raises two key issues. The first relates to the culture associated with the operation of governance and the electoral process. The second is to do with the qualities of the candidate himself.

It is clear for anyone that the American political process is riddled with corruption and that what passes for a democracy is actually a system run under false pretences as a democracy.

A study by the political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University concluded that “majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts.” The views of rich people have a much greater impact on policy decisions than those of middle-income and poor Americans.

It is effectively government serving the interests of oligarchs.

The law has paved the way for entrenching this state of affairs via successive Supreme Court decisions which relate to the funding of campaigns. The case of Buckley versus Valeo in 1976 arguably provided the basis through which politicians can be bought and controlled by billionaires and corporate interests. In striking own certain provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (1974), it removed limits to the amount of money which could be spent on campaigns although limits were still affixed to the contributions of individuals

However, by overturning sections of the Campaign Reform Act (2002), the Citizens United versus Federal Electoral Commission case of 2010 went further by removing limits in expenditures made by non-profit and for-profit corporations. McCutcheon versus Federal Electoral Commission added to this by removing the biennial aggregate limit on individual contributions to national party and federal candidate committees.

The cumulative effect of these decisions –all of which invoked violations of the First Amendment as justification- has been to effectively remove restraints imposed on election spending.

Former President Jimmy Carter has bluntly stated what the implications are:

It violates the essence of what made America a great nation in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a major payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favours for themselves after the election is over. … At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell.

The results are there to see.

The links between political figures and Wall Street have increasingly taken an insidious and pervasive form. This takes into account the relationships developed in-between election campaigns. Hillary Clinton of the Democratic Party, for instance, has become wealthy from her links with the corporate world and particularly from her connections with banks.

Public financial disclosures show that she earned a total of $2,935,000 from 12 speeches which she gave before banking concerns between 2013 and 2015. While her standard fee is $225,000, Goldman Sachs once paid her $675,000 for a single speech and Deutsche Bank $485,000. In fact, Clinton has earned a staggering $21,677,000 for 92 speeches that she gave to private organisations over the same timescale.

It would be foolhardy in the extreme to think that her benefactors will not expect some form of dividend from their respective outlays.

It is important to note that there was never any halcyon era of the business of American politicking being free of corruption. The ‘pork barrel’ culture of elected politicians being disposed to return favours to moneyed interests is long established. As Huey Long, the legendary Louisiana governor and senator who ran the state as his personal fiefdom, once put it officeholders are “dime a dozen punks.”

It should be remembered that the 17th Amendment to the United States constitution, which changed the method of selecting U.S. Senators from appointments agreed upon by members of state legislatures to one requiring direct elections by the electorate, was in part prompted by allegations of corruption in the selection of senators.

The rise of the big city bosses based on the wielding of near autocratic power and the dispensing of patronage such as for example existed with Frank Hague in Jersey City and the Daley dynasty in Chicago is well documented as indeed is the history associated with New York City’s Tammany Hall.

In the midst of this election campaign we witness the rise of Donald Trump bearing the mantle of an independent spirit whose wealth ostensibly inures him from the pressures faced by seasoned politicians to be ‘bought and paid for’ vassals of Wall Street as well as that of a down-to-earth outsider who is not of the establishment.

There are parallels between Trump and other political figures in American history that were populist in message and not the favoured candidate of the establishment of the party with which they were associated. Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 both come to mind. Where Goldwater tussled with Nelson Rockefeller, Reagan took on George Herbert Bush; each opponent being representative of the ‘blue blooded’ Republican establishment. Trump has even been compared to Huey Long who was plotting a path to the White House when he was cut down by an assassin’s bullet in 1937.

However, Trump’s candidature arguably offers very little hope for a revolutionary change for two key reasons. The first concerns the man and the policies he is attempting to sell to the American public, and the second pertains to the practical limitations facing an earnest candidate wishing to make changes within the prevailing system.

The tone of Trump’s campaign while apparently refreshing to a large segment has demonstrably attracted those among the masses who readily subscribe to inter-ethnic and inter-religious division. Simply put, Trump does not appear to be a ‘healer’. A candidate who arrogantly mocks a disabled person and who makes thinly veiled quips about the effect of a woman’s menstrual cycle on her supposed hostility to him is at a fundamental level unsuited to lead.

An indication of his shifty persona and generally unreliable disposition can be garnered from the amount of about turns that he has made in regard to his position on several key matters. He is on record as supporting a universal health care system which would be paid for by government but now claims that he will repeal Obama Care. Where Trump was once in favour of restrictions to gun ownership, under the election spotlight, he now pledges to repeal Obama’s tough gun control laws.

And this from Trump some years ago about illegal immigration:

It’s very tough to say, ‘You have to leave. Get out!’ How do you throw someone out who has lived in this country for twenty years? You just can’t throw everybody out.

Trump has of course gained both notoriety and support for pledging to deport twelve million illegal immigrants and to ban all Muslims from entering the United States.

He now excoriates both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama where in the past he was fulsome in his praise for both; Clinton as being  “very, very capable” so far as inheriting the mantle of president and Obama as being a “strong and smart” leader. While Trump has always claimed allegiance to the Republican Party, he admitted that in many cases “I probably identify more as a Democrat.”

It is doubtful that Trump can perform an economic miracle by turning around the trends in the economy. He cannot for instance force Apple Inc. to manufacture goods in the United States and make them pay American workers at ‘developed country’ levels.

In this matter and others, Trump’s sums simply do not add up. He supported President Obama’s stimulus package and consistently supported a high level of government spending and other forms of interventionist measures including the use of eminent domain; that is, the compulsory purchase of private property for public use. Trump’s tune has changed. He favours an economic policy based on removing 75 million Americans from paying income tax. There would be a top income tax rate of 25% for individual and 15% for corporation. Death duties would be abolished.

Trump’s plan for making up for the inevitable shortfall in national revenues is to place a heavy tax on all foreign imported goods – an action which would likely kick start a global trade war and add over $30 trillion dollars to the debt of the United States.

He cannot bring about a genuinely substantive economic revival without a wholesale ‘root and branch’ reformation of the economic system. This is a system in which markets are rigged by the Federal Reserve and by the U.S. Treasury.

As Michael Hudson, a distinguished professor of economics, argues in his book Killing the Host, the whole of the financial system would need re-regulating. This would require a revolutionary tax policy geared towards preventing the financial sector from extracting economic surplus and capitalizing on debt obligations paying interest to that sector.

All Trump has offered thus far is a suggestion that the Federal Reserve ought to be audited and a truculent comment about the Reserve keeping the level of interest rates low so as to protect Obama from “a recession-slash-depression during his administration.”

He holds himself out as an anti-establishment reformer but from Trump there is no reference to a substantively constructed programme detailing how he would go about challenging the barons of Wall Street. He poses as a reformer without attacking power. There is no tangible sense of promise that he could wage the sort of battle with entrenched interests in the manner of previous presidents such as Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Jackson, weary of the powers accumulated by a powerful central bank -which he likened to a hydra-headed monster- and its “paper money”, abolished the Bank of America. Theodore Roosevelt attacked business monopolies via the Sherman Anti-Trust Act while his distant cousin was the instigator of the ‘New Deal’ a radical series of measures which included the institution of a social security system.

Trump’s wealth, while providing a credible image of a politician who cannot be bought, does not guarantee that he would be able to deliver on any radical policies. For one thing, an American president cannot go over the heads of both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court which holds the final card so far as the settlement of core constitutional matters is concerned.

John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency backed by his father’s considerable wealth. But while he could, as a senator, take bold, independent stances such as his support for Algerian independence, as president, he had to make compromises with interest groups who supported the political party with which he was affiliated. As president, he earned the ire of the military industrial complex, barons of commerce, segments of the Intelligence community and high-ranking fascist-leaning army and air force generals in the Pentagon. He was almost certainly eliminated by a plot originated from elements from the aforementioned groups over discontent with his policies and fear of where he would take America.

Outside of economic and social policies, Trump painted a picture of prudence during a debate on foreign policy. While the other candidates appeared to be falling over themselves to present the image of being strong and decisive on Syria and the Ukraine, Trump said that he would endeavour to pursue a constructive working relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

However, his threat to “bomb the hell out of our enemies” exposes a poor grasp of the workings of international politics; not least a failure on his part to understand the lessons of America’s recent past. It contradicts the criticisms he has correctly levelled at Hillary Clinton for her part in the destruction of Libya.

It also suggests that Trump would go out of his way to appease the armaments industry and fall in line with the dictates of the military industrial complex. This important cog in the economic machinery of the United States, about which President Dwight Eisenhower issued dark warnings in his farewell address to the American people, operates on the basis of increasing defence expenditure and perpetuating the war industry by all available means. This has included facilitating the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in defiance of promises given by America’s leaders as a condition for allowing a reunified Germany to join N.A.T.O.

A President Trump who managed to limit or otherwise remove tax obligations domestically would more than ever need to preserve the United States dollar as the de facto global reserve currency. A necessary element of this state of affairs is the co-operation of the rulers of the oil rich Saudi state to which the United States is pledged to preserve for the consideration of the sale of oil in U.S. dollars.

The United States has served as an overseer of Saudi imperial designs in the Middle East including that regime’s part sponsorship of the lengthy and destructive war between the Saddam-era Iraq and Iran as well as the Saudi-backed insurrection against the Ba’athist regime in Syria. Further evidence of Trump as a warmonger can be garnered from his comments that Iran’s nuclear programme should be stopped by “any and all means necessary.”

But something which admittedly appears to work in Trump’s favour is the criticism he is receiving from the political establishment who the electorate hold in low esteem. This also applies to those paragons of the economic order.

For instance, when the economist Larry Summers alleged that Trump “is a serious threat to American democracy”, there are many who would keenly take Summers to task for his support of the present corrupt order. It was Summers after all, who helped deregulate the banking system which paved the way for the ‘casino banking’ culture that led to the economic crash of the late 2000s. Summers also played a key role as an overseer of the mass plunder of the Russian economy in the 1990s.

In this heated atmosphere littered with scornful reproach and blistering invective, the opportunity for calm and fruitful reflection is being lost.

It is clear that Americans need to re-think the nature of the deep-seated identity-politics and the highly partisan approach to issues which is imperiling the sanctity of its institutions and the conventions that govern them. The row related to the unprecedented decision of Republican leaders in Congress to arrange for a foreign leader, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, to give a speech before congress over the head of the serving president provides one example of this.

Where many Jewish Americans saw this as a necessary tactic to stymie President Obama’s then in progress attempt at reaching a deal with Iran over its nuclear energy programme, many African-Americans saw it as one of a series of insults directed at a black president.

The “You lie” interjection by the southern Republican Joe Wilson during a major speech to Congress by President Obama in 2009, according to former president Jimmy Carter, had exposed “an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”

But even if the action of enabling Netanyahu to speak before Congress without the consultation of the serving president in this instant was not predicated on the “intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama as a black man”, it clearly unveiled the power and leverage wielded by the Israel lobby over many United States legislators.

The actions of 47 Republican senators in sending a signed letter to the leaders of Iran warning them against reaching agreement with the Obama administration brought enough scrutiny to warrant the an accusation of treason.

The crucial point however is whatever the merits of the arguments for and against the deal with Iran, an important convention was circumvented and the office of the presidency was wilfully undermined by legislators who were beholden to an interest group and a gross level of partisanship.

The polarised views over issues related to the killings of Americans by law enforcement officials also exposes a divide based on race and political affinities at the expense of what should be a consensus view on the standards of policing and the even-handed operation of the criminal justice system.

While an increasing amount of cases such as the slayings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner brought forth uncomfortable statistics related to the killing of minorities by police and counter-arguments positing the statistics showing that armed white suspects were more likely to be killed than blacks in the same situation, lost in the emotional and uncompromisingly partisan discourse is the reality of an increasing militarisation of police forces in America.

Many white Americans, comforted by the fact that they are not profiled as criminal or terror suspects because they are neither black nor Muslim, appear aloof to this phenomenon despite the rise in apparently unwarranted shootings for instance of whites who call the police to investigate suspected crimes on their property. Age and respectability are no barriers to being on the receiving end of rough-handed treatment as the case last year of a retired four-star army general in Georgia demonstrated.

Meanwhile the Eric Garner case serves to illustrate how U.S. police officers have increasingly become unaccountable for actions of wrongful arrest and brutality including homicide. Taxpayers have had to fund millions of dollars in settlement of lawsuits.

In America, the issue of race is of course never far from the surface. “The problem of the Twentieth Century”, wrote W.E.B. Dubois in 1903 “is the problem of the colour line”.

It is also clearly a problem in this, the succeeding century.

The aforementioned Michael Brown case, as indeed also the one involving Trayvon Martin, was overshadowed by race. Each became a contest of accusations and counter-accusations based on perceptions of the racial attitudes of the police, and criminality in the black community. The likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were called out by whites concerned about their silence in cases where white victims had suffered at the hands of black criminals. This extended also to situations of so-called black-on-black violence.

The issue of race and criminal statistics are projected on to cases such as those involving Michael Brown, serving, from the perspective of many whites, as a justification for the killing of young black men. In other words, that U.S. Department of Justice figures consistently attributing a high level of crime to segments of the black population make it alright to gun down black suspects.

There are a number of caveats nonetheless which need to be kept in mind. For instance, so far as homicides are concerned, most whites –over 80%- are killed by other whites much in the manner that most blacks are killed by other blacks. It is worth noting the statistics issued focus on street crimes and not on organised crime and corporate crime.

If the Department of Justice began compiling statistics related to the ethnic origins of say corporate crime which became repeated like the mantra of black street crime, then it would arguably create a new ambit of racial sensitivities.

It is worth pausing to think of a situation where the media and the public discourse was focused on the ethnic origins of Wall Street operatives who are convicted of financial crimes. The issues of race and social class, needless to say, play a part in this. How else is it possible to explain the ‘too-big-to-fail’ rationale behind the bailout of corporations on Wall Street? Whereas Iceland allowed banks to fail and jailed criminally culpable bankers, in the United States, the bigwigs in the banking sector escaped prosecution for policies and actions which appeared to be criminal in both conception and execution.

For instance in 2006 and 2007, the Goldman Sachs Group offered over $40 billion in securities that were backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages. What the corporation failed to do was to inform potential buyers that it was also secretly betting on a sharp drop in housing prices which would result in the marked devaluation of those securities.

The excuse put forward by the regulatory authorities that many devices of market chicanery were not illegal at the times of their operation is unconvincing to many. It demonstrates an extraordinary level of descent in the standard of morality applied to the corporate world as indeed is the case in other spheres.

Those who helped plunge the United States and the world into an economic morass, destroying the livelihoods of many, shrinking their pension funds, saddling many with debts and in effect lowering the prospects of the succeeding generation are not categorised by race.

A worthwhile question for the American public to ponder is whether the construction of racial statistics related to the commission of economic crimes should be an important element of the public discourse as is the case with street crimes.

Ultimately, this may be unhelpful for the simple reason that it would serve to deflect attention from the underlying failures in the system. The aforementioned David Duke in relation to whom Trump took some time before disavowing is as fixated on the levels of black street crime statistics as he is on repeating the claim that Jewish organisations and Jewish individuals ‘control’ the electoral and wider political process when in fact, the system itself is open to being manipulated by the highest bidder.

The Koch brothers, David and Charles, who are worth a combined $86 billion provide a study of how any well-resourced group or individual can attempt to buy political influence in order to secure legislative enactment to their benefit rather than for the benefit of the wider society.

The Koch brothers, who have given over 60 million dollars over a 15 year period to groups which deny climate change, are the fossil fuel industry’s largest donors to the members of the congressional committee overseeing fuel and energy matters. In 2010, the Koch brothers and their employees donated over $300,000 to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which was overseeing the Keystone XL pipeline proposal.

According to a report by the International Forum on Globalisation, the Koch Brothers would stand to make up to 100 billion dollars in profits if the pipeline is constructed. This would encompass the areas of exploration, construction and trading. Although the figure related to an expected profit margin is hotly disputed as is the extent of the involvement of the Koch Corporation in this proposed venture, it is worth reminding how Republican members of Congress attempted to use this project as a bargaining tool in the confrontation with President Obama over the budget in September 2013.

This is the daunting context within which any aspiring American president will be required to discharge his or her duties. It is doubtful that Donald Trump possesses the leadership qualities as well as the requisite policies which would serve as the panacea for America’s problems, for he appears to be a charlatan and a savvy peddler of populist propaganda.

In any case, it is worth reiterating the limitations of the office. The last president who seemed to act with a great measure of ‘independence’, that is, one fulfilling the ideal concept of a robust ‘father of the nation’ who as an elected official proceeded according to his own will in the belief that he was serving the interests of the mass of the electorate was probably Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Today, with a system so closely entwined in satisfying the interests of powerful minority elites, it would be difficult, if not near impossible for a president to effect change of the sort many Americans desire. A president, even one with a considerable amount of personal wealth, cannot hope to displace the entrenched interests of powerful lobby groups such as those representing the defence and armaments industry, the extractive industries, Israel, and, of course, Wall Street and the banking sector.

In several key ways, many who support Trump do so as a projection of their fears and their anger at the system: Anger at the economically debilitating aspects of free trade and the perceived overreach of ‘political correctness’ as well as the fear of immigration and Islamist terrorism.

But the Trump supporters who cheer on Trump’s promises in relation to strengthening laws to combat the perceived ‘Muslim menace’ at home and abroad appear not to be cognizant of the fact that they are sanctioning the entrenchment of an Orwellian-like police state apparatus that has markedly developed in the post-9/11 era. Many who rail against ‘political correctness’ have only succeeded in providing overt evidence of their racial and religious prejudices while those subscribing to his strategy for regaining jobs that have gone overseas merely display their naivety of the workings of the economic order.

It is doubtful that most can believe that he has the solutions which he claims he has. From those sharing the racialist worldview of David Duke to the neglected working man sensing a different political animal to the tried and failed political classes, supporting Trump is a leap into the dark.

It effectively amounts to a protest vote against the system.

It is the system and the prevailing mores of the political and business establishments that guide it which ought to be the primary concern of Americans. It is only when the system is cleansed of the rules enabling political ‘sugar daddies’ and corporate interests to buy elections and the rules allowing the rigging of the economic system are properly reformed that the election of a new president will be able to provide the basis for genuine change.

 Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on TRUMP – A “Symptom” of America’s Great Divide, Not a “Solution”

First published on October 10, 2016

As we move into this year’s presidential election, the tempo of dramatic world events and developments that are breaking daily is mind boggling.

Every single day we are seeing more outrageously desperate actions on the part of the globalists and their US government minions. Among the latest unfolding developments this week all fast tracking towards world war against Russia is NATO’s violation of international law deploying AWACS (Airborne Radar Warning and Control system) in Syria despite only Syria and Russia possessing the legal right to control the embattled country’s airspace.

With both US and Turkish boots on the ground in northern Syria and US led coalition airstrikes regularly invading the sovereign nation’s airspace, recently targeting Syrian soldiers and plans to kill more, along with former acting CIA director Mike Morell’s recent call to begin killing Russian soldiers, the latest warpath rant comes from Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley who is now threatening Russia (as well as China and Iran) with nuclear war. Spoken just like a true grade school bully on a playground, he boasts, “We will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before!” This is the kind of moronic leadership that rises to the top of the Empire food chain? I’m afraid so.

The most likely next commander-in-chief is Hillary Clinton. She’s already made it very clear that any real or perceived cyberspace attack on America coming from anywhere in the world constitutes an act of war and a military response against the cyber-perpetrators’ country.

After already vowing to bomb Iran and with her constant accusations blaming Putin for everything gone wrong in her life, including exposing her DNC corruption scandal responsible for rigging her presidential election, she is also all but promising to launch World War III against nuclear powered Russia.

Incisive insider Paul Craig Roberts and even Putin have both said so. The neocon insanity that she represents is committed to perpetrating both suicidal and genocidal mass murder.

With a total of 7,100 US nuclear warheads as of August 2016 and an estimate reported two years ago of 2,150 operationally deployed nukes, America could destroy itself four times over while Russia’s 7,300 nuclear weapons would likely carry the same tremendous overkill power.

When we’re all dead, it hardly matters who has what?

As the Benghazi ringleader who gave the stand down order that sealed the fate of four murdered Americans would say, “What difference does it make?”

The sheer madness in control of our planet right now actually believes the elite can simply hunker down in their underground luxury bunkers, take a long nuclear winter’s nap and a few years later emerge like Rip Van Winkle unscathed in their grandiose fairy tale. Talk about madness!

Meanwhile, a whopping 40 million Russian citizens taking US threats very seriously are currently undergoing a WWIII practice drill in preparation for the real thing that the US megalomaniacs are bent on igniting. But unlike the US, Moscow is also taking care that at least12 million of its citizens in their capital will also safely submerge into a subterranean world when the SHTF.

Demonized Syrian President Bashar al-Assad succinctly summed up US foreign policy accurately this way:

Today the United States is waging wars with the only goal to cement its project of total control by launching attack on everyone who opposes its dominance.

Assad is reminding the world that the US Empire refuses to accept a balance of power sharing hegemonic interests with the two most powerful other nations on earth Russia and China.

And invariably just when the curtain is lifted exposing the US crime cabal government that’s created and to this day still supporting al Qaeda and ISIS terrorism around the world, the wag the dog propaganda frenzy goes into overdrive to falsely vilify Putin and Assad for actually being the two biggest fighters of terrorism on the planet.

But then peace and harmony is not what the New World Order agenda’s about.

The globalist puppet masters pulling Washington’s strings are simply setting the stage to destroy the West in an orchestrated West versus East showdown at the doomsday corral in order to obfuscate the collapse of their house of cards, theft-based, debt-based economy that will be sure to usher in their long plotted one world government tyranny.

Do Americans really want to place their lives in the hands of Hillary Clinton, a political liar who possesses the capability to push the nuke button that would end the world?

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In recent years he has focused on his writing, becoming an alternative media journalist. His blog site is at: http://empireexposed.blogspot.co

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Neocon Insanity and “Political Madness”: Hillary Clinton and the Dangers of Nuclear War

There’s nothing civil about Obama’s war on Syria, one of history’s great crimes – using ISIS and likeminded jihadist extremists as US death squads, raping and destroying a sovereign state threatening no others.

America wants another imperial trophy. Terrorists imported from scores of countries are aided by Pentagon special forces and US-led so-called coalition warplanes.

They’re terror-bombing vital infrastructure, government sites and civilian targets, operating illegally, not combating ISIS as officially proclaimed.

Washington’s orchestrated Raqqa offensive has nothing to do with liberating the city from ISIS control, likely intending to reposition its fighters elsewhere, perhaps in the battle for Aleppo.

The offensive’s aim is a likely scheme to divide Syria, transferring sovereignty from Damascus to northern territory, controlled by a US-installed puppet regime, maybe a Kurdish/Arab coalition if things go the way Washington plans.

It’s using terrorist fighters called “moderates” and Kurdish YPD forces, wanting an independent Kurdistan in northern Syria, perhaps a platform for incorporating Kurdish-populated Iraq and Turkey one day.

Last March, Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) officials met with Arabs and other northern Syria ethnic groups in northeastern Hasakeh province. They agreed on establishing area autonomy, short of declaring independence – likely acting with US support.

Turkey is adamantly opposed. So is Damascus, Syrian UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari at the time, saying “(b)etting on creating any kind of divisions among the Syrians will be a total failure.”

Damascus rejects the idea of a so-called Federation of Northern Syria run as an autonomous region. It has no constitutional legitimacy.

ISIS was created and remains supported by Washington. Claims of Pentagon and so-called “coalition” warplanes bombing them in areas around Mosul, Iraq and Raqqa, Syria are phony. Empty buildings and other targets are struck – civilians indiscriminately massacred in the process.

Media scoundrels propagate the myth of America’s led liberating struggle in both countries, while ignoring its terror-bombing responsible for mass slaughter of noncombatants in Syria and Iraq – part of its phony war on terror, a post-9/11 hoax.

A reported 30,000 US-backed fighters are involved in the so-called Wrath of Euphrates Raqqa offensive.

ISIS captured the city in 2013, establishing it as its Syrian headquarters. Maybe Washington intends relocating its fighters, wanting them used as imperial foot soldiers elsewhere in Syria.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria: The Battle for Raqqa, Another US Deception. ISIS-Daesh Was Created by Washington

U.S. Special Forces Suffer Casualties Near Mosul

November 8th, 2016 by Ahmad Salah

GR Editor: US Special Forces are fighting against the ISIS which is supported covertly by the US.

They participate in the “Liberation of Mosul” against terrorist forces which are supported by Washington. There are also Special Forces within ISIS ranks. Mosul is being targeted, the terrorists are being evacuated.

*      *     *

The US special forces participating in the operation to “liberate Mosul” suffered first casualties.

Turkish Syrian Committee for Human Rights sources in Iraq reported that during a few days of fighting, US Special Operations Forces lost 16 killed and 27 wounded. As usual, official Washington doesn’t admit that its Special Forces are suffering heavy losses.

For the first time, the Pentagon confirmed the US special forces were directly taking part in the attack on Mosul on October 18. Then, Department of Defense said that the main task of US troopers was to coordinate air strikes and train Iraqi security forces.

However, photo and video footage published by leading news agencies as well as activists, suggest otherwise. Photos and videos showing the US special forces in Iraq, Syria, and in Raqqa which is controlled by ISIS, began to emerge in May 2016. In particular, it was published by AFP.

After the beginning of the offensive at Mosul, GoPro videos depicting US special forces’ actions in the first person appeared on the Internet.

It is notable that videos published before this October mostly show surprise attacks on militants’ command posts – the actual task of the US Special Forces.

In Mosul, the case is quite different. Recent American casualties prove the situation is turning grim for Washington.

Apparently, Washington realized that the Iraqi security forces and Kurds can’t cope with the task of liberating Mosul before the upcoming US presidential elections. That’s why the White House had to send 500 commandos to the front line of the infantry battle formations to ensure the operation is successful.

It seems that the conquest of Mosul is supposed to become the final success of the Obama administration and provide the advantage to Hillary Clinton. Until this goal isn’t achieved, politicians will continue to sacrifice the lives of the American soldiers.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Special Forces Suffer Casualties Near Mosul

The Syrian army captured air defence housing area between al-Deirkhabiyeh – al-Darusheh adjacent to Khan al-Sheeh in Western Ghouta and secured the road between Darushah and Buwaydiyah. Jaish al-Islam and Jabhat al-Nusra militants in Khan al-Sheeh remain the cut-off from any supplies and reinforcements. The storm of the town is expected in the nearest future.

The attack on Russia’s Mi-35 multi-role combat helicopter by ISIS near the city of Palmyra in the Syrian province of Homs was a bad idea for the ISIS terrorist group. Following the incident, the Russian Aerospace Forces’ attack helicopters, including the Mil Mi-24 and Mil Mi-28N, swarmed in the province, purging the terrorist group’s manpower and military equipment. Russian attack helicopters operate in the areas of Huwaysis village, Shaer gas field, Mustadira gas field and in the area of Arak.

The developments near the ancient city of Palmyra is barely covered by the mainstream media. However, successful operations of the Syrian army and the Russian military in the area are one of the factors preventing the ISIS terrorist group from active offensive operations across the country.

The Iranian Fars News Agency released a series of photos from the southern countryside of Aleppo city. The photos show the Liwa Fatemiyoun militia group, operating 152 mm towed artillery guns during the battle with Jaish al-Fatah militants. Liwa Fatemiyoun is an Afghani Shia milita group funded, trained, and equipped by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Reports say the group is embeded with Iranian military advisers. The total strength of the group in Syria is about 20,000 fighters.

On November 7, the Syrian army and its allies launched counter attacks on Jaish al-Fatah militants in Tal Rakhem, the 1070 Apartment Project and the al-Assda neighborhood. Clashes are ongoing.

The so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) announced  on Sunday a military operation, called Angry Euphrates, to take control of the city of Raqqa from ISIS. The operation is supported by the US’ air force and speicla forces. The SDF says that some 30,000 fighters are deployed for the advance. The first proclaimed goal is to isolate Raqqa.

After the announcement, the Kurdish YPG that operates under the SDF brand took control of Jurah, Al-Wahib and Al Adriyah from ISIS and entered Laqtah. YPG fighters involved in the operation were embed with US troops.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria War: Russian Attack Helicopters Target ISIS Terror Groups

The American people don’t know very much about war even if Washington has been fighting on multiple fronts since 9/11. The continental United States has not experienced the presence a hostile military force for more than 100 years and war for the current generation of Americans consists largely of the insights provided by video games and movies. The Pentagon’s invention of embedded journalists, which limits any independent media insight into what is going on overseas, has contributed to the rendering of war as some kind of abstraction. Gone forever is anything like the press coverage of Vietnam, with nightly news and other media presentations showing prisoners being executed and young girls screaming while racing down the street in flames.

Given all of that, it is perhaps no surprise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, neither of whom has served in uniform, should regard violence inflicted on people overseas with a considerable level of detachment. Hillary is notorious for her assessment of the brutal killing of Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi, saying “We came, we saw, he died.” They both share to an extent the dominant New York-Washington policy consensus view that dealing with foreigners can sometimes get a bit bloody, but that is a price that someone in power has to be prepared to pay. One of Hillary’s top advisers, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, famously declared that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. led sanctions were “worth it.”

In the election campaign there has, in fact, been little discussion of the issue of war and peace or even of America’s place in the world, though Trump did at one point note correctly that implementation of Hillary’s suggested foreign policy could escalate into World War III. It has been my contention that the issue of war should be more front and center in the minds of Americans when they cast their ballots as the prospect of an armed conflict in which little is actually at stake escalating and going nuclear could conceivably end life on this planet as we know it.

With that in mind, it is useful to consider what the two candidates have been promising. First, Hillary, who might reasonably be designated the Establishment’s war candidate though she carefully wraps it in humanitarian “liberal interventionism.” As Senator and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has always viewed a foreign crisis as an opportunity to use aggressive measures to seek a resolution. She can always be relied upon to “do something,” a reflection of the neocon driven Washington foreign policy consensus.

Hillary Clinton and her advisors, who believe strongly in Washington’s leadership role globally and embrace their own definition of American exceptionalism, have been explicit in terms of what they would do to employ our military power. She would be an extremely proactive president in foreign policy, with a particular animus directed against Russia. And, unfortunately, there would be little or no pushback against the exercise of her admittedly poor instincts regarding what to do, as was demonstrated regarding Libya and also with Benghazi. She would find little opposition in Congress and the media for an extremely risky foreign policy, and would benefit from the Washington groupthink that prevails over the alleged threats emanating from Russia, Iran, and China.

Hillary has received support from foreign policy hawks, including a large number of formerly Republican neocons, to include Robert Kagan, Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman. James Stavridis, a retired admiral who was once vetted by Clinton as a possible vice president, recently warned of “the need to use deadly force against the Iranians. I think it’s coming. It’s going to be maritime confrontation and if it doesn’t happen immediately, I’ll bet you a dollar it’s going to be happening after the presidential election, whoever is elected.”

Hillary believes that Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad is the root cause of the turmoil in that country and must be removed as the first priority. . It is a foolish policy as al-Assad in no way threatens the United States while his enemy ISIS does and regime change would create a power vacuum that will benefit the latter. She has also called for a no-fly zone in Syria to protect the local population as well as the insurgent groups that the U.S. supports, some of which had been labeled as terrorists before they were renamed by current Secretary of State John Kerry. Such a zone would dramatically raise the prospect of armed conflict with Russia and it puts Washington in an odd position vis-à-vis what is occurring in Syria. The U.S. is not at war with the Syrian government, which, like it or not, is under international law sovereign within its own recognized borders. Damascus has invited the Russians in to help against the rebels and objects to any other foreign presence on Syrian territory. In spite of all that, Washington is asserting some kind of authority to intervene and to confront the Russians as both a humanitarian mission and as an “inherent right of self-defense.”

Hillary has not recommended doing anything about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of which have at one time or another for various reasons supported ISIS, but she is clearly no friend of Iran, which has been fighting ISIS. As a Senator, she threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran but she has more recently reluctantly supported the recent nuclear agreement with that country negotiated by President Barack Obama. But she has nevertheless warned that she will monitor the situation closely for possible violations and will otherwise pushback against activity by the Islamic Republic. As one of her key financial supporters is Israeli Haim Saban, who has said he is a one issue guy and that issue is Israel, she is likely to pursue aggressive policies in the Persian Gulf. She has also promised to move America’s relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a “new level” and has repeatedly declared that her support for Israel is unconditional.

One of Hillary’s advisors, former CIA acting Director Michael Morell, has called for new sanctions on Tehran and has also recently recommended that the U.S. begin intercepting Iranian ships presumed to be carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen. Washington is not at war with either Iran or Yemen and the Houthis are not on the State Department terrorist list but our good friends the Saudis have been assiduously bombing them for reasons that seem obscure. Stopping ships in international waters without any legal pretext would be considered by many an act of piracy. Morell has also called for covertly assassinating Iranians and Russians to express our displeasure with the foreign policies of their respective governments.

Hillary’s dislike for Russia’s Vladimir Putin is notorious. Syria aside, she has advocated arming Ukraine with game changing offensive weapons and also bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which would force a sharp Russian reaction. One suspects that she might be sympathetic to the views expressed recently by Carl Gershman in a Washington Post op-ed that received curiously little additional coverage in the media. Gershman is the head of the taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which means that he is a powerful figure in Washington’s foreign-policy establishment. NED has plausibly been described as doing the sorts of things that the CIA used to do.

After making a number of bumper-sticker claims about Russia and Putin that are either partially true, unproven or even ridiculous, Gershman concluded that “the United States has the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do so.” It is basically a call for the next administration to remove Putin from power—as foolish a suggestion as has ever been seen in a leading newspaper, as it implies that the risk of nuclear war is completely acceptable to bring about regime change in a country whose very popular, democratically elected leadership we disapprove of. But it is nevertheless symptomatic of the kind of thinking that goes on inside the beltway and is quite possibly a position that Hillary Clinton will embrace. She also benefits from having the perfect implementer of such a policy in Robert Kagan’s wife Victoria Nuland, her extremely dangerous protégé who is currently Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and who might wind up as Secretary of State in a Clinton Administration.

Shifting to East Asia, Hillary sees the admittedly genuine threat from North Korea but her response is focused more on China. She would increase U.S. military presence in the South China Sea to deter any further attempts by Beijing to develop disputed islands and would also “ring China with defensive missiles,” ostensibly as “protection” against Pyongyang but also to convince China to pressure North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One wonders what Beijing might think about being surrounded by made-in-America missiles.

Trump’s foreign policy is admittedly quite sketchy and he has not always been consistent. He has been appropriately enough slammed for being simple minded in saying that he would “bomb the crap out of ISIS,” but he has also taken on the Republican establishment by specifically condemning the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq and has more than once indicated that he is not interested in either being the world’s policeman or in new wars in the Middle East. He has repeatedly stated that he supports NATO but it should not be construed as hostile to Russia. He would work with Putin to address concerns over Syria and Eastern Europe. He would demand that NATO countries spend more for their own defense and also help pay for the maintenance of U.S. bases.

Trump’s controversial call to stop all Muslim immigration has been rightly condemned but it contains a kernel of truth in that the current process for vetting new arrivals in this country is far from transparent and apparently not very effective. The Obama Administration has not been very forthcoming on what might be done to fix the entire immigration process but Trump is promising to shake things up, which is overdue, though what exactly a Trump Administration would try to accomplish is far from clear.

Continuing on the negative side, Trump, who is largely ignorant of the world and its leaders, has relied on a mixed bag of advisors. Former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency General Michael Flynn appears to be the most prominent. Flynn is associated with arch neocon Michael Ledeen and both are rabid about Iran, with Flynn suggesting that nearly all the unrest in the Middle East should be laid at Tehran’s door. Ledeen is, of course, a prominent Israel-firster who has long had Iran in his sights. The advice of Ledeen and Flynn may have been instrumental in Trump’s vehement denunciation of the Iran nuclear agreement, which he has called a “disgrace,” which he has said he would “tear up.” It is vintage dumb-think. The agreement cannot be canceled because there are five other signatories to it and the denial of a nuclear weapons program to Tehran benefits everyone in the region, including Israel. It is far better to have the agreement than to scrap it, if that were even possible.

Trump has said that he would be an even-handed negotiator between Israel and the Palestinians but he has also declared that he is strongly pro-Israel and would move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, which is a bad idea, not in America’s interest, even if Netanyahu would like it. It would produce serious blowback from the Arab world and would inspire a new wave of terrorism directed against the U.S.

Regarding the rest of the Middle East, Trump would prefer strong leaders, i.e. autocrats, who are friendly rather than chaotic reformers. He rejects arming rebels as in Syria because we know little about whom we are dealing with and find that we cannot control what develops. He is against foreign aid in principle, particularly to countries like Pakistan where the U.S. is strongly disliked.

In East Asia, Trump would encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals to deter North Korea. It is a very bad idea, a proliferation nightmare. Like Hillary, he would prefer that China intervene in North Korea and make Kim Jong Un “step down.” He would put pressure on China to devalue its currency because it is “bilking us of billions of dollars” and would also increase U.S. military presence in the region to limit Beijing’s expansion in the South China Sea.

So there you have it as you enter the voting booth. President Obama is going around warning that “the fate of the world is teetering” over the electoral verdict, which he intends to be a ringing endorsement of Hillary even though the choice is not nearly that clear cut. Part of the problem with Trump is that he has some very bad ideas mixed in with a few good ones and no one knows what he would actually do if he were president. Unfortunately, it is all too clear what Hillary would do.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Oh, What a Lovely War! Delusional US Foreign Policy could bring Disaster

The Battle For Just Peace In A World of War Lies

November 8th, 2016 by Mark Taliano

Author Catherine Shakdam writes in “The Sound Of Your Silence”:

“Today silence has become more than a war crime. Today silence has become more than just the manifestation of our egocentrism and selfishness. Today silence has enabled, empowered and shielded oppressors and tyrants.”

In From Mecca To The Plain of Karbala Walking with the Holy household of the Prophet the Imam recites Farwa ibn Musayk Muradi:

“If we have been victorious today it is not something new, because we have always gained victory and even if we are defeated, predominance and victory is ours; and truth is victorious in all circumstances, whether it wins or loses.”

These lines underscore the importance of truth-telling if we are to achieve victory over the lies and crimes of Empire.

Stated bluntly, Islam, correctly interpreted, is not the enemy.  We are.

It is known and documented, and has been for years, that the West and its allies support terrorism to destroy and control other countries and their (remaining) peoples.

It is known and documented that the terrorists who behead, and rape, and pillage their way through the Middle East and elsewhere are our proxies.  We pay the bills, and we orchestrate the carnage.

Prof Chossudovsky remarks in the preface to the author’s i-book, Syria’s War For Humanity

“Everybody in Syria knows that Washington is behind the terrorists, that they are financed by the US (at tax payers’ expense) and its allies, trained and recruited by America’s Middle East partners. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, have been financing and training the ISIS-Daesh, al Nusra terrorists on behalf of the United States. Israel is harboring the terrorists out of the occupied Golan Heights, NATO in liaison with the Turkish high command has since March 2011 been involved in coordinating the recruitment of the jihadist fighters dispatched to Syria.

Moreover, the ISIS-Daesh brigades in both Syria and Iraq are integrated by Western special forces and military advisers.

While all this is known to the Syrian people, Western public opinion is led to believe that the US is leading a ‘counter-terrorism campaign’ in Syria and Iraq against the Islamic State (ISIS-Daesh), an entity created and supported by US intelligence.”

As NATO and its allies commit war crimes against non-belligerent Syria and Yemen, and Hillary Clinton promises war and more war, we need to break the silence.

Our political representatives no longer represent us.

Presumably, they too have been heavily propagandized, and they believe the lies laundered by our criminal mainstream media (msm).  But ignorance is no longer a legitimate excuse.

In the case of Syria, we need to demand that our misleaders take immediately attainable steps to achieve peace, as outlined by the United States peace Council (USPC):

  • Stop bombing Syrian economic infrastructure in the name of fighting ISIS. 
  • Stop injecting foreign fighters into Syria.
  • Stop funding, organizing and arming the combatants in Syria.
  • Lift all sanctions on Syria.
  • Provide humanitarian aid to the Syrian people.
  • Help the Syrian refugees settle wherever they want — including back in Syria.

None of the countries that we are threatening or attacking, including Russia, are real threats. General Petr Pavel, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, acknowledged that,

“It is not the aim of NATO to create a military barrier against broad-scale Russian aggression, because such aggression is not on the agenda and no intelligence assessment suggests such a thing.”

The NATO military build-up is unnecessary and dangerous, as is the criminal war on Syria.

As the author notes in Fake Threats and Engineered Fears,

“The ‘Russian threat’ is fake; there never was a ‘Syria threat’ (except that Syria insists on its sovereignty and territorial integrity); and the ‘terrorist threat’ is a hoax, because we support the terrorists.

The ‘humanitarian bombing’ strategy is also a hoax, because ISIS territory expands when the U.S illegally bombs Syria.

Basically, everything we’re hearing is fake. The government, and Soros et al.–funded “non- government organizations” (NGOs) are fake, not only because they aren’t “non-governmental”, but also because they’re embedded with the terrorist invaders.”

The pursuit of truth and just peace is an uphill battle.  The Pentagon’s “Law of War” manual, for example, views the control and manipulation of information as a (legitimate) “soft power” weapon, and the U.S Department of Defense (DOD) public relations/propaganda budget alone is reported to be about $600,000,000 per year.

But as responsible citizens, we need to reject the war lies, and insist on truth and a just peace.  Even if the truth “loses”, and warmongers are elected, it still “wins”, because it engaged the enemy, despite the odds.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Battle For Just Peace In A World of War Lies

In no surprise to anyone paying even marginal attention, the FBI’s clearing Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing in its briefly reopened investigation — however, the time it took the agency to reach this conclusion is not only bereft of logic and reason, it constitutes the most hubristic of insults to the public’s intelligence.

In just 691,000 seconds from announcement to conclusion, FBI Director James Comey wants you to believe that agents thoroughly examined over 650,000 emails newly ‘discovered’ on Anthony Weiner’s computer — including any threads resulting, as well as all attachments — before deciding Clinton innocent of wrongdoing.

We, the people of this planet, are just not that stupid — nor are we even mildly amused by this farcical bullshit passed off as a credible investigation.

Seriously.

Indeed, the lightning pace of this putative second investigation not only boggles the mind, it forces uneasy questions concerning the true motivation and apparent exceeding necessity to ensure Hillary Clinton walks away scot-free amid rapidly mushrooming evidence of flagrant corruption and mendacious collusion.

Just a cursory comparison of two investigations shows such marked differences it would be impossible not to question legitimacy of the FBI’s findings.

In the summer of 2015, the FBI commenced its first probe into the former secretary of state’s use of a private email server during her tenure in office, after John Giacalone — then Director of the National Security Branch — met with Comey to voice concerns emanating from the Intelligence community about classified information possibly handled carelessly.

For nearly a full year — 365 days, or 31,536,000 seconds — a sizable task force of FBI agents pored over an enormous cache, first comprised of 30,000 emails, but later totaling 44,900 after additional documents not originally handed over by the Clinton camp to the State Department were discovered.

This means — rounding off the rough estimate of one year — the Bureau combed an average of just over 123 documents every day.

While that might seem to be manageable with a slew of investigators on the job, a basic comparison of the two probes proves the literal inanity of the reopened investigation.

Later in the day on October 28, Comey announced the commencement of the secondary probe — albeit to the consternation of current and former officials who felt his telling Congress broke a number of investigatory guidelines, including possibly influencing the outcome of the presidential race.

According to Comey, an additional 650,000 documents located on the computer of Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s now-disgraced and estranged husband Anthony Weiner deserved careful scrutiny for pertinence and relevance to the original investigation of the Democratic nominee.

Public and official speculation predicted a months- or years-long investigation, even with substantial manpower dedicated to the task.

But on Sunday, November 6, in yet another shocker of an announcement from the FBI director, Comey inexplicably declared nothing of relevance to the Clinton investigation — “no new conclusions” — had been revealed in its secondary probe.

This means — again rounding for brevity to eight days the total length of the investigation — FBI agents inspected some 81,250 documents each day.

Granted, both estimates have been averaged and roughened, but only for comparison’s sake — and that contrast doesn’t survive the scantiest litmus test of believability.

Not at all.

Before the naysayers jump in with a there’s no comparison deflection, consider the following points.

Although an algorithm or program combing those documents might indeed retrieve subjects of interest to investigators — keywords, germane subjects, accordant people’s names, and the like — in no way would such technological gatekeepers reveal subtle nuance as has been displayed in emails published by WikiLeaks from Hillary Clinton, campaign chair John Podesta, and the Democratic National Committee.

Such fine gradations of meaning, naturally found in the English language but also purposefully employed to throw off investigators and interlopers, could not possibly be revealed by artificial means — at least not that quickly and particularly not with currently available technologies.

Still not convinced?

Consider that if such technology did indeed exist to that discerning level of scrutiny in our heightened and overarching surveillance and police states, no criminal would ever roam free.

Law enforcement departments and the National Security Agency together have amassed astonishingly voluminous data sets on every person in this country, including through emails and online activities. A technology advanced enough to comb for subtleties in language would home in on criminal behavior and activity with incredible frequency.

And while NSA programs have been revealed to hunt for keywords, there are limits to its effectiveness — no terrorist plot has yet been halted in progress because the intelligence to discover it hasn’t yet solidified to that point.

Technology experts immediately weighed in claiming such technology does indeed exist, is frequently employed, and can do the job perfectly in a mere eight days — no worries.

But, as WikiLeaks rebutted in a number of tweets, it isn’t quite so simple.

Emails between Clinton, her campaign staff, the DNC, and other insiders have proven to be a literal trove of revealing details — including Hillary’s use of the name of aide Huma Abedin as a deflection, and President Obama’s use of a pseudonym to communicate on the private server in an attempt to thwart future investigators.

Programs and algorithms would have to be fed such information, but not all of those pseudonyms were known — and that represents only one such complication.

Even working around the clock, as Comey alleged the FBI did in its second probe, 82,000 documents daily isn’t even worth comparing to the 123 averaged each day in the initial investigation.

So, what are we to believe about the clearing of Hillary Clinton for a second time?

That’s up to you — to each of us — to draw a conclusion.

But to characterize that second investigation as anything other than a charade to placate an irate public would be criminal willful denial of conspicuous evidence — criminal willful denial that the utter bullshit the FBI just brazenly served the American people doesn’t somehow stink.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on FBI Wants You To Believe It Examined 650,000 Emails In 691,000 Seconds

(updated with 6:06am data for Presidential and Senate; also added confidence intervals)

Here are my best estimates. These are the final snapshots. The Presidential estimates are based on the current snapshot except for the most probable single outcome map. There, for North Carolina, variance minimization was done to give a more stable snapshot; a longer baseline of 8 polls gives Clinton +1.0 ± 1.0%.

The Presidential and House races are a near-replica of 2012. Four Senate races are within one percentage point. Partisans in Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, and North Carolina may want to lawyer up for possible recount battles.

Tomorrow: I’ll put out a brief Geek’s Guide to the Election. Also, live blogging starting around 8:00 pm.

President: Hillary Clinton (D).

Most probable single outcome (shown on map below): Clinton 323 EV, Trump 215 EV.

Median: Clinton 307 EV, Trump 231 EV. Meta-Margin: 2.2%. One-sigma range: Clinton 281-326 EV.

Mode (see histogram at right): Clinton 308 EV, Trump 230 EV.

National popular vote: Clinton +4.0 ± 0.6%.

Senate

In this case, variance minimization was used to identify longer time windows with lower variance. This gives a more stable snapshot.

Mode (shown in table below): 51 Democratic/Independent seats, 49 Republican seats; most likely single outcome in the table below.

Median: 50 Democratic/Independent seats, 50 Republican seats. (average=50.4; 1-sigma range 49 to 51)

House

Generic Congressional ballot: Democratic +1%, about the same as 2012.

Cook Political Report-based expectation: 239 R, 196 D, an 8-seat gain for Democrats.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Final Election Projections: Clinton 323 EV, Trump 215 EV, 51 Democratic Senate seats, GOP House

“When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any except for the most elemental ones. The whole thinking of such voters is done in terms of emotion…(and the) dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost…All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre – the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” — H. L. Mencken – known as the “Sage of Baltimore”

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” – Voltaire

NOTE: This column was written the day before the dreaded Election Day of 2016 and submitted for publication to Global Research before any election results were announced. Because I had already done everything in my power over the past decades of my political activism to influence the vote of thinking folks, I intend to turn off the TV on election day and try not to pay any attention to any of the over-analyzed political commentary and election-season information overload until the morning after.

At this point I think – since it is too late in the season to take the day off and go fishing – that I might actually go – right after I vote – to some distracting daytime movie that my wife wouldn’t want to see anyway. Then, following my regular Tuesday night tennis match, I will come right home and go right to bed without getting myself all tied up in knots.

I realize that it is futile to try to change the political minds of folks who have already chosen to affiliate with anti-democratic folks who exhibit behaviors that are compatible with sociopaths, sexists, xenophobes, racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, anti-Semites, neo-fascists, pro-war/pro-violence Christian fundamentalists, aggressive militarists, climate change deniers, anti-science types and the varieties of demagogue-devotees who have already pledged their allegiance to certain candidates who refuse to be influenced by rational pro-democracy arguments.

“Donald Trump may be bad for the nation, but he’s good for CBS.”

I have long suspected that the major news outlets always try to make every national election season into a breathless and unnecessarily tight two-person horse race no matter if one of the candidates is totally unfit for the job. We certainly saw that happen in the two George W. Bush campaigns.

That strategy was revealed recently by the CEO of CBS when he blurted out to fellow corporate elites that “Trump may be bad for the nation, but he’s good for CBS.” He was actually speaking for every one of his Big Media competitors, for they all know how lucrative long political campaigns can be for their corporate bottom line. That may be the major reason that media lobbyists will never allow our elected and bribed representatives to legislate sensible and much shorter political campaigns.

Job #1 for all for-profit corporations is to maximize income for shareholders and executives, and the main goal for Big Media is to artificially increase campaign advertising income by being sure that no political race is a runaway. To me, that is seriously reckless, perhaps treasonous behavior that needs to be condemned, and this year I will refuse to subject myself to any unnecessary emotional stress enduring hours of TV speculation from the hundreds of talking heads. This year I will wait until the morning of November 9 to hear the results and ponder my strategies for any forthcoming apocalypse.

H. L. Mencken saw through the corrupted politics of his day and expressed his cynical opinions in his regular columns in the Baltimore Sun. His comment above was written soon after the Republicans and Democrats had decided on their 1920 candidates for president.

In that campaign, the pro-business Republican Party nominee Warren Harding (and his running mate Calvin Coolidge) were opposed by the Democratic Party nominee James Fox (whose running mate was Franklin Delano Roosevelt). The Harding/Coolidge ticket won in a landslide on November 2, 1920.

But there were other third parties in the running. Indeed, the American Socialist Party candidate Eugene Debs (a prominent union organizer) garnered a million votes, despite being imprisoned at the time. During the campaign, Debs was in a federal prison serving a long sentence for sedition for criticizing the U.S. government, thus violating the 1917 Espionage Act. Responding to public outrage, Harding commuted Debs’ sentence soon after the election, but his U.S. citizenship and right to vote or run for office, which had been revoked at his 1918 sentencing, was only restored posthumously in 1976.

Debs wrote: “Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder and it is the working class who fights all the battles; the working class who makes the supreme sacrifices; the working class who freely sheds their blood and furnishes their corpse; and it is they who have never yet had a voice – in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace. They are continually talking about their patriotic duty. But it is not their duty but your patriotic duty that they are concerned about. There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty never takes them to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches.”

The two-term Democratic Party US President Woodrow Wilson (1913 – 1921) had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919 for his heroic efforts in birthing the League of Nations after World War I (AKA “The War to End All Wars”). Wilson’s efforts concerning the League were vigorously opposed by the Republican Party, whose control of the Senate prevented the US from ever joining the League, thus dooming its efforts at preventing international conflicts, including future world wars.

Woodrow Wilson was rejected by his Democratic Party from running for a third term. During his second term American women were given the right to vote when the 19th Amendment was passed and ratified.

The Resurgence of the KKK During the Republican Roaring 20s

The ultra-right-wing Ku Klux Klan and the related American eugenics movements peaked during the Republican administrations of Harding and Coolidge, both of whom, just like the modern GOP, urged a severely restrictive immigration policy that discriminated against war refugees.  Many political leaders thought that the US had become Europe’s “dumping ground” for “aliens” during WWI. Harding signed into law the Emergency Quota Act soon after taking office and Coolidge signed into law the equally restrictive Immigration Act of 1924.

President Coolidge signed the Revenue Act into law in 1926. That law further cut the size of the Federal government, reduced income taxes for the wealthy and cut into other sources of revenue, in spite of the evidence that the national economy was seriously troubled.

Corrupt Crony Capitalism and the Inevitable Crashes

The Republican-dominated Roaring 20s also featured the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 (pursued because fundamentalist Christians were opposed to the teaching of evolution in Tennessee’s public schools).  It also featured the scandalous, xenophobic Sacco and Vanzetti trial of 1927.

The GOP’s conservative, low tax and small government politics hyper-stimulated the economy and caused the Wall Street speculative boom and then the Crash of 1929, which provoked a world-wide depression that directly led to the rescue of the nearly bankrupted German Nazi Party, the triumph of Hitler, the Nazi concentration camps and World War II.

The infamous presidential campaign of 2016 has exposed many of the similarities between the American pro-business two party system and what happened during the evolution of European fascism. The fact that so many Americans are historically illiterate should be a concern of every serious voter. (For just one alarming example, the American Friendly Fascist-leaning Donald Trump has admitted that he never reads books, including, apparently, history books that could have taught him something about European fascism!)

The following 13 quotes are from the megalomaniacal, demagogic, sociopathic, fascist Adolf Hitler. Each one sounds familiar to American politics and therefore should concern every American (except for the closet NeoFascists and racists among us), particularly when we understand that Hitler was a right-wing pathological liar who was wildly cheered – even worshipped – by huge crowds of otherwise “Good Germans” who blindly wanted to disregard his lies and instead believe his promise that he would single-handedly make Germany great again – all the while secretly planning for the brutal conquest of the world via his huge military machine, his obedient and very willing executioners and his world-class assortment of lethal weapons. Read these quotes and weep – and then go vote

“The streets of our country are in turmoil! The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting! Communists are seeking to destroy our country! Russia is threatening us with her might! Our republic is in danger, yes, danger from within and without! WE NEED LAW AND ORDER!” — Original quote from Adolf Hitler (indistinguishable from the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan two generations later).

“It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them.”

“What good fortune for those in power that the people do not think.”

“Through clever and constant application of propaganda people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.” – From Mein Kampf, 1923

“The fascist state must not forget that all means must serve the ends; it must not let itself be confused by the drivel about so-called “freedom of the press”…it must make sure that (the media) is placed in the service of the state.” – From Mein Kampf, 1923

“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator; by defending myself against the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord.”

“Today Christians stand at the head of our country.  We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.  We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press — in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past years.”

“I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to be allowed to wage this battle for Germany.” – On the Berlin March, 1936

“Never in these long years have we offered any other prayer but this: ‘Lord, grant to our people peace at home, and grant and preserve to them peace from the foreign foe!’” Nuremberg Sept. 13, 1936

“If we pursue this way, if we are decent, industrious, and honest, if we so loyally and truly fulfill our duty, then it is my conviction that in the future as in the past the Lord God will always help us.” – Spoken at the Harvest Thanksgiving Festival on October 3rd, 1937

“An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland.” — In proposing the creation of his homeland security group, the Gestapo

“We stand for the maintenance of private property … We shall protect free enterprise (capitalism) as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”

“…in the Big Lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted…and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the Big Lie than the small lie…It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously…the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it…a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” — Joseph Goebbels, German Nazi “Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment”

“The people want wholesome dread. They want to fear something. They want someone to frighten them and make them shudderingly submissive.” — Ernst Rohm, good “friend” and ally of Hitler and chief of the SA, later to be betrayed and murdered on Hitler’s orders during the Night of the Long Knives, 1934

”Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who COUNT the votes decide everything.” — Joseph Stalin

“Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini

“It is not necessary to bury the truth.  It is sufficient merely to delay it until nobody cares.” — Napoleon Bonaparte

“(It isn’t) that US foreign policy is cruel because American leaders are cruel. It’s that our leaders are cruel because only those willing to be inordinately cruel and remorseless can hold positions of leadership in the foreign policy establishment; it might as well be written into the job description. People capable of expressing a full human measure of compassion and empathy toward faraway powerless strangers…do not become president of the United States, or vice president, or secretary of state, or national security adviser or secretary of the treasury. Nor do they want to.” — William Blum, from Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.  Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other war…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” — US President James Madison, Chief Architect of the Constitution

Finally, the lyrics of the song below seem pertinent in my experience in too often having had to cast defensive votes for the “least worst” candidate.

Election Night

By John Wesley Harding

I met you on election night
As we cried over our beers
Nothing you could do would cheer me up
We broke up later that year
How come you and I aren’t winners?
Why weren’t we born on the other side?
And it’s raining
It’s raining
On election night

You fight, you fight and nothing changes
And when it does the payback’s worse
We arrived here in a limo
We drove home in a hearse
And we are none the wiser
I guess we’re not so bright
So I’ll see you
Yes I’ll see you
Next election night

The balloons look so deflated
As they burst and float on down
It’s been four years we’ve waited
For those balloons to hit the ground
Looks like you backed a loser
Who thinks that life is black and white
But he’ll be back again
And we’ll be back again
Next election night.

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. He writes a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, the area’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s psychiatric drugging and over-vaccination regimens, and other movements that threaten the environment, health, democracy, civility and longevity of the populace. Many of his columns are archived at http://duluthreader.com/articles/categories/200_Duty_to_Warn, http://www.globalresearch.ca/authors?query=Gary+Kohls+articles&by=&p=&page_id= or at https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Republican-stimulated Roaring 1920s: Will it Happen Again in 2016?

Among the House of Cards-infested cliffhangers that defined the «circus is in town» US election (to quote Nobel Prize winner Bob Dylan’s Desolation Row), the key question in the lead up towards Election Day was why the FBI finally folded.

FBI Director James Comey, at the 11th hour, ended up delivering another letter to Congress, marveling how his team «has been working around the clock» studying no less than 650,000 emails on the laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner, the sex pervert estranged husband of Hillary Clinton’s top aid Huma Abedin.

Comey finally concluded the FBI had not found anything to change its previous verdict regarding Hillary’s Subterranean Email Server. «Extreme carelessness», yes; but no criminal wrongdoing.

All this while among the twitter.com/wikileaks.

Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks, an explicit admission can be found in a November 10, 2008 internal review that the Clinton Foundation was breaking the law.

Moreover, The Big Picture had been quite clear all along; the Clinton Foundation as well as the Clinton Global Initiative were both operated as «political organizations» totally focused on boosting «pay to play».

A case could be made that the first Comey letter to Congress was a response to a FBI internal revolt. Agents that were part of the insurgency are not likely to quit the long game – even after the election. They have made sure that the real deal is with the Clinton Foundation, not Hillary’s emails.

So leaks are bound to continue. Even before the first Comey letter, FBI insurgents swore «there already is enough to indict». They insisted, «Comey has been trying to stall because he does not want to face the Clinton machine, as well as the rest of Washington D.C». They were sure «foreign powers are in possession of some of the documents we have analyzed, because they were hacked from the Clinton server».

The insurgents, for the sake of clarity, were insisting that the buck stopped with the Clinton Foundation, which sold «influence, intel, favors to anyone willing to pay». Obama was «tied in with the same people who donate to the Clinton Foundation». On that notorious, «secret» Bill Clinton meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch – an Obama asset – they maintained that Clinton «wanted Loretta Lynch to focus on the email server and shy away from prosecuting the foundation».

In a nutshell; in the Clinton Foundation dossier there’s allegedly enough information to bring the whole US government (USG) down.

And over Hillary, specifically, hangs an incendiary charge; SAPs (Special Access Programs) were found on her server.

The insurgents clarified how a «SAP is an intelligence program classified above top-secret. They are held on closed servers at secret locations. The only way to get one is if you are specifically read on to a program, have a need to know, then you must physically go to a location and pass through several layers of security to even look at the program. SAP is granted on a need to know basis, and Hillary did not have any need to know any of the programs on her server».

All that was still not enough to get an indictment out of the FBI. Well, certainly not before Election Day, considering that if the FBI went ahead it would be facing no less than the full might/wrath of the USG.

A New York source with solid business/financial connections among the Masters of the Universe came up with a quite cryptic answer when I posed him some of the questions raised above:

«I would not say the FBI revolt took place. Comey was ordered to do what he did before and he was ordered to do what he did after. The orders were just reversed and it is as a marionette with a ventriloquist. No one steps out of bounds».

But he also said, less than 24 hours before Election Day: «We think Trump will win and they are making everyone think that this is democracy in action». For emphasis, the source referred to the quite serious USC Dornsife /LA Times poll, which had Trump ahead by 5 points on the popular vote.

Here is a defense of the poll by one of his authors.

The Russians are hacking

As the FBI turnaround managed at best to enrage both campaigns, nothing was left to chance by the Deep State. What can be arguably construed as two major US terror proxies – «al-Qaeda» (which one? «Historic» al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? AQAP? AQIM? «Moderate» al-Nusra in Syria?) as well as ISIS/ISIL/Daesh – in conjunction with dodgy jihadist tracker SITE, went on full-time PsyWar mode with the intent of creating false flag pretexts.

US intel duly warned of «possible al-Qaeda attacks» on the eve of Election Day. Right on cue, Rita Katz, the head and 2001 co-founder of SITE, said these jihadi incitements were «an attempt to disrupt the election process and gain media attention».

There’s no evidence these threats are real. SITE after all never shies away from practicing disinformation. Katz in the past has briefed the White House, as well as Justice, Treasury and Homeland Security on terrorist financing and recruitment networks. A senior adviser to SITE is Bruce Hoffman, a former holder of the RAND Corporate Chair in Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency.

Couple the «al-Qaeda threat» with turbo-charged demonization of Russia – and we have the perfect excuse scenario in case anything happens not according to script (and the script rules Hillary Clinton as POTUS).

Team Obama duly spun that Russia not only was bent on mightily acting/hacking on Election Day, but would propel the disruption all across the West well into 2018. And Tom Graham, managing director of Kissinger Associates in New York and former adviser to George «Dubya» Bush on Russia, doubled down, insisting that more emails «may» be dumped (by insidious WikiLeaks) after Election Day.

This should all lead to a Hollywood ending though. May the «free world» be reassured; the noxious axis of Putin-Assange-al-Zawahiri-rogue FBI agents will be dismantled – to the glory of the Queen of the Perma-Smirk soon to be crowned Warmonger-in-Chief.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Elections USA: It’s All a Russia/ Al-Qaeda/ WikiLeaks/ «Rogue» FBI Plot

The outcome of the 2016 presidential election will show that the American political system – as we have known it – will apparently cease to exist.  Trump is nothing like those Republican pawns who, along with the puppets of the Democratic party, have spent the last 40 years erecting the facade of American democracy.  It really looks like he is ready to make good on the threat he made even prior to the Republican National Convention – to send millions of his supporters into the streets.

Today Trump represents an entirely new party made up of half of the American electorate, and they are ready for action.  And whatever the eventual political structure of this new model, this is what is shaping America’s present reality.  Moreover, this does not seem like such a unique situation.  It rather appears to be the final chapter of some ancient story, in which the convoluted plotlines finally take shape and find resolution.

The circumstances are increasingly reminiscent of 1860, when Lincoln’s election so enraged the South that those states began agitating for secession.  Trump is today symbolic of a very real American tradition that during the Civil War (1860-1865) ran headlong into American revolutionary liberalism for the first time.

Right up until World War I traditional American conservatism wore the guise of “isolationism.”  Prior to WWII it was known as “non-interventionism.”  Afterward, that movement attempted to use Sen. Joseph McCarthy to battle the left-liberal stranglehold.  And in the 1960s it became the primary target of the “counter-cultural revolution.”

Richard Nixon

Its last bastion was Richard Nixon, whose fall was the result of an unprecedented attack from the left-liberal press in 1974.  And this is perhaps the example against which we should compare the present-day Trump and his current fight.

And by the way, the crimes of Hillary Clinton, who has failed to protect state secrets and has repeatedly been caught lying under oath, clearly outweigh the notorious Watergate scandal that led to Nixon’s forced resignation under threat of impeachment.  But the liberal American media remains silent, as if nothing has happened.

By all indications it is clear that we are standing before a truly epochal moment.  But before turning to the future that might await us, let’s take a quick glance at the history of conflict between revolutionary liberalism and traditional white conservatism in the US.

***

Immediately after WWII, an attack on two fronts was launched by the party of “expansionism” (we’ll call it that).  The Soviet Union and Communism were designated the number one enemy.  Enemy number two (with less hype) was traditional American conservatism. The war against traditional “Americanism” was waged by several intellectual fringe groups simultaneously.

The country’s cultural and intellectual life was under the absolute control of a group known as the “New York Intellectuals.” Literary criticism as well as all other aspects of the nation’s literary life was in the hands of this small group of literary curators who had emerged from the milieu of a Trotskyist-communist magazine known as the Partisan Review (PR). No one could become a professional writer in the America of the 1950s and 1960s without being carefully screened by this sect.

The foundational tenets of American political philosophy and sociology were composed by militants from the Frankfurt School, which had been established during the interwar period in Weimar Germany and which moved to the US after the National Socialists took power. Here, retraining their sights from communist to liberal, they set out to design a “theory of totalitarianism” in addition to their concept of an “authoritarian personality” – both hostile to “democracy.”

Max Shachtman

The “New York Intellectuals” and representatives of the Frankfurt School became friends, and Hannah Arendt, for example, was an authoritative representative of both sects.  This is where future neocons (Norman Podhoretz, Eliot A. Cohen, and Irving Kristol) gained their experience.  The former leader of the Trotskyist Fourth International and godfather of the neocons, Max Shachtman, held a place of honor in the “family of intellectuals.”

The anthropological school of Franz Boas and Freudianism reigned over the worlds of psychology and sociology at that time.  The Boasian approach in psychology argued that genetic, national, and racial differences between individuals were of no importance (thus the concepts of “national culture” and “national community” were meaningless).

Psychoanalysis also became fashionable, which primarily aimed to supplant traditional church institutions and become a type of quasi-religion for the middle class.

The common denominator linking all these movements was anti-fascism.  Did something look fishy in this?  But the problem was that the traditional values of the nation, state, and family were all labeled “fascist.”  From this standpoint, any white Christian man aware of his cultural and national identity was potentially a “fascist.”

Kevin MacDonald, a professor of psychology at California State University, analyzed in detail the seizure of America’s cultural, political, and mental landscape by these “liberal sects” in his brilliant book The Culture of Critique, writing:

“The New York Intellectuals, for example, developed ties with elite universities, particularly Harvard, Columbia, the University of Chicago, and the University of California-Berkeley, while psychoanalysis and anthropology became well entrenched throughout academia.

“The moral and intellectual elite established by these movements dominated intellectual discourse during a critical period after World War II and leading into the countercultural revolution of the 1960s.”

It was precisely this intellectual milieu that spawned the countercultural revolution of the 1960s.

Riding the wave of these sentiments, the new Immigration and Nationality Act was passed in 1965, encouraging this phenomenon and facilitating the integration of immigrants into US society. The architects of the law wanted to use the celebrated melting pot to “dilute” the “potentially fascist” descendants of European immigrants by making use of new ethno-cultural elements.

The 60s revolution opened the door to the American political establishment to representatives from both wings of the expansionist “party” – the neo-liberals and the neo-conservatives.

Besieged by the left-liberal press in 1974, Richard Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment.  In the same year the US Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik Amendment (drafted by Richard Perle), which emerged as a symbol of the country’s “new political agenda” – economic war against the Soviet Union using sanctions and boycotts.

At that same time the “hippie generation” was joining the Democratic Party on the coattails of Senator George McGovern’s campaign.  And that was when Bill Clinton’s smiling countenance first emerged on the US political horizon.

And the future neo-conservatives (at that time still disciples of the Democratic hawk Henry “Scoop” Jackson) began to slowly edge in the direction of the Republicans.

«If there is any doubt about the power of your ideas, just look at the number of members of the Center that have been appointed to posts in this administration -especially in the Department of Defense- to dispel that doubt». Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, September 5, 2002

In 1976, Mr. Rumsfeld and his fellow neo-conservatives resurrected the Committee on the Present Danger, an inter-party club for political hawks whose goal became the launch of an all-out propaganda war against the USSR.

Former Trotskyists and followers of Max Shachtman (Kristol, Podhoretz, and Jeane Kirkpatrick) and advisers to Sen. Henry Jackson (Paul Wolfowitz, Perle, Elliott Abrams, Charles Horner, and Douglas Feith) joined Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and other “Christian” politicians with the intention of launching a “campaign to transform the world.”

This is where the neocons’  “nonpartisan ideology” originated.  And eventually today’s “inalterable US government” hatched from this egg. 

American politics began to acquire its current shape during the Reagan era.  In economics this was seen in the policy of neoliberalism (politics waged in the interests of big financial capital) and in foreign policy – in a strategy consisting of “holy war against the forces of evil.”  The Nixon-Kissinger tradition of foreign policy (which viewed the Soviet Union and China as a normal countries with which is essential to find common ground) was entirely abandoned.

The collapse of the USSR was a sign of the onset of the final phase of the “neocon revolution.”  At that point their protégé, Francis Fukuyama, announced the “end of history.”

***

As the years passed, the influence of the neo-conservatives (in politics) and neoliberals (in economics) only expanded.  Through all manner of committees, foundations, “think tanks,” etc., the students of Milton Friedman and Leo Strauss (from the departments of economics and political science at the University of Chicago) penetrated ever more deeply into the inner workings of the Washington power machine.  The apotheosis of this expansion was the presidency of George W. Bush, during which the neocons, having seized the primary instruments of power in the White House, were able to plunge the country into the folly of a war in the Middle East.

By the end of the Bush presidency this clique was the object of universal hatred throughout the US.  That’s why the middle-ground, innocuous figure of Barack Obama, a Democrat, was able to move into the White House for the next eight years.  The neocons stepped down from their central rostrums of power and returned to their “influential committees.”  It is likely that this election was intended to facilitate the triumphant return of the neoconservative-neoliberal paradigm all wrapped up in “new packaging.”  For various reasons, the decision was made to assign this role to Hillary Clinton.  But it seems that at the most critical moment the flimsy packaging ripped open …

donald_trump_rnc_h_2016What happened?  Why is this clique’s triumphant return to power erupting in massive scandal this time around?  Probably because we are living in an era during which much that was mysterious is suddenly becoming clear.  Probably because Trump’s “silent majority” suddenly saw before them someone they had been waiting for for a long time – a man ready to defend their interests. 

Perhaps also it is because the middle class is choking on its growing exasperation with the “elite caste” occupying its native country.  And it finally became clear to the sober-minded American patriots in law enforcement that the return to power of the people responsible for the current global chaos could be a big threat to the US and rest of the world.  Because, in the end, everyone has children and no one wants a new world war.

How will this new conservative revolt against the elite end?  Will Trump manage to “drain the swamp of Washington, DC” as he has promised, or he will end up as the system’s next victim?  Very soon we can finally get an answer to these questions.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What’s at Stake in the US Election? The American Political System – As We Have Known It – Will Cease to Exist

As the corporatocracy tightens its grip on the masses – finding ever more ways to funnel wealth to the top – humanity responds in a number of ways, including the rising popularity of tiny houses.

These dwellings, typically defined as less than 500 square feet, are a way for people to break free of mortgages, taxes, utility bills and the general trappings of “stuff.” They’re especially attractive to millennials and retirees, or those seeking to live off-grid.

But government and corporations depend on rampant consumerism and people being connected to the grid.

Seeking actual freedom through minimalist living should seem like a natural fit for the American dream, but the reality is that many governments around the country either ban tiny homes or force them to be connected to the utility grid.

As of now, few cities allow stand-alone tiny houses. Most communities have minimum square footage requirements for single-family homes mandating that smaller dwellings be an “accessory” to a larger, traditional house. Many also have rules requiring that dwellings be hooked up to utilities, which is a problem for tiny-house enthusiasts who want to live off the grid by using alternative energy sources such as solar panels and rainwater catchment systems.

Some of the more recent examples of explicit bans include Etowah, TN and Wasilla, AK, which don’t allow homes less than 600 square feet and 700 square feet, respectively.

Boise, ID doesn’t allow homes less than a few hundred square feet, as Shaun Wheeler of Wheeler Homes found when he built a perfectly good and safe 310 sq. ft. home.

Lawmakers spout slippery slope fallacies, saying that allowing tiny homes will lead to decay and “unsightly little cabins plunked down next to traditional homes.” Using government force to stamp out societal change in response to financial factors is this councilman’s idea of conservatism.

Granted, some cities are actually encouraging tiny homes as a means of freedom or as a solution to homelessness, as in Detroit, MI. Some Los Angeles lawmakers don’t see it that way, calling tiny homes for the homeless “a threat in many ways to our public safety.”

Wasilla residents are baffled by the tiny home ban, which seems to run contrary to Alaska’s wild and free nature. Tundra Tiny Houses is leading a new market of small home construction using renewable energy, and now they’ll have to tell customers Wasilla is not an option, in addition to Anchorage to Eagle River.

A big priority for tiny home dwellers is their reduced environmental impact. Many are capable of producing all their own energy from solar and wind, collecting rainwater and reusing graywater. Not depending on utility inputs naturally makes a lot of sense, especially for a tiny home on wheels.

Even those who put their tiny home on a piece of land away from crowded spaces – with the intention of living off-grid through renewable inputs – are considered outlaws if they don’t hook to the utility grid.

This of course ensures that utility companies, which are big donors to political campaigns and profit immensely from government-enabled monopolies, will always get their cut from every household.

In January we reported that sunny Nevada essentially killed its solar industry by increasing their tax on solar customers by 40 percent, causing solar providers to leave the state. The only beneficiary was NV Energy, whose energy monopoly was protected.

Spur, TX was the first city to advertise being “tiny house friendly” as a “town that welcomes new pioneers” – proudly supporting “reducing costs and gaining freedom to operate according to your own plan, unfettered by onerous and unnecessary costs.”

To have this “freedom,” you must secure your properly permitted tiny home to an approved foundation and be connected to city utilities. The property must always be mowed and the prime responsibility is “of course, paying your taxes!”

When cities require the same permitting for tiny houses on foundations as they do for traditional houses, it often doesn’t make financial sense to build tiny. “At that point it’s really more of a lifestyle choice than an economic choice,” said Nick Krautter, a real estate agent in Portland, Oregon, who abandoned plans for a tiny house development.”

23-year-old college graduate, Sarah Hastings, built a 190-square-foot home on three acres of farmland in Hadley, MA, complete with a garden next to it. But the town found she was not in compliance with zoning ordinances, and now her home is in storage.

Hastings proposed a change to the town’s laws to allow for her tiny home, but the measure was vote down “because some residents were afraid the town would be overrun with them.” There will be no minimalist, environmentally friendly living in Hadley.

Clearly, the emergence of tiny homes is being met with fear, and the resulting banishment of freedom, by too many towns and cities across America that can’t quite fathom this shift in the way people think about living.

It’s one thing to be concerned about safety issues, but the imposition of minimum square footage requirements and mandatory connections to city utilities is mindless authoritarianism.

Let’s hope places like Fresno, CA and Rockledge, FL, which are specifically allowing tiny homes on wheels, can help their more “traditional” counterparts embrace the future.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Tiny Homes” Banned in U.S. at Increasing Rate as Government Criminalizes “Sustainable Living”

A Plea for “Irrelevant Education”

November 8th, 2016 by Prof. Sam Ben-Meir

Due to the pressures of popular demand for relevance in education, we have lost sight of the purpose for which true education exists. I would like to make a plea for irrelevant education, one that does not begin with a presumption of what is relevant – the thing most needful, as Strauss would put it – and what is not.

Genuine education does not prepare us merely to exercise what Kant calls “the private use of reason,” where one essentially has to resolve a problem that is already given and defined and, in so being, is simply a matter of applying the appropriate expertise. If this were the sole or true aim of education, then indeed one may be justified in demanding that education remain clearly relevant – that it be geared to and entirely focused on producing the adequate expertise, so that reason can be put to proper use.

What may be overlooked here is what Kant calls “the public use of reason”: reason that does not simply solve the problems it is given, but asks further questions, such as how did this problem arise, how are we defining it, is our definition – our conceptualization of the problem – perhaps part of the problem itself. To prepare the mind to engage in the public use of reason, it is insufficient to fashion experts, i.e. technicians and specialists. Rather, the public use of reason requires that we question radically the very frame of reference in which we are operating.

An education that must constantly demonstrate its relevance, usefulness (or functionality) is an education that is fundamentally not free. Being unable to freely follow where thought leads us is, in a sense, no education at all.  We are witnessing a tendency thoroughly consistent with the kind of American anti-intellectualism that has only become further emboldened and entrenched during this election year, courtesy of know-nothing Trumpism.

For genuine social critique to be possible, education cannot be enslaved to a prescribed set of assumptions about what is important – what is significant or relevant, and what is not. Instead, the capacity for pure theory must be fostered. Theoretical speculation is, in itself, an activity and a potent one, that enables us to set aside our habitual frame of reference and radically reassess the coordinates of the psychosocial status quo. We should not feel guilty for championing pure theory – theory may be the thing we need most.

Perhaps an education can only become significant when we are first prepared to bracket our assumptions about what an education should provide. The push to make higher education accountable to the practical needs of students is understandable, and up to a point not reasonably debatable. But beyond a certain point, it is arguably harmful to students and their education.

Indeed, it precisely robs them of education, which must always remain free and unfettered. The goal of all higher education is a liberal mind (and this, in contrast not to conservative, but to enslaved). And a liberal mind is not constantly bound to put its knowledge to “work” but is free to pursue and enjoy knowledge for its own sake. An education that is consumed with questions of practical applicability, with so-called “real world” significance, is certainly not a liberal education. A stunted education will likely produce a stunted mind, where instrumental rationality comes to eclipse the whole of reason: reason as a moral, critical, aesthetic, and speculative imperative.

Of course, the movement to strictly make higher education relevant invariably puts philosophy on the defensive. For example, Stephen Hawking’s recent claim that “philosophy is dead” is a rather remarkable one. Let us consider it for a moment and take a dose of good old-fashioned British empiricism, in the light of which, Hawking’s claim is false.

In fact, there are more philosophy departments, philosophy journals, and more people writing and doing philosophy than ever before. So, empirically, Hawking’s statement is absurd, but he is a very smart fellow and he must have known that; it thus must follow that he meant something else. Perhaps what he was saying is something like: “Philosophy ought to be dead.” But notice, this is a very different claim, for it is not descriptive like “philosophy is dead,” one which we can falsify by simply looking at the world and saying, “Oh, philosophy is not dead at all.” The claim “philosophy ought to be dead” is not empirical, but  essentially normative.

But here, already, Hawking has a difficulty. Is he making this claim within philosophy, or outside of it; are we to suppose it is a scientific claim? Obviously, it is not. So the claim must be a philosophical one: in fact there is no avoiding philosophy. The idea that all knowledge is scientific knowledge (scientism) is not itself a scientific claim, and it can never be. It is also a philosophical one of sorts: the claim that philosophy should die by suicide. And in a sense, is this not what we are witnessing in higher education – a kind of death by suicide?

Education is suffocating itself with the oppressive and pervading insistence on relevance and applicability. A sure sign that the winds of change are blowing in the right direction would be if students began to demand more irrelevant education, an education which does not possess utility, but which broadens the mind, instills the sense of education as a life-long pursuit, and produces the kind of independent thinking that makes possible the public use of reason. In the final analysis, it appears that for the sake of relevance itself, we must be ready to bracket the question of relevance altogether – to set it aside. Otherwise, we run the risk of being blind to the very thing that (in the end) we really needed most.

That is my plea. It is not that relevance of education is unimportant or insignificant. My point is that the very question about what is truly relevant –what is the thing most needful — is precisely what a liberal sets herself out to discover through education. And if we approach education as though we are already in possession of the answers, then genuine education has been arrested, even before it has begun.

My appeal is for the protection and nourishment of the right to irrelevant education. Oscar Wilde once said: “All art is quite useless.” We might similarly say that true education is quite useless and, for that very reason, indispensable.

Dr. Sam Ben-Meir teaches philosophy at Eastern International College. His current research focuses on environmental and business ethics.
[email protected]
                             Web: www.alonben-meir.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Plea for “Irrelevant Education”

To counter the despair and fear generated by the American presidential campaign (and associated global chaos and wars), this essay presents a positive, constructive reaction to what is occurring.  The essay seeks to explain why the current state of affairs, as depressing and frightening as it may seem, may be viewed as an excellent learning opportunity that, if seized, can accelerate Social Progress and facilitate creation of Social Beauty (the foundation of which could be creation of collaborative, independent, national Public Economies, each based on creative versions of economic altruism—a topic for discussion in a future essay).

Exemplary of the current despair and fear is an email message I recently received from a young patient (mid-thirties) who lives in Eastern Europe: “I hope that your president (whether Clinton or Trump) will do not much harm to our planet and its people.”  She is scared and depressed by the American presidential campaign and deeply worried about what is happening in the world as a whole. She feels anger and frustration—particularly when considering how difficult it is to make sense out of what is happening, and how little control she feels over what seems so out of control and so difficult to remedy.

As with this patient, the current U.S. presidential campaign, and the associated chaos and wars going on in so many countries of the world, have left most Americans and most aware global citizens similarly frightened, worried, depressed, angry, frustrated, confused, disillusioned, and discouraged—and I am talking about people other than those in the Middle East, north Africa, and elsewhere who have directly suffered from the chaos and war (those who have been killed, maimed, or displaced). The indecency (past and present) of both Trump1 and Clinton2, the beguiling lies both have told, the pathologic projection each has exhibited, the fears and hatred each has stirred, the confusion each has created, the depth and breadth of their mis-education, their failure to present adequate solutions, and the threat to the world that each represents, have left people feeling frightened, hopeless and helpless, and have caused people to even question their own decency and their own ability to make sense out of life and find meaning in it.  People feel belittled, betrayed, and bewildered.  Furthering the frustration and despair, has been the absence of a clear vision of how so much Social Suffering could be transformed into Social Beauty.  Most seem to have accepted the depressing (but untrue) notion that such transformation is impossible.  (In fact, when I mention the term “Social Beauty” to people, the usual reaction is the question, “What is that?”  The same question is asked when I mention “Public Economy.”  Sadly, the terms “Social Beauty” and “Public Economy” are not in the American vocabulary.  What does that tell us?)

This essay is intended to remind readers that just because Trump and Clinton have exhibited so much sleaze and indecency does not mean that we, too, are indecent and sleazy.  Their hateful behavior need not make us hate ourselves, or others, and need not undermine confidence in our own Goodness and our own ability to bring remedy to Social Suffering.  Just because they have exhibited the worst aspects of Human Nature, does not mean that Human Nature is bad.  Human Nature is comprised of capacity for both good and bad—and we can certainly create opportunities that give practice to the Human capacity for Goodness, allowing it to prevail.  Just because Trump and Clinton seem likely to exacerbate, rather than resolve current national and global crises, does not mean that we cannot find just and kind solution. In fact, one theme of this essay is that both Trump and Clinton, precisely because they represent such horrible Caricatures of What’s Wrong, are providing us with an excellent opportunity to learn and to transform Social Suffering into Social Beauty.  We can seize that opportunity.

Before going further, please consider the following historical analogy, regarding how “Instructive Caricatures of What’s Wrong” have accelerated Social Progress in the past:  One could argue that the three people who did the most to accelerate Civil Rights advances during the 1960s were Martin Luther King (of course), George Wallace, and Lester Maddox (the racist governors of Alabama and Georgia, respectively, who insisted on blocking little black girls from attending “whites only” schools)—Dr. King, because of his exemplary social conscience and leadership; Wallace and Maddox because they represented highly Instructive Caricatures of What’s Wrong.  Wallace and Maddox were gross caricatures of horrible racism.  Their racism was so blatant and so obvious, that segregation, which had been continually and successfully defended and accepted by politicians for decades, very quickly became obviously indefensible and totally “socially unacceptable,” once the behaviors of Wallace and Maddox were witnessed on television.

Lynching, which had occurred frequently for decades, also suddenly stopped (or at least became rare, at least in the literal sense), because Wallace and Maddox had so effectively exposed how awful and obviously unacceptable it was.  The racist attitudes and actions caricatured by Wallace and Maddox were highly instructive.  Little progress in Civil Rights had been made, for decades, until Wallace and Maddox became Instructive Caricatures of What’s Wrong.  Their behavior helped Dr. King to drive home his message.  After these caricatures had quickly precipitated social change, an appropriate question became, “What took us so long?”

Fast forwarding to Trump, Clinton, and the current global crises: The good news is that because both Trump and Clinton, in their own different ways, represent such gross Caricatures of What is Wrong with American thinking and behavior,1, 2, 3 their caricatures will be more instructive (to all of the world’s people) than have more bland, deceptive, and cleverly masked representatives of American exceptionalism, mis-education, and mis-behavior.   Grotesque caricatures (if we can survive them, and we will!) raise social consciousness and social understanding faster and more accurately than do “kinder and gentler,” more palatable representatives of the status quo.  So, the good news is that either one (Trump or Clinton) will make it more obvious than ever before “what’s wrong” and what we can do to fix it.

There is a medical analogy here:  How have physicians learned about normal human physiology and how beautifully it works? Much of that learning has occurred (or at least been reinforced) by studying diseases.  Diseases, particularly extreme versions of diseases, are “instructive caricatures” of things gone wrong.  By studying those diseases, we can figure out how human physiology works normally and optimally (and most beautifully).  Often, the most severe versions of disease (the greatest caricatures of what’s wrong) teach us more quickly and definitively than do subtle versions of disease (some of which even go unrecognized, undiagnosed, and unaddressed).  Similarly, Trumps and Clintons provide better learning opportunities than do “kinder, gentler” (but just as harmful) versions of mis-education and misbehavior (like Obama)—and, thereby, advance knowledge, understanding, and Social Progress more quickly. Kinder, gentler versions of mis-guided behavior actually delay Social Progress.

Physicians are physicians because they deeply care about learning from and treating diseases.  They don’t ignore, deny, or run away from disease “because it is too depressing, too discouraging, or too stressful”; they run towards disease and eagerly embrace the challenges of diagnosing, finding cause, and creating remedy.  They view presence of disease as opportunities to make things better, not as depressing experiences to avoid.  Likewise, it would be good if all people cared deeply to understand and treat caricatures like Trump1, Clinton2, and current US geopolitical policy3—to figure out what is wrong and determine how societies could work and think optimally and most beautifully, individually and together. Trump1 and Clinton2, and the USA itself3 are caricatures of diseased thinking and Social Illness.  Unwittingly, because they are instructive caricatures of American mis-education and misbehavior, they are presenting us with an unprecedented opportunity to advance Social Progress and create Social Beauty. If we take advantage of this opportunity, if we all become Social Clinicians, the world can become a much better place, even rapidly so.  If we ignore this opportunity, if we run away from this chance to diagnose Social Illness, seek its causes, and create remedy—then, disease will worsen and the world’s people and the earth itself will succumb—either quickly (via nuclear disaster), or more slowly (via neglect).

The most positive and helpful response, therefore, to Trump, Clinton, and current USA foreign policy, is not to allow ourselves to become depressed and despondent, not to run from these problems, not to frantically vote out of fear and hysteria; but, rather, for all of us to become enthusiastic Social Clinicians—committed to bringing the nation’s and the world’s problems before the Social Clinic, where Social Suffering can be rigorously examined, diagnosed, understood, and treated; where work can be done to create Social Beauty.  The positive response to Trump, Clinton, and the USA is to view them for what they are—Instructive Caricatures of What’s Wrong—that teach us, give us new clarity, and give us new opportunity to make things better, to create Social Beauty and Social Justice, to reverse the Social Suffering of so many of the world’s people.  In that sense, this is an exciting time, not a time for fear, hysteria, anger, despondency, self-doubt, resignation, and acceptance of the status quo.

There is another medical analogy here:  The first steps in a physician’s problem solving approach are to take a complete, detailed, accurate History and recognize the patterns within it.  Taking an adequate History is time consuming and requires great effort.  Physicians need to learn what questions are most important to ask, and they need to learn what diseases are associated with various patterns.  Above all, the physician needs to care enough to dig for all of the necessary details, and needs to be given the time to do so.   The same is true for a Social Clinician.  The first and most important steps in a Social Clinician’s problem solving approach are to take a complete, detailed, accurate History and recognize the patterns within it.

It is difficult to know who will be granted the American Presidency.  We will be able to survive either one—but, only if we bother, individually and collectively, to take a complete History, recognize patterns, see these caricatures for what they are, and use their caricatured mis-education and misbehavior as “teaching moments” to facilitate and expedite true social learning and Social Progress; and only if we rigorously and anticipatorily evaluate and challenge their policies and actions every step of the way, always promptly holding them accountable.  Since they both represent caricatures (Trump more obviously than Clinton), they both provide a better “teaching opportunity” than has Obama and others before him (except for GW).

So, don’t let Trump1 and Clinton2 demoralize you, undermine your sense of self-worth, and snuff out your hopes for Humanity and Mother Earth.  Recognize them as Instructive Caricatures of What’s Wrong—caricatures who can serve to reveal the causes of Social Illness, elevate discussion, and accelerate Social Progress.  Yes, both are dangerous, in their own different ways, as well as in similar ways (both believe in American Exceptionalism, e.g.).  But, don’t be overly frightened.  All diseases are dangerous and strike some fear.  But, don’t run away from disease.  Those who are suffering the most need you to run towards it.  With knowledge, discipline, focus, practice, hard work, deep empathy, high spirit, resolve, and appropriately bold risk-taking—diseases can be conquered.  Physicians and nurses have demonstrated that.   Similarly, all of us can become Social Clinicians, participate in the Social Clinic, and contribute to the transformation of Social Suffering into Social Beauty.  (See bullet points listed at the end of footnote # 3.)  That Transformation will likely require creation of collaborative, independent, national Public Economies, starting with thorough public discussion of this notion—but, further specific discussion of how to work towards creation of Social Beauty is a subject for a future essay.

Footnotes:1, 2, 3, 4

Both Trump and Clinton represent horribly flawed candidates—each in different ways.  Neither is fit for public office.  Neither deserves our votes.

1Trump appears to be arrogant, egotistical, narcissistic, undisciplined, impulsive, boorish, and lewd. He has been a predatory merchant who also appears to be a sexual predator, a racist, a pathological liar, a con-man, and prone to fascist behaviors. He is either ignorant or ignorant (or both) of national and world history—particularly of our nation’s long and continued history of exploiting and abusing people all over the world.3  His views on human rights, civil rights, women’s rights, health care, guns, economics, immigration, and climate change reflect gross mis-education, at best. His statements and actions are full of obvious contradictions. He threatens to reverse social progress and dangerously increase social unrest, hatred, and incivility within the USA. He is a clear and present danger to American society, particularly to minority groups.

The only possible good things about Trump (if we can trust any of the following) are that he is not afraid to speak truth to power, he is not afraid to shake things up, he is willing to expose much of what is wrong with the current Establishment, he has awakened (or at least frightened) an apathetic American public, he dares to state that getting along with Russia “could be a good thing,” he questions why the USA is supporting ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria, he has been critical of the wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and he questions the money we spend on NATO, he has been critical of TPP. There is also a remote possibility (quite unlikely and not to be trusted) that he has recently evolved into a better person, actually has a bigger heart than has been apparent, now truly cares about suffering people, and that most of his misbehavior, mis-guided thinking, and horrifying rhetoric are products and remnants of mis-education and mis-culture, rather than absence of compassion or intelligence.

Trump has presented himself as the populist, anti-establishment candidate who threatens to up-end the status quo.  But, because he is so untrustworthy, it is difficult to know whether his anti-establishment rhetoric is a true reflection of what he believes and plans; or whether his rhetoric is all a ploy, with plans (once in power) to execute the Establishment’s plans exactly as told and rewarded by the Establishment and with greater force, injustice, and fascism than we have seen them executed to date.

It is conceivable that the “Trump phenomenon” has been a ploy all along—a deliberate trick played on the American public, with Trump in on the trick from the beginning. It is conceivable that the Establishment (Big Banks/Big Finance/Big Transnational Corporations) decided several years ago that Hillary Clinton was the person they needed to succeed Obama to execute their national and global agenda.  But, they knew that Clinton was too unlikeable, had too much baggage, and might lose the election because too many people who usually vote Democrat would not feel inspired to actually come out to vote for her.  They also recognized that in order for Clinton to win, she needed to have an obvious “greater evil” as an opponent.  Both the Establishment and the Democratic National Committee saw value in using Bernie Sanders as a means of getting out the Democratic vote, particularly the votes of young people—with both the DNC and Bernie having no intention of Bernie ever actually becoming the Democrat nominee. The other way to get Clinton elected would be to create a very dangerous buffoon as her Republican opponent—a boogieman that would frighten the electorate into coming out, en mass, to vote for Clinton as the “lesser of two evils.

Trump was the perfect person to play the boogieman role.  He had the ability to mobilize a large number of people who would be attracted to an angry, defiant, supra-confident, intolerant, racist, nativist, anti-establishment, anti-climate change, anti-immigrant, law and order message—thereby seeming to become a legitimate threat to become elected.  Those who would appropriately view Trump’s outrageous attitudes and horrific policies as an existential, even fascist, threat to American civil society and to the world would then be frightened into concluding that they had a moral and civic obligation to vote for Clinton (despite all flaws) and that anyone who either votes for a third party candidate or doesn’t vote at all would be irresponsibly contributing to a Trump victory and, thereby, Trump fascism.  It is conceivable that Trump agreed to play the role of outrageous boogieman (in return for later favors).  Part of the plan would be to have the mainstream media boost Trump by excessively covering every aspect of his campaign, to the exclusion of giving much air-time to the other Republican candidates and to the exclusion of covering the most important failings of Clinton/Obama policies and actions (American geopolitical policy, national and global economic issues, Clinton Foundation corruption, e.g.).

If this has been the plan, it has worked wonderfully to “get out the vote” for Clinton (as the “lesser of two evils”); it has served to distract attention from any critical analysis of Clinton/Obama foreign policy economic policy, and her illegal activities; and, by frightening people into potentially one of the highest turnouts ever, it may well give Hillary Clinton not only victory, but a false “mandate” to execute the Establishment’s agenda.   Of course, as with Obama, a Clinton administration will throw a few “progressive” bones to the American public to keep them happy and quiet and to give the illusion of a compassionate and progressive Clinton administration, while the Establishment/Clinton administration goes about its way, unchallenged, to further  its larger financial and geopolitical agenda.

One possible hooker in the above imagined plan is the possibility (doubtful) that somewhere along the way Trump decided to renege on his promise to play the role of a fascist buffoon who, secretly, had no intention of ever actually being elected and would dutifully fade away during the last weeks of the campaign.  Perhaps, the huge adoring crowds and the growing feasibility of actually getting elected made him change his mind. Perhaps he is now in it for real; and the very real possibility of a Trump victory has triggered an hysterical drive to push people (emotionally terrorizing, really) to vote for Clinton, in order to “save Humanity” and the earth from Trump fascism—a drive that amounts to emotional blackmail.

It is impossible to know what Trump’s real intentions have been, or whether they have changed.  Perhaps we will never know.   Personally, I find it difficult to imagine that a person who truly wishes to become President would make such enormous sweeping promises that cannot possibly be kept—and would be so sloppy with his rhetoric. But, then, maybe this is a manifestation of his megalomania and other flaws.

2Clinton is particularly disturbing because of her horrible geopolitical policy decisions and actions:  She orchestrated the brutal murder of Gaddafi and the total destruction of Libya, both of which were unwarranted, unwise, and illegal.  Predictably, Libya became a failed state, over-run by ruthless Wahhabist terrorists, with millions of people suffering as a result—and she publicly laughed about this accomplishment afterwards (“We came, we saw, he died—ha, ha, ha”).

She similarly orchestrated a brutal regime change in Ukraine, deliberately placing fascist thugs in power, who then carried out a reign of terror on the Russian-speaking population of eastern Ukraine and Crimea, with thousands of people being killed or maimed as a result—then, she blamed all of the carnage on “Russian invasion of Ukraine and Crimea,” an accusation that is absolutely untrue.

Clinton/Obama policies and actions in Syria have represented a deliberate, US-orchestrated, proxy war that has cowardly employed ruthless mercenary Wahhabist terrorists to bring about regime change, because Assad was not cooperating with US plans in the region.  The USA, with Clinton and Obama’s full knowledge, has recruited, trained, armed, paid, and directed Wahhabist terrorists to topple Assad.  This is the same reckless strategy (proudly concocted by President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski) that the USA employed in Afghanistan in 1979, when the CIA worked with Osama Bin Laden to recruit, train, arm, and fund the Wahhabist Mujahideen to deliberately draw the Soviet Union into a protracted Afghan-Soviet War—a war that lasted more than 9 years and resulted in 850,000-2,000,000 innocent Afghan civilians being killed.  In Brzezinski’s publicly stated opinion, that death toll was “worth it,” particularly since American soldiers were not asked to do the killing.

Despite knowing full well that Saudia Arabia and Qatar were financing and arming ISIS, Clinton and Obama continued to ship huge amounts of arms and money to these countries, knowing that it was ending up in the hands of ISIS and Al Quaeda.  The USA has deliberately aided and abetted not just the terrorists that the US government falsely and misleadingly calls the “moderate opposition,” but all terrorist groups in Syria.   Clinton/Obama policies in Syria have resulted in millions of innocent Syrian people being either killed, maimed, or displaced. US actions in Syria have violated International Law and represent heinous war crimes.  And, when Russia, at the request of the Syrian government, intervened to stop Wahhabist terrorism in Syria, the USA objected, continued to support the terrorists, and has demonized Russia and Russia’s anti-terrorism efforts. Clinton’s plans for Syria are more hawkish than Obama’s and reveal that she learned absolutely nothing from her support for the War in Iraq and her decision to destroy Libya. In fact, she has recklessly expressed a willingness to militarily confront Iran, and she also seems determined to bring about regime change in Russia.  Obama was willing to put at least some restraints on his killing.  Clinton will be far less restrained, much to the delight of the Big Bank/Big Finance/Big Transnational/Neocons-Neoliberals for whom she will work.

In 2009, while Secretary of State, Clinton orchestrated regime change in Honduras, ousting the democratically elected President Zelaya, replacing him with a brutal regime whose death squads murdered Berta Caceres, a principled indigenous environmental activist who was placed on a “hitlist” distributed to US-trained “special forces units.” Berta was trying to protect the Aguan River from the ravages of US-supported (and Clinton-supported) corporate mining and hydroelectric projects.

During her husband’s Presidency, Bill, along with and Mrs. Clinton’s friend, Madeleine Albright, imposed economic sanctions on Iraq (preventing availability of medicine, hospital supplies, and food) that resulted in the deaths of at least 500,000 people, many of them innocent women and children—a sacrifice that Ms. Albright (in keeping with the Brzezinski doctrine) publicly stated “was worth it.”  (To whom was it worth it, Ms. Albright, and who were you to decide?)  Now the same kind of sanctions are harming millions of innocent women and children in Syria and Yemen.  In Yemen, for example, thousands of children are starving to death, due to the combination of US-supported economic sanctions and US-supported Saudi bombing.  The Obama administration not only supports that bombing, but, while Clinton was Secretary of State, Saudi Arabia received an arms deal worth more than $80 billion.

The Clintons’ so-called “humanitarian interventions” in Rwanda and Yugoslavia, which they and Samantha Power justified by their “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine, were anything but humanitarian. Those interventions represented war crimes.  Then, there is the Clinton’s role in all of the chaos, death, and destruction created in Sudan, Somalia, and other north African countries.  And, there is Mrs. Clinton’s strong support for and total silence about Israeli atrocities in Gaza, where innocent women and children are being killed, maimed, and starved—without a word of criticism from Clinton and without any effort on her part to initiate public discussion of these atrocities.  There is more, regarding Clinton patterns, but we will stop here.

Like Trump, Clinton is either ignorant or ignorant (probably more the latter) of national and global history.  Despite her shameless claims to the contrary, she is willingly beholden to Wall Street/Big Finance. She appears to be committed to ruthlessly doing whatever is necessary to achieve the neo-conservative/neo-liberal goal of a uni-polar world totally dominated by predatory Transnational Corporations (even killing thousands of innocent women and children, if necessary, as Mrs. Albright’s policies did in Iraq and Obama’s policies are now doing in Syria and Yemen). Guided by her gross mis-education and quest for power and wealth, she is now dangerously and erroneously demonizing and deliberately antagonizing Putin and Russia.  She has irresponsibly called Putin “a Hitler.” Astonishingly, in the third Presidential Debate, she claimed that the most important issue threatening the USA is Russian interference in the American Presidential election—a claim for which there is no evidence.  If she becomes President, there is high risk that her reckless thinking will take the world to the brink of World War III, if not over the brink.

Clinton is a carefully disciplined fraud, a pathological liar, a disingenuous empathizer, and a heartless war criminal.  She is a clear and present danger to world peace. The only good thing about Clinton is that, compared to Trump, she would do more for the human rights, women’s rights, minority rights, and health care rights of Americans (though not for the rest of the world’s people)—not because she has genuine compassion, but because she realizes that it is “good politics” to do so.  Likewise, she realizes that it is good politics to state concern about climate change—but, then she fully supports fracking and fully supports Big Capitalism, the latter being one of the biggest contributors to global warming.  She claims to care about economic justice, but then supports TPP.  She will certainly be more effective (than Trump) at saving American Capitalism and American global dominance, thereby delaying their collapse and temporarily propping up the American economy—but this is a negative, in my opinion, because it is tantamount to maintaining a disease state, rather than curing the disease. Clinton is the pro-Establishment candidate, who will seek to maintain the status quo (which is awful) and will do so with greater force, zeal, and ruthlessness than has Obama, whose main contribution has been a pathetic modicum of self-serving restraint (designed primarily to protect his “legacy”).

3Sadly, Trump and Clinton are not alone in their mis-education and mis-behavior.  All of the American Presidents, since at least 1900, have caused great harm to the world’s people and great damage to the earth itself.  The most racist, arrogant, fascist, ignorant, ignorant, and dangerous notion of all is the American belief that the USA is “the exceptional and indispensable nation;” and that the USA’s wealth has primarily been due to unique American industriousness, ingenuity, competence, and the goodness of our foreign policy.  Nothing could be farther from the truth!!

America’s exceptional wealth and power has primarily been due to more than a century of exceptionally brutal global exploitation of the world’s people and resources—to the great harm of both—starting with the Philippines in 1898.  Yes, there have been some “trickle down” benefits to many, in terms of an increase in material “standard of living.”   But, even those improvements in material well-being (including all of the spectacular scientific and technological advances generated by the USA) could have been achieved and distributed (even faster and better) by other countries, other peoples, and other economic and social models, if only they had been given a chance.  Not only have other countries and peoples not been given a proper chance to create their own existences, they have been deliberately sabotaged by American orchestrated chaos, regime change, and war (e.g. Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Mali, most of central America, and most of South America, to name just a few recent examples).  The chaos and wars have been deliberately designed to prevent other peoples, countries, social systems, and economies from successfully competing with American supremacy (which pretty much amounts to White Supremacy).  The USA has not just built itself up; it has deliberately torn other people down and kept them from rising, so that no one else has a chance to threaten the USA’s insistence on its supremacy and its economic model.  Such a strategy is not only shameful and racist, it is enormously cowardly.

Even Barack “I’m pretty good at killing people (an actual quote regarding his use of drones)” Obama proudly and publicly believes in “American exceptionalism” and America as the “indispensable nation,” and, astonishingly, believes Hillary Clinton is the “best prepared and most competent presidential candidate during our life-time.” These preposterous comments reflect profound mis-education on his part, at best.  Unlike physicians, Obama apparently has not learned the importance of taking a complete History as a first step in problem solving.  One would think that the first responsibility of a nation’s President (who is essentially the Physician-in-Chief, or, better, the Social Clinician-in-Chief), when addressing the nation’s problems, would be to take a complete History of the USA’s geo-political activities over the past 100 years, looking for patterns within it.  Has Obama (or for that matter, the Clintons, the Bushes, Trump, or the citizens who have voted for, or plan to vote for, these people) ever bothered to take such a History?  Certainly, a Commander-in-Chief should be obligated to take a complete History and look for patterns before ordering prescription—otherwise, unnecessary military prescriptions may be written, resulting in preventable, wrongful deaths.  If a physician fails to take a complete History and fails to accurately recognize a pattern and a single patient suffers as a result, that physician may be sued for malpractice, and may face jail time if the failures are egregiously negligent. But, have the Bushes, Clintons, and Obama ever been held accountable for their failure to take a complete History, for their failure to recognize obvious patterns, and for their prescriptions of lethal military solutions that have wrongly killed, maimed, or displaced millions of innocent people.  No.  Instead, we are being emotionally blackmailed (by Obama, himself) to not only vote for Clinton, but to give her a mandate to continue his military prescriptions in the Middle East with even greater force.

A carefully obtained History reveals that the USA (specifically, its corporate and government leadership) is very far from “exceptional,” very far from “indispensable,” and has not been “a force for good” in the world.  Clinton claims that “America is great because it is good.” I agree that most American people, like the vast majority of the world’s people, are good.  But, history clearly reveals that the USA has become powerful and wealthy, not because of altruism and goodness, but because of its leaders’ ruthless greed and heartless exploitation of the billions of “unpeople” living in the rest of the world (dispensable people, I suppose).  The economic model Clinton champions actually up-regulates Human capacity for selfishness and unkindness and down-regulates Human capacity for Goodness.  (Please learn the history of US geopolitical interventions in the countries listed in the first of the bullets at the end of footnote #3—not the propagandized narratives, but the narratives that fit patterns, connect dots, and make common sense.)

The world will be a better place, if the USA is held accountable (for once).  If any country deserves to have economic sanctions placed on it, it is the USA4.  If any leaders deserve to be brought before a world court for crimes against Humanity, it is the leaders of the USA (including both Clintons, both Bushes, Obama, and even Carter/Brzezinski and Kissinger before them). If any country should have its armed forces stripped to a minimum (for defense only), it is the USA.  If any country should be disallowed from having military bases outside of their own country, it is the USA.  A Trump or Clinton Presidency, because they are such caricatures of wrong-thinking, mis-education, and mis-behavior, will make this much more obvious than has the deceptive Obama presidency.  Frankly, a Trump presidency would be more instructive/educational than a Clinton presidency (because Clinton is more disciplined in hiding her true nature and the true nature of American thinking and plans for Supremacy).  Yes, Trump would be risky, but Clinton is just as risky—they are just risky in different ways. Trump clearly poses a greater threat to domestic tranquility and civility (within the U.S.), but Clinton poses a greater risk globally (or is at least a more proven threat to people outside of the USA).

Incidentally, this distinction between threat to American citizens and threat to the rest of the world is important, because there is an unfortunate tendency for Americans to selfishly focus on the former and be insouciant regarding the latter. For example, Trump’s reckless and prejudiced rhetoric about Muslims, as well as his potential anti-Muslim actions if elected President, clearly pose a horrible threat to the civil liberties, emotional comfort, and lives of the 3.3 million Muslims living in the USA.  Clinton, in contrast, strongly encourages tolerance, support, and protection for the US Muslim population.

But, on the other hand, the actual actions of Clinton (and her husband, and Obama) in the Middle East-North Africa (ME-NA) has already carelessly resulted in the killing, maiming, and displacement of many millions of Muslims in that region (including innocent women and children).  Clinton (along with her husband, Mrs. Albright, the Bushes, and Obama) has already demonstrated her disregard for the lives of the 317,000,000 Muslims who live in the ME-NA. Moreover, Clinton’s hawkish rhetoric and likely policies regarding the ME-NA suggest that even more Middle East Muslims will be killed under a Clinton administration than have been killed under the Obama administration—particularly if she acts on her threats to Iran.  Apparently, in Clinton’s mind, the lives of American Muslims matter, but the lives of Muslims in the ME-NA do not.

Trump, in contrast, has at least questioned the US wars in the Middle East, and has indicated a resolve to “annihilate” ISIS (even working with Russia and Iran to do so), while Clinton and Obama (astonishingly) have supported and armed ISIS and other Wahhabist terrorists. It is impossible to know at this point, but there seems to be at least a possibility that fewer Middle East Muslims will be killed, maimed, and displaced under a Trump administration, than under a Clinton administration. Unlike Clinton, Trump has not killed any Middle East Muslims, at least not yet.

So, for those of us who care deeply about the world’s Muslims (which should be all of us!), we need to compare the clear threat that Trump poses to the 3.3 million American Muslims, but less clearly poses to the 317,000,000 Muslims living in the ME-NA, with the threat that Clinton clearly poses to the 317,000,000 Muslims in the ME-NA, while she protects American Muslims.  Muslims, whether they live in the USA or elsewhere in the world, should not be subjected to either a Trump or a Clinton administration. Under a Trump presidency, the civil rights, emotional health, and physical health of 3.3 million American Muslims are clearly at risk, while the risk Trump poses to the 317,000,000 Muslims in the ME-NA is less clear.  Under a Clinton administration, the 3.3 million American Muslims will have protection, but the 317,000,000 Muslims in the ME-NA will clearly be at great risk.  Doing the math, it is likely that more Muslims will be killed, maimed, and displaced under a Clinton administration than a Trump administration. So, which is the greater threat to Muslims—Trump, or Clinton?  Those who are focused on only American Muslims will say Trump is the greater threat and will desperately want Clinton to be elected.  Those concerned about Muslims currently living in the ME-NA will realize that Clinton is the greater proven threat, with the level of a Trump threat being less clear.

The people who have suffered the most from Bush/Clinton/Obama foreign policy have been the 317,000,000 Muslims in the ME-NA.  Therefore, from a triage perspective, they, by definition, are the ones whose needs should be top priority.  Clinton’s policies will likely only worsen suffering in the ME-NA —less restraint than Obama, more endless war, endless terrorism, endless chaos, more innocent Muslims being killed, maimed, and displaced.  Do the 317,000,000 Muslims in the ME-NA want to see a landslide Clinton victory?  Or, would they rather take their chances with a less predictable Trump, who has at least questioned US foreign policy in that region.  Which candidate’s policies do they fear the most? Have Clinton, Trump, or the American people bothered to ask the 317,000,000 Muslims in the ME-NA which of these candidates’ policies they would prefer?  Or, do their lives not matter? (Incidentally, when I suggest asking the 317 million people, I do not mean just asking people from the wealthy and privileged classes in these countries—the less than 5 %, many of whom have benefitted from complicity with American foreign and economic policy.  And, I do not mean primarily asking people whose views have primarily been influenced by pro-American propaganda.  I mean asking people whose views have been shaped by what they and their families have actually experienced.)

Moreover, one of the most fundamental tenets of Islam is forbiddance of Usury—and, yet, Clinton is the preferred candidate of the Big Banks/Big Finance, who epitomize the most vulgar versions of Usury, and Clinton is determined to carry out their global agenda.  Do the 317 million want a landslide victory for a champion of vulgar Usury?  Have we asked them? Do we not realize that American policies, unfortunately, have profound adverse effects on the world as a whole?

The more general point here is that evaluation of who (in the final analysis, after taking everything into account) represents the “lesser of two evils” should consider not just who would most adversely affect the American population, but also who would have the most adverse effect on non-American populations. Unfortunately, the non-Americans have no vote.

Clinton will probably “win” the election—one way or another.  But, a surprise Trump victory is possible.

Personally, I was initially tempted to not vote at all, because: I think an embarrassingly low turn-out of eligible voters would make the most effective statement; I refuse to give my consent to a Trump or Clinton presidency; I refuse to be an accomplice to their crimes and policies; and, because I believe we have ample capacity to control and rise above either one, as awful as both are.  Since it looks as though an embarrassingly low turn-out is not going to happen (because the American public has been successfully tricked and frightened into flocking, almost hysterically, to vote for the “lesser of two evils”), I will probably vote for Jill Stein, whose policies and attitudes are clearly wiser and kinder than any of the other candidates.

Contrary to the claim of Clinton supporters, a vote for Stein will not be a “wasted vote.”  A vote for Stein will help her and the Green party to achieve the meaningful milestone of 5% of the vote count—a percentage that, importantly, will qualify the Green party for future federal campaign funding.

Contrary to the emotionally black-mailing and emotionally shaming claim of Clinton supporters, a vote for Stein is not an irresponsible “vote for Trump” (as Obama has claimed) and, thereby, a “vote for fascism, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and global warming.” If Trump should happen to win, it will not be the fault of those who voted for Stein.  His victory will be due to the abject failure of Clinton supporters, long ago, to insist on a better Democratic Party candidate—a failure that is directly tied to the failure of American citizens to bother to study the History of American geo-political policy, and the failure of American citizens to serve as geo-politically informed Social Clinicians.  A Trump victory will also be the fault of the mainstream media who have drawn excessive and undue attention to Trump, thereby greatly contributing to the “Trump phenomenon.”  They could have ignored him, just like they completely ignored Jill Stein.  The immensity of the “Trump phenomenon” could not have been created without the enormous emphasis the mainstream media has placed on Trump.   And, of course, a Trump victory will be the fault of all those people who voted for Trump, many of whom, however, were driven to Trump because they were fed up with the duplicity, corruption, hypocrisy, and arrogance of people like Clinton, not to mention the adverse effects of her trade policies on their lives.  So, if Trump wins, don’t blame those who voted for Stein.

The first rule for physicians and Social Clinicians is to take a complete, detailed, accurate History.  The vast majority of Americans have not done so.  Most Americans know very little of the geo-political History alluded to in this essay.  Most, for example, have never heard of what the USA did (and why) to Mosaddeq (Iran 1953), or to Arbenz (Guatemala, 1954), or to Lumumba (Congo, 1961), or to Sukarno (Indonesia 1965-66), or to innocent people in Korea (1950-53).  And, most have never heard of Brzezinski’s 1979 plan to employ ruthless mercenary Wahhabist terrorists to achieve American geopolitical goals in Afghanistan—the strategy that has been used recurrently ever since, most recently throughout the Middle East-North Africa, currently in Syria.  We are now seeing the horrible consequences of America’s failure to bother to take a geo-political History and recognize the obvious patterns within it.  That failure is the real cause of the current depressing American presidential campaign and the associated chaos and wars in the world.

If Clinton wins and her policies result in even more millions of people in the Middle East-North Africa being either killed, maimed, or displaced, and/or her policies provoke a war with Russia and/or China—it will not be the fault of those who voted for Stein.  That wrongful death and suffering will mostly be the fault of Clinton, but it will also, in part, be the fault of those who voted for Clinton and frightened or shamed others into voting for Clinton, and that fault, again, will be due to a failure to bother to take a complete History and look for the patterns within it.

Clinton supporters anticipate and fear utter disaster, if Trump is elected—an acceleration of xenophobia, racism, misogyny, fascism, and a marked decline in civility, not to mention economic turmoil and worsening climate change, among other concerns. Trump supporters anticipate disastrous consequences of a Clinton victory—more war, worse war, more money wasted on war, more predatory global corporate capitalism, more lies, more scandals, more hypocrisy.  But, we can prevent Trump-induced disasters, if he is elected; and we can prevent Clinton-induced disasters, if she is elected.  We are not powerless to prevent either set of disasters.  We need not be gripped by fear and panic.  On the contrary, we, The Public, have great power, if we choose to draw upon that power and use it wisely.

More specifically, to counter the diseased thinking and prevent the ill-behavior of either a Trump or Clinton presidency, and to protect ourselves and others (nationally and globally) from them, we can become Social Clinicians and can do the following:

  • Take a complete, detailed, truthful History of American geo-political interventions (deliberate destabilizations, orchestrated chaos, coups/regime change, assassinations, covert wars, and overt wars ) conducted since 1898: e.g. in the Philippines (1898), Korea (1950-53), Iran (1953),  Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1959),  Congo (1961), Indonesia (1965-66), Viet Nam (1954-75), Chile (1973), Argentina (1976-83), Afghanistan (1979-89), Iraq-Iran (1980-88), El Salvador (1980-92), Nicaragua (1986-87),  Egypt (1986-16), Yugoslavia (1991-2001), Rwanda (1994), Venezuela (1999-16), Sudan (1998-16), Iraq (2003), Afghanistan (2003-16), Honduras (2009), Libya (2011), Syria (2011-16), Ukraine (2014), and Yemen (2016).
  • Learn from the above History: Bring that History to the Social Clinic, where it can be rigorously and objectively examined. Look for patterns of diseased thinking and mis-behavior; seek the cause(s) of that thinking and behavior.  Have those interventions squared with the claim that the USA has been an “exceptional” nation and a “force for good in the world?”
  • Expose the above past and ongoing History and patterns: by organizing mass public exposure to and discussion of this History and these patterns; by insisting that the mainstream media (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, major newspapers, and Hollywood) honestly relate this History; by organizing public forums to present and discuss this History; and by insisting that this History be taught and discussed in schools and universities; by mobilizing the arts and artists to creatively reveal this History.
  • Critical examination and mass discussion of the History can lead to formulation of best solutions, including approaches designed to prevent future problems.  For example, the Social Clinic could recommend that an alternative to Capitalism would be an economic model based on the concept of Public Economy.  The Social Clinicians could propose creation of a network of collaborative, independent, national Public Economies as an alternative to the Clinton-supported uni-polar global corporatist model that is based on vulgar usury and exploitation and leads to environmental disaster, gross inequality, war, and fascism.
  • In the Social Clinic, we can promptly and critically examine all policies and actions of a Trump or Clinton administration to quickly stop the threats they pose. An informed and proactive Court of Public Opinion can promptly identify and rectify incipient violations of Human Rights, Human Dignity, and the rights of the Environment before they get implemented.  But, in order to be informed and proactive, we need to take a complete History, learn how to recognize patterns within it, and we must be vigilant.
  • If we do the above, we can not only prevent Trump or Clinton from advancing too far along their wrong paths, we can educate and transform them (possibly), as we all evolve in a healthy direction.  The caricatured tendencies of Trump or Clinton (the teaching moments their thinking and proposed actions create) can actually serve to accelerate social learning and advance discussion of alternative economic and social models, thereby advancing Social Progress.
  • If we do the above, we need not fear a Trump presidency or a Clinton presidency.
  • If we do not do the above, if we do not study and learn from our History, if we run away from disease (“because it is too depressing,” “too stressful,” “too frustrating to even talk about”), then we have lots to fear, and we will be accomplices to further Social Illness (or worse).

Summary:

If we care enough and channel that caring into wise action, we will be able to prevent either flawed candidate from creating the disasters they threaten to create. We will be able to survive either candidate (Trump or Clinton)—but, only if we know our History and promptly use their caricatured mis-education and mis-policies as “teaching moments” to facilitate and expedite true social learning and Social Progress; only if we rigorously and proactively evaluate and challenge their policies and actions and promptly  hold them accountable; and only if we believe in our capacity to develop and discuss alternative plans for creation of Social Beauty.  Mass public re-education and mass public discussion will be necessary.  The focus of mass public discussion will need to be on new ideas such as “development of a Public Economy,” “economic altruism,” and creation of “collaborative, independent, national Public Economies.”  Creation of Social Beauty will depend on such discussions. Our two “Caricatures for President” are giving us urgent reason and new opportunity to have those discussions.  Not only can we survive either caricature, we can use them as catalysts to transform global Social Suffering into global Social Beauty. And, afterwards, we will ask, “What took us so long?”

4I would hope (and I strongly believe) that economic sanctions placed on the USA would be humane and would not mimic the inhumane economic sanctions the USA has recklessly placed on other countries (Cuba, Iraq, Syria, e.g.).  Those inhumane sanctions deliberately targeted and hurt women and children, by blocking delivery of essential medicines, hospital supplies, and food to those countries.  Humane sanctions would only target: American transnational corporations that have abused people and the environment; the American weapons manufacturers who have irresponsibly sold horrible weapons all over the world, including to terrorists; the American Military, with its more than 1400 bases in more than 120 countries; and disingenuous American government-sponsored NGOs that have wreaked havoc in scores of other countries (e.g. by clandestinely paying thugs to foment unrest, designed to bring about false “color revolutions” and regime change).

I would hope (and I strongly believe) that other countries (Russia, China, Iran, e.g.) would not deliberately and vindictively harm the citizens of a sanctioned USA that has been appropriately stripped of its military might.  Unlike the USA, which has thought nothing of brutally demolishing and occupying weakened countries, recklessly turning them into failed states, and killing, maiming, or displacing millions of innocent people in the process, I feel confident that other countries would not be so cruel to the American people.  Russia will not invade or occupy the USA.  China will not invade or occupy the USA.  Iran will not invade or occupy the USA. Throughout the past 60 years, the country that has invaded and occupied the most countries, started and conducted the most wars, and caused the greatest number of people to suffer—has been the USA.  Russia, China, and Iran do not want war.  They want peace—though they will vigorously defend themselves if attacked.  Although Russia, China, and Iran have good reason to be upset with the American government (and its corporate puppet-masters) they do not have animosity towards the American people as a whole.

I am reminded of when, in 2006, I was a guest participant in a week long Cuban Rheumatology Conference in Havana.  In a farewell speech at the end of the Conference, I thanked my fellow rheumatologists for inviting and taking such good care of me, and I apologized for all the harm the USA government had done to Cuba since 1959—the blockade, the failed military invasion, the killing of Che Guevara, the 70 plus attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, and the many other heinous efforts to sabotage the Cuban social effort.   The vice-chairman of the Conference came up, tenderly put his arm around my shoulder, and with a kind smile explained: “We fully understand that because American anti-Cuba propaganda is so powerful, it has been almost impossible for the American people to appreciate Cuba—so, we do not blame the American people; you do not need to apologize.”  Similarly, Russia, China, and Iran will have no intention to harm the American people of an appropriately sanctioned and disciplined America.  They just want the American government to be held accountable and stop its exploitation of the world and its people.

But, my advice to the American people is that, in return for the just-mentioned kindness and forgiveness, the American people have a responsibility to wake up, learn the History of American geo-political behavior, see through the propaganda of the Neocon/Neoliberal-controlled US government, and participate in the Social Clinic with an open, creative mind and an altruistic spirit.  That is the way to Peace for the American people, that is a contribution the American people can make towards world peace, that is the way Americans can apologize to the billions of people who have been hurt by the American Century of American exploitation of the world’s people and resources, that is the way to protect the nation and the world from Trump or Clinton, and that is the way to help transform Global Social Suffering into Social Beauty.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Caricatures for President of the U.S.: Countering Despair, “Responsibility to Wake Up”, Taking a Complete View of History…

Clinton Is the Most Dangerous Person Alive

November 8th, 2016 by Edward S. Herman

Ann Garrison: Earlier this year, you told me that you differ with Noam Chomsky, your co-author of Manufacturing Consent and other books, in that you plan to vote for the Green Party’s presidential and vice presidential candidates Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka in the swing state of Pennsylvania.

Are you still planning to do so?  

Edward S. Herman (image right): Yes.  

AG: Can you explain why? 

ESH: Because the two duopoly candidates are dangerous to societal and international welfare and even survival. Hillary Clinton is a neo-liberal and pre-eminent war-monger. I think she is the most dangerous person living in the world today, given her highly likely election victory and her likely performance as president. She represents the corporate elite and military-industrial complex more clearly than Trump and she is a follow-on to Bush and Obama. She will pursue similar policies except for her somewhat more aggressive bent. 

Trump is a self-promoting windbag, racist and dangerous, unpredictable phony. We have a ghastly choice in these two. Jill Stein offers a protest opportunity, more so than not voting. On the line that either voting for Stein or not voting would constitute a vote for Trump, one might argue that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war with Syria and Russia and a vote for Netanyahu (and hence for escalated violence in Palestine). 

AG:  Hillary Clinton and John Podesta’s e-mail has revealed that Hillary Clinton is well aware that the Saudi and Qatari rulers – not rogue elements – fund ISIS, and the same Saudi and Qatari rulers fund the Clinton Foundation. Throughout the last George Bush’s presidency, there were innumerable headlines that “Saudi oil sheikhs met with George Bush on his Crawford, Texas ranch.”  What are your thoughts on that? 

ESH: Saudi Arabia is a US ally and an instrument of the warfare state. Hillary Clinton has treated its leaders warmly and she will continue to do so as president. The Clinton Foundation’s receipt of money from Saudi and Qatari leaders is a first class conflict of interest and outrage, but the media have focused on the many less important abuses of Trump, helping cover over the outrages of their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, and her husband, Bill Clinton.

AG: What do you think of Clinton’s statement that she would make removing Bashar Al-Assad her top priority? And Trump’s statement that he would not, because that would recklessly risk confrontation with Russia?

ESH: Hillary Clinton has essentially promised to escalate war in Syria and is therefore promising to go to war with Russia as well. Diana Johnstone has made the case that Hillary Clinton plans to try to bring about “regime change” in Russia (cite). This is of course incredibly dangerous and would have aroused a really democratic media, but the existing media are part of the war system, hence Hillary Clinton’s commitment to wars is essentially suppressed. Trump has made a number of statements along the lines of reducing US interventions and commitments abroad and trying to deal with Russia in a less confrontational manner, but he has sometimes contradicted himself by urging expanded arms, use of nuclear weapons, etc. But Hillary Clinton has said nothing that would offset her war-mongering. This difference from Trump may help explain the intensity of media hostility to Trump.

AG: Jill Stein has said that “wars for oil are blowing back at us wth a vengeance” and that she would cut the military budget by half, close most of the foreign bases, and redirect resources into a Green New Deal that would fully employ Americans building sustainable energy and agricultural infrastructure. I can’t imagine you disagree, but do you think it’s important for the Greens to articulate such a vision at the national and international level, instead of focussing solely on local races that they might win? 

ESH: The Greens don’t have the resources to compete in many local elections. So she is wise to focus on the big national and international issues. Furthermore, the real gap in the political system is the lack of opposition to national neoliberal and militaristic policies. It is said that she can’t make a bigger mark given the hegemony of the duopoly, but even Ralph Nader couldn’t get 5 percent of the vote. The system still works well, for the 1%.

AG: Michael Moore has made a movie called “Trumpland” and warned that Trump’s election would be the end of the United States, assuming that would be a bad thing. David Swanson, author of “War Is a Lie,” has imagined the same but argued, in “Secession, Trump, and the Avoidability of Civil War,” that the break-up of the United States is not the worst possibility on the horizon. Do you have any thoughts on this? 

ESH: Michael Moore is completely oblivious to the fact that the enlarging war that is likely to follow Hillary Clinton’s election threatens not only a nuclear exchange, but also attacks on civil liberties and the march toward fascism. In its own way, the election of Hillary Clinton might threaten a democratic order as much as a Trump victory. The anti-Trump hysteria has tended to block out consideration of the Hillary Clinton menace.

AG: Is there anything else you’d like to say about why you’re voting for Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka? 

ESH: I’ve always believed in the moral rule laid down in the categorical imperative: “Do that which you would wish generalized.”

For real,

Ann Garrison

Independent Journalist,
SKYPE: Ann Garrison, Oakland
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Clinton Is the Most Dangerous Person Alive

This year’s presidential contest have been marked by an escalation in social tensions involving both national and class issues.

These divisions within the United States are manifested in the polling data which have revealed a sharply split electorate. Although most polls are showing a narrow victory for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, others indicate that wealthy real estate magnate Donald Trump is very close behind or in the lead.

The Clinton campaign has been negatively impacted by several factors. Hillary was not the choice of large segments of the Democratic Party constituency as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders nearly won the primary process.

As keen observers of the primary elections noted that it was the New York elections which marked the beginning of the reversal of the momentum that Sanders had generated largely through independents, youth, students and a growing percentage of African American voters. Democratic Party state conventions were marked by acrimony over the apportionment of delegates.

This degree of internal strife was carried over into the National Democratic Convention where the Chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz was forced to resign due to revelations from Wikileaks showing there was a conspiracy to deny Sanders the nomination. Delegates engaged in protests within the halls of the Convention in Philadelphia, some walked out of the proceedings or were expelled. Outside in the streets there were demonstrations in support of Sanders. Others called for the Sanders delegates to support Third party candidates such as Jill Stein for the Greens.

Obviously there is limited enthusiasm for the Clinton campaign. Polls have shown that both Trump and Clinton are two of the most unpopular and untrusted candidates in U.S. history to gain the nominations of their parties. Although Trump who has drawn large crowds to his rallies as did Sanders during the primary, many Republican stalwarts have rejected his candidacy saying his rhetoric attacking immigrants, Muslims and women will inevitably hurt the party in other races for the congress and senate as well as damage their ability to gain votes among these sectors of the population.

A daily tracking poll released its results on November 7, just twenty-four hours before the final chance to cast a ballot. This polling data says its results compiled by “Rasmussen Reports final White House Watch survey shows Democrat Hillary Clinton with a two-point lead over Republican Donald Trump with less than 24 hours to go until Election Day. Among early voters, Clinton has a double-digit lead. The latest national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows Clinton with 45% support to Trump’s 43%. Libertarian Gary Johnson picks up four percent (4%) of the vote, while Green Party candidate Jill Stein gets two percent (2%). Three percent (3%) still like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) remain undecided. On Friday, Trump and Clinton were tied at 44% apiece. The two major party candidates were tied most days last week. This survey has a margin of error of +/- 2.5%.”

Racism and the Trump Factor 

Many African Americans and other nationally oppressed people believe that Donald Trump is a racist. Trump claims that there are African Americans who support his candidacy but polling data suggests otherwise.

Moreover, the official newspaper of the Ku Klux Klan, the Crusader, carried a front page editorial with an image of Trump. The paper utilized the campaign slogan of the Republican nominee, “Make America Great Again”, as the title of the editorial.

According to Fortune magazine on November 2, “In the last week of the presidential campaign, Donald Trump got lavish praise from a newspaper — but it’s not one any major-party presidential candidate would want. The Ku Klux Klan’s official newspaper embraced Donald Trump. The latest issue of The Crusader didn’t specifically urge readers to vote for the Republican nominee, but it got very close. It used Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ campaign slogan as its headline for an editorial praising the Trump catchphrase and the Republican presidential candidate himself. The newspaper bills itself as ‘The Premier Voice of the White Resistance.’”

In response to the apparent endorsement, Fortune goes on to note that “In a statement, the Trump campaign called the newspaper ‘repulsive.’ It said its ‘views do not represent the tens of millions of Americans who are uniting behind our campaign.’ Trump has been criticized in the campaign for refusing to condemn the Ku Klux Klan and disavow the endorsement of David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper to ‘unequivocally condemn’ Duke, Trump claimed ignorance. ‘Just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke, okay?’ Tapper repeatedly pressed Trump to disavow Duke and the KKK, and Trump declined. Later Trump claimed that he had trouble hearing the question.”

Meanwhile in Greenville, Mississippi, a 111-year-old African American Baptist church was firebombed and graffiti saying “Vote Trump” was marked on the side of the damaged building.

The state of Mississippi has a long history of racist violence against African people from the period of antebellum slavery through the white resistance to Reconstruction after the Civil War into the modern era of Civil Rights and Black political power.

On November 2, Reuters press agency reported in relationship to the attack that “Greenville Fire Chief Ruben Brown Sr. told a news conference on Wednesday afternoon that investigators had determined the fire at Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church was ‘intentionally set.’ ‘Samples and evidence have been collected from inside the church and are being analyzed to determine the accelerant or ignition source,’ Brown said. Earlier in the day he said no one was injured in the Tuesday evening blaze, but the church was extensively damaged. ‘We’re investigating this as a hate crime,’ Greenville Police Chief Delando Wilson told a news conference early on Wednesday. ‘We feel that the quote on the church is intimidating.”

This same article goes on to quote Wilson saying the fire “tries to push your beliefs on someone else, and this is a predominantly Black church and no one has a right to try to influence the way someone votes in this election. ‘ Wilson told the Wall Street Journal that police on Wednesday evening were interviewing a ‘person of interest’ in connection with the fire but the individual had not been charged.”

Outcomes of the Elections Will Foster Further Unrest 

Irrespective of who wins the poll on November 8 it will not resolve the ongoing social and racial tensions in the U.S. Neither candidate has been seriously questioned by corporate journalists in regard to their specific policy proposals related to concrete conditions facing the majority of people inside the country.

If Trump wins the racist, misogynist forces will be emboldened to engage in further attacks against African Americans, women, Muslims and immigrants. Trump has already suggested that if he does not prevail it would mean that the elections were rigged in favor of Clinton.

At the same time if Clinton wins by a narrow majority of the popular vote and through gaining more electoral votes, the right-wing will also be compelled to escalate their attacks against the oppressed, Democratic Party voters, and others they have designated as “the enemy.”

Consequently, a serious discussion among progressive constituencies in the U.S. will be in order beginning on November 9. The masses of working people and the nationally oppressed must recognize that both the Democrats and Republicans represent Wall Street and the Pentagon.

Efforts aimed at building a genuine people’s movement are required. This is the task of those who are serious about making fundamental change and transforming the racist capitalist system.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Race and Class in America: Social Unrest and Political Tensions in the Wake of the 2016 Elections

The Russian Defense Ministry has slammed a recent Human Rights Watch report that calls the alleged October 26 bombing of a school in Syria’s Idlib province a possible “war crime,” stating it is nothing more than another information attack.

The HRW report in question, published on Sunday, November 6, assumes without question or hard evidence that the attack on the school in Idlib province, which it claimed “could constitute a war crime,” had been carried out by “the joint Russian-Syrian military,” merely citing ‘witness accounts’ it apparently got over the telephone.

“Airstrikes by the joint Russian-Syrian military operation that killed dozens of civilians, mostly schoolchildren, in the northern, opposition-controlled Syrian governorate of Idlib on October 26, 2016, could constitute a war crime. […]

“The repeated striking of a large school complex in a residential area indicate the attacks were unlawful, being either indiscriminate or deliberately targeting civilians. Serious violations of international humanitarian law (the laws of war), when committed with criminal intent, amount to war crimes,” the report from HRW .

The Russian Defense Ministry, however, denounced the report.

“The Human Rights Watch publication of yet another accusation of a ‘war crime,’ which comes more than a week [after the incident] and contains some phone ‘interviews’ with seven victims as new ‘evidence,’ does not hold up to criticism and is just another information attack,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov said in a statement on Monday.

Initial  on the attack on the school in the village of Al-Hasa in Idlib province, where some 28 civilians are said to have been killed, came from the controversial London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and opposition activists from the Western-funded Civil Defense Network, also known as the White Helmets, who published pictures of the aftermath of an alleged attack and were quick to pin the blame on either Russian or Syrian warplanes.

However, the Russian Defense Ministry dispatched a drone to analyze the site of the alleged bombing on the same day and found no evidence of airstrikes.

“The Ministry of Defense already published comprehensive and absolute drone-filmed photographic facts on October 27, which showed the absence of any traces of bombing at the school complex in Al-Hasa,” the statement from the ministry noted.

Konashenkov also said earlier that the ministry had analyzed the photo and video ‘evidence’ from the supposed attack, which had been presented by the White Helmets and published in a range of Western media outlets, and found it to consist of “more than 10 different shots, filmed at different times of the day and in different resolutions, that were edited into a single clip.” Overall, the Russian Defense Ministry  the alleged evidence did not amount to proof that the school had suffered from an airstrike, while noting that no Russian Air Force planes had even been in the vicinity of the school on the morning of the supposed attack.

For some time now, Idlib province has been under the control of the Army of Conquest, an anti-government alliance of rebel groups run by Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, the Al-Nusra terror group, which has recently rebranded by renaming itself Jabhat Fateh al-Sham Front. The Russian Defense Ministry pointed out that, given these circumstances, it is “foolish” to think that secular schools are still operating in the area, and therefore doubted that there were, in fact, any children in the vicinity of the school complex at the time of the incident.

“I would like to remind the so-called ‘human rights defenders’ from the ‘Human Rights Watch’ that the province of Idlib, including the settlement of Al-Hasa, has been under the full control of Al-Nusra terrorists for over a year…  Moreover, there has not yet been any even indirect evidence that children were, in fact, present there at all, not only in those buildings, but in Al-Hasa village in general. Therefore, one has to be an explicit liar or a madman to say that secular schools built by [President Bashar] Assad’s government are continuing to operate on territory controlled by the Syrian branch of ‘Al-Qaeda’ and under constant battle action,” the Defense Ministry statement read.

Russian military officials say the attack on the Idlib school had been deliberately made to look like an airstrike. They also identified several schools in Syria that actually have been targeted, but by rebel fire. One such attack, which militants carried out on a school in government-controlled western Aleppo, claimed the lives of at least six children.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Moscow Accused by HRW: Attack on Idlib School ‘War Crime,’ Russian MoD Slams HRW Report as Work of ‘Liar or Madman’. “False Flag”