Waking Up in Hillary Clinton’s America the choices for president couldn’t be feebler or more disappointing. |
On the one hand, we have a petulant, vocabulary-challenged man-boar of a billionaire, who hasn’t paid his taxes, has regularly left those supporting him holding the bag, and seems like a ludicrous composite of every bad trait in every bad date any woman has ever had.
On the other hand, we’re offered a walking photo-op for and well-paid speechmaker to Wall-Street CEOs, a one-woman money-raising machine from the 1% of the 1%, who, despite a folksiness that couldn’t look more rehearsed, has methodically outplayed her opponent.
None of the three presidential debates suggested that either candidate would have the ability (or desire) to confront Wall Street from the Oval Office. Hillary didn’t even mention the Glass-Steagall Act, too big to fail, or Wall Street.
Before he resigned with his nine-figure golden parachute, Wells Fargo CEO and Chairman John Stumpf addressed Congress over disclosures that 5,300 of his employees had created two million fake accounts, scamming $2.4 million from existing customers. The bank was fined $185 million for that (out of a total $10 billion in fines for a range of other crimes committed before and during the financial crisis).
[Hillary] does have a plan to fine banks for being too big, but they’ve already been fined repeatedly for being crooked and it hasn’t made them any smaller or less threatening. As their top officials evidently view the matter, paying up for breaking the law is just another cost of doing business.
To date, $10 trillion worth of assets sits on the books of the Big Six banks. Since 2008, these same banks have copped to more than $150 billion in fines for pre-crisis behavior that ranged on the spectrum of criminality from manipulating multiple public markets to outright fraud. Hillary Clinton has arguably taken money that would not have been so available if it weren’t for the ill-gotten gains those banks secured. In her usual measured way, albeit with some light admonishments, she has told them what they want to hear: that if they behave — something that in her dictionary of definitions involves little in the way of personalized pain or punishment — so will she.
A World Gone Mad Voters should wake up to the issue of war versus peace.
By Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest
Pillorying Trump for his ignorance and insensitivity ignores how awful Hillary Clinton is in her own way. Hillaryland promises to be an evolutionary place where Democratic strategists work to bring together a permanent electoral advantage through shrewd appeals to unite segments of the population that see themselves as victimized. And it will also bring with it a likelihood of more war, not only against various players in the Middle East, but also against Russia in Europe, as well as Syria and China in the Pacific.
American voters should wake up to the issue of war versus peace. Daniel Larison and other contributors here at TAC have demonstrated how Hillary Clinton would be a highly aggressive president, with a particular animus directed against Russia. Unfortunately, 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.
The point to be considered is that the fog created by the trashing of Trump obscures the very real danger posed by a possible President Hillary Rodham Clinton. She is wedded to the Washington foreign-policy consensus about how best to employ America’s vast military resources and is not reluctant to take aggressive action against adversaries who do not conform to Washington’s standards for good behavior. Such posturing might be considered acceptable to the American public when confronting a third-world country, but the stakes become dramatically higher when one is dealing with a country with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them on target.
Video for Trump. Trump is the molotov cockatail which people can throw into the system which has destroyed them. They have lost everything but the right to vote. They will vote for the very man who has threatened to destroy the system which has destroyed their lives: Donald j. Trump. They see that the elites who ruined their lives HATE Trump. Corporate America hates Trump. Wallstreet hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hate Trump.
The fix was in. Ask Sanders if he thinks the system is rigged.
Undercover Footage Shows Clinton Operatives Admit To Inciting "Anarchy" At Trump Rallies By Tyler Durden October 18, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Zero Hedge"
"It doesn't matter what the friggin' legal and ethics people say, we need to win this mother*ucker."
Hillary Clinton Knew All Along – Saudi Arabia and Qatar Are Funding Isis By Patrick Cockburn October 18, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "The Independent"
There is a bizarre discontinuity between what the Obama administration knew about the jihadis and what they would say in public
It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furore over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton.
Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria.
At the time, the US government was not admitting that Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies were supporting Isis and al-Qaeda-type movements. But in the leaked memo, which says that it draws on “western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region” there is no ambivalence about who is backing Isis, which at the time of writing was butchering and raping Yazidi villagers and slaughtering captured Iraqi and Syrian soldiers.
The memo says: “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region.”
This was evidently received wisdom in the upper ranks of the US government, but never openly admitted because to it was held that to antagonise Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, Turkey and Pakistan would fatally undermine US power in the Middle East and South Asia.
An Urgently Necessary Briefing on Syria By Gary Leupp [Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion.] October 15, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Counterpunch"
Is it not obvious? Public opinion is being prepared for another regime-change war.
Syria is country about the size of Washington state, with an extraordinarily long, well-documented and glorious history, and central role in the emergence of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Before the current war, it had a population of around 22 millions. It has never threatened and poses no threat to the United States.
It is a secular, constitutional republic recognized diplomatically by the United Nations and has diplomatic and usually cordial relations with Russia, Iran, China, India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa, the Philippines, Argentina, Tanzania, Cuba, Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, Oman, etc.
The U.S. has a long history of pressing for “regime change” in Syria. After Syria became independent, the U.S. routinely intervened in the country in pursuing its Cold War political agendas.
It is widely suspected that the military coup in Syria in 1949 was abetted by the U.S., which saw the previous regime as soft on communism. And the CIA openly acknowledges responsibility for the failed coup attempts designed to install a suitable anti-communist regime called “Operation Straggle” in 1956 and “Operation Wappen” directed by Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. in 1957.
The latter included failed bribery efforts which, when exposed, embarrassed the U.S. (After the Syrian government foiled the plot, Washington began accusing Syria of being a “Soviet client.”)
9/11 allowed the neoconservative regime-changers and their allies to move quickly. Exploiting fear and ignorance, they immediately set about preparing for war on Iraq, even though Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. We know from Gen. Wesley Clark’s often-quoted words, after talking with a Pentagon general shortly after 9/11, that there was a plan already in place to “take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
There were loud voices in the Bush administration (most notably undersecretary of state John Bolton, who Trump has said is one of the foreign policy experts he most respects) calling for strikes on Syria (as “low-hanging fruit”) and echoing baseless Israeli allegations that the WMDs not found in Iraq must have been sent across the border to Syria.
The “Arab Spring” of 2011 ended the discussion about regime change. The neocon faction at the State Department kicked into gear. Hillary Clinton and soon Barack Obama commanded Bashar al-Assad to step down, after some fatal encounters between demonstrators and police afforded them the opportunity to deploy a pre-determined accusation: “He has attacked his own people!”
The U.S. closed its Damascus embassy, planning to return after the moderate opposition was in power as planned. The then-Secretary of State is known to have advocated overt military aid to the rebels, although Obama was reluctant.
In fact, the U.S. covertly trained 53 Syrian militants in Turkey who as soon as they entered Syria in September 2015 were captured or defected, handing over their weapons. Efforts to turn Syria’s “Arab Spring” into a quick pro-U.S. regime change exercise have failed dismally while resulting in mass slaughter.
In September 2013, as the Syrian state forces made advances against the armed opposition and many analysts concluded that the tide had turned in the conflict, someone released sarin gas in a Damascus suburb. Some blamed it on the Assad regime. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton’s successor as secretary of state, was eager to attack Syria. A year earlier, Obama had indicated that the U.S. would attack if it saw “a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”
Obama was on the verge of ordering an attack when careful Russian diplomacy stayed his hand. Moscow challenged the U.S. attribution of the attack to the regime, pointing instead to the opposition, and in any case facilitated the Assad regime’s resignation of its chemical weapons stockpiles to the UN. This was an important triumph for Russian diplomacy and setback for neocon regime change plans in Syria.
The lightning victories of ISIL in early 2014, as it returned to Iraq conquering Fallujah, Ramadi and Mosul, were a PR nightmare for the U.S. They were clear testimony that the U.S. destruction of the secular, modern Iraqi state had paved the way for child-beheading, woman-enslaving, monument-destroying crazies.
The U.S. had to bomb ISIL, both in Iraq (with permission from the government) and in Syria (where U.S. warplanes, unlike Russian warplanes, operate illegally)... while simultaneously maintaining that the main problem—somehow giving rise to this problem of these people who burn people in cages, and bury people alive, and force conversions—is the Baathist regime.
To suggest that Assad is responsible for the presence of ISIL in his country (due to his refusal to heed the U.S. diktat, and step down paving the way for the U.S.’s alternative) is just stupid. That it should be so widely repeated by pundits in the mainstream press should be the cause for mass alarm if not despair. Such State Department talking points are the drumbeats of war.
Russia’s intervention in the Syrian conflict, occurring at the request of the Syrian government (which, to repeat, is the government of a secular, constitutional republic recognized diplomatically by the United Nations and has cordial relations with Russia, Iran, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, the Philippines, Argentina, Tanzania, Cuba, Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, Oman and many other countries despite Washington’s efforts to isolate and overthrow it), this intervention is legal, while the U.S.’s is not.
Meanwhile Hillary Clinton as recently as Oct. 9 reiterated in the “debate” with Trump that she (still) supports a no-fly zone. Even though the brass has told her that that would mean the deployment of tens of thousands of U.S. troops in a war with Syria and Russia.
She is eager to appoint Michele Flournoy (formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under Obama) as her Secretary of Defense. Flournoy has also called for a “no-fly zone” over Syria and “limited military coercion” to drive Assad from power. She has actually proposed the deployment of U.S. ground troops against the Syrian Arab Army. The point is for Hillary not only to ascend to power—whatever that might require—but to prepare the people for more Afghanistans, Iraqs and Libyas in the process. The point is to lull the people into historical amnesia, blind them to Hillary’s record of Goldwater-type reckless militarism, exploit the Cold War mentality lingering among the most backward and ignorant, and insure that the electorate that, while generally deploring the result of the rigged election in November, will soon afterwards rally behind corrupt Hillary as soon as she seizes on some pretext for war.
Worse than pussy grabbing Last week, a friend called. Said, “I can’t vote for Clinton.”
“I don’t want to waste my vote.”
“WTF? You’re wasting your vote regardless.”
Another wrote, “I’m afraid Trump will ruin this country.”
“This country was ruined long ago.”
Long before Donald Trump bragged about the benefits of stardom, about grabbing pussy, wanting to grab pussy, admitting failure to grab pussy, rationalizing grabbing pussy.
Long before John Kennedy’s womanizing.
Long before Lyndon Johnson woke a female White House employee in a bedroom at his Texas ranch during the night and demanded, “Move over, this is your president.” (She did.) Long before Johnson as a college student named his wiener Jumbo.
I understand the assault; both physical and psychic and acknowledge that women don’t have equal status. Abuse of authority is epidemic, and not gender or age specific. It’s just that when I think of injustice, I see men and women murdered for being Black or I stare at the photographs of Syria’s youngest victims, see the eyes and blood-and-tear-stained faces, the small bodies washed ashore.
If this isn’t horrendous enough, there’s that other huge: the poisoning of our planet. Radiation leaks into our oceans. Toxins invade our atmosphere, our rivers, the soil, our pipes, our food, our children. Scientists disagree on whether we’ve passed the brink, yet even if there were time, even if there were a viable strategy, a global consensus would be essential.
Trump’s fingerprints are on crotches. Clinton’s are on Haiti, Honduras, Libya, Syria, Iraq, anywhere U.S. Empire lurks. What a choice. It’s worse than pussy grabbing. We’re fucked.
The Warnings of a New World War By Gilbert Doctorow [the European Coordinator, American Committee for East West Accord] October 15, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Consortium News"
The U.S.-Russia confrontation over Ukraine and now Syria is far more dangerous than is understood by mainstream U.S. analysts as Russia lays down clear warnings that are mostly being ignored.
A picture is worth a thousand words / President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice listens at left
In an interview with the Bild newspaper on Oct. 8, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who is known for his cautious rhetoric, described the present international situation in the following woeful terms: “unfortunately it is an illusion to believe this is the old Cold War. The new times are different; they are more dangerous.
For these reasons, said Steinmeier, “The USA and Russia must continue talking with each other.” He concluded his appeal with fairly balanced recommendations to resolve the humanitarian crisis in east Aleppo, urging both Russia and the other powers to apply their influence with their clients on the ground.
Sad to say, this call to reason fell on deaf ears. On the same day, a U.S. State Department spokesman explained to journalists Washington’s decision over the weekend to end the joint peace process with Moscow, saying that there was “nothing left to talk about with the Russians.”
War damage in the once-thriving Syrian city of Aleppo / Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016
Meanwhile, the Russian side took as the last straw this unilateral and trumpeted decision of the Americans to bury the deal signed on Sept. 9 between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that had taken 14 hours to negotiate and was seen as a triumph of cooperation versus confrontation.
De facto, from the Russian view, that deal was sabotaged on Sept. 17 by the Pentagon when U.S. and coalition aircraft bombed a Syrian government military outpost at Deir Ezzor killing more than 60 Syrian soldiers.
From the foregoing, it would appear that the U.S. government was keen to play down to the general public the significance of the separately noted Russian moves last week. It is in this context that one must appreciate what an unofficial but authoritative Russian state television program last Sunday night did...
The Oct. 9 show, the real hoped-for audience of the first half-hour segment was in Washington, D.C., where its intent was to pour cold water over hotheads in the Pentagon and CIA – and bring the American leadership back to its senses. Quoting from the transcript:
“This past week relations between the USA and Russia went through a sharp but expected turn. To bend over backwards further in the face of [American] lies has lost all sense and is simply harmful. By bending over backwards we mean looking for diplomatic compromises.
“We held endless expectations that the USA will finally separate the non-terrorists from the terrorists [in Syria]. We waited more than a year for this. But it is clear they did not want to. They are taking us and the whole world for fools.
"America is working on the side of Al Nusra [Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate], providing them with diplomatic cover; providing them with additional arms; helping them by their supposedly mistaken bombing of a Syrian army position.
By presenting Russia with hostility and enormous challenges, the United States has been creating the very Russia it fears.
Moreover, the CIA has its own agent taking part in the prime-time talk shows several days a week. He is a welcome and paid guest of the Russian state television because of his outstanding Russian language skills and his defense of the policy line coming from Washington, which makes him the American that Russian viewers love to hate.
In this capacity, he rubs shoulders regularly with the leading Russian politicians on the shows and has a chance, in the breaks, to put to them the kind of question that one such politician said he raised a week ago: “Will there be a war?”
A puzzling and scandalous question arises: why has the President not said a word about the “radical change in relations” with Russia? And why is it that neither candidate when asked about how to respond to the killings in east Aleppo on Debate Two, that very same evening, on Oct. 9, were clueless.
Indeed, the remarks of Hillary Clinton to the effect that the United States must stand up to the Russians and impose a “no-fly zone” in Syria missed the point that to do so now will mean destruction of U.S. aircraft and naval vessels, or, in other words, the onset of World War III.
For his part, Donald Trump came out marginally better on the issue of what to do about east Aleppo. He said that, as he understands, it’s lost already. That appraisal is much closer to reality.
The end result of the official silence in the U.S. about Russia’s message of defiance and about its military wherewithal in place in Syria to defend what it construes as its national interest is that as a nation the U.S. is flying blind.
War vs. Democracy By Robert C. Koehler September 09, 2016 "Information Clearing House"
The paradox of democracy is that it depends on the integrity of those who have the most to lose if an election goes the wrong way — you know, the people in power.
That’s a particularly thorny dilemma when the “fourth estate” — the speakers of truth to power, the public’s counterforce against political hackdom — are basically corporate wimps who view their job as the voice of public relations for the status quo, the defenders of our conventional beliefs, e.g., that God’s in his heaven and America is the world’s oldest, greatest, most secure democracy.
But in 2016, even the mainstream media are trembling with uncertainty. As Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis recently wrote: “Now 16 years after the theft of the presidency in Florida 2000, and a dozen since it was done again in Ohio 2004, the corporate media is approaching consensus that it is indeed very easy to strip millions of legitimate citizens from the voting rolls, and then to hack electronic voting machines and computerized central tabulators to flip the official final outcome.”
Change is coming, apparently, whether we want it or not. Bernie Sanders and the progressive revolution were neatly, efficiently stiffed by the Democrats, but the “alt-right” nationalists and white supremacists surprised the hell out of the Republicans and now their man is leading a charge up Stone Mountain, promising to make America great again, or at least free of non-European immigrants and the cruel constraints of political correctness.
Two months before the election, I feel the need to pause and look in several directions at the shortcomings of the process we celebrate with such self-adulation.
In an interview with Rabbi Michael Lerner at Tikkun, Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate, points out: “The magnificent work that the Bernie Sanders campaign did and the momentum they built and the public support that they demonstrated and mobilized is a wonder to behold and it has forever transformed the political landscape. But it was essentially sabotaged by the Democratic Party as it has always done since George McGovern won the Democratic Party nomination, and the rules of the game were changed so that a grassroots campaign could not win the nomination again — in part by creating super delegates and Super Tuesdays, but that’s not the end of it.”
It is in this context that I bring up the concept of election reform. For democracy to be real, three rights must be protected: the right to vote, the right to have your vote counted, and the right to vote for a candidate who actually represents you. And as usual, all three of these rights are under assault.
'Obama DOJ Drops Charges Against Alleged Arms Broker Who Was Threatening To Expose Clinton By Kenneth P. Vogel and Josh Gerstein October 05, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Politico"
Arms dealer had threatened to expose Hillary Clinton’s talks about arming anti-Qadhafi rebels.
The Clintons / That one time Hillary was on Sesame Street.
Clinton calls for National Service By Nancy Hanover 7 October 2016 WSWS
Last Friday, September 30, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced a plan to institute a National Service Reserve for the purpose of recruiting five million young people between the ages of 18 and 30 for a minimum of a year of service. This initiative is not a milquetoast “reform” as it is being described in the media, but represents a dangerous shift towards wider wars abroad and a more militarized society at home.
While she packaged the idea as a local/national volunteer force, Clinton’s proposed corps are modeled after the Armed Forces Reserves. Volunteers would receive “basic training” and be on-call for natural disaster, public health campaigns or “other projects,” according to the Washington Post .
Clinton also called for tripling the size of AmeriCorps from 75,000 to 250,000, [AmeriCorps is a civil society program supported by the U.S. federal government, foundations, corporations, and other donors engaging adults in public service work with a goal of "helping others and meeting critical needs in the community." Wikipedia], increasing its loan forgiveness/stipend allocation to a miserable $23,000 for two years of full-time work plus another year in public service. Finally she advocated for the expansion of the Peace Corps and the enlistment of the over-55 age bracket for volunteer opportunities.
Auch proposals—always of a militarist character—have periodically arisen in the US, but are now receiving significant political traction. In fact, National Service fits in with the outlook and aims outlined in the recent Atlantic Council document The Future of the Army. Among other measures, the policy paper calls for an expansion of military personnel, both career and part-time. It suggests the creation of an Army Civilian Volunteer Auxiliary Corps, an idea not dissimilar to the National Service Reserves.
With an eye to the “age of perpetual war” and social breakdown at home, The Future of the Army states, “The lines between military and civilian, active and reserves, volunteers and retirees need to become far more blurred.”
In other words, policymakers are demanding the militarization of large swathes of American society, with millions of “reservists” on call for military duties.
Clinton denounces Russian “interference” in US elections, calls for escalation in Syria By Patrick Martin September 08, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "WSWS"
Asked by a reporter if the alleged Russian actions amounted to a cyberwar, Clinton replied, “I’m not comfortable using the word ‘war’.” This demurral was only to disguise her intentions from the American people. However, in a speech last week to the American Legion convention, Clinton declared that cyberattacks on the United States should be answered by military force.
[See article below on same subject of Syria}
US In Denial Over Sponsoring Terrorism Is Why War On Syrian Rages On By Finian Cunningham September 08, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "RT"
How can a solution be found when one of the parties is part of the problem?
Cutting through diplomatic jargon, the fundamental problem is that the US remains in denial about its criminal role in fueling the war.
It is this role by the US and various foreign allies in supporting illegally armed groups that ensures the continuance of the conflict, which has been running for nearly six years with hundreds of thousands killed.
Washington and its allies – in particular this week Turkey – claim to be fighting terrorism. But the myriad global networks of weapons, cash, oil smuggling and military intelligence all testify to systematic state sponsorship of terrorism in Syria – in spite of random apparent anti-terror operations by these same sponsor-states.
Hitlery declared the President of Russia to be the Ultimate Threat-"the new Hitler."
Rethinking The Cold War and the new one By Paul Craig Roberts August 13, 2016 "Information Clearing House"
The Cold War began during the Truman administration and lasted through the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations and was ended in Reagan’s second term when Reagan and Gorbachev came to an agreement that the conflict was dangerous, expensive, and pointless.
In the 1990s President Clinton restarted the Cold War by breaking America’s promise not to expend NATO into Eastern Europe. George W. Bush heated up the renewed Cold War by pulling the US out of the Anti-ABM Treaty, and Obama has made the war hotter with irresponsible rhetoric and by placing US missiles on Russia’s border and overthrowing the Ukrainian government.
We had the Cold War because it served the Dulles brothers and the power and profits of the military/security complex. There were no other reasons for the Cold War.
The new Cold War is even more pointless than the first. Russia was cooperating with the West, and the Russian economy was integrated into the West as a supplier of raw materials.
The new Cold War is the work of a handful of neoconservative fanatics who believe that History has chosen the US to wield hegemonic power over the world. Some of the neocons are sons of former Trotskyists and have the same romantic notion of world revolution, only this time it is “democratic-capitalist” and not communist.
Today, however, with constant allegations of pending Russian invasions, Putin demonized as “the new Hitler,” and the buildup of US and NATO military forces on Russia’s borders, a false alarm becomes believable.
NATO lost its purpose when the Soviet Union collapsed. However, too many careers, budgets, and armaments profits depended on NATO. The neoconservatives seized on NATO as political cover and an auxillary military force for their hegemonic ambitions.
The purpose of NATO today is to implicate all of Europe in Washington’s war crimes. Since all are guilty, European governments cannot turn on Washington and accuse the Americans of war crimes. Other voices are too weak to be of consequence.
Despite its vast crimes against humanity, the West still retains the position of “a light unto the world,” a defender of truth, justice, human rights, democracy, and individual liberty. This reputation persists despite the destruction of the Bill of Rights and police state repression.
Donald Trump has said the only hopeful thing in the presidential campaign. He called into question NATO and the orchesrated conflict with Russia. We don’t know if we can believe him or whether his government would follow his direction.
But we do know that Hitlery [Clinton] is a warmonger, an agent of the neoconservatives, the military-security complex, the Israel Lobby, the banks too big to fail, Wall Street, and every foreign interest that will make a mega-million dollar donation to the Clinton Foundation or a quarter million dollar fee for a speech.
Could it be any more clear? A vote for Hitlery is a vote for war. Despite this most obvious of all facts, the US media, united as one, are doing everything in their power to drive Trump into the ground and to elect Hitlery.
What the Russians and Chinese see are a people too brainwashed and ignorant to be of any support for peace. They see war coming and are preparing for it.
Hilary Clinton – History Repeats Itself? By Andre Vltchek August 13, 2016 "Information Clearing House"
Once upon a time, there was a man called James Buchanan. He was a Democrat, a Secretary of State and then the President of the United States. A good friend of mine, a historian, told me about him.
Buchanan was the last U.S. President who previously served as Secretary of State. He was a Pennsylvania native, and he took his place in the Oval Office in 1857.
Now, more than 150 years later, Hilary Clinton may be about to follow in his footsteps. And some footsteps they were!
Before serving as Secretary of State (in the administration of President James K. Polk), James Buchanan was a Senator, elected as a Democrat, same as Ms. Clinton.
While heading the State Department, the future President did some nasty, really nasty things, like provoking a war with Mexico and defining Washington’s colonialist policy towards Cuba and the Caribbean basin.
Elected President at a time of growing animosity between the industrial anti-slavery North and agrarian pro-slavery South, he was unable to calm the passions of the opposing sides and to find a political solution to the crises. He committed some of the most outrageous errors, and to this day is remembered as one of the worst leaders in American history, being held responsible for the Civil War, which started just a few months after he retired.
Before stepping down as a President, Buchanan’s only suggestion for averting the disaster was issuing “an explanatory amendment” reaffirming the constitutionality of slavery in the states, the fugitive slave laws, and popular sovereignty in the territories.
The National Intelligencer, then a leading opposition newspaper, published a biting, sarcastic piece about Buchanan’s adventurism and expansionism
Hillary Clinton, also a former Senator for the Democratic Party, also used her time at the State Department in the most ‘effective way’: she initiated a war in Libya, provoked a devastating civil war in Syria and masterminded coup in Honduras, while provoking and antagonizing left wing governments in virtually all parts of Latin America.
Running for President of the United States at a time of growing social tension and what is often described as ‘popular outrage’, Ms. Clinton, just like Mr. Buchanan, is now offering absolutely no new, progressive and effective solutions or reforms that could prevent the situation from slipping into a shattering social disaster. She is fighting for the status quo, and in the process eliminating her political opponents in the most Machiavellian fashion.
Unlike James Buchanan, she also sits on a pile of nuclear weapons, while doing her absolute best to antagonize and provoke two powerful and independent-minded nations: China and Russia. Her policies could easily lead to the most destructive international conflict, or even a series of conflicts. But it does not seem to distress her. She is on her ego trip, and on a crusade!
While history judges Mr. Buchanan simply as an inept, bigoted and trigger-happy imperialist and supremacist, Ms. Clinton also shares all those characteristics of her predecessor, but with her own unique touch
Clinton's Argument That Free College Is Bad Because Rich Kids Can Take Advantage of It Makes No Sense The same logic could apply to K-12 education, roads, parks, or any general public good.
Free College for All Worked in the US for 100 Years Until Elite Took It Away Bernie Sanders’ call for free public college is being called an unaffordable fantasy by Hillary Clinton, who opposes free college for those who can pay, but the reality is that college was free in the US for 100 years until the rich and powerful in Washington took it away in the 1960s. We had it once, and can have it again!
The Empire Wants Ms. Clinton, The Conqueror! By Andre Vltchek September 02, 2016 "Information Clearing House"
Both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump are competing in it as a who is the ‘tougher guy/gal’.. But just think for a moment what would really happen if one of them sticks to his or her ‘promises’ and ‘principles’, after getting elected! (The bullets would be flying, the nukes exploding, and millions of immigrants pushed off some cliff).
The Democratic Party, led by Debbie Wasserman Schultz openly rigged its primary system to nominate Hillary Clinton. People who managed to doubt that must now avoid reading the DNC's Nixonian emails with their plots to expose Bernie Sanders as an atheist, push false stories about Bernie delegates throwing chairs, etc.
So the Democrats have decided to not let Wasserman Schultz speak at their convention, and to slightly modify their antidemocratic super delegates system so that beginning four years from now two-thirds of them will be expected to vote in line with the actual voters of their states.
Here's what a real reform would look like: Require that beginning this week any delegate or superdelegate who objects to being used as a pawn in the pretense of democracy switch their vote from Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders.
Moving ahead with the Hillary Clinton nomination while altering the mechanisms by which future primaries will be rigged is not a solution. It's an insult and an open admission that lying, cheating, and stealing are acceptable.
Any delegate to the DNC this week who votes for Clinton is voting for corruption and, by the very logic of Clinton's own lesser-evilist, I-am-not-a-Trump campaign ads, is voting for Trump. Polls have repeatedly found Sanders to be a stronger candidate against Trump than Clinton is.
Bernie’s Quasi-Concession Speech and Hillary’s Syrian War to Come By Gary Leupp June 21, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Dissident Voice"
What a triumph for Hillary it will be should boys and girls both die in World War III.
Bernie: “The major political task that we face in the next five months is to make certain that Donald Trump is defeated and defeated badly.” Meaning, “we” will all have to — as our major task — back the Wall Street candidate Clinton versus the racist buffoon.
Hillary: Wall Street's warmonger.
Hillary on the Ropes By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Late last week, the inspector general of the State Department completed a yearlong investigation into the use by Hillary Clinton of a private email server for all of her official government email as secretary of state. The investigation was launched when information technology officials at the State Department under Secretary of State John Kerry learned that Clinton paid an aide to migrate her public and secret State Department email streams away from their secured government venues and onto her own, non-secure server, which was stored in her home.
The migration of the secret email stream most likely constituted the crime of espionage — the failure to secure and preserve the secrecy of confidential, secret or top-secret materials.
Clinton and her former aides declined to cooperate with the inspector general, notwithstanding her oft-stated claim that she "can't wait" to meet with officials and clear the air about her emails.
Warmongering Clinton Accuses Trump of Madness By Finian Cunningham June 05, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Sputnik"
Presidential contender Hillary Clinton has warned that if her Republican rival Donald Trump makes it to the White House, it’s time to kiss goodnight to the world.
Paradoxically, it is Hillary “the voice of reason” Clinton who is the proven warmonger and who would more likely be a bigger threat to world security. Less Commander-in-Chief, and more Commander-in-Grief.
That the Western mainstream media can invert that fact shows how twisted and unreliable their “information” is.
Who’s the Fascist? By Margaret Kimberley June 04, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "BAR"
Conversely, Donald Trump says he would raise the minimum wage and says he would stop the endless efforts at regime change. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders have questioned that fundamental premise of American foreign policy. Hillary Clinton has already proven herself to be particularly blood thirsty. She is happy to bomb Libya or Syria or any other country. Her so-called expertise amounts to nothing more than an expansion of state sponsored terror committed by the United States.
In just the last 40 years American presidents or their allied partners in crime have killed people in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Congo, Somalia, Haiti, Grenada, Gaza, Kosovo, Serbia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen. What do they have to do to be called fascists? Showing bad manners seems to be the only thing that sets off expressions of outrage among Americans.
There is already fascism in the White House, the Justice Department, the State Department and Congress. The only question is who will be the next person to keep that sick machinery running.
Silencing the United States as It Prepares for War By John Pilger May 27, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "teleSur"
Clinton declared that America had a “national interest” in these Asian waters. The Philippines and Vietnam were encouraged and bribed to pursue their claims and old enmities against China. In America, people are being primed to see any Chinese defensive position as offensive, and so the ground is laid for rapid escalation. A similar strategy of provocation and propaganda is applied to Russia.
Clinton, the “women's candidate”, leaves a trail of bloody coups: in Honduras, in Libya (plus the murder of the Libyan president) and Ukraine. The latter is now a CIA theme park swarming with Nazis and the frontline of a beckoning war with Russia. It was through Ukraine – literally, borderland -- that Hitler's Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, which lost 27 million people. This epic catastrophe remains a presence in Russia. Clinton's presidential campaign has received money from all but one of the world's ten biggest arms companies. No other candidate comes close.
She [Hillary, known as "Killary"] and those like her - false friends of Israel - have been one of the curses on this country for years. Because of them, Israel can continue to act as wildly as it likes, thumbing its nose at the world and paying no price. (by Gideon Levy, World News Daily. 11/11/15).
If Hillary Isn't Indicted, the Rule of Law and the Republic Are Dead By Charles Hugh Smith March 21, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Of Two Minds"
Once the Oligarchy is above the law, the Republic is already dead.. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
The United States has reached a crossing the Rubicon moment: either Hillary Clinton is indicted for knowingly violating statutes regarding State Department security, or the rule of law and the Republic are dead. This is a binary moment: we either let Hillary evade the laws that were established to protect the security of the nation and confess there is no rule of law now for the Oligarchy, or the agencies tasked with defending the nation indict her.
Dems in Panic Over Hillary Candidacy: 'Our Nominee Is a Disaster' Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat not linked to an FBI investigation. If this doesn’t mean anything to you, then you’re too terrified of Trump’s rallies to realize that Clinton could get indicted. Also, if you can’t fathom the possibility of Donald Trump winning, then keep in mind that most Americans don’t trust or like Hillary Clinton.
The Biggest Difference Between Hillary and Bernie? The Real Steps They Will Take to Address America's Inequality Crisis Hillary has no burning desire to reverse runaway inequality by fundamentally reordering the economic system.
As the rich grow richer and corporations grow more powerful, they move their money offshore. The tax burden is shifted to the rest of us as state and local governments lurch from one fiscal crises to the next. As a result the richest country in the history of the world, can't remove lead from its drinking water or provide healthcare for all, or move a quarter of its children above the poverty line.
Clinton's Argument That Free College Is Bad Because Rich Kids Can Take Advantage of It Makes No Sense The same logic could apply to K-12 education, roads, parks, or any general public good.
DNC Vice Chair Resigns, Endorses Sanders, Blasts Clinton's 'Interventionist, Regime Change Policies' Tulsi Gabbard left the Democratic National Committee, which has been accused of pro-Hillary bias, to support Bernie.
Hillary Clinton’s Terrible Vision for Syria By Brad Blankenship February 26, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - Hillary Clinton is not a diplomat; she is a bloodthirsty and deranged woman with no respect for human rights and a true exemplar of corruption.
Clinton has been boasting about her support for the Syrian opposition in the past, her visceral hatred for President Assad, and promoting a no-fly zone. However, this very same chain of events happened in both Libya and Iraq (both of which Clinton supported) with total disasters following. Her policies are not too different from the neo-conservatives she claims to oppose.
Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine There's no doubt that Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street. Even more dangerous, though, is that she is the candidate of the military-industrial complex. The idea that she is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong. Her so-called foreign policy "experience" has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA.
Sanders: Clinton's Pursuit of 'Regime Change' in Libya Helped Rise of Isis By Dan Roberts December 18, 2015
Exclusive interview: Vermont senator challenges Clinton’s foreign policy record and says ties to Wall Street mean she would not take on ‘billionaire class’
Speaking to the Guardian in an extensive pre-debate interview, the senator from Vermont criticised Clinton for carelessly fomenting regime change in Libya “without worrying” about the ensuing instability that has helped Islamic State forces take hold in the country.
“Regime change without worrying about what happens the day after you get rid of the dictator does not make a lot of sense,” Sanders said.
“I voted against the war in Iraq ... Secretary Clinton voted for that war. She was proud to have been involved in regime change in Libya, with [Muammar] Gaddafi, without worrying, I think, about what happened the day after and the kind of instability and the rise of Isis that we have seen in Libya.”
Though initially reluctant to let foreign policy distract from what he considers a more important domestic agenda, the Sanders campaign increasingly sees his opponent’s hawkishness as an opportunity for him to turn Saturday’s debate in New Hampshire into a clash on the best way of achieving lasting national security.
“We have to be smart and not just tough,” he said. “And that means it’s not just destroying Isis, it’s making sure we do it in a way that leads to a better future and more stability in that region. And that means, absolutely in my view, that it cannot simply be as we did in Iraq ... It cannot simply be unilateral American action. What it means is a broad coalition, in which the troops on the ground are Muslim troops.”
“Sometimes in our country, especially among our Republican friends who suffer from amnesia, we forget what happened yesterday,” added Sanders. “I can remember like it was yesterday, when we had a ‘tough’ president. George W Bush, and his vice-president was even tougher. So tough! And they went into Iraq, man, and they got rid of Saddam Hussein, terrible guy. But they forgot to be thinking about what happens the day after you get rid of Saddam Hussein. What has happened in that region, as everybody knows, is there is massive instability, human tragedies beyond belief. In terms of people in that region, in terms of American soldiers, there is PTSD, traumatic brain injury, 6,700 dying.”
'Terrorism for Dummies': Clinton’s Neo-Conservativsm Is Simply Dangerous byPeter Bloom. Published on Friday, November 20, 2015 by Common Dreams
A supposedly key advantage of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president is her superior knowledge of foreign policy. Conventional political wisdom suggests that her time as Senator and Secretary of State provides her with an edge over her less experienced rivals – in either Party.
This is despite the fact that as a lawmaker she made “the mistake” of voting for the Iraq war and her significant lack of achievements as Secretary. A legitimate question is just how nuanced and progressive Clinton’s global perspective actually is.
Her much heralded recent speech on fighting ISIS reveals her in fact dangerously simplified view of terrorism and international relations. It is one where the world is divided between “good guys” (The US, Europe and its allies) and the “bad guys” (the terrorists and extremists). This reactionary rhetoric may appeal to many Americans but it makes the US and the world much less safe.
She gave only lip service to the need for tolerance against Muslims, economic and political progress in the Middle East and the protection of individual privacy against heightened state surveillance.
Instead she repeated the romanticized dogma of American exceptionalism, proclaiming “The United States and our allies must demonstrate that free people and free markets are still the hope of humanity.”
These sentiments are directly challenged by actual evidence of what fuels ISIS and terrorism. As recent interviews with captured ISIS members reveals, most are motivated not by an extremist ideology but anger at the West’s destructive interventions in the region as well as feeling “terrorized” by ISIS leadership to join.
Significantly, experts in the region stress the threat of making what are primarily localized conflicts into global battles.. More broadly, as anthropologist Scott Antran testified to the US Senate in 2010, such violence primarily appeals to young men who are “bored, underemployed, overqualified and underwhelmed” for whom “jihad is an egalitarian, equal-opportunity employer . . . thrilling, glorious and cool.”
In echoing the simplified “us vs. them” narrative of her neo-conservative predecessors, Clinton is reinforcing a dangerous and ineffective policy of 21st century American militarism and imperialism.
She has also backed a range of oligarchic and autocratic regimes across the globe. This support ranges from supporting a military coup in Honduras that replaced a left wing president with a questionably elected and corrupt candidate backed by the country’s business elite to strengthening ties with pro-Western dictators in Tunisia, Yemen and Bahrain among others.
Additionally she has “gained little ground” in advancing economic development or gender equality internationally. As one commentator observes
“Clinton's backing of neo-liberal economic policies and war-making by the United States and its allies…may have actually set back indigenous feminist movements in the same a way that the Bush administration's ‘democracy-promotion’ agenda was a serious setback to popular struggles for freedom and democracy.”
Bernie Sanders Slams Clinton for Having Supported Slashing of America's Safety Net In 1996, Bill Clinton passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, with the advertised intention of "ending welfare as we know it." Many critics believe that's exactly what it did. Three assistant secretaries at the Department of Health resigned in protest of the act, claiming that it shredded the existing safety net. In her 2003 book, Living History, Clinton writes that she supported the legislation.
Private Prison Lobbyists Are Raising Cash for Hillary Clinton As immigration and incarceration issues become central to the 2016 presidential campaign, lobbyists for two major prison companies are serving as top fundraisers for Hillary Clinton... Corrections Corporation of America and the Geo Group
Robert Reich: Hillary Clinton's Frightening Lack of Concern for Reforming Wall St. Hillary Clinton won’t propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act – It’s a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we’re in danger of another one.
Hillary’s Challengers – and the Anti-Wall Street Wave Though she criticized a GOP attempt to roll back Dodd-Frank, Hillary Clinton has offered little in the way of Wall Street criticism or specific proposals for additional reforms for the industry that shattered the global economy less than seven years ago... Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders All four have criticized Wall Street’s unethical practices and undue political influence. Leading contender Hillary Clinton, by contrast, has not.
Forget Hillary's emails... Because this is the real scandal that nobody is talking about.. Some say they are already built in, can hold millions of people and rumor has it once you get in... you never get out... alive!
Evil Hillary: EMP Bomb video NORAD is going underground in Cheyenne Mountain. Expected attack from N. Korea and Iran because of our economic sanctions. Rants about socialism. Sales video.
Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Speech: A Study in Whiplash-Inducing Contrasts She took a page from Franklin Delano Roosevelt in her first major campaign speech, but Hillary Clinton is still Wall Street’s woman—a point not lost on some who took in her surreal show at Roosevelt Island’s Four Freedoms Park on Saturday.
With the bomb-sniffing dogs, security guards, metal detectors, police officers, Men In Black-looking security guards and campaign staff speeding around on golf-carts, Hillary Island felt like its own world with its own rule. It’s a serene summertime police state—wherein campaign staffers told reporters to stay in their designated area, away from attendees—pleasant and creepy at the same time... Which might be the best way to describe Clinton herself during Saturday’s launch.
Colby Glass, MLIS, Professor Emeritus