May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

Hillary Clinton as a neocon warmonger

The only area in which she is highly qualified in selling out the American people to globalists. This despicable Wahhabism appeaser who tries to pretend to be a fighter for women rights voted for Iraq war, was the butcher of Libya and Syria. To rail against the Republican War on Women, while accepting millions in "donations," from despotic Middle Eastern regimes that stone women for adultery is the height of hypocrisy. She was instrumental in killing thousands of women and children. Her addiction to Wall Street money and Saudi money is impossible to break. 

"Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected, and nothing will change."
-- Barack Obama, 2008

Version 3.1, Aug 21, 2016

News US Presidential Elections of 2016 Recommended Links Hillary health issues Hillary Clinton and Obama created ISIS Swiftboating: Khan gambit against Trump at Democratic Convention Bernie Sanders as sheepdog for Hillary
Hillary as a pathological liar Hillary wet kiss with neocons Clinton Cash and Hillary Clinton links to financial industry DNC emails leak: switfboating Bernie Sanders "Fuck the EU": State Department neocons show EU its real place Hillary role in Libya disaster Hillary role in Syria bloodbath
Hillary Clinton email scandal Donald Trump -- an unusual fighter against excesses of neoliberal globalization Swiftboating Trump: Khan gambit against Trump at the Democratic Convention Anti Trump Hysteria Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak Lock her up movement
Neoconservatism Obama: a yet another Neocon  Superdelegates fraud at Democratic National Convention Female Sociopaths Bill Clinton With Bill possibly again occupying White House bedroom his sexapades became Hillary campaign issue Hillary Clinton defense of the middle aged rapist of a 12 years old girl
Media-Military-Industrial Complex New American Militarism Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime American Exceptionalism Color revolutions Deception as an art form Madeleine Albright as a model for Hillary
Clinton Cash The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich Crisis of Character A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They O Hillary the Other Woman Dolly Kyle Books The Clintons' War on Women Roger Stone, Robert Morrow Books Bill Clinton New Gilded Age President Patrick J. Maney 9780700621941 Books The Secret Life of Bill Clinton The Unreported Stories Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Books Partners in Crime The Clintons' Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit Jerome Corsi  Amazon
Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism Neocons Credibility Scam Leo Strauss and the Neocons Lawrence Summers Sandy Weill: the banker who bought Bill Clinton Robert Rubin, the man who helped to convert the USA into banana republic
Diplomacy by deception Corruption of Regulators The Deep State Machiavellism Noble Lie Hillary role in cover up of Bill Clinton sexapades Nation under attack meme
Predator state The Iron Law of Oligarchy Elite [Dominance] Theory And the Revolt of the Elite Inverted Totalitarism == Managed Democracy == Neoliberalism Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich Politically Incorrect Humor  Etc


Voting for Trump is like playing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets in the revolver. With Hillary, there are 5 bullets and a blank that will probably kill you anyway.

The Guardian, Jun 19, 2015 (from reader comments)

...voters see Hillary as just Obama 2.0... Those voters see the growing gap in American society that requires some serious remedies that Sanders is proposing, and they know that Bernie is not going to shift his priorities because of some corporate, Wall Street advisor or from lobbyist pressure. And they know he's not a flashy personality but what you see is what you get.

From comments to the article Sanders, O’Malley race to be the Clinton alternative - The Washington Post, July 4, 2015

Plain and simple, Hillary is a corporatist. Her five top donors are:

  • Citigroup Inc: $782,327
  • Goldman Sachs: $711,490
  • DLA Piper: $628,030
  • JPMorgan Chase & Co: $620,919
  • EMILY's List: $605,174

Comment from Grassroots movement working: Bernie Sanders gains on the Clinton machine  Guardian, Jul 03, 2015]

As usual, the Clintons are sleeping with the enemy (corporate campaign cash and all its strings) so soundly that they become difficult to distinguish from the enemy. 

Comment from Grassroots movement working: Bernie Sanders gains on the Clinton machine  Guardian, Jul 03, 2015]


The  Neoliberal globalization indeed is like proverbial king has no clothes fairy tale. But it is up to us  to hold the current neoliberal elite accountable for the communist style deception of rising standard of living for all (promising neoliberal paradise on Earth) and robbing middle class under "free market" (why not "fair market?" ) rhetoric. 

In 2016 the ruling Washington elite, all those Neocons and Neolibs,  made their bet on Hillary Warmonger Clinton. And they still dominate the US political landscape. But she isn’t exactly loved by the American People (approximately two third of voters do not trust her).  In 2016 most American people want to throw out the Washington-entrenched neoliberal elites, who led the USA (and the world) into such a mess, while assuring them that everything is fine. Including king of "bait and switch" Obama, who is salivating about getting his 20 silver coins in private equity industry after leaving White House.  But so far neoliberalism as a bipartisan political force (dominant in both Republican and Democratic parties) was too strong and managed to crush any resistance (for example, "Occupy Wall Street" movement), or institualize and immaculate them (like they did with Tea Party).  If you did not see Trump Ad Hillary Clinton Crooked Warmonger  (YouTube) I recommend you to watch it. It catches the main point:  Stakes are too high to elect a neoliberal globalist warmonger like Hillary Clinton

The current situation in Democratic Party, which became a wing of a single "the Neoliberal Party of the USA" (much like the Communist Party in the USSR) is completely absurd. There is nothing even remotely Democratic in its platform. This is a pure neoliberal party.  Since Bill Clinton administration the elite game plan as for trade unions and democratic working-class voters was: "they have nowhere to go, so let's f*ck them hard".  And this game plan was executed perfectly fine for 25 years or so (since Bill Clinton presidency). No more.  enter Donald Trump, the first challenger of neoliberal status quo. Now voting against Clintons became middle class version of showing middle finger to official Washington or  a good practical joke on a sick neoliberalism-dominated political system. In other word, the dominant vote in November 2008 election will be the protest vote.  The vote against, not for.  They do want to show the middle finger to neoliberal establishment. That means voting against Hillary.  That's the main distinction between 2008 and 2016 elections. Obama was still able to fool the voters with his "change we can believe in" crap and sell the middle class down the river to neoliberals the day after elections.  But as unforgettable George W Bush uttered: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Still during primaries she somehow managed to court southern Democratic establishment and get (real of fake, we do not know) minorities votes. She also riles on staunch feminism (first female president, dream of all girls in the USA and similar nonsense, as if gender matter more that principles).  Add to this the fact that neoliberalism still strong and translational corporation still control the US political system and you understand that she still has chances.

But she probably organically unable to attract undecided voters, due to her character flaws, scandals and crimes against peace. So to win she needs to demonize Trump. That's why shills for Democratic Party try to present Hillary as lesser evil then Trump. But Hillary is a war criminal of a type that in the recent past went to Nuremberg tribunal and as such she represents absolute zero (much like Kelvin scale absolute zero in temperatures) of evilness of politicians. She committed what Nuremberg tribunal called "crimes against peace" (Nuremberg Trials - World War II -

The Allies eventually established the laws and procedures for the Nuremberg trials with the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), issued on August 8, 1945. Among other things, the charter defined three categories of crimes: crimes against peace (including planning, preparing, starting or waging wars of aggression or wars in violation of international agreements), war crimes (including violations of customs or laws of war, including improper treatment of civilians and prisoners of war) and crimes against humanity (including murder, enslavement or deportation of civilians or persecution on political, religious or racial grounds). It was determined that civilian officials as well as military officers could be accused of war crimes.

You just can't be more evil. She was instrumental in destroying two countries (Libya and Syria), and killing hundreds of thousand civilians by unleashing civil wars in those countries. organizing two color revolutions (in Russia (failed) and, via her protégé Victoria Nuland,  Ukraine (succeeded, and brought country into civil was, destroying the standard living of population)  Aggressive wars are simply, as Jackson said at Nuremberg, the supreme international crime. You can't go lower then this.  But neoliberalism like communism before does not accepts the legitimacy of any other social system.  It want to convert all of them into global neoliberal empire led by the USA. So if a neoliberal is elected wars of neoliberal conquest are given. As Jill Stein aptly said "Terrible things we expect from Donald Trump, we’ve actually already seen from Hillary Clinton"  and I would add we would expect "more of the same".

Both Trump  and Hillary are questionable candidates, but Hillary in addition to all her warts as a person and a politician does have a very questionable health ( reminding me a couple of candidates for the position of General secretary of CPSU from Politburo of CPSU just before dissolution of the USSR).

The President does have primacy in deciding the direction of the USA foreign policy, as Congress was eliminated from this areas. Including launching wars of neoliberal conquest. From this point frail warmonger Hillary Clinton should scare hell out of an average US voter. But this is not the case because due to smoke screen of neoliberal propaganda an average US voter sees the US aggressive wars as defensive. Is it fair to consider such US citizens as delusional? Or if they were merely massively and comprehensively brainwashed?

The key question is that like in Iraq war the neoliberal dominated air scale -- via their propaganda outlets such as ABC, CBS and NBC. Is the Trump campaign able to sustain more then 200 days of 24 x 7 bombardments with disinformation and character assaults remains to be seen. Which during the last 100 days will be the most vicious.  Is he smart enough to wage and sustain a campaign of counter-disinformation warfare remain to be seen. He has money to do so. That necessitates that he and his team be smart enough to "beat Hillary's teeth out of her mouth"  on the topic her disastrous record both in foreign policy area and domestically.  Those are very interesting questions (sic_semper_tyrannis, July 29, 2016). 

Jack said in reply to Old Microbiologist...


"delusional citizens in the US see our aggression as defensive".

This is what happens when citizens have been propagandized for so long. And folks are inherently lazy. They'll buy into whatever whoever they trust say. Do you recall the majority of Americans believed that Saddam had WMD and was in cahoots with AQ and supported the invasion where we would be treated as liberators?

The first time in the recent past there is any dissonance in public discourse has been with Trump.

This time it looks like a good time for the working class voters as well as white collar jobs holders who are threatened by outsourcing  to take their revenge at the polls. They now understand that they were taken for a ride by neocons and will never see promised by neoliberal propagandists "prosperity for all", only redistribution of wealth up at their expense.  And paying for the wars of neoliberal expansion which benefited global corporations.  But how many people understand the complex mechanism of impoverishing the county via neoliberal mechanisms and cur throw the thick smokescreen of neoliberal propaganda  remains to be seen. Democratic primaries made me skeptical. Looks like enough Democratic voters were brainwashed to vote for Hillary. Here behaviour of the most dishonest of Democratic neoliberals --  the king of "bait and switch" Obama might help Trump if he continue to push for TPP. The fact that he betrays people who elected him twice in best Bill Clinton traditions can help Trump. Now Obama wants to became a venture capitalist himself, after he leave the position of POTUS. Such a "change we can believe in" ;-).  But alternative to neoliberalism, which in the USA took the form of Paleoconservatism is still weak ideologically and financially. Also Trump do not adhere 100% to paleoconservative doctrine, although he comes close in foreign policy issues.

Signs of revolutionary situation in US politics

Hate that Hillary candidacy generates is connected not so much with her ugly personality and semi-criminal past, but mainly with the very real concerns over the impact of neoliberal globalization on lives of ordinary Americans, including a part of upper middle class. Lowly Untermensch which, as the US elite ("Masters of the Universe") thought are forever brainwashed and suppressed, recently started to show some signs of independent thinking and neoliberal MSM brainwashing suddenly lost at least 80% of its effectiveness. Most people now understand that neoliberal globalization is not much more than a scheme to cut labor costs with a think smokescreen of promises. The younger voters reject Hillary because they understand that she is a corrupt part of the old guard of neoliberal politicians serving the transnationals and financial oligarchy and will vote for candidates who serve social justice, or not vote at all. 

Unemployed programmers, system administrators, oil and gas drillers and trackers,  and other professionals (especially over 50) which skydive, say,  $120K to $20K a year  now are quite typical example of shrinking middle class. And in no way they will vote for Hillary.  Moreover her ideological platform now sucks: the key tenet of neoliberalism which like socialism professed that the masses will get better with time, became another discredited illusion. And population became restless much like population of the USSR in 80th. 

It may not be obvious to the political and media elites living in their hallowed, protected homes in privileged areas. A new aristocracy, if you wish, as detached from people needs as old  ("let them eat cakes"). An increasing gulf between this rich "establishment crowd" , and those who have to live at the sharp end of neoliberal globalization led to the situation, which probably can be called  a "revolutionary situation". The blind rage that characterized the first days of the US anti-establishment movement now have given way to political awakening. Which the current elite is unable to suppress and attempts to "bait and switch" voters, while were successful with Obama, now might not work. Brexit had shown that genie was let  out of the bottle.  There are several sides of any revolutionary situation:

  1. The elite can not govern "as usual" and experience the crisis of legitimacy  (the rejection ob Jeb!, Cruz and Rubio by Republican Party is nothing else but the crisis of legitimacy; the same is true for the number of votes that Sanders got in Democratic presidential contest against much better financed   Hillary ( supported by the full power and the  bag of dirty tricks of Democratic Party establishment). GB population vote for Brexit is nice illustration of this. Despite deafening propaganda from MSM the elite failed to brainwash people in secure the desirable outcome. British voters delivered a stunning repudiation  of neoliberalism and austerity, the rejection of the legitimacy of their current political and economic elites A crippling blow to the neoliberal paradigm of globalization with its conversion of weaker nations into debt slaves, and huge speculative capital flows. With citizens reduced to consumers who have to fend for themselves in markets. And increasingly atomized, isolated workers at the mercy of employers who are determined to reduce labor costs and hoard the benefits of productivity gains for themselves.
  2. The lower 90% no longer want to live "as usual" and became politically active and not only refuse to support the establishment candidates, but also provide more and more active support for their own candidates.  They start rejecting "status quo" despite all the power of propaganda applied to quell them.
  3. The elite itself became split and form several competing groups with at least one group which wants to challenge the "people at the top" (Sanders in the Democratic Party, Trump in the Republican Party) . See Elite [Dominance] Theory And the Revolt of the Elite and The Iron Law of Oligarchy. The last time such a revolt happened over "New Deal capitalism" during which neoliberal elite took power and eventually managed to cement their dominance with the election of Reagan in the USA and Thatcher on the UK.  Now this elite find itself under the attack and the level of hate  toward Hillary reflects the level of rejection of neoliberal elite by the society.
  4. The ideology which brought the current elite to power became rotten.  This is just another side of the crisis of legitimacy of the elite mentioned in above. That happened with Marxism in the USSR which in late 80th became completely discredited, this is now happening with the neoliberalism in the USA (which actually became dominant only in 1970th, or  less then 50 years ago, so it will not give up without fierce fight; Marxism in the USSR lasted more then 70 years)

It is important to understand that it is not sufficient for lower and middle class realize that they are robbed by neoliberal elite. It is also necessary that  the neoliberal elite experience a crisis of governance, the dramatic loss of legitimacy that make possible for demand of lower 90%, which typically suppressed, to enter the political scheme, iether via violent protests, civil disobedience or movement like "Occupy Wall  Street"  or anti establishment candidates on election of via referendums such as Brexit. In other words there should be the "crisis of confidence" in American government, values, and way of life, as the public expresses doubt in a better future for their own children.

This is the time when a considerable increase in the political activity of the loser 90% usually sedated and poisoned with consumerism and neoliberal ideology. Looks like opium of neoliberal ideology no longer works, or, at least, does not work as efficiently as before. 

Opium of neoliberal ideology no longer works, or, at least, does not work as efficiently as before.  

Hillary Clinton as the candidate the Republicans wished they had been able to field

It is clear the Hillary is a quintessential establishment candidate, who will never voluntarily adopt any progressive, pro-middle class policy. As Obama noted, she will promise anything during election campaign in order to be elected, but she will never deliver.  She is the same neoliberal sellout as her husband. Bill Clinton switched Democratic Party platform (and ideology) from the policy of Americanism (or "America first" in Trump terms) – focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class – to a policy of globalism (to neoliberal ideology), focusing on how to make more money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy. Essentially he sold Democratic Party to Wall Street (and due to "Triumphal March of neoliberalism" after dissolution of the USSR he was followed by several other politicians in other countries doing exactly the same thing, like Tony Blair in Great Britain). While rise of Neoliberalism since the 1970s was partially a consequence of the deep, even "revolutionary" (Internet and global communications) changes in the world economy, it requires stooges to dismantle New Deal protections. Bill Clinton was one of such stooges, probably the most highly placed one.   Neo-liberal counterrevolution lasted till 2008. At which point it proved to be a fiasco -- market failed to behave as self-regulating organism. Even the most hard nose-neoliberals, managers of big banks as well as representatives of the Bush-administration were urgently infusing billions to save neoliberals from themselves.  But Hillary like many other neoliberals behave like  in famous Talleyrand quote about the restored Bourbon dynasty  "They had learned nothing and forgotten nothing". She remains a staunch neoliberal and, worse, a stanch neocon. Which is not surprising as her own wealth and "pay for play" deals via Clinton Foundation are closely connected and depend upon the success of neoliberal globalization.

In other words Hillary Clinton is the candidate the Republicans wished they had been able to field. A Kissinger protégé, a chickenhawk with bad instincts on the foreign policy front. A woman who can’t wait to start a new war, who wants her sexually obsessed husband to continue to neoliberalize the US economy, who is more open to compromises with the Republican right then Obama. Despite the fact that Obama never put any fight and always preferred his classic  "bait and switch" approach, so it's really challenging to compromise with far right Republicans more then him.

Hillary is the candidate who called the TPP the gold standard of trade agreements. As such she is a dream candidate for Wall Street.  And she’s counting on the support of Republican refugees rejecting Trump to help her win in November. Which is still possible, despite two major scandals:

Assuming she’s the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton looks vulnerable. And taking into account her personal history and her real (not fake) beliefs she should be defeated.  In a sense I also advocate "Anybody but Hillary" approach here. And not without a reason, taking into account her biography and personality. Please note that the case could be made that, for Hillary  Trump is a “threat from the Left.”

All her election promises does not worth electrons by which they are transmitted to our computer. This pathological liar will switch to defending Wall Street the moment she elected.  That makes debating her more difficult She is way too sleazy and it is just unpleasant to touch her. And it is visibly clear that she was couched to death and some gambits used during debates with Sanders were homework.

In a ways, Sanders campaign at one point looks somewhat of a civil war in the Democratic Party between the neoliberal wing (also called the Third Way (Brairite)  aka Clinton wing of the Party -- the dominant wing) and centrist democrats (Sanders is at best a centrist in European metric). Neoliberal wing managed to win. DNC is the core of the neoliberal faction of the party was strongly pro-Clinton by definition. Actually Rachel Maddoff aptly defined that king of "bait and switch" Obama also should be more properly vied as a moderate Republican, not a democrat. And Hillary Clinton is to the right of Obama in foreign policy (she is a neocon, a war hawk, or more correctly a chickenhawk), and is generally on the same page as for domestic policy. 

It looks like there is a growing cross-parties consensus with the considerable number of Democrats taking the position "Anybody but Hillary"; along with traditional strong (and totally justified) suspicions toward Clinton family on the part of Republicans.  Consensus that, despite being the establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton is not fit to be the President of the USA. There are several problems with her candidacy touching of which is carefully avoided by MSM, which instead provide usual smoke screen of emotionally charged garbage, instead of providing facts on which people can base their judgment about a particular candidate (I guess you cannot out bullshit those guys not matter how hard you try :-). The so-called MSM has become such a parody in their coverage of political issues that it's hard to sort out truth from fiction these days, hard to distinguish an Onion article from a New York Times article.

The most important objections some important objections against Hillary Clinton as presidential candidate from Democratic Party

Here are some important objections against Hillary:

  1. Health issuesHillary Clinton has serious problems with health, problems that might make the position of POTUS, with the associated level of stress, far beyond her physical capabilities. Despite official verdicts that "she is fit to server" there are several pretty convincing signs that even her tightly regimented Presidential campaign (with very few interview with press) negatively affects her physical condition.  She need to release her own health record because there are question about he mental capabilities. She need to have independent neurological evaluation.
  2. Hillary Clinton is a war hawk and unrepentant chickenhawk, extremely jingoistic woman who never saw the war she does not like. And  who presents a clear and eminent danger of pushing the county into another war. Robert Parry:  "...former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military force to achieve “regime change” in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires. She abides by neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China."
  3. Hillary Clinton as staunch neoliberal, promoter of neoliberal globalization and neoliberal wars and color revolutions to open the markets for transnational corporations  (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine) or encircle states which do not fully support neoliberal globalization under Washington tutelage.  She completely betrayed traditional Democratic Party principles and at best can be called  a moderate republican to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon, if not a far right neocon.  After 2008 neoliberalism can be viewed as a discredited ideology, that brought a lot of misery to the US citizen, while fantastically enriching the top 0.1%
  4. Political incompetence, history of political blunders. Those two traits comes bungled with the complete absence of principles, constant flip-flopping of important and unimportant issues, pandering to powerful interests, to Israel, etc (voting for Iraq war,  her role in Libya invasion and killing of Khadafy ("we saw, we came, he died" )
  5. Corruption, constant attempts to enrich herself at the expense of public, even while occupying the post of Secretary of State, her connection with Wall Street (speeches as a hidden bribe, or advance for future favors, he refusal to publish any of them,  etc)
  6. Set of possibly criminal activities
    1. Possible violation by her of Espionage Act and related legal problems within the framework of her private email server scandal
    2. Problems with Clinton foundations and her activities directed to enriching Clinton foundation while being Secretary of State
  7. Her problems as an accomplice of Bill Clinton
    1. Bill Clinton is the person switched Democratic Party platform (and ideology) from the policy of Americanism (or "America first" in Trump terms) – focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class – to a policy of globalism (to neoliberal ideology), focusing on how to make more money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy. Essentially he sold Democratic Party to Wall Street (and due to "Triumphal March of neoliberalism" after dissolution of the USSR he was followed by several other politicians in other countries doing exactly the same thing, like Tony Blair in Great Britain).
    2. Her real role in covering Bill Clinton extramarital sexual activities as well as pushing Monica Lewinsky scandal to impeachment is more clear due to availability of several books on the subject.
    3. Highly questionable Bill Clinton flights to Jeffrey Epstein's "pedophile paradise island" scandal: Bill Clinton identified in lawsuit against his former friend and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who had 'regular' orgies at his Caribbean compound that the former president visited multiple times ( Daily Mail Online)
      • Jeffrey Epstein, a financier who was arrested in 2008 for soliciting underage prostitutes
      • A new lawsuit has revealed how Clinton took multiple trips to Epstein's private island where the latter kept young women as sex slaves'
      • Clinton was also apparently friend of a woman who collected naked pictures of underage girls for Epstein to choose from. He hasn't cut ties with that woman, however, and invited her to Chelsea's wedding

Hillary Clinton is what you get when a party, sold by Bill Clinton to Wall Street  for 30 silver coins (aka 30 million "pension" in speeches and donations) becomes bankrupt of any real ideas other than personal greed. And most probably Hillary Clinton will be the Democrat contender in this Presidential race.   Looks like the ruling elite and the Deep State has decided that it is OK for her to be the person to execute their directives. Hillary is preferable to Donald Trump, because the elite is keen on making sure all criticism and political activism is either marginalized or written off as hatred and thus not only dismissible, but worthy of a violent response by government. Criticism of Hillary will be deemed sexist the same way serious criticism of Obama is now considered racist.

She is a nepotism based incompetent (judging from her tenure the Secretary of State), jingoistic candidate and in her previous professional accomplishments  (as a lawyer) was pretty average (if nor mediocre, or worse ). While it does not really matter much, she was not even able to pass Bar exam from the first try. Intellectually she is far below Sanders and Trump.  But after Bush II the requirements for the candidate for  the position of POTUS definitely do not require high IQ. Being a relative of a previous President is enough.  Her self-congratulatory arrogance and blind adherence to neoliberalism and imperial domination are what the current elite needs in White House. "Let them eat cake" mentality prevails. 

Hillary Clinton is running a Republican-style campaign (and she actually is a moderate republican, positioned to the right of Nixon and Eisenhower). While she tried to position herself as a moderate Republican in internal issues, in foreign policy she is a hawk pandering to neocon wing of the Republican Party (Robert Kagan, Cheney, and their Mayberry Machiavelli friends).   Not only the style and tactics of her campaign are Republican. She edge closer and closer on substance as well and is really linked to Wall Street, Her campaign financing is by-and-large dependent on Wall Street political contributions.  This is a typical evolution for neoliberals (aka "the third way" democrats) who are "democrats in name only". Her campaign is styled in classic "third way" sellout to Wall-Streeters, until it became clear that Sanders’ campaign was catching on.  then she tried to make some corrections, but you can't wash black got into white.

The sad fact is that the America of today is even more arrogant than the America  in the days of Manifest Destiny and gunboat diplomacy. Indeed, the dissolution of the USSR cemented the national myth of superiority. The establishment of unparalleled industrial might, military victories in two world wars and on both sides of the globe, and the staggering economic defeat of Communism in the Cold War all have combined to cement America’s presumption of  chapters in a long history of escalating national illusions of pre-eminence and blind national egoism. The dominant view about the USA from most countries is that it has a split paranoid personality,  a “Jekyll and Hyde” America, “a democracy inside, an empire outside.” American policy makers, with their pretensions of global superiority after collapse of the USSR and with ever-increasing power of their military machine moved steadily toward making the whole globe a US preserve.  Despite its vulgarity and borderline obsession with pornography (or may be because of that) the US culture made inroad all over the globe, and even in Europe and Russia despite rich cultural traditions of both. While the blatant American imperialism of the turn of the last century is now only a memory, today the nations face policies evidence more insidious brands of imperialism: cultural imperialism, economic imperialism,  the imperialism of neoliberal ideology and forced globalization on the US terms.  All are spread by the same national arrogance, the same cock-sure certainly that we are right.  Many nations fear the United States practices a contemporary brand of “soft imperialism,” enslaving nations with IMF debt mechanisms under  the auspice of economic globalization.  Converting  the Third World in debt slaves or simply exploit it. In spite of such fears, and despite the setbacks, Americans remain convinced that eventually all nations are destined to fall into step and adopt “the American way.” All the while, the US politicians decry the rigid fundamentalism of our enemies while we remain utterly blind to our own.

Health issues

Now it is an established fact that she has a serious neurological disorder that might prevent her from adequate performing of duties of the President of the USA, if elected. Exact diagnosis still is a mystery, but some facts suggest that his might be an early stage of Parkinson disease (many specialists interpret her symptoms this way) or Subcortical Vascular Dementia (from leaks documents). In other words, there is no doubts that Hillary Clinton has serious problems with health, problems that might make the position of POTUS, with the associated level of stress, far beyond her physical capabilities.

And this is not exactly a news. Serious problems with health probably started around late 2012. So if this is Parkinson disease we have a 4 year progression from the first "sinister'" manifestations. New York Post published an article about this Hillary problem in 2015, or one year ago.

This past summer, Hillary’s campaign released a report from her personal physician, Dr. Lisa Bardack, which said that Hillary had recovered from a concussion and a blot clot on her brain that caused her to faint in 2012. But that was not the whole story.

In fact, Hillary’s uncertain health — including blinding headaches, dizziness, and a trembling in her hands — has forced her to cancel several meetings and cut back on her campaign schedule.

She tells friends that her doctors can’t find any definitive problem, but Bill Clinton is so worried about her health situation that he urged her to travel with a full-time doctor to prevent another fainting spell, which could doom her campaign for president.

But this theme became really hot in August 2016. Despite official verdicts that "she is fit to server" there are several pretty convincing signs that even her tightly regimented Presidential campaign (with very few interview with press) negatively affects her physical condition.  If the information that she suffers from Binswanger's Disease Information Page National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)  is true this is a serious argument against her candidacy:

Binswanger's disease (BD), also called subcortical vascular dementia , is a type of dementia caused by widespread, microscopic areas of damage to the deep layers of white matter in the brain. The damage is the result of the thickening and narrowing (atherosclerosis) of arteries that feed the subcortical areas of the brain. Atherosclerosis (commonly known as "hardening of the arteries") is a systemic process that affects blood vessels throughout the body. It begins late in the fourth decade of life and increases in severity with age. As the arteries become more and more narrowed, the blood supplied by those arteries decreases and brain tissue dies. A characteristic pattern of BD-damaged brain tissue can be seen with modern brain imaging techniques such as CT scans or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

The symptoms associated with BD are related to the disruption of subcortical neural circuits that control what neuroscientists call executive cognitive functioning : short-term memory, organization, mood, the regulation of attention, the ability to act or make decisions, and appropriate behavior. The most characteristic feature of BD is psychomotor slowness - an increase in the length of time it takes, for example, for the fingers to turn the thought of a letter into the shape of a letter on a piece of paper.

Other symptoms include forgetfulness (but not as severe as the forgetfulness of Alzheimer's disease), changes in speech, an unsteady gait, clumsiness or frequent falls, changes in personality or mood (most likely in the form of apathy, irritability, and depression), and urinary symptoms that aren't caused by urological disease. Brain imaging, which reveals the characteristic brain lesions of BD, is essential for a positive diagnosis.

The leak contain very worrying information ( Hillary Clinton Medical Records 'Leaked' ):

INTERIM MEDICAL HISTORY: Patient  returns stating that she is still having complications following a concussion In early December of 2012 She states the blacking out. uncontrollable twitching, and memory loss have become worse over the last few months. Patient has been diagnosed with having Complex Partial Seizures in early 2013 and was diagnosed with having early-onset Subcortical Vascular Dementia
In mid 2013.

MEDICAL EXAMINATION: Patient shows signs of advancing Subcortical Vascular Dementia after a MMSE was performed. The patient scored significantly lower on today's test
than when tested In 2013. The patient is also showing signs of having more frequent Complex Partial Seizures.

DIAGNOSES: Complex Partial Seizures. Subcortical Vascular Dementia

IMPRESSION/PLAN: I discussed with the patient at length about the alternatives and we elected to maintain her on the present medications with only Increasing her medication for
the seizures. I have ordered another MRI to be performed and will schedule another office after the test is performed.

Lisa R. Bardack, M.D.

The information about the character of seizures can be deduced from YouTube. The most starting the one in which Hillary Clinton is startled by questions concerning Elizabeth Warren as her vice president:

  1. Hillary Clinton has seizure - convulsions - tries to play it off making fun of seizures CLOSER LOOK - YouTube
  3. Instant Video Play Hillary Clinton Seizures @ DNC
  4. HILLARY'S HEALTH What's wrong with Hillary - YouTube

She also often needs help when moving up and down flights of stairs. Plenty of pictures have been taken during multiple appearances where her security details have flanked Hillary’s sides and visibly helped her move up and down steps.

No one from the Clinton camp is even responding to the numerous rumors and theories.

Hillary as a fanatic neoconservative

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. --Winston Churchill
People are never so completely and enthusiastically evil as when they act out of religious conviction. -- Umberto Eco

“Fanatics can justify practically any atrocity to themselves. The more untenable their position becomes,
the harder they hold to it, and the worse the things they are willing to do to support it.” ― Mercedes Lackey, Changes

This woman is really ready to put the world on fire. In foreign policy area she acted like a neocon fanatic who is tried to implement the faulty vision of US global domination at all cost.  With "brown people" paying the price for her fanaticism. In hundred thousand of lives of woman and children. Such a pro-woman candidate.  Can a man-eater be a pro-women ?

Is Hillary candidacy a product of a runaway US nationalism (aka "American exeptionalism") ? The answer is yes, but not generic US nationalism, but its specific supremacist flavor called Neoconservatism, which is actually more close to Trotskyism then traditional ethnic nationalism.  The relationship between nationalism and traditions of national superiority is circular. That is to say, feelings of national exceptionalism are a universal characteristic of nationalism; and historically embedded national superiority myths and self-serving notions of universal mission fuel the growth of potent varieties of nationalism. But Hillary is a specific  product of neoliberalism, of the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk ( ):

...unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale.

Surely it’s no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they’re doing.

Americans have been, and are today, exposed almost from birth to a particularly virulent strain of nationalism unlike that found in other modern nations. The resulting affliction stems from an unswerving faith in national superiority and uniqueness that is deeply ingrained in the American mind. Historically, these notions of superiority sprang from myths of the visions of closeness, and high destiny; from the myth of frontier self-sufficiency; and finally from the perceived universality of American ideology and dominance of US culture and English language over the globe. While in some of us, nationalist feelings are not that pronounced, few of us are immune, and that is especially visible in times of anger, or fear. In spite of, and perhaps because of, our many strengths, practically all of us as Americans share this particularly prideful, unlovely, and potentially fatal weakness. In one form or another and to some degree or another, we carry national pride across the invisible boundary that separates benign patriotism from malignant far right nationalism. Hillary candidacy demonstrates that this process went too far and became really  malignant, reminding the hypocrisy of the period of when slavery was dominant economic model in Southern  USA (which actually was not that long ago). 

In foreign policy Hillary Clinton is no different than your garden variety Republican warmongers, including Senator McCain and any of staunch supports of the American world supremacy and  of Military Industrial complex typical for neocons like Robert Kagan. In other words she is a dyed-in-the-wool neocon. Her positions of foreign policy issues are not that different from Victoria Nuland, who is actually her protégé.  Her appeal to 9/11 to defend the size of Wall Street donations to her campaign was a classic Republican trick (Hillary Clinton Appeal to 9-11 to Defend Wall Street Donations Was Bad, But This Was Worse naked capitalism). Actually parasitism on 9/11 can be seen as a litmus  test for neocons.

Here’s some commentary by the establishment organ The Economist:

Mrs Clinton’s reply combined indignation, an irrelevant appeal to feminist pride, and a bizarre riff about the September 11th attacks, by which she seemed to imply that taking money from big banks was her way of making sure that the terrorists behind that 2001 atrocity did not win… Readers with furrowed brows may be assured that it made no more sense when Mrs Clinton said it.

Family Guy predicted Hillary’s 9/11 tragedy-distraction strategy way back in 2008. Life imitating art: For those who remember the Iraq War and Libya, Clinton proved pretty convincingly that she is a quintessential “warmonger.”  A neocon, not that different from John McCain and Dick Cheney. That means that  Hillary Clinton is a menace for the US public and we need to understand this simple fact:

"Bottom line: You can always count on Hillary to say the most politically resonant thing of the moment," said Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer turned antiwar protester who was arrested in 2011 (and he claims beaten) for protesting during a Clinton speech. "It's bad enough to have that kind of person as secretary of State; do we really want her to be the president of the United States? I don't think so. She's a menace."

As the Secretary of State, Clinton used to belong to the most hawkish wing of President Obama's Cabinet, supporting air strikes in Libya and arms deliveries to rebels in Syria. Robert Kagan, the husband of Victoria Nuland and the veteran propagandist  of interventionist foreign policy, recently gave a thumbs up to Clinton's foreign policy, telling The New York Times that it's "something that might have been called neocon."

Ever since she stepped down as secretary of state in 2013 (after blood clot issue), Hillary Clinton has been positioning herself to the right of Barack Obama on foreign affairs"  (The New York Time)

Ever since she stepped down as secretary of state in 2013, Hillary Clinton has been positioning herself to the right of Barack Obama on foreign affairs. In her 2014 memoir, “Hard Choices,” Clinton recalled her foreign policy differences with the president, stating that she had opposed demanding an Israeli settlements freeze in 2009 and warned about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s malign intentions long before anyone else in the administration.

Since then she has gone on to compare Putin’s annexation of Crimea to Hitler’s takeover of the Sudetenland in 1938 and to support a no-fly zone in northern Syria. “Look,” she told a group at the Council on Foreign Relations several days after the terrorist attacks in Paris in late 2015, “I have made clear that I have differences, as I think any two people do.”

this extreme jingoism is mixed with unsaturable hunger for power. So if that suit her path to power goals she can change her opinions on the spot. Her candidacy was widely attacked on YouTube for corruption and incessant lying as well as changing her position on key political issues. Sometimes several times

Profiting from wars, Saudi Arabia

Wahhabism and Muslim Brotherhood appeaser, warmonger who was instrumental in killing thousands of women and children in Iraq, Libya and Syria pretends to be a fighter for democracy and women rights

Hillary has a long history of shady deals and support of Wahhabism and Muslim Brotherhood, including taking Saudi bribes via Clinton Foundation for delivery of advanced weapons.   And she infected State Department with those values. From Salon (Neocons and Liberal Interventionists -- Like Hillary -- Are Converging on Foreign Policy)

Fighting the so-called Islamic State, as the narrative is told in the West and the Sunni Gulf states, is becoming seen as “nakedly sectarian,” as the Washington-based Syria commentator Hassan Hassan wrote in the Financial Times last week. The fighting in Fallujah and the prospective battle for Raqa’a, he wrote, “offer ISIS an opportunity to present itself as a custodian of the Sunni, especially in Iraq, where it has established itself as the only Sunni militant group able to stand up to militias supporting the Shia-dominated government.”

It is a narrative that is gaining currency in Washington as the administration strains to dress up its allied fighters in northern Syria, which are dominated by the Kurdish group the YPG, as somehow national and not sectarian. Indeed, the U.S. administration seems highly susceptible to this accusation. The danger of appearing anti-Sunni by pursuing the war on ISIS may have some superficial plausibility but the allegation, in fact, is Orwellian in nature. ISIS and fellow takfiri jihadists, in their war against apostasy, are essentially following the doctrine of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, one of the co-founders of Saudi Arabia.

Wahhab proclaimed those who did not accept his puritan monotheism as apostates and idolaters who should be killed immediately. And now, Shiites, Alawites, Zaidis, Druze, Ismailis — and Kurds, who are mostly Sunni Muslim — are defending themselves and their families from the truly fundamentalist zealotry of neo-Wahhabism that murders all whom it deems apostate. To reverse the narrative and cast their efforts to defend themselves as somehow sectarian is bizarre — especially since the bulk of the Syrian army and Kurds fighting ISIS are themselves Sunni Muslims. 

To fight ISIS is not anti-Sunni. To fight ISIS is to be against Wahhab’s revived doctrines. The leading Iraqi commentator Hayder al-Khoei highlighted that in a recent op-ed:

The tip of the spear in Falluja is not an Iranian-backed paramilitary group but the U.S.-created Counter Terrorism Service and its elite U.S.-trained Special Forces known locally as the Golden Division. These forces, besides being a mixed Shia-Sunni unit, are led by a Kurdish commander ... At a time when sectarian dynamics is one of many factors fueling the crises in Iraq and beyond, it is important for Western journalists and analysts to not be more sectarian than the Iraqis on the ground actually fighting ISIS.
In short, the ephemeral global narrative does not relate well to the facts on the ground where there is much less sectarianism than this Western-Gulf narrative purports to exist.

But let that pass. This narrative, echoed widely beyond the Financial Times, is Orwellian in another way. It serves another deeper purpose. It has much to do with finding and articulating, as Jim Lobe notes, the point of intersection between liberal interventionism and neoconservatism. This intersection is the subject of a May 16 report from the Center for a New American Security, which was drawn up by a bipartisan task force of 10 senior members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment and augmented by six dinner discussions with invited experts.

Their approach is to cast Iran as the source of all ‘regional tensions’ and to hold onto America’s Gulf bases in order to be a ‘force that can flex across several different mission sets and prevail.’
It is, in a sense, the riposte from the two interventionist wings of American politics to Trump’s iconoclasm in foreign policy. And, Lobe writes, “it’s fair to predict that the above-mentioned report is likely to be the best guide to date of where a Hillary Clinton presidency will want to take the country’s foreign policy.”

The report is all about how to maintain America’s benevolent hegemony — or how to maintain and expand today’s “rules-based international order,” which implies maintaining and expanding the geo-financial order as much as the political order. As we saw in U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s interview with Vox, there are clear, though somewhat cushioned, echoes of the 1992 U.S. Defense Planning Guidance.

The CNAS report states, “[F]rom a resurgent Russia to a rising China that is challenging the rules-based international order to chaos, and the struggle for power in the Middle East, the United States needs a force that can flex across several different mission sets and prevail.” The report simply restates in more nuanced language many of ideas that underline the concept of the “American Century“ and U.S.-led unipolar world order.

What does this have to do with propagating the meme that the war on ISIS is a disguised sectarian war on Sunni Islam? Well, quite a lot. Consider this from the report (italics mine):

The United States should adopt a comprehensive strategy, employing an appropriate mix of military, economic and diplomatic resources, to undermine and defeat Iran’s hegemonic ambitions in the Greater Middle East. Whether in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria or Bahrain, Tehran’s advances and longer-term ambitions should be regarded as a threat to stability that it is in the U.S. interest to counter and deter.

The next administration must make abundantly clear that it has no interest in pursuing an off-shore balancing strategy, such as the ‘new equilibrium’ some have suggested, which envisages a significant U.S. military drawdown from the region. On the contrary, the Persian Gulf should be deemed a region of vital interest to the security of the United States. As such, U.S. military forces in the region should be sufficient to ensure the security of Gulf allies and the Strait of Hormuz against potential Iranian aggression. At the same time, Gulf allies should have access to sufficient defense articles and services to deter Tehran even if U.S. forces are not present or immediately available to assist.

We also reject Iran’s attempt to blame others for regional tensions it is aggravating, as well as its public campaign to demonize the government of Saudi Arabia.
The last sentence is truly amazing. So the spread of cultural and militant Wahhabism has nothing to do with tension in the region? Here we see that the crux of the joint neocon, liberal-interventionist foreign policy for the Middle East is to cast Iran as the source of all “regional tensions” and secondly, to hold onto America’s Gulf bases — in order to “flex across several different mission sets and prevail.”

Saudi Arabia is mildly rebuked in the CNAS report for having helped radicalize Sunni Islamist groups in the past, but the Kingdom receives applause for its law enforcement and intelligence cooperation. It is very clear from the report’s context that a makeover of Saudi Arabia’s status as a U.S. ally is underway and that this rehabilitation is seen as integral to aiding America’s “hard-nosed enforcement strategy ... to counter Iran’s destabilizing activities throughout the region, from its support to terrorist groups like Hezbollah to its efforts to sow instability in the Sunni Arab states.”

The old Western standby of using psychologically inflamed Sunni radicalism as a means to weaken opponents seems like it won’t be dismantled completely.
Another gloss in the CNAS report is striking: while ISIS as a threat is made much of, and a call is issued to “uproot” it, when it comes to Syria, the report simply states that “it is also essential to assist in the formation of a Sunni alternative to ISIS and the [Syria President Bashar] Assad regime” and to create “a safe space ... where moderate opposition militias can arm, train, and organize.” Yet there is no mention of Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda’s Syria wing. Its role simply is not addressed.

This conscious lacuna suggests that the authors do not want to embarrass Saudi Arabia for all its fired-up Sunni jihadist tools. The old Western standby of using psychologically inflamed Sunni radicalism as a means to weaken opponents seems like it won’t be dismantled completely. It is fine, evidently, to make a hoo-ha about ISIS while Nusra is to be slipped quietly into the Syrian calculus in order to shift the military balance and convince Assad that he cannot remain in power.

This new/old policy platform is well assisted by broadcasting a narrative that those fighting ISIS on the ground (Iran and its allies) are the “naked sectarians” who compound their sectarian intent by provoking Sunnis to rally to ISIS, their defender. Thus, Iran becomes the threat to regional security, and the CNAS case against Iran is crystalized. This is working quite well, it seems, to judge by its play in the media.

It may be fairly asked however, why these eminent American foreign policy hands should be espousing what many might see as such a retrograde stance. Promoting Saudi Arabia and Gulf states as key U.S. allies would seem to go against the grain of contemporary — even Congressional — sentiment. Ditto for maintaining America’s necklace of (expensive) military bases around the globe in order to project American military power. Are Americans not tiring of endless war? And has not the arming and training of a Sunni opposition in Syria been tried several times and failed? Why should this policy be any more successful next time around?

ISIS is the consensual scapegoat to be lambasted by all and sundry, but its spirit — neo-Wahabbism — is not to be rooted out.
It is not that the report’s authors don’t grasp these points, but if the neocons have one constancy, it has been their unwavering support for Israel. They think that the Gulf states are ready for a normalization with Israel and wish to do profitable business with it. What stands in the way of this rapprochement, in the neocon view, is Iran, Syria and Hezbollah’s vehement opposition — and their ability to ignite public opinion across the Muslim world on behalf of the Palestinians.

So what is the final takeaway from all this? It is that ISIS is the consensual scapegoat to be lambasted by all and sundry, but its spirit — neo-Wahabbism — is not to be rooted out. It is too useful to Saudi Arabia and Turkey and to Western interests — to weaken Assad, for example, and to contain Iran and fight Hezbollah.

Whether in the form of Nusra or Ahrar al-Sham, another al Qaeda-allied rebel group in Syria, this chameleon-like Sunni jihadist force collectively provides a useful pivot around which neocons and liberal interventionists alike can pursue interventionism and the continuance of “the American Century.” It also provides a valuable intersection between Israel and Gulf interests. As Lobe wryly notes, “the authors’ undisguised hostility toward Tehran pours forth with specific policy recommendations that, frankly, could have been written as a joint paper submitted by Saudi Arabia and Israel.”

Will the report, like the neocon Project for the New American Century, to which it is perhaps conceived as a successor, come to form the basis of American foreign policy if a Democrat won the forthcoming election? Possibly, yes.

But there is also an intangible feeling of something passé in these policy prescriptions, a sense that they belong to a former era. The current presidential campaign, with all its iconoclasm and evidence of widespread popular anger towards the status quo, suggests that such a palpable replay of the past is not tenable.


Thick smoke of propaganda is launched to hide  the fact that former Secretary of State Clinton
is a war hawk and unrepentant chickenhawk

Hillary Clinton is a war hawk which means she is a militarist. Wikipedia offers a definition of militarism which seems to describe the dominant view of the US elite, especially neocon faction of the latter:

Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests

I think it make more sense to talk about imperialism, rather than militarism. Military is just a tool. One could, for example, bribe another country’s military leaders, or finance a paramilitary force in the targeted state, or just organize a violence-inciting mass-media campaign to produce the same result.  In other words to promote neoconservative agenda.

Being a neocon is a sure way to position yourself as a favorite of the current Washington Political Establishment.  That's why she get favorable treatment from both WaPo and NYT. That also means that Hillary’s confrontational and somewhat psychopathic personality (observe her reaction on brutal killing of Gaddafi)  will be described as an admirable attribute indicative of a strong leader the same way the psychopathic personalities of her male counterparts are described as the attribute of masters of statecraft (the word that in US political lexical is now synonymous with bombing small helpless nations and bailing out transnational banks).

Think smoke of propaganda is launched to hide facts about former Secretary of State Clinton and suppress anti-militarist sentiments of the US population  (Anti-militarism — Crooked Timber):

My case for anti-militarism has two main elements.

 Everything we see on television, and increasingly on the internet, “often surpasses expectations of media subservience to government propaganda,” as Edward S. Herman noted nearly two decades. She is presented via rose glasses: her jingoism and ugly personality features are carefully and skillfully hidden. Opponents will be vilified an their positions will be distorted (The REALLY ANNOYING Don’t-Wanna-Subsidize-Wealthy-Kids’-College-Tuition Canard , Nov 20, 2005, naked capitalism blog):

Stromberg, a Washington Post editorial writer who also blogs there, is an all-but-official Clinton campaign mouthpiece who last month, in a blog post and (unforgivably) a Post editorial (i.e., commentary with no byline, published on behalf of the Post’s editorial board) baldly misrepresented what Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon on Tuesday misrepresented about Sanders’ single-payer healthcare insurance plan, but from a different angle: Stromberg said that the cost of the single-payer plan would be in addition to the cost of healthcare now.  Actual healthcare, not just insurance premiums.

According to Stomberg and the Post’s editorial board then, hospitals, physicians and other healthcare provides would receive full payment from private insurers and also full payment from the government.  And employers, employees and individual-market policyholders would continue to pay premiums to private insurers while they also paid taxes to the federal government for single-payer—double-payer?—insurance.

A nice deal for some but not, let’s say, for others.  Also, a preposterous misrepresentation of Sanders’ plan.

Fast-forward a month and Stromberg, this time speaking only for himself (as far as I know; I don’t read all the Post’s editorials) and for the Clinton campaign, picks up on Clinton’s invocation of the horror of the public paying college tuition for Donald Trump’s kids.  But since he probably knows that Trump’s kids no more went to public colleges than did Clinton’s kid, he broadens it.

Media tries to avoid mentioning the main disaster of Hillary Clinton tenure as the Secretary of State and he main legacy: attack on Libya. for this female chickenhawk even now it looks like a resounding success :-). As US Navy Rear Admiral Charles R. Kubic pointed out (Hillary's Huge Libya Disaster ):

The National Interest

Before the revolution, Libya was a secure, prospering, secular Islamic country and a critical ally providing intelligence on terrorist activity post–September 11, 2001. Qaddafi was no longer a threat to the United States. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly advocated and succeeded in convincing the administration to support the Libyan rebels with a no-fly zone, intended to prevent a possible humanitarian disaster that turned quickly into all-out war.

... ... ...

Despite valid ceasefire opportunities to prevent “bloodshed in Benghazi” at the onset of hostilities, Secretary Clinton intervened and quickly pushed her foreign policy in support of a revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood and known terrorists in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. One of the Libyan Rebel Brigade commanders, Ahmed Abu Khattala, would later be involved in the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Articulating her indifference to the chaos brought by war, Secretary Clinton stated on May 18, 2013, to the House Oversight Committee and the American

The same true for Syria where she also promoted Muslim Brotherhood. The question arise if Hillary Clinton can be changed in International court of justice? I think that yes, she can. Changes can include  organizing a war of aggression, war crimes, false claims, misuse of intelligence, misleading Congress, malfeasance in public office, breaching constitutional duties.

Promoter of neoliberal globalization and neoliberal wars and color revolutions to open the markets for transnational corporations  

Hillary is a member of the transnational neoliberal elite -- the entire network of economic, political and media elites which run the "New World Order" of Neoliberal Globalization, and it run from Washington by the Nobel Laureate Obama, who managed to bomb 7 countries in the first 6 years of his presidency, as well by  EU bureaucracy and neoliberal governments of Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands (the core of the Neoliberal Europe project).

The reason the elites are fighting to put tiara on Hillary and were fighting so hard against Brexit is because they know that Trump's victory could set in motion a domino effect that could damage neoliberal globalization like Brexit just did.  And with anti-EU tsunami is blowing all over Europe, both in the South and in the North the last thing they need troubles in the USA.

Trump victory can set in motion forces that could lead to the dismantling of the neoliberal elites’ globalization, which involves firstly the effective abolition of economic and national sovereignty within economic unions like the EU and, secondly, the unification of such unions through deals like the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which puts at risk even the NHS – the major social achievement of the post-war period. BTW poor Americans now have the same life expectancy as the Sudanese.  In fact, the very reason that Obama rushed to London and then to Berlin was to co-ordinate the fight for TTIP, so that this agreement was not derailed by the Brexit.

But millions of Us workers who have lost their jobs since globalization began taking effect about 30 years ago now view the coming US election as a referendum on neoliberal globalization and they are supporting Trump despite smear companies in neoliberal MSM which reached the pitch typical for Soviet propaganda.

But like in 20th of the last century the victims of the neoliberal globalization now refuse to remain silent victims. They started to fight back As even such a stalwart of neoliberalism as  Financial Times admitted that “we are close to the point where globalization and membership of the Eurozone in particular have damaged not only certain groups in society but entire nations”.

Workers who now are forced to work for survival wages and moved from permanent position to contractors with reduced hours, not to mention the victims of a continuously deteriorating social welfare system (health, education and so on) are ready to fight back. How ready are people of the USA we will see in November. I think many are ready to fight against three  major neoliberal  "freedoms”  (i.e. freedom in the movement of capital, commodities and of course labor).

Any democrat who plans to vote for Hillary needs to remember the quote:  "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Hillary Clinton is the clear candidate of the neoliberal globalization party., a war hawk who converted State Department into real neocon paradise (although that was an easy task as it was very close to reaching this state under two previous administrations). Neocon Robert Kagan (the husband of Victoria Nuland -- Cheney protégé, who became Hillary protégé)  (with his Iraq war propagandist record) was even   appointed as an advisor to the State Department. You can image what advice he provided. 

Please note that Hillary Clinton has a proved record of a blood-soaked queen of chaos. Who favor color revolutions against even pretty neoliberal, totally corrupt and controlled by the USA puppet governments, if that advance State Department anti-Russian agenda (like in Ukraine against corrupt Yanukovich government ). Who if elected is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more countries. She has an unambiguous, undeniable record of such activates, that would make any neocon proud of himself/herself.  Hillary is the neocon's neocon. right Sector's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a Hillary protégé.  Whether during or shortly after Hillary's first 100 days in office, U.S. military engagement with Libya and Syria will likely be significantly greater than it is now. Here is one telling comment

Enrique Ferro | Jun 17, 2016 7:58:26 PM | 74
So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists, at war all against all. The Queen of Chaos, indeed, loves these scenarios. Especially because her quick attack as first thing should she win the White House would shut the mouths of her critics wanting her prosecuted for her crooked political and business corruption. But she and her State Department surrogates would be in for a surprise: Russian and Syrian defences would not remain silent. And afterwards, what would be left? How would the Exceptionalist who "gets things done" proceed?  

Recent document supposedly signed by pro-Hillary faction in State Department (51 US diplomats ) and cited by NYT  a typical wet dream written by utterly incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role.

She is not even DINO ("Democrat in name only") like typical neoliberal political mafia bought by Wall street (although she belongs to this mafia too).  Neither she is a moderate republican like Barak ("wolf in sheep clothing"). She is a real far right (neocon)  candidate -- Cheney in suit-pants.  For any international problem  she'll jumps to the military solution, ridiculing the notion of diplomacy from the very start (with another "Coalition for peace enforced by carpet bombing").

Hillary is a typical representative of the part of US elite (neocons) that is hell bent on world domination. It's not so much the problem with the American people as is the problem with American elite, which essentially keeps the country hostage in order to user is an enforce for securing their profits oversees. Bacevich recently wrote about it:

In no way voice of American people matters. It's a just a nice pony show to provide legitimacy. Deep state rules. Real selection is within the elite. If they want to have more democratic president they will find one as happened in 1932 when Franklin D. Roosevelt <> was allowed to be elected.  The problem is that under neoliberalism the elite consider the USA as a host to parasite on. That's why this will not happen.

Hillary foreign policy stance now looks like completely detached from reality and produce the amount of hate that if materialize might really hurt the USA. In some countries the US companies are trying to mask as national and American Tourists pretend that they are from the other country. Spain is an example. France might be next. And the elite is ready to play "va bank" to preserve its world dominance even in cases that are not important for the US strategic interests like they did in Ukraine. Nobody in sound mind would assume that Poroshenko is less corrupt then Yanukovich. 

And if any military provocation towards Russia or China yields any meaningful response, Hillary would storm out of the gates and blow any opposition on the grounds it being unpatriotic, much like happened with re-election of Bush II after 9/11. That's probably her only chance, so watch out.  BTW, another ship goes close to Russia's backyard:  To promote peace, stability and democracy, of course.

Pretty sickening to see how neocons from both Democrat and Republican parties synchronously attack Trump: NYT (Grey prostitute) and Faux  News are clearly united in this sordid mission. Even old political rat Gingrich was dusted off for this purpose. As troika of Repug neocons Bush/Cruz/Rubio were eliminated from the race, dual shitizens like Wolfowitz, Krauthammer, Kristol, Kagan and the rest of neocon "collective" went crazy on the propaganda front. Hillary is their only hope now (or may be not the only, but still they definitely love her more  :-)

I have no illusions that Trump will be much better, but Hillary ...   This is not a choice between two bad option. This is a choice between disastrous and unpalatable.  I hope Sanders will inflict some damage of this lady. That's the only hope.  But I would call people who vote for her not simply stupid. This is something more sinister that simple stupidity.

 This jingoistic neoliberal stooge voted for Iraq war -- this alone was IMHO a crime of the century that disqualifies her from public office. And this the most important, cornerstone event in her political biography  was not discussed at all.  I am disappointed the Bernie did not state this clear and load. Still any American voting for Hillary IMHO is a brainwashed lemming or, worse, a  betrayer of this nation just on the base of her Iraq vote.  Which, again, IMHO was a crime of the century.  In any "real" democratic debate she would be asked about Iraq as the first question and graced with tattoo  "We came, we saw, he died" on her forehead at the end.

Hillary Clinton is Democrat only in name. In reality she like her husband are neoliberals.  Both of them are what can be called DINO (Democrats only in name) with Bill having a dubious distinction of  selling the Democratic Party to Wall Street. And Hillary is doing the same with her recent "feeding frenzy" -- Wall Street  speeches which brought her several million dollars and look more like bribes, then speaking engagements.  Anis Shivani in his Salon article Our Neoliberal Nightmare Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Why the Wealthy Win Every Time  (June 10, 2016) gives very unflattering portrait of Hillary as a neoliberal politician, always ready to sell electorate for personal gain and do everything possible to please her Wall Street friends. In a way she is a principled politician as in saying the "in the USA a principled politician is the one that one that once bought, stays bought. "

Notable quotes:

The role of Hillary Clinton in completion of conversion of State Department into Department of Neoliberal Imperial Expansion

In foreign policy Hillary Clinton stands very close to  Madeleine Albright  and Dick Cheney (According to Obama, Hillary is  "Cheney lite" in foreign policy (NYT, Jul 27, 2007). 

"Her Thighness" (courtesy of Mark Levin, a man with a wicked sense of humor! )  got the Secretary of State position as a part of the deal  with Obama to support him on the convention.  The deal that was nothing short of capitulation of Obama before the convention and actually was an early warning about the essence of Obama presidency -- "switch and bait" with constant capitulations before the far right and neocons (in reality  he was/is a neocon from the very beginning, just putting on a sheep clothing).  Remember how candidate Clinton staked her credentials on her non-existent and dubious foreign policy experience? Which included dodging bullets on the tarmac in Bosnia. And an important (or at least significant) part in brokering  Northern Ireland peace?

“I went [to Northern Ireland] more than my husband did. I was working to help change the atmosphere among people because leaders alone rarely make peace. They have to bring people along who believe peace is in their interests. I remember a meeting that I pulled together in Belfast, in the town hall there, bringing together for the first time Catholics and Protestants…”

–Hillary Clinton, Nashua, N.H. Jan. 6, 2008.

Obama argued during the primaries that it was time to move beyond the Clinton era and rightly attacked her fake claims to foreign policy experience as a first lady who circled the globe.

As Robert Parry explains, she is a staunch neocon very close in this respect to Robert  Kagan, whom he actually made an advisor to State Department during her tenure in this position  (Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon – Consortiumnews)

If there were any doubts that Hillary Clinton favors a neoconservative foreign policy, her performance at Thursday’s debate should have laid them to rest. In every meaningful sense, she is a neocon and – if she becomes President – Americans should expect more global tensions and conflicts in pursuit of the neocons’ signature goal of “regime change” in countries that get in their way.

Beyond sharing this neocon “regime change” obsession, former Secretary of State Clinton also talks like a neocon. One of their trademark skills is to use propaganda or “perception management” to demonize their targets and to romanticize their allies, what is called “gluing white hats” on their side and “gluing black hats” on the other.

So, in defending her role in the Libyan “regime change,” Clinton called the slain Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi “genocidal” though that is a gross exaggeration of Gaddafi’s efforts to beat back Islamic militants in 2011. But her approach fits with what the neocons do. They realize that almost no one will dare challenge such a characterization because to do so opens you to accusations of being a “Gaddafi apologist.”

Similarly, before the Iraq War, the neocons knew that they could level pretty much any charge against Saddam Hussein no matter how false or absurd, knowing that it would go uncontested in mainstream political and media circles. No one wanted to be a “Saddam apologist.”

Clinton, like the neocons, also shows selective humanitarian outrage. For instance, she laments the suffering of Israelis under crude (almost never lethal) rocket fire from Gaza but shows next to no sympathy for Palestinians being slaughtered by sophisticated (highly lethal) Israeli missiles and bombs.

She talks about the need for “safe zones” or “no-fly zones” for Syrians opposed to another demonized enemy, Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, but not for the people of Gaza who face the wrath of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Yes, I do still support a no-fly zone [in Syria] because I think we need to put in safe havens for those poor Syrians who are fleeing both Assad and ISIS and have some place that they can be safe,” Clinton said. But she showed no such empathy for Palestinians defenseless against Israel’s “mowing the grass” operations against men, women and children trapped in Gaza.

In Clinton’s (and the neocons’) worldview, the Israelis are the aggrieved victims and the Palestinians the heartless aggressors. Referring to the Gaza rocket fire, she said: “I can tell you right now I have been there with Israeli officials going back more than 25 years that they do not seek this kind of attacks. They do not invite the rockets raining down on their towns and villages. They do not believe that there should be a constant incitement by Hamas aided and abetted by Iran against Israel. …

“So, I don’t know how you run a country when you are under constant threat, terrorist attack, rockets coming at you. You have a right to defend yourself.”

Ignoring History

Clinton ignored the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which dates back to the 1940s when Israeli terrorist organizations engaged in massacres to drive Palestinians from their ancestral lands and murdered British officials who were responsible for governing the territory. Israeli encroachment on Palestinian lands has continued to the present day.

But Clinton framed the conflict entirely along the propaganda lines of the Israeli government: “Remember, Israel left Gaza. They took out all the Israelis. They turned the keys over to the Palestinian people. And what happened? Hamas took over Gaza. So instead of having a thriving economy with the kind of opportunities that the children of the Palestinians deserve, we have a terrorist haven that is getting more and more rockets shipped in from Iran and elsewhere.”

So, Clinton made clear – both at the debate and in her recent AIPAC speech – that she is fully in line with the neocon reverence for Israel and eager to take out any government or group that Israel puts on its enemies list. While waxing rhapsodic about the U.S.-Israeli relationship – promising to take it “to the next level” – Clinton vows to challenge Syria, Iran, Russia and other countries that have resisted or obstructed the neocon/Israeli “wish list” for “regime change.”

In response to Clinton’s Israel-pandering, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who once worked on an Israeli kibbutz as a young man, did the unthinkable in American politics. He called out Clinton for her double standards on Israel-Palestine and suggested that Netanyahu may not be the greatest man on earth.

“You gave a major speech to AIPAC,” Sanders said, “and you barely mentioned the Palestinians. … All that I am saying is we cannot continue to be one-sided. There are two sides to the issue. … There comes a time when if we pursue justice and peace, we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time.”

But in Hillary Clinton’s mind, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is essentially one-sided. During her speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last month, she depicted Israel as entirely an innocent victim in the Mideast conflicts.

“As we gather here, three evolving threats — Iran’s continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to de-legitimize Israel on the world stage — are converging to make the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever,” she declared.

“The United States and Israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever and more determined than ever to prevail against our common adversaries and to advance our shared values. … This is especially true at a time when Israel faces brutal terrorist stabbings, shootings and vehicle attacks at home. Parents worry about letting their children walk down the street. Families live in fear.”

Yet, Clinton made no reference to Palestinian parents who worry about their children walking down the street or playing on a beach and facing the possibility of sudden death from an Israeli drone or warplane. Instead, she scolded Palestinian adults. “Palestinian leaders need to stop inciting violence, stop celebrating terrorists as martyrs and stop paying rewards to their families,” she said.

Then, Clinton promised to put her future administration at the service of the Israeli government. Clinton said, “One of the first things I’ll do in office is invite the Israeli prime minister to visit the White House. And I will send a delegation from the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs to Israel for early consultations. Let’s also expand our collaboration beyond security.”

After that Ms. Clinton appointed her own neocon team at the State Department   drawn from most hawkish  neocons available on the national scene.  Such as Cheney protégé Victoria Nuland. That was how Obama tried to straiten out  “the failed policies of George Bush.”

Tony Cartalucci in his October 2012 article (US Department of Imperial Expansion ) made several relevant observation about the role Hillary Clinton played as the top US diplomat: 

October 26, 2012 | Land Destroyer  
Deeper down the rabbit hole of US-backed color revolutions.
by Tony Cartalucci

Believe it or not, the US State Department's mission statement actually says the following:

"Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within the international system."

A far and treasonous cry from the original purpose of the State Department - which was to maintain communications and formal relations with foreign countries - and a radical departure from historical norms that have defined foreign ministries throughout the world, it could just as well now be called the "Department of Imperial Expansion." Because indeed, that is its primary purpose now, the expansion of Anglo-American corporate hegemony worldwide under the guise of "democracy" and "human rights."

That a US government department should state its goal as to build a world of "well-governed states" within the "international system" betrays not only America's sovereignty but the sovereignty of all nations entangled by this offensive mission statement and its execution.

Image: While the US State Department's mission statement sounds benign or even progressive, when the term "international system" or "world order" is used, it is referring to a concept commonly referred to by the actual policy makers that hand politicians their talking points, that involves modern day empire. Kagan's quote came from a 1997 policy paper describing a policy to contain China with.


The illegitimacy of the current US State Department fits in well with the overall Constitution-circumventing empire that the American Republic has degenerated into. The current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, gives a daily affirmation of this illegitimacy every time she bellies up to the podium to make a statement.

Recently she issued a dangerously irresponsible "warning" to Venezuela and Bolivia regarding their stately relations with Iran. While America has the right to mediate its own associations with foreign nations, one is confounded trying to understand what gives America the right to dictate such associations to other sovereign nations. Of course, the self-declared imperial mandate the US State Department bestowed upon itself brings such "warnings" into perspective with the realization that the globalists view no nation as sovereign and all nations beholden to their unipolar "international system."

It's hard to deny the US State Department is not behind the
"color revolutions" sweeping the world when the Secretary of
State herself phones in during the youth movement confabs
her department sponsors on a yearly basis.

If only the US State Department's meddling was confined to hubris-filled statements given behind podiums attempting to fulfill outlandish mission statements, we could all rest easier. However, the US State Department actively bolsters its meddling rhetoric with very real measures. The centerpiece of this meddling is the vast and ever-expanding network being built to recruit, train, and support various "color revolutions" worldwide. While the corporate owned media attempts to portray the various revolutions consuming Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and now Northern Africa and the Middle East as indigenous, spontaneous, and organic, the reality is that these protesters represent what may be considered a "fifth-branch" of US power projection.

CANVAS: Freedom House, IRI, Soros funded Serbian color revolution
college behind the Orange, Rose, Tunisian, Burmese, and Egyptian protests
and has trained protesters from 50 other countries

As with the army and CIA that fulfilled this role before, the US State Department's "fifth-branch" runs a recruiting and coordinating center known as the Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM). Hardly a secretive operation, its website, proudly lists the details of its annual summits which began in 2008 and featured astro-turf cannon fodder from Venezuela to Iran, and even the April 6 Youth Movement from Egypt. The summits, activities, and coordination AYM provides is but a nexus. Other training arms include the US created and funded CANVAS of Serbia, which in turn trained color-coup leaders from the Ukraine and Georgia, to Tunisia and Egypt, including the previously mentioned April 6 Movement. There is also the Albert Einstein Institute which produced the very curriculum and techniques employed by CANVAS.

2008 New York City Summit (included Egypt's April 6 Youth Movement)
2009 Mexico City Summit
2010 London Summit

As previously noted, these organizations are now retroactively trying to obfuscate their connections to the State Department and the Fortune 500 corporations that use them to achieve their goals of expansion overseas. CANVAS has renamed and moved their list of supporters and partners while AYM has oafishly changed their "partnerships" to "past partnerships."

Before & After: Oafish attempts to downplay US State Department's extra-legal
meddling and subterfuge in foreign affairs. Other attempts are covered here.

Funding all of this is the tax payers' money funneled through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and Freedom House. George Soros' Open Society foundation also promotes various NGOs which in turn support the revolutionary rabble on the ground. In Egypt, after the State Department's youth brigades played their role, Soros and NED funded NGOs began work on drafting Egypt's new constitution.

It should be noted that while George Soros is portrayed as being "left," and the overall function of these pro-democracy, pro-human rights organizations appears to be "left-leaning," a vast number of notorious "Neo-Cons" also constitute the commanding ranks and determine the overall agenda of this color revolution army.

Then there are legislative acts of Congress that overtly fund the subversive objectives of the US State Department. In support of regime change in Iran, the Iran Freedom and Support Act was passed in 2006. More recently in 2011, to see the US-staged color revolution in Egypt through to the end, money was appropriated to "support" favored Egyptian opposition groups ahead of national elections.

Then of course there is the State Department's propaganda machines. While organizations like NED and Freedom House produce volumes of talking points in support for their various on-going operations, the specific outlets currently used by the State Department fall under the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). They include Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Alhurra, and Radio Sawa. Interestingly enough, the current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sits on the board of governors herself, along side a shameful collection of representatives from the Fortune 500, the corporate owned media, and various agencies within the US government.

Hillary Clinton: color revolutionary field marshal & propagandist,
two current roles that defy her duties as Secretary of State in any
rational sense or interpretation.

Judging from Radio Free Europe's latest headlines, such as "Lieberman: The West's Policy Toward Belarus Has 'Failed Miserably' " and "Azerbaijani Youth Activist 'Jailed For One Month,'" it appears that hope is still pinned on inciting color revolutions in Belarus and Azerbaijan to continue on with NATO's creep and the encirclement of Russia. Belarus in particular was recently one of the subjects covered at the Globsec 2011 conference, where it was considered a threat to both the EU and NATO, having turned down NATO in favor of closer ties with Moscow.

Getting back to Hillary Clinton's illegitimate threat regarding Venezuela's associations with Iran, no one should be surprised to find out an extensive effort to foment a color revolution to oust Hugo Chavez has been long underway by AYM, Freedom House, NED, and the rest of this "fifth-branch" of globalist power projection. In fact, Hugo Chavez had already weathered an attempted military coup overtly orchestrated by the United States under Bush in 2002.

Upon digging into the characters behind Chavez' ousting in 2002, it
appears that this documentary sorely understates US involvement.

The same forces of corporatism, privatization, and free-trade that led the 2002 coup against Chavez are trying to gain ground once again. Under the leadership of Harvard trained globalist minion Leopoldo Lopez, witless youth are taking the place of 2002's generals and tank columns in an attempt to match globalist minion Mohamed ElBaradei's success in Egypt.

Unsurprisingly, the US State Department's AYM is pro-Venezuelan opposition, and describes in great detail their campaign to "educate" the youth and get them politically active. Dismayed by Chavez' moves to consolidate his power and strangely repulsed by his "rule by decree," -something that Washington itself has set the standard for- AYM laments over the difficulties their meddling "civil society" faces.

Chavez' government recognized the US State Department's meddling recently in regards to a student hunger strike and the US's insistence that the Inter-American Human Rights Commission be allowed to "inspect" alleged violations under the Chavez government. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro even went as far as saying, "It looks like they (U.S.) want to start a virtual Egypt."

The "Fifth-Branch" Invasion: Click for larger image.

Understanding this "fifth-branch" invasion of astro-turf cannon fodder and the role it is playing in overturning foreign governments and despoiling nation sovereignty on a global scale is an essential step in ceasing the Anglo-American imperial machine. And of course, as always, boycotting and replacing the corporations behind the creation and expansion of these color-revolutions hinders not only the spread of their empire overseas, but releases the stranglehold of dominion they possess at home in the United States. Perhaps then the US State Department can once again go back to representing the American Republic and its people to the rest of the world as a responsible nation that respects real human rights and sovereignty both at home and abroad.

Editor's Note: This article has been edited and updated October 26, 2012.

Fiasco after fiasco, scandal after scandal

Claims about Hillary Clinton competence are greatly exaggerated. The biography is a string of one fiasco after another, one scandal after another. The only really distinctive feature is her ability to survive those scandals.  Some of them clearly point to corruption (Clinton cash scandal), some to amazing, mind blowing incompetence and arrogance (emailgate scandal), some on extreme pathological jingoism (Iraq war vote, her remark "We came, we saw, he died on Kaddafi violent death, her role in destruction of Lybia, Syria and Ukraine)

Systemic fraud was the second nature of corporatist regimes from its humble beginning in the first half of the XX century in Mussolini Italy to reincarnation of corporatism by Reagan. In this sense the terms corporatism and the term crony capitalism reflect the same social phenomenon. Both means the elimination of accountability. And first and foremost elimination of accountability for the financial sector, as fish rots from the top. According to Wikipedia corruption occurred on several different scales:

Wikipedia conveniently omitted neoliberalism as the source of system corruption.  At a deeper level it is corruption that form the backbone to globalization. As neoliberal regimes enforce deregulation, privatization, and structural adjustment policies, requiring civil service to shrink, the side effect of externality of this policies is outflow of money iether to G7 countries (for the third worlds) or to offshore jurisdictions (for the USA and other G7 countries). While Western governments, the World Bank and IMF denounce corruption, their own policies promote it on a systemic level. 

Like Mussolini used to say (or was it attributed to him) the essence of corporatism is  to [corporate] friends everything, to enemies the law. And that's the essence of Clinton-Bush-Obama regime if we are talking about high level executives. Small fish still can be fried, but big sharks are untouchable. No executives went to jail after 2008 financial crisis. No executives went to jail due to deception of people before Iraq war or due to incompetence or worse during 9/11. 

Mussolini claimed that by elimination of accountability the dynamic (or heroic) capitalism based on private initiative could be prevented from degenerating into stale crony capitalism.  But opposite is actually true. There is a short initial period when deregulation unleashed private energy, but after that corruption emerges and the situation can deteriorate deeper that it was under stale state capitalism regime.

There are currently two interrelated corruption related scandals that hurt Hillary Clinton election chances:

DNC emails scandal: swiftboating Bernie Sanders

These people have no shame. Vote Trump!

USMarines, Guardian Jun 25, 2016


These people have no shame. Vote Trump!

USMarines, Guardian Jun 25, 2016

I didn’t have a conspiracy with that woman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  HRC

Today, while reading Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables ,
 I unexpectedly came across a passage which fittingly describes the DNC:

They are practiced politicians, every man of them, and skilled to adjust those
 preliminary measures which steal from the people, without its knowledge,
the power of choosing its own rulers…This little knot of subtle schemers
will control the convention, and, through it, dictate to the party.

Roland , July 28, 2016 at 7:39 am

The Democratic National Committee under its Obama-installed leader Wasserman-Schultz had from day one schemed against other primary candidates and first of all Sanders to get Clinton elected. If nothing else, the  primary process revealed just how much the DNC has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Clinton family, that can't even maintain the pretense of neutrality or impartiality--as the DNC's charter requires. And it's also exposed just how much the Fourth Estate has abandoned even the pretense of being the public's watch-dogs for the role of being the Clinton's lapdogs -- fitting classic definition of the "courtier press".  Now they are shamelessly preying on peoples' lack of understanding of computers trying to hide their criminal behaviour by "Putin did it" smoke screen.  They are also shamelessly preying on naive peoples' trust in experts, which has serious downstream effects when these "experts" are debunked. The way that the Russia-Trump storyline has been pounded into our consciousness by the media and the Democratic Party, including at the convention in prime time, is a calculated effort to take our eye off the ball and is a classic “shoot the messenger” tactic.

Clinton is trying to market herself as the Serious/Safe candidate, and instead her campaign is acting hysterical. This whole Putin-hack thing is sabotaging her own brand. And this is not the first instance of "Hillary" poisonous  effect on anything she touches. Let's remember that she went into State Department to get the foreign policy experience and now has a record on it that should have every sane person saying keep her away from sharp objects and things that go boom.

Funny though, formally Schultz takes her orders from Obama, as the Chairman of the Party, the DNC Board of Directors and team Hillary.   If any blame should go around, it should splash onto all individuals in DNC, not just Schultz.  Moreover, her boss, "constitutional scholar" Obama, in this particular case looks like a regular Mafiosi: he and his DNC accomplishes  swindle the millions of Americans who donated $27 to Bernie's campaign on the basis that it was a fair contest... 

Why did "Crooked Hillary" allowed the DNC to sabotage Bernie? She didn't need to having super delegates in her pocket from the very start.  But like many sociopaths she did because she can. Now many Bernie backers won't vote for her.  As this election is about establishment (and that means that people are not voting for, they're voting against) and Hillary is an establishment candidate. A female successor of neoliberal "bait and switch" king Obama; who is widely hated because of his support of TPP. ) i think she lost quit a bit of votes due to this scandal.  This election cycle the vote against establishment politicians might be stronger than the vote for them. That's why Jeb Bush lost.

We shouldn't get roped into discussing  allegations about who leaked the emails. That's what Hillary wants the conversation to be about. The fact is these emails show the DNC fixed the nomination for Hillary. This has been so downplayed by the mainstream media as it shows them in their true light.  Compare this to the coverage Melania Trump's plagiarised speech got.


Clinton, who received 3.1m from Wall Street for speeches last year, and who was "extremely careless" with national security and who clearly lied under oath to Congress had the entire system rigged in her favour and millions of mostly younger people who supported Sanders have received a slap in the face by a corrupt Dem Party.

Clinton has dragged the party into the sewer with her. They should have told her to step down months ago. This is a shameful Dem convention

Like Clinton foundation and its affiliate entities, the DNC, could be considered a criminal enterprise or racketing influenced organization. Those who haven’t realized that, or worse, who shill for them are willfully ignorant, amoral, or unethical.  Clinton has dragged the party into the sewer with her. They should have told her to step down months ago. This is a shameful Dem convention


The 2016 election cannot be looked at in isolation. The wars for profit are spreading from Nigeria through Syria to Ukraine. Turkey was just lost to the Islamists and is on the road to being a failed state. The EU is in an existential crisis due to Brexit, the refugee crisis and austerity. Western leadership is utterly incompetent and failing to protect its citizens.

Globalization is failing. Its Losers are tipping over the apple cart. Humans are returning to their tribal roots for safety. The drums for war with Russia are beating. Clinton / Kaine are 100% Status Quo Globalists. Trump / Pence are candidates of change to who knows what. Currently I am planning on voting for the Green Party in the hope it becomes viable and praying that the chaos avoids Maryland.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and DNC staff served as part of Clinton campaign and designed and amplified phony attacks on Sanders. Krugman plays the role of Clinton surrogate, using campaign talking points and spin to claim that Sanders is “over the edge”. They launched a a systematic attack  basically questioning his authenticity. These are mostly cheap swiftboating attacks and straw man arguments coming from the mainstream media and DNC insiders. The attacks are usually passive-aggressive, as in the New York Times ignoring him for long stretches and then coming up with the occasional dismissive "he can't possibly win, because we say so" tripe. They often reek of cheerful condescension. See this and this.

Then there was more dangerous theme casting Sanders as a convenient prop for Hillary Clinton, a supporting actor who exists only for the cosmetic purpose of "pushing her to the left." This trope is becoming so over-used that people are beginning to notice that it is a dirty trick. These are dangerous times for non-establishment politicians due to domination of neoliberal Political Correctness and corporate neoliberal propaganda (The Swift-boating of Bernie Sanders ):

We had the expected political reaction—the DNC, under the enlightened leadership of Hillary supporter Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has decided PAC money from lobbyists is OK after all, thus freeing up David Brock’s Hillary PAC to do whatever the hell it wants. The head of the Democratic party in Iowa, who has a pro-Hillary license plate, has ruled out any sort of recount on the voting in Iowa, about which a number of questions had been raised, but the media appears to have moved on... 

Hillary definitely has the 1% vote locked up ... but they are, after all, just 1%.

The best analysis of DNC leak that I have found so far is Peter van Buren article in American Canservative Unpacking the DNC Emails The American Conservative (July 26, 2016), His 11 point really cover all the bases:

... ... ...
  1. The same people on the Clinton team who made enormous efforts to claim her private email server—which operated unencrypted over the Internet for three months, including during trips to China and Russia, and which contained top-secret national-security data—was not hacked by the Russians now are certain that the DNC server was hacked by the Russians.
  2. Many in Camp Clinton and the media labeled Bernie Sanders’ supporters paranoid when they claimed that the DNC was working against them. The hacked emails confirm that the DNC was in fact working against them. One official proposed getting “someone,” presumably a reporter, to ask Sanders if he’s an atheist to discredit him in religious areas.
  3. Claims of pro-Clinton media bias were dismissed during the primaries. The hacked emails confirm that the DNC was working closely with the media to seek negative coverage of Sanders and positive coverage of Clinton.
  4. Politico now admits it was a “mistake” sending the DNC an article draft in advance. The writer showed the draft to the DNC even before his own editors saw it.
  5. Facebook admits to blocking WikiLeaks links to the DNC email hack from its newsfeeds (but blames spam filters).
  6. The DNC appears to have expended significantly more effort against Bernie Sanders than it did against any of the Republican candidates.
  7. Instead of focusing on the contents of the hacked emails and the dirty tricks they exposed, many mainstream-media outlets headlined instead the Clinton-campaign talking point that the Russians hacked the emails and released them in an effort to derail her candidacy in favor of Donald Trump’s. Many of the same stories suggest Trump is some sort of pro-Putin stooge.
  8. On 60 Minutes, Clinton refused to say that intervention by the DNC to favor one candidate was “improper.” Her non-answer was edited out of the broadcast when it ran on Sunday; the network later released it online.
  9. After DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced her resignation following this week’s Democratic convention, the Clinton campaign announced Wasserman Schultz would be hired by them as “honorary chair of Hillary’s campaign’s 50-state program to elect Democrats in every part of the country, and as a surrogate for her campaign nationally.”
  10. Wasserman Schultz will be replaced as DNC chair by (only now former) CNN commentator Donna Brazile. Brazile argued the pro-Clinton side of debates on CNN throughout the primary season.
  11. In the hacked emails, Brazile said “I will cuss out the Sanders camp!” over complaints by Sanders of inadequate representation by the DNC. In March, while still employed by CNN, Brazile called Sanders’ decision to run as a Democrat (rather than an independent) for the additional media exposure “extremely disgraceful.”

Sadly, Bernie Sanders, his campaign sabotaged by the DNC—and what were once “paranoid” accusations now proved—still endorses Hillary Clinton and will still speak at the Democratic National Convention. It pains me to say, as his once-supporter, that the man has no courage. Even Ted Cruz stood up for himself in front of the Republicans in Cleveland. It is a sad day when we learn Ted Cruz has more guts than Bernie Sanders.

Those who are calling all this a coup of sorts—they’re wrong. It’s a surrender. But in the words of Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make?

Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during the “reconstruction” of Iraq in his book We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. He writes about current events at We Meant Well. His latest book is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99Percent. His next work will be a novel, Hooper’s War.

All this dirty tricks define the future of Democratic Party. Seriously. Less and less people are believing that Democrat represents them. I think half of trade union members will vote Trump. That's  a direct result of the sellout by Bill Clinton of Democratic Party to Wall Street.  A vote for Mrs Clinton means a continuation of the rule of financial oligarchy what we've experienced since Reagan, and that is not acceptable.  Another four years of amoral enrichment of transnational corporations that Hillary election guarantee is just kicking can down the road.

Anti-Russian hysteria as an attempt to hide the lack of jobs and  economic difficulties facing the US economy

Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing.

Only Jedi Knights can stop him.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”
 Donald J. Trump said, referring to messages deemed personal by Hillary Clinton
 and deleted from her private email server.


The financial system remains riddled with perverse incentives and repeat of 2008 crash not not out of cards. Economy stagnated and "secular stagnation" is the reality. Good jobs disappeared and the whole notion of the decent salaried job is now under attach -- temporary jobs proliferate. This is the situation in which the US elite throw all their weight behind Hillary Warmonger Clinton. With her constant warmongering Hillary perfectly fit the definition of Demagogues with the scapegoat being Russia and Putin (with Russians replacing Jews as the object of her hatred). Playing Russian card is one of the most important part of her election campaign: 

Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population. ...

The most common demagogic technique is scapegoating: blaming the in-group's troubles on an out-group, usually of a different race, religion, or social class. For example, Hitler famously blamed Germany's troubles during the Great Depression on Jews. Joe McCarthy claimed that all of America's problems resulted from "communist subversion." Denis Kearney blamed all the problems of laborers in California on Chinese immigrants.

In response to the heated anti-Russian rhetoric at the convention, the Washington Post’s security columnist wrote   “Clinton has now made the Democrats the anti-Russia “In their zeal to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous threat to national security, the Clinton campaign has taken a starkly anti-Russian stance, one that completes a total role reversal for the two major American parties on US-Russian relations that Hillary Clinton will now be committed to, if she becomes president.” Clinton has now made Democrats the anti-Russia party - The Washington Post

Real income stagnation (and for many groups decline) over a longer period than any since the WWII is now undisputable. That why Hillary is probably most hated Presidential candidate in the US history. And this election will be not about Hillary and Trump. It will be about Hillary with voters mainly voting against her and establishment. Again lack of job opportunities that neoliberals created:


I think it’s the job situation in the U.S. that makes it hopeless. There is no economic policy to create jobs, to attract/keep jobs in the country, to assure the country has high paying jobs etc.. Really there is no economic policy in the interest of the citizens in the U.S..

In many ways there is completely the opposite, H1Bs, Uber running wild with no worker protections etc.. And even those aren’t most jobs – most jobs are low paid service work. I don’t think training changes that reality except to maybe shift it ever so slightly toward higher paying jobs, but only very slightly. As anyone who has lived in any U.S. city for any period of time knows the U.S. is basically a 3rd world country (so at least the comparisons to other 3rd world countries are on the right track! Comparing the U.S. to the 1st world is really not accurate). And yet more and better credentials were not the only thing suggested in the article:

“In Latin America, in contrast, macro and fiscal reforms have generally benefited the poor and have been complemented by conditional cash transfer programs (CCTs). CCTs provide the poor with non-marginal amounts of cash assistance, conditional on households sending their children to school and taking them to regular health appointments. The basic presumption is that poor individuals are best positioned to choose how to spend their own income—and must be able to do so if they are to exit poverty— combined with a commitment to pulling them into society rather than stigmatizing them.”

A guaranteed income of sorts (only for those with kids I guess)

Trump as a candidate in this sense is of secondary importance. He is just a placeholder for the anger against establishment.  And this level of anger also means that presstitutes from neoliberal MSM have lost large part of their influence. Nobody trust now reporting about election campaign from CBS, MSNBC and like.  Even such powerful traditional weapon as falsified pools does not work as effectively as before.

This Presidential elections will be the battle of the negatives as in "Which candidate you dislike more?". That means that Trump has strong chances against Hillary independently of the real or imaginable (induced by MSM) flaws of his own candidacy. “Our experience is reaching out to friends and colleagues, and people are saying they don’t like her and don’t trust her.” (POLITICO)


With the Brexit referendum proving, once again, the contempt for mainstream politicians felt by the working classes of virtually all Western countries. Citizenship of their nations is the most valuable asset owned by most people in wealthy countries. They will resent sharing this with outsiders. Britain’s vote to leave the EU was a warning to the USA neoliberals: this f*king mess should be stopped and stopped immediately. OR.

I hoped that our neoliberal king of "bait and switch" Obama and his neoliberal friends like Bill Clinton as well as Dems nomenklatura wake up and smell the coffee. But they did not. They did not give Sanders a chance (which would be trivially easy iether by not fixing election is some states or by indicting Hillary; Obama could early do it as all preconditions were met, instead of effectively pardoning her discrediting Comey as his stooge instead). Now those neoliberal "Masters of the Universe" need to face consequences. I hope that putting Hillary Clinton after FBI chief characterization of her as "extremely careless" and  "unsophisticated"  against Trump will be suicidal for Dems. Trump might be able to exploit this tornado of voters anger very skillfully and "Crooked Hillary" memo already stuck. It already influence the attitude toward Hillary of the large swats of the US electorate, depriving her of republican votes dissatisfied with Trump and several other voting blocks (LA Times):

Maybe it's her four decades in bare-knuckle politics, ancient questions about investment deals in Arkansas, her entanglement in her husband's personal scandals, her decision to set up a private email server when she was secretary of State, her big-dollar fundraising and speech fees — or all of the above. Fairly or not, Clinton can't shed her history.

...69% of Ohio voters said they didn't think Clinton was honest and trustworthy, a daunting number.

...He'd like nothing better than to lure her into a Nixonian response: “I am not crooked.” “Don't expect us to engage directly on his attacks like 'Crooked Hillary,'” a Clinton aide told me. “He does best when he gets others to engage in insults.”

...The coming campaign, in case anyone had any doubt, will be a battle of the negatives.” Which candidate will voters dislike more?

How far Trump himself is far from neoliberalism remains to be seen. some of his pronouncements sound like paleoconservatism (the movement that opposes neoconservative warmongers like Hillary). I think that he can be classified as a paleoconservative, at least in part. His selection of VP does not inspire any confidence, but can be the result of a political compromize with Republican brass )"one step forward, two steps back").

Generally the term "RINO" means moderate "soft" neoliberal (and we can call Trump RINO), but the term "DINO" means staunch neoliberal in democratic clothing like Hillary. Hillary is DINO. Actually the whole this new, pro business, shill to Wall Street party created by Bill Clinton is DINO.  As the supporter of payloads as DNC chair. What a travesty.

That means that the key problem  for Hillary is that New Democrats (aka Clinton  democrats or third way democrats, of Blairites) threw the traditional Democratic constituencies under the bus. Because in Bill Clinton's view they have no choice then to vote for "lesser evil", which is a Dem party candidates. And he was right from 1994 till 2016. But now blue color voters leave Dems "en mass" and that situation can't be changed. More then half of trade union members will probably vote against Hillary.  And if she can pick up more then 33% of Sanders supporters that would be a great achievement: most Sanders supported probably will vote for greens or not vote at all; less then 10% will vote for Trump (The Guardian, Jul 13, 2016):

We received 375 responses on readers’ plans for their November vote. And despite the show of solidarity with Clinton on Tuesday, Sanders’ fans aren’t all convinced the presumptive Democratic nominee is who they will now support: Green party nominee Jill Stein was the most popular among reader respondents, with 171 new supporters, more than double the number who said they would move their support to Clinton.

Few might vote for Trump as a "protest vote": Killary jingoistic past also does not inspire any confidence.  At the same time after Comey statement that she was   “extremely careless” with top-secret information will spook republicans who otherwise might vote for her (The Clinton Contamination - The New York Times).

And that’s the corkscrew way things go with the Clintons, who are staying true to their reputation as the Tom and Daisy Buchanan of American politics. Their vast carelessness drags down everyone around them, but they persevere, and even thrive.

In a mere 11 days, arrogant, selfish actions by the Clintons contaminated three of the purest brands in Washington — Barack Obama, James Comey and Loretta Lynch — and jeopardized the futures of Hillary’s most loyal aides.

...Comey, who was then yanked up to Capitol Hill for a hearing on Thursday, revealed that instead of no emails with classified information, as Hillary had insisted, there were 110, of those turned over to the State Department. Instead of Clinton’s assurances that the server in the basement in Chappaqua had never been breached, Comey said it was possible that hostile actors had hacked Clinton’s email account. Among the emails not given to State, he said at least three contained classified information.

Hillary had already compromised the president, who feels he needs her to cement his legacy. Obama angered FBI. agents when he was interviewed on CBS’s “60 Minutes” last fall and undermined the bureau’s investigation by exonerating Hillary before the FBIB.. was done with its work, saying pre-emptively, “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

Hillary willfully put herself above the rules — again — and a president, campaign and party are all left twisting themselves into pretzels defending her.

Email scandal (and FBI acquittal) now is like malignant "cancer" within the Clinton presidential campaign. It destroys confidence of voters. From the minute news of Clinton’s secret personal email server broke in March of 2015 this scandal feeds already very high level of distrust of voters in her candidacy. Even more damaging is Comey assertion that she is "unsophisticated"  ("mentally not equipped" ) to deal with security issues and classification levels.  That is just one step from calling her arrogant  and stupid simultaneously.

There are probably at least 50% of Democrats — from Bernie Sanders supporters to those who want Vice President Joe Biden to be the candidate, who are thinking they would have been better off had Clinton been indicted. Then, the party might be able to nominated a candidate for president with less negative baggage, whose negatives are not so disturbingly high. "Rather than riding high on their own candidate’s appeal, Democrats must count on Trump to do something so supremely offensive that voters in pivotal swing states will be scared into casting their unenthusiastic ballots for “extremely careless” Clinton in November." (LA Times, Jul 7, 2016) Here are a couple of interesting comments from Guardian:

Tom Voloshen, 27 Jun 2016
When nearly half of federal tax money is spent on death destruction and endless war and when the only thing our leaders can agree on is spending for more of the same all to the benefit of Central Banking and the MIC you think the young voting for Killary will put things right? Dream on, good luck and good night. Get off your ass.


Clinton could show she is listening to the youth by dropping out of the race. #dropouthillary

Tim Cahill  -> LeSeuil  27 Jun 2016 16:43
Absolutely FALSE. The status quo is worse than Trump. A Trump win means 2 years of potential insanity followed by Democratic control of the Senate and House (if Dems control Senate in this election, nothing Trump tries to do will move anywhere) during the off-year election cycle. Then at the end of the guy's term, a Dem who is nowhere nearly as spectacularly disgusting as Clinton wins the nomination and we finally move forward, with impacts as soon as 5 years from now.

A Clinton win means more war, liberal Dems thrown under the bus for "Blue Dog" Dems in name only candidates, zero wall street oversight, and worse - for 8 years - with virtually no chance of a Dem majority in Congress. A much bigger hole is dug to get out of in the meantime.

That is far, far worse than Trump....

And as his recent speech had shown (as well as sites like and, in somewhat  indirect way,, as Tony Blair was a Bill Clinton copycat) Trump can hit Hillary were it really hurts. Just look at his classic tweet:

Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs

I wonder why Obama choose not to press for indictment of Hillary. And I think he genuinely hates her, no love left between them in any case since 2008.  Moreover endorsing a candidate who was (and still is) under FBI investigation is pretty damaging for Obama reputation. 

Bullsh**t that MSM are now propagating is essentially a variation of the old theme  "The Russians are Coming".  Here is nice satire on the topic (

MC: President Putin, did the Russian government hack the DNC email server and then publically release those emails through Wikileaks the day before the Democratic convention?

Putin: Yes.

MC: Yes! Are you serious?

Putin: I’m quite serious.

MC: How can you justify this open meddling in United States politics?

MC: How can you justify this open meddling in United States politics?

Putin: Your question should be what took Russia so long. The US oligarchs and their minions surround us with military bases and nuclear missiles, damage our trade to Europe, and seek to destabilize our domestic politics.  These emails are nothing in the big picture. But they’re sort of funny, don’t you agree?

MC: I’m not sure that funny is the right word.  What do you mean by that?

Putin:   You’ve got Hillary Clinton running as a strong and independent woman. Of course, nobody would know who she is had she not married Bill Clinton. She’s not independent. Quite the contrary. She had to marry a philandering redneck to get to where she is. When it comes to strength, I can say only this. How strong can you be if you have to cheat and create a rigged game to win the nomination?

MC: Anything else about your leak to cheer us up?

Putin: This situation is the epitome of ironic humor. After the emails were released, the focus was all on DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. That’s fine for now but what happens when people start asking why Wasserman-Schultz had the DNC screw Sanders and boost Hillary? Did she just wake up one day and decide this on her own?. Not likely. She was and remains Hillary’s agent.   It will take people a while to arrive that answer. When enough people hear about Wasserman-Schultz’s key role in the Clinton campaign, everything will be clear.   It’s adios Hillary. That inevitable conclusion, by the way, is the reason the DNC made such a big deal about Russia hacking the DNC.  That was diversion one right out of the gate.

DNC and Clinton are going to push the Russian card very hard in anticipation of further stories and revelations of corruption, money laundering, etc.  Technical analysis provided is some idiotic, entry level nonsense. And it should ne complete bullsh*t as those cases are very complex and can used smokescreen -- deflecting attention from a read source (for example Israel) to Russians (Israel has large Russian speaking population, that is well represented in security services of the country).

When the USA opened this can of worm with Stixnet (discovered around mid 2010) and Flame (discovered around 2012), they did not expect a blowback. Now it start coming: it is simply impossible to secure "normal" Microsoft-based IT system against any sophisticated adversary. Remember that we live in the period when developed by NSA and "friends" Flame and Stixnet worm are part of the recorded history. And  technologies used in them are well studied by all major world three letter agencies. They became a part of their workbook.  And the response to their devilishness they generated even more devilish methods of attack of any IT infrastructure based on Microsoft technologies, to say nothing about such low hanging fruit as completely  corrupt  DNC with semi-competent IT staff using pathetic Microsoft Exchange based email system: (naked capitalism):

However, in this short post I want to focus on a much narrower question: Can we ever know who hacked the DNC email? Because if we can't, then clearly we can't know the Russians did. And so I want to hoist this by alert reader JacobiteInTraining from comments :

Yup, as a former server admin it is patently absurd to attribute a hack to anyone in particular until a substantial amount of forensic work has been done. (read, poring over multiple internal log files…gathering yet more log files of yet more internal devices, poring over them, then – once the request hops out of your org – requesting logfiles from remote entities, poring over *those* log files, requesting further log files from yet more upstream entities, wash rinse repeat ad infinitum).

For example, at its simplest, I would expect a middling-competency hacker to find an open wifi hub across town to connect to, then VPN to server in, say, Tonga, then VPN from there to another box in Sweden, then connect to a PC previously compromised in Iowa, then VPN to yet another anonymous cloud server in Latvia, and (assuming the mountain dew is running low, gotta get cracking) then RDP to the target server and grab as many docs as possible. RAR those up and encrypt them, FTP them to a compromised media server in South Korea, email them from there to someones gmail account previously hacked, xfer them to a P2P file sharing app, and then finally access them later from a completely different set of servers.

In many cases where I did this sort of analysis I still ended up with a complete dead end: some sysadmins at remote companies or orgs would be sympathetic and give me actual related log files. Others would be sympathetic but would not give files, and instead do their own analysis to give me tips. Many never responded, and most IPs ended up at unknown (compromised) personal PCs, or devices where the owner could not be found anyway.

If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence you might get lucky – but that demographic mostly points back to script kiddies and/or criminal dweebs – i.e., rather then just surreptitiously exfiltrating the goods they instead left messages or altered things that seemed to indicate their own backgrounds or prejudices, or left a message that was more easily 'traced'. If, of course, you took that evidence at face value and it was not itself an attempt at obfuscation.

Short of a state actor such as an NSA who captures it ALL anyway, and/or can access any log files at any public or private network at its own whim – its completely silly to attribute a hack to anyone at this point.

So, I guess I am reduced to LOL OMG WTF its fer the LULZ!!!!!

And :

Just to clarify on the "…If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence…" – this is basically what I have seen reported as 'evidence' pointing to Russia: the Cyrillic keyboard signature, the 'appeared to cease work on Russian holidays' stuff, and the association with 'known Russian hacking groups'.

That's great and all, but in past work I am sure my own 'research' could easily have gotten me 'associated' with known hacking groups. Presumably various 'sophisticated' methods and tools get you closer to possible suspects…but that kind of stuff is cycled and recycled throughout the community worldwide – as soon as anything like that is known and published, any reasonably competent hacker (or org of hackers) is learning how to do the same thing and incorporating such things into their own methods. (imitation being the sincerest form of flattery)

I guess I have a lot more respect for the kinds of people I expect to be getting a paycheck from foreign Intelligence agencies then to believe that they would leave such obvious clues behind 'accidentally'. But if we are going to be starting wars over this stuff w/Russia, or China, I guess I would hope the adults in the room don't go all apesh*t and start chanting COMMIES, THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!, etc. before the ink is dry on the 'crime'.

The whole episode reminds me of the Sony hack , for which Obama also blamed a demonized foreign power. Interestingly - to beg the question here - the blaming was also based on a foreign character set in the data (though Hangul, not Korean). Look! A clue!

JacobiteInTraining's methodology also reminds me of NC's coverage of Grexit. Symbol manipulators - like those in the Democrat-leaning creative class - often believe that real economy systems are as easy to manipulate as symbol systems are. In Greece, for example, it really was a difficult technical challenge for Greece to reintroduce the drachma, especially given the time-frame, as contributor Clive remorselessly showed. Similarly, it's really not credible to hire a consultant and get a hacking report with a turnaround time of less than a week, even leaving aside the idea that the DNC just might have hired a consultant that would give them the result they wanted (because who among us, etc.) What JacobiteInTraining shows us is that computer forensics is laborious, takes time, and is very unlikely to yield results suitable for framing in the narratives proffered by the political class. Of course, that does confirm all my priors!

Readers, thoughts?

Update Addition by Yves:

Another reader, Hacker, observed (emphasis original):

There is a problem with those who argue that these are sophisticated Nation State attackers and then point to the most basic circumstantial evidence to support their case. I'd bet that, among others, the Israelis have hacked some Russian servers to launch attacks from and have some of their workers on a Russian holiday schedule. Those things have been written about in attack analysis so much over the last 15-20 years that they'd be stupid not to.

Now, I'm not saying the Israelis did it. I'm saying that the evidence provided so far by those arguing it is Russia is so flaky as to prove that the Russia accusers are blinded or corrupted by their own political agenda.

Update [Yves, courtesy Richard Smith] 7:45 AM. Another Medium piece by Jeffrey Carr, Can Facts Slow The DNC Breach Runaway Train? who has been fact-checking this story and comes away Not Happy. For instance:

Thomas Rid wrote:

One of the strongest pieces of evidence linking GRU to the DNC hack is the equivalent of identical fingerprints found in two burglarized buildings: a reused command-and-control address - 176.31.112[.]10 - that was hard coded in a piece of malware found both in the German parliament as well as on the DNC's servers. Russian military intelligence was identified by the German domestic security agency BfV as the actor responsible for the Bundestag breach. The infrastructure behind the fake MIS Department domain was also linked to the Berlin intrusion through at least one other element, a shared SSL certificate.

This paragraph sounds quite damning if you take it at face value, but if you invest a little time into checking the source material, its carefully constructed narrative falls apart.

Problem #1: The IP address 176.31.112[.]10 used in the Bundestag breach as a Command and Control server has never been connected to the Russian intelligence services. In fact, Claudio Guarnieri , a highly regarded security researcher, whose technical analysis was referenced by Rid, stated that "no evidence allows to tie the attacks to governments of any particular country."

Mind you, he has two additional problems with that claim alone. This piece is a must read if you want to dig further into this topic.


[1] More than a talking point but, really, less than a narrative. It's like we need a new word for these bite-sized, meme-ready, disposable, "throw 'em against the wall and see if they stick" stories; mini-narrative, or narrativelette, perhaps. "All the crunch of a real narrative, but none of the nutrition!"

[2] This post is not about today's Trump moral panic, where the political class is frothing and stamping about The Donald's humorous (or ballbusting, take your pick) statement that he "hoped" the Russians had hacked the 30,000 emails that Clinton supposedly deleted from the email server she privatized in her public capacity as Secretary of State before handing the whole flaming and steaming mess over to investigators. First, who cares? Those emails are all about yoga lessons and Chelsea's wedding. Right? Second, Clinton didn't secure the server for three months. What did she expect? Third, Trump's suggestion is just dumb; the NSA has to have that data, so just ask them? Finally, to be fair, Trump shouldn't have uttered the word "Russia." He should have said "Liechtenstein," or "Tonga," because it's hard to believe that there's a country too small to hack as fat a target as Clinton presented; Trump was being inflammatory. Points off. Bad show.

Pavel , July 28, 2016 at 4:01 am

For those interested, the excellent interviewer Scott Horton just spoke with Jeffrey Carr, an IT security expert about all this. It's about 30 mins:

Jeffrey Carr, a cyber intelligence expert and CEO of Taia Global, Inc., discusses his fact-checking of Josh Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo article that claims a close alliance between Trump and Putin; and why the individuals blaming Russia for the DNC email hack are more motivated by politics than solid evidence.

–The Scott Horton Show: 7/25/16 Jeffrey Carr

Carr makes the point that even supposed clues about Russian involvement ("the default language is Cyrillic!") are meaningless as all these could be spoofed by another party.

Separately it just shows again Team Clinton's (and DNC's) political deviousness and expertise how they –with the full support of the MSM of course –have managed to deflect the discussion to Trump and Russia from how the DNC subverted US democracy.

pretzelattack , July 28, 2016 at 4:15 am

and again, we see the cavalier attitude about national security from the clinton camp, aggravating the already tense relationship with russia over this bullshit, all to avoid some political disadvantage. clinton doesn't care if russia gets the nuclear launch codes seemingly, but impact her chances to win the race and it's all guns firing.

dk , July 28, 2016 at 4:59 am

"… all these could be spoofed by another party."

Well yeah, and I could be a bot, how do you know I'm not?

Absent any other evidence to work with, I can accept it as credible that a clumsy Russian or Baltic user posted viewed and saved docs instead of the originals; par for the course in public and private bureaucracies the world over. It would have been useful to see the original Properties metadata; instead we get crapped up copies. That only tells me the poster is something of a lightweight, and it at least somewhat suggests that these docs passed through multiple hands.

But that doesn't mean A) the original penetration occurred under state control (or even in Russia proper), much less B) that Putin Himself ordered the hack attempts, which is the searing retinal afterimage that the the media name-dropping and photo-illustrating conflation produces.

Unspoofed, the Cyrillic fingerprints still do not closely constrain conclusion to A, and even less to B.

Another name for the trick DNC used is "Catch a chief" -- a deflection of attention from their own criminal behaviour. But they should now be really afraid about what can come next from Wikileaks or elsewhere. I don't think Hillary was capable to understand how easy it is to find corruption, especially when there's a email trail.  And this lack of understanding is a typical feature of a sociopath ( )

As Guardian reported (The Guardian) Clinton campaign tried old "dog eat my homework" trick blaming everything on Putin and trying to ignore the content of them and the dirty laundry they expose:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has accused Russia of meddling in the 2016 presidential election, saying its hackers stole Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails and released them to foment disunity in the party and aid Donald Trump.

Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, said on Sunday that “experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump”.

“I don’t think it’s coincidental that these emails are being released on the eve of our convention here,” he told CNN’s State of the Union, alluding to the party’s four-day exercise in unification which is set to take place this week in Philadelphia.

“This isn’t my assertion,” Mook said. “This is what experts are telling us.”

In a statement, the Clinton campaign repeated the accusation: “This is further evidence the Russian government is trying to influence the outcome of the election.”

Classic scapegoating. As Guardian commenter noted "Why is the (potential) perpetrator of the leak more significant than the content of the leak??

As life exceeds satire, one can imagine that within a week Wikileaks will produce those "missing e-mails". And later Hillary's Wall Street speeches, following the next appeal from Trump.

In any case a major US establishment party explicitly levied it's resources against a candidate it didn't like behaviors like a Mafioso clan, and when caught red handed start to deflect attention via corrupt and subservant MSM, changing focus into Russia and Putin instead. Great journalism!" The Guardian

I find very I interesting that, somehow, the initial DNC leak story failed to make a headline position (a day late, at that) on the Guardian, but now that it's blown up on other channels, the DNC's ridiculous conspiracy theory/distraction attempt gets top billing here. Ridiculous.

Why is the (potential) perpetrator of the leak more significant than the content of the leak?? A major US establishment party explicitly levied it's resources against a candidate it didn't like, and somehow we're talking about Putin instead. Great journalism.

Chanze Jennings ->  atopic

The Guardian has sunk to a new low and has entirely no shame. It's a sad day for journalism when Twitter has more integrity than most news outlets. And they wonder why newspapers are going the way of the Dodo. Remember when real journalists presented stories with little bias and tried hard to stick to the facts?

BTW there are some real experts on this and they have a different opinion. Check comments for the blog post:

Heat on Sanders for betrayal of his supporters

DNC betrayed Bernie Sanders and the rest of America. But at this moment Sanders already folded. In other words, the Clinton mafia again created a mess. And they are now turning to Sanders — the very one they betrayed — to come in and clean it up. In effect Clinton mafia wants Sanders persuade  his supporters not to harbor any ill feelings over being stabbed in the back. That gave him perfect opportunity to reneg of his promised and run as independent or with Green Party

Bernie caved. A pity really, but understandable given the fact that the collusion between a corrupt Hillary campaign and a mendacious "free" media meant that even getting to the Convention floor was a struggle.

NYT now is afraid to open comments on this as they will swamped with denunciation of Hillary.  Sanders lied to his supporters that Trump represents bigger danger then Killary. nobody represent bigger danger then Killary.  Bernie Sanders, hypocrite, or canny operator? Is this another hostage situation and with what Clinton criminal cartel threatened him ?  “This campaign is not really about Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, or any other candidate who sought the presidency,” Sanders told a New Hampshire crowd Tuesday in a speech endorsing Hillary Clinton. “This campaign is about the needs of the American people and addressing the very serious crisis that we face.” Posting under the hashtag #SandersSellsOut, sanders supporters drew parallels with a previous uncomfortable endorsement of a presidential candidate, labeling it “another hostage situation.” Most view his endorsement on Monday, as the infidelity in a relationship and a bad break up.

Democratic voters are now splintered over neoliberal globalization, much like Republican supporters. Most already made decisions whom they will support and Clinton mafia has little chances to move those who reject their criminality and support of neoliberal globalization. It was actually Bill Clinton who sold the party to Wall Street making it another wing on neoliberal party of globalist and transnational corporations.

The Democrats' dirty laundry was aired at a worse possibly time for Hillary and I hope she will pay for DNC manipulations full price. It is clear after the Brexit vote and Donald Trump’s victory in the Republican presidential primaries that voters are revolting against the neoliberal globalization that dominated the US and Britain economic and foreign policy since the 1970th, if not earlier.  The willingness of people to be intimidated by bought neoliberal economists into supporting cosmopolitan outcomes appears for the moment to have been exhausted.

Corrupt to the core MSM ignore the event and try to distract readers with scapegoating nonsense

ABC and CNN are essentially part of the DNC propaganda wing. They and most other MSM were trying to reshape this mess to reduce the amount of damage.  Stephanopolis worked for Bill Clinton. And donated $75,000 to Hillary's campaign. And now he is trying to paint Trump as having ties to the Putin regime.

They try do not touch Hillary connections with Saudi, revive email scandal, touch Clinton cash skandal,  etc. They really behave like they are part of Clinton campaign. And readers noticed that as is evident from comments (The 4 Most Damaging Emails From the DNC WikiLeaks Dump - ABC News):

Kintbury  -> Mr. Fusion 21 hours ago

You are going to have to do a heck of a lot better than that. A Saudi Prince has admitted to funding a large portion of Hillary's campaign. That is a tie. All the money she took from those countries while benefiting them as Secretary of State is a tie.

Know Mei > deanbob
"Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do," Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Oh, believe me, Debbie, the American people know what the Democratic Party and the Republican Party does. Both parties embellish, manipulate, grant high positions to big donors, plot, backstab and railroad the vote of the American electorate. However, business as usual did not work well for the Republican Party elitists this primary season. Donald Trump beat the Republican Party elitists at their game. Bernie Sanders attempted to do the same to the Democratic Party.
Alti  -> ADLives 2 days ago

I think they are being short-sighted. Trump will in all likelihood win now and I don't see him sticking to the script. The media has completely betrayed the American public on this story. From Facebook and Twitter blocking and deleting stories re: same initially - to now with the non-articles we are getting from the big news agencies. Finding decent, honest news coverage shouldn't be so hard.

William Carr > Know Mei •

“Both parties embellish, manipulate, grant high positions to big donors, plot, backstab and railroad the vote of the American electorate”

America needs international monitors to oversee our elections

In reality Wikileaks exposed the blatant corruption of the primary process for voters. The elephant was in the room, but the real situation with Democratic Party primary process is now  suppressed.

Emailgate and "bathroom server": Creation of Shadow IT within the State Department

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error
John Kenneth Galbraith

"All Pigs Are Equal, But Some Pigs Are More Equal Than Others"

Hillary Clinton email scandal is not a one off.  it's just one chunk of a long chain, a long pattern of ethical lapses, hypertrophied sense of entitlement, arrogance, obsessive secrecy and paranoia. But it is a spectacular blunder which led to her characterization by FBI director as "extremely careless" and "not sophisticated" in handling security information. 

As  John Kenneth Galbraith quipped "If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error."  Jeopardizing the whole Department of State security is an achievement it itself, that will definitely goes into history books. Hillary Clinton was already known as the only First Lady in history to be fingerprinted. This episode happened during the Whitewater investigation when records long characterized as missing turned up in the Clintons' personal quarters at the White House (CNN) .  Questions about her private email server are a legitimate political issue because they demonstrate the typical for Clintons pattern of behavior: she repeatedly demonstrated extremely self serving behaviour, to the extent that some people call her a female psychopath. Clinton turned over 30,490 messages to the agency that she arbitrarily deemed to be possibly work-related. She also destroyed 31,830 messages that were classified by her as "personal" out of which several thousand later proved by FBI to be actually work-related. The private server was then subsequently wiped clean, while she was under investigation by Congressional Select Committee on Benghazi. she is now under investigation for perjury during the testimony before that committee.

She also made history in certain other ways:  she became that first presidential candidate which under FBI investigation. Although FBI investigation on mishandling classified information absolved her of criminal negligence, the current investigation about perjury before Congress is still lingering. Moreover, in 2016 "emailgate" scandal became linked to "Clinton cash" scandal and became more toxic for Hillary Clinton (and Obama administration, which is trying to swipe it under the carpet).  See Stefan Molyneux  presentation  The Truth About Hillary Clinton s Email Controversy (Feb 3, 2016). 

The first question is why she decided to maintain a private email server in her basement. The most plausible answer if to avoid disclosing her emails to FOIA request.  Storing business-related State Department emails on her private server, completely outside government IT infrastructure is a mind-boggling arrogance for anybody who understands the gravity and sensitivity of her position in the US government and possible consequences of the email security breaches. Arrogance has it's uses, but arrogance combined with incompetence which was clearly the case here, is rarely going to work well. Obviously Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and her lax record-keeping while secretary of state violated the department’s policies and her NDA ( Any federal employee’s decision to conduct all e-mail correspondence through a private e-mail network, using a address, is illegal  under NDA she signed, the Federal Records Act and NARA regulations governing all federal agencies. The server which later was nicknamed "Clinton bathroom server" was operated  by two part time administrators (IT director of her 2008 Presidential run campaign and another sysadmin closely connected with Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation) and later management of it was delegated to a mom-and-pop shop with employees that has no federal security clearance. At one point emails were copied and handled to her private lawyers, who also did not have any security clearance.

At the core of  "Clinton bathroom server" scandal was the successful creation by Secretary Clinton her private Shadow IT within State Department. This is what makes this case so unique and Hillary Clinton a Queen of "Shadow IT". From pure security standpoint this is as close to introduction of Trojan horse as one can get: an illegal part of infrastructure disguised as legitimate and implicitly designed to nullify State Department IT security. As Adam Chandler notes in his article "The State Secrets in Chappaqua"  Clinton "created her own infrastructure that she privatized entirely and put under her personal control." ( The Atlantic,  Mar 4, 2015). In other words for the sake of complete control of her own emails Hillary Clinton put into risk all diplomatic personnel of State Department and probably undermined  might undermine some aspects of the USA foreign policy.

This  "Shadow IT"  infrastructure was designed to shield Clinton's correspondence from Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests, inhibiting transparency. Secretary Clinton emailed probably around a hundred people within the department and Obama so this fact was widely known. Concerns raised by at least two State Department employees were squashed by Clinton loyalist, who occupied the position of Director of S/ES-IRM (Report Concerned State Dept Employees Told to 'Never Speak of' Hillary's Server - Breitbart ).  He lied that the arrangement was approved by the State Department legal staff.

Two staff in S/ES-IRM reported to OIG that, in late 2010, they each discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account in separate meetings with the then-Director of S/ES-IRM. In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further.

As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system. According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.

S/ES here means the Executive Secretariat (S/ES), which contains among other things the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) and the Bureau of Information Resource Management (IRM): two entities at the State Department responsible for the security of Department electronic communications.  That means that one Clinton loyalist in the senior position in State Department, was able to suppress all the mechanisms that were designed installation of such a rogue server. 

The server also has an account for Ms. Abedin, a trusted member of her inner circle. In email communications with her Hillary Clinton can pick and chose on which account she wants to communicate.

The essence of "Clinton bathroom server" scandal was the successful creation by Secretary Clinton private Shadow IT within State Department. Clinton "created her own infrastructure that she privatized entirely and put under her personal control." This  "Shadow IT"  infrastructure was designed to shield Clinton's correspondence from Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests, inhibiting transparency.

Hillary Clinton private email address and the existence of the "bathroom server"  was revealed by accidental hack by a Romanian hacker of Bill Clinton's close associate Sidney Blumenthal email account (, Mar 20, 2013). At this point it became clear Clinton’s apparent use of the non-official account likely violated federal regulations governing records retention as well as storage of sensitive materials on her private server as most emails were "private intelligence" reports (zerohedge, 2015-03-03)   After that all hell broke lose for Hillary and destruction of information started. It proceeded at two stages:

  • In the first stage emails that were classified by Hillary private lawyers (who did not have any security clearance) as private were deleted.
  • On the second stage the whole server was wiped clean (which directly violated Hillary NDA) and backups were supposedly destroyed (some might survive by being uploaded "to the cloud storage") . It looks like that the server at various points of his lifetime might have backups stored by the third parties (which is another gross violation of security).

In March 2013 [email protected] email address was still active and Gawker claims that they were able to email to this address without the message bouncing (This Is Hillary Clinton’s Secret Email [email protected]). Actually from this point anybody could send Hillary a email :-).  

As always Hillary resorted to denial and lies, and then under pressure of facts revealed via FOIA lawsuits was forced to change her tune and apologize for her "indiscretions".

As Craig Matteson noted in his Amazon review Hillary Clinton emailgate is intrinsically connected with "Clinton cash" scandal. Hillary essentially practiced a gray variation of "protection racket" while being the Secretary of State, the variant that makes it difficult to nail her for direct violations of the law, but  that leaves bad taste in the mouth. And she wanted to conceal all the traces of this "protection racket" erasing related emails and calendar appointments with foreign officials from public record: 

The Clintons have a well-practiced and effective Method of dealing with an immediate crisis caused when yet another scandal arises, and they always do with these two. It works like this: The scandal breaks and Team Clinton immediately sends out people like Begala and Carville to attack the reporters, whistleblowers, or regular folks who dare tell the world what is going on. Another group of somewhat more removed Clintonistas hit the air, cable, and print media to deny the scandal outright. The Clintons avoid speaking for as long as possible. The idea is to consume as many of the information cycles as possible with their own accusations and denials to overwhelm the scandal outright. If they can’t do that and they must speak, they know it doesn’t matter what they say. It can be directly in conflict with the evidence because they have put so much by way of denial in the media that the “fair” media will quote the denials as if they were legitimate bits of evidence, too. Eventually, another event comes along and bumps this scandal from the headlines and then it will either go away or, if it does come back into view, they just refuse to discuss it as old news and declare that the public knows it was politically motivated and that there is nothing to it. Really. This is their method. And it works for them. Absurdly; it works

... ... ...

A super rich person the Clintons want as a donor and who needs or wants a piece of influence peddled for them by the Clinton Machine for their nation, oil venture, uranium deals, their for profit university, their “non-profit” charity, telemarketing business, or whatever, walks into the shadow of the great Sun of the Clinton Sphere of Influence. Checks are written to the Clinton Foundations, fabulously rich speaking fees are paid, and lavish travel and accommodations are provided to Bill and/or Hillary. While on scene giving the speech, photo opportunities and favorable stories are provided on camera to great fanfare and wide media coverage for the charitable work being publicized. Once the lights, cameras, and recorders are turned off and in the quiet after the reporters go off to wherever it is reporters go when not flacking for the Clintons, deals are worked out in quiet rooms without anything being done directly that breaks the law or at least not recorded and becoming evidence for breaking the law. Remember, this is all about access to the Clinton world. They provide connections to a vast entourage of connected influencers. The price of admission are the big donations to the Clinton Foundation and the fees to Bill and Hillary.

While Hillary Clinton was cleared by FBI of charges of mishandling of classified information on July 5, 2016 based on questionable "lack of criminal intent" justification, questions still linger. FBI director was grilled by republicans on July 7, 2016 and this hearing revealed some unpleasant for Hillary Clinton truths (the most damaging was claim that she was "unsophisticated", a politically correct term for being extremely dumb). Also the "lack of intent" issue came under strong fire damaging FBI director reputation:  

So Clinton didn't "intend" to hire computer personnel to implement server hardware at her home, didn't "intend" to secure a domain name, didn't "intend" to register a mail server on the internet, didn't "intend" to have high speed connection infrastructure installed at her home to facilitate data traffic, didn't intend to make all her email accounts point to her secret server, didn't "intend" to delete thousands of emails (that SHE claims were personal ;), didn't "intend" to do all this when facilities were made available and required by rule for her electronic communications while SoS. Based on Comey's logic it was apparently an accident, forced on Clinton without her consent or she just flat didn't understand. This is the same Clinton who spent 8 years in the White House where security measures are everywhere, who underwent numerous security protocol briefings as first lady, who had to take (and affirm by signature) security classes as a senator and the same Clinton that as SoS was fully briefed and required to acknowledge/affirm dept. of State security protocols that specifically prohibited her activities.

It boils down to four letters: "FOIA" - I am above the common man (whom I constantly claim to relate to), the rules don't apply to me, it's none of their business and I figured a way to get around the Freedom Of Information Act (as I claim to be the "most transparent"). WOW!

And she still is under investigation on perjury changes and possibly "Clinton cash" scandal connected with Clinton Foundation "pay for play" scheme. The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid or less then 1%.New York Post . “It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group. As Trump aptly remarked: "Clintons turned politics of personal enrichment into an art form" (POLITICO, Jun 08, 2016):

"They've made hundreds of millions of dollars selling access, selling favors, selling government contracts, and I mean hundreds of millions of dollars."

Trump also said that Clinton "turned the State Department into her private hedge fund. The Russians, the Saudis, the Chinese all gave money to Bill and Hillary and got favorable treatment in return. It's a sad day in America when foreign governments with deep pockets have more influence in our own country than our great citizens."

In this sense attempt to hide emails from FOIA requests is intrinsically connected with attempt to hide possible fundraising activities of Hillary Clinton while was in position of the Secretary of State. Around 68% of Americans call Hillary Clinton’s email server unethical or illegal. In April 2016, the epicenter of the scandal temporary moved  to the question of mishandling classified information. this period ended in her acquittal by FBI on July 5, 2016. which in itself proved to be controversial and involved re-interpretation of existing laws. Some of her own emails were "born classified", and as such have no place of unprotected private email server:

Her claims about not having classified data on her private server collapsed as 1,340 classified e-mails materialized. She then pleaded that nothing on her server was “marked classified.” Plenty of “born classified” messages surfaced that anyone with six years’ service on the Senate Armed Services Committee (as she had) easily would recognize as classified — even without markings.

As Eugene Robinson wrote in the Washington Post (Hillary Clinton is her own worst enemy - The Washington Post, August 17, 2015):

If you accept the job of secretary of state, you inevitably surrender some of your privacy. Any public official’s work-related e-mails are the modern equivalent of the letters, memos and diaries that fill the National Archives. They tell our nation’s history and belong to all of us. Even if your name is Clinton, you have no right to unilaterally decide what is included and what is not.

... ... ...

I wish she would explain why, after turning over to the State Department the e-mails she deemed work-related, she had the server professionally wiped clean. The explanation that she didn’t want people prying into private matters such as “planning for [daughter] Chelsea’s wedding . . . as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes” is unconvincing.

Some emails contained the security classification markings which were ignored by Hillary.  Classified e-mails cannot be  forwarded from classified government systems to unclassified email. That means Clinton’s staff retyped or rescanned portion of classified emails or documents and quoted them in the non-classified emails threads in Clinton's private email server.  In any case, the fact of the matter is that  Clinton’s "retail" BlackBerry and "private" mail server contained multiple classified documents. Which should be obvious to Clinton due to her long record of government service.  Some documents created by Clinton herself belong to the category "born classified" too. There were also some exchanges of emails with Obama.   One US general even suggested that military and intelligence operations now has to change, due to the very real possibility that the Clinton server had been compromised. Handling copies of her "work-related" emails on a thumb drive in her private lawyers is another clear, provable violation of the law.

Republican press will never allow her out of this scandal, even if she is elected. This  "emailgate" scandal will follow her much like Monica Lewinsky scandal followed Bill Clinton. And a special prosecutor might be assigned by Republican Congress.

The scandal also put a long dark shadow on Obama. The problem for Obama is that he gave "wink-wink, nod-nod" type of approval by communicating with Hillary Clinton using her private address.  I doubt that he and his staff did not understand that this is a non .gov address. If so, he is an accomplice.   That fact makes more probably that in order to swipe the dirt under the carpet she will not be indicted during Obama administration term, as he is way concerned about his "legacy". And this is his legacy, in full glory.  Moreover,  Obama further damaged his already low reputation by endorsing her candidacy while FBI investigation was not finished.  And if you think about it, FBI is not interested too much in indicting her iether: this "skeleton in the closet" essentially guarantee FBI "free hands" during her presidency. 

Due to level of anger about "dual justice" (Laws are only for small people or "all pigs are equal but some pigs are more equal then other")  "emailgate" served as a powerful electronic amplifier  of "Clinton Cash" scandal. While being two separate events,  both are connected by a about tremendous, pathological ("After me, deluge"), bordering of psychopathic sense of entitlement and feeling of being above the law of Hillary Clinton.   Of course,  her indictment would be the best case for Democratic Party (who can put Sanders as a candidate) and additionally it provides an opportunity to weaken Clinton's neoliberal (dominant) wing of it. But chances for this event are slim, as Obama is also involved and would prefer to swipe the dirt under the carpet to protect his "legacy".  Still, there is something wonderful in seeing a corrupt neoliberal Democratic Party elite forced to face the truth about their beloved candidate and the President.

Some parts of Hillary Clinton email saga are so grotesque that they remind me the pages of the world-famous novel The Good Soldier Svejk. See also Bullshit is everywhere

See Hillary Clinton email scandal: Timeline and summary for more information

Hillary role in creating Syrian bloodbath

In 2012 U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton decided that she knew best what was good for the people of Syria.  She decided that President Assad "had to go".

In coordination with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar she launched a war to invade Syria and overthrow the government.  Huge military bases were set up in Jordan and Turkey for puppet armies. 

So far it has turned into an utter disaster.  Over 300,000 people have been killed by Clinton's policies.  Assad remains in power.   Hilary's ridiculous "Syrian Free Army" is in chaos.  Meanwhile, Islamic extremists backed by Hilary's allies have invaded Iraq.

Here is a good summary of what has happened.

History of America's Role in Syrian Violence:  Before the U.S. got involved, this was a war with casualties in the 1,000's. Yet now around 150,000 people have died and cultural and archaeological treasures have been destroyed. The U.S. has inflamed a conflict that may have been ended quickly by the Syrian government, had we not chosen to get involved. The other fact is that a majority of Syrians (55%) support Assad. Is it right for the U.S. to oppose the will of the Syrian people? Jeffrey Sachs discusses this more in an article below:

Calling off America's Bombs (Common Dreams: Jeffrey Sachs, 9-5-13)

Another debt slave created by Hillary: Nulandgate, Ukrainian coup and subsequent bloodbath and impoverishment of the country

As the result of Hillary initiated color revolution, thousands of people died and the standard of living in the country dropped 100% or more. National currency was devaluated 300% (from 8 Grivna per dollar to more then 24 grivna per dollar),  while cost of living climbed up (especially housing costs and energy costs). Pensioners are literally starving in Ukraine. More then half of the population wants to emigrate.

Victoria Nuland was appointed to the position Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs while Clinton was Secretary of states. Nuland is widely believed to have masterminded Ukrainian coup d'état in 2014. See "Fuck the EU": State Department neocons show EU its real place

She was nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in May 2013 and sworn in to fill that role in September 2013, So while she was appointed by John Kerry, who became Secretary of State in February 1, 2013, it is clear that she is Hillary protégé. She appointed her to be a spokeswoman for the State Department, instead of sending her as close Cheney associate packing. So Victoria Nuland is not only Dick Cheney protégé. And that means that Clinton carries some responsibility for Nulandgate. Victoria Nuland's husband Robert Kagan who is a leading neocon (and one of the founders of PNAC) actually approvingly  noted Hillary Clinton's neocon leaning in New York Times:

But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

While moving Ukraine closer to West might be a worthwhile goal, but handing of this geopolitical task by the USA is a classic case of "elephant in china store". Level of incompetence, Chutzpah demonstrated by Nuland and her neocon friends in State Department is simply staggering. With the level of control of Yanukovich they demonstrated during EuroMaydan events, including their ability simply buy some government figures the need to violet overthrow of his government is highly questionable.

As a result, Ukrainians (like Iranian and Libyans before them) became another victim of Washington's geopolitical games. And they are paying for those games with their lives, with dramatically (to the level of starvation of pensioners; and I am not exaggerating) diminished standard of living and destroyed infrastructure, completely broken economic ties with Russia -- which was the major economic partner and major market for Ukrainian goods.

While rise of Ukrainian nationalism was given, taking into account the mere fact of independence, the forms which it took are definitely sub optional. Now they have a civil war in the South East, with all the associated cruelty and destruction. In other words "Somalization" of Ukraine proceeded after February 22, 2014 at full speed. It's very easy to destroy a civil order in a fragile country, but it will take decades to repair the damage and bring citizens back to their previous level of well-being and security.

Victoria Nuland will probably enter the history as a person who instigated the start of civil war in Ukraine. Generally Ukraine proved to be another colossal failure of the USA foreign policy: they tried to hit Russia, but got closer alliance of Russia and China. And like elephant in China store they hit Ukraine first, breaking country into peaces, destroying the economy in the process. And what West needed is a new market for manufacturing, not a new hot spot. Not another failed country that now needs to be financed and maintained by Western loans which have little chance to be repaid. Actually the role of Germany and personally Angela Merkel in all this mess is pretty negative too, although Germans definitely can't match the level of Chitzpah of their transatlantic masters.

Important factor contributing to the failures of the US foreign policy in recent years is the decrease of the intellectual potential of the "foreign policy establishment". To see the trend it's enough to compare Kissinger or Brzezinski, with the current Secretary Kerry and Victoria Nuland. The result is the degradation of quality of the USA foreign policy, which now creates a lot of unnecessary anger and indignation in large part of Europe and Asia. Even when goals of the USA are not that imperialistic per se. Unlike McFaul who got Ph.D, Nuland has just BA from Brown University (1983) where she studied Russian literature, political science, and history. He never served in Russian or any Eastern European embassy. Her major previous position were U.S. ambassador to NATO and State Department spokeswoman. Both positions required very little diplomacy and from formation of her worldview point of view were clearly detrimental to her current role. Especially, her previous position as the U.S. ambassador to NATO which essentially conditions to view Russia only via hairlines. As she lacks real, native diplomatic skills which the following dialogs clearly attests:

The start of this trend toward the intellectual degradation probably has began with the collapse of the USSR. At that time, the USA elite suddenly became the actual "master of the world", which does not need to be engaged in maneuvers in international politics, but can simply to impose their will through various levers of political and economic coercion, and, if necessary, by military operations. The first robin of this degradation was "not so bright" Madeleine Albright -- an interesting example if not a female sociopath, but pretty much borderline personality. Those personalities do not care about building lasting fundament of international relations based on UN (which was created as an effort for preventing the repeat of WWII), they were hell bent on destroying this framework to provide the USA maximum political and economic advantages of the unipolar world. As such they all work toward WWIII ( Jen, July 13, 2014 at 6:11 pm ):

Since when Madeleine Albright (she who uttered the notorious line “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” to Colin Powell) was US State Secretary, the US State Department has more or less acted as a rogue element within the US government. Not that this particular gallery of rogues has been the only one with a mind of its own. The US Treasury is dominated by Goldman Sachs management, some of whose people have investments and links with arms companies and thus clear conflicts of interest. Plus US economic and foreign policies have been dictated by University of Chicago alumni who worship Friedrich Hayek / Milton Friedman free market economics and Leo Strauss’s faux-Platonian Republic political philosophy in which a ruling elite tells lies to its subjects to keep them all under control.

Nuland can also can be viewed as example of a related trend: the trend for the appointment to senior posts in the State Department people on the criteria of loyalty to a particular clan of the political elite to the detriment of the interests of the state as a whole. This trend started under Reagan and which got in full force under Bush II and continued under Barack Obama administration. Victoria Nuland is a member of Cheney' Cabal of Zealots:

'Cabal' of Zealots - Wilkerson calls Cheney’s inner group a “cabal” of arrogant, intensely zealous, highly focused loyalists. Recalling Cheney’s staff interacting in a variety of interagency meetings and committees, “The staff that the vice president sent out made sure that those [committees] didn’t key anything up that wasn’t what the vice president wanted,” says Wilkerson. “Their style was simply to sit and listen, and take notes. And if things looked like they were going to go speedily to a decision that they knew that the vice president wasn’t going to like, generally they would, at the end of the meeting, in great bureaucratic style, they’d say: ‘We totally disagree. Meeting’s over.’” The committee agendas were generally scuttled. And if something did get written up as a “decision memo” bound for the Oval Office, Cheney himself would ensure that it died before ever reaching fruition.”

It does not help that Nuland is married to Washington Post columnist and neoconservative historian Robert Kagan, who helped sell the case for the Iraq War, advised both Mitt Romney and John McCain’s presidential campaigns, and co-founded the Project for a New American Century think tank with Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. Obama has spoken fondly of some of Kagan’s work as well, but his credentials in the conservative foreign policy establishment are unimpeachable.

And it does not help that her previous job was State Department spokesmen, the job who would radicalized into right-wing neocon zealot even more moderate person then Nuland was at the moment of her appointment. Now she is definitely far tot he right from her husband Robert Kagan:

Nuland is married to Washington Post columnist and neoconservative historian Robert Kagan, who helped sell the case for the Iraq War, advised both Mitt Romney and John McCain’s presidential campaigns, and co-founded the Project for a New American Century think tank with Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. Obama has spoken fondly of some of Kagan’s work as well, but his credentials in the conservative foreign policy establishment are unimpeachable.

"Republicans are good at wielding power, but they're not so wonderful when it comes to the more idealistic motives of liberal internationalism. The Democrats are better at liberal internationalism, but they're not so good at wielding power. I would say that if there were a Joe Lieberman/John McCain party, I'm in the Joe Lieberman/John McCain party."

- Robert Kagan

Leading antiwar blogger Marcy Wheeler called her a “former Cheney hack.” When such people commit errors, some of which had all the signs of intentional crimes, they are swiped under the carpet. This has created favorable conditions for creation of the situation when real national of the USA were sacrificed to the private interests of individual corporations and oligarchic clans, which enriched themselves using "sacred" neoliberal principle: income to private corporations, expenses to the state.

This reduction of the intellectual potential of the American elite contributed to gradual replacement of real experts in the higher echelons of power with incompetents who are sometimes called "effective managers" - people with close, often family connection to powerful clans (such as neoconservatives) and who after obtaining particular position try to advance interests of those clans on international arena. Occupying senior positions, such "effective managers" select the relevant employees. Both Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland can be viewed as examples of this trend.

Foreign policy became yet another area in which, in best traditions of neoliberalism, the objective interests of the United States as a state are sacrificed to the interests of private corporations. for example by driving the United States into military conflicts, in result of which the country suffers tremendous losses -- both material and image-related -- and only certain corporations reap huge profits (Iraq). There are similar signs of the same intellectual degradation in other areas, for example development of new types of military hardware based on unproven technologies. Which gives zero results but still generating huge profits for military-industrial complex.

This intellectual degradation strengthen Messianic elements in the USA foreign policy, the confidence that only the USA should solely determine all the elements of the new world order in all countries. And for this trend EuroMaidan in general and Victoria Nuland in particular is a textbook example.

Destruction of Libyan state fiasco and sociopathic reaction of Hillary Clinton on brutal death of Qaddafi: We came, we saw, he died

As CBS News reporte Hillary has a classic psychopathic reaction to the brutal killing of Qaddafi

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a laugh with a television news reporter moments after hearing deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had been killed.

"We came, we saw, he died," she joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi's death by an aide in between formal interviews.

Clinton was in Tripoli earlier this week for talks with leaders of Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC).

The reporter asked if Qaddafi's death had anything to do with her surprise visit to show support for the Libyan people.

"No," she replied, before rolling her eyes and saying "I'm sure it did" with a chuckle.

Watch the video here:

Justin Raimondo provided a good alaisis of this Clinton blood-soaked failure in his article Libya How Hillary Clinton Destroyed a Country -

March 04, 2016

She’s learned nothing from her blood-soaked failure

by Justin Raimondo,

Print This 

“We came, we saw, he died,” exclaimed an ebullient Hillary Clinton, as she exulted over the horrific death of Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, who was sodomized with a bayonet before being brutally murdered by rampaging militiamen. Visiting Tripoli, the Libyan capital, the American Secretary of State was eager to take credit for the “liberation” of yet another Muslim country by Western powers acting in concert. An extensive and quite revealing New York Times investigation (Pt. 1 here, Pt. 2 here) reports on “a ‘ticktock’ that described her starring role in the events that had led to this moment. The timeline, her top policy aide, Jake Sullivan, wrote, demonstrated Mrs. Clinton’s ‘leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s Libya policy from start to finish.’ The memo’s language put her at the center of everything: ‘HRC announces … HRC directs … HRC travels … HRC engages,’ it read.”

These days, however, out on the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton is not quite so eager to take ownership of what can only be characterized as an unmitigated disaster, a case history dramatizing the perils of “liberal” interventionism from inception to bloody denouement.

Mrs. Clinton was easily won over by the Libyan rebels who presented a utopian view of what the post-revolutionary era would look like: there would be free elections, a free media, women would be able to “do it all,” and everyone would get a pony. They “’said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off,’ said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. ‘They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe.’”

Confirmation bias in a writer or reporter is fatal, but only to his/her own career: in a Secretary of State it is a death sentence for thousands. And that’s exactly how it turned out in Hillary’s case.

To this day, Clinton avers that “it’s too soon to tell” whether the Libya intervention qualifies as an unmitigated failure – even in the face of marauding militias, no less than two self-declared governments, the horrific death of an American ambassador at the hands of the very militias we empowered, and the incursion of the Islamic State, al Qaeda, and other terrorist outfits. She refused to be interviewed for the Times article.

While Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Vice President Joe Biden opposed regime change, Clinton took the side of the younger “back-benchers,” as the Times calls them, who wanted to go in there and “get on the right side of history.” The misnamed “Arab Spring” was in full bloom, and the media was pushing the idea that this was a great awakening of “democracy.”

Hillary, who had hesitated at first to jump on the bandwagon during the Egyptian events, made up for lost time in Libya. She “pressed for a secret American program that supplied arms to rebel militias, an effort never before confirmed,” the Times reports. Those arms would be used to attack a CIA outpost in Benghazi, where Ambassador Stevens would fall at the hands of these very militiamen.

While initially the US was purportedly acting only to prevent civilian deaths at the hands of Gaddafi – a “humanitarian disaster” that turned out to be nothing but media-driven war propaganda – Hillary and her staff soon fell down the slippery slope to actively aiding the rebels. The ‘responsibility to protect” soon became another regime change operation, as in Iraq.

“’We don’t want another war,’ she told [Russian Foreign Minister Sergey] Lavrov, stressing that the mission was limited to protecting civilians. ‘I take your point about not seeking another war,’ she recalled him responding. ‘But that doesn’t mean that you won’t get one.’”

The French were pushing particularly hard for a more muscular Western response, and in a meeting with French and British officials the frogs played their “trump card,” as the Times describes it. Although the meeting was convened to decide whether to act, Clinton was informed that “French fighter jets were already in the air” – but, added the French official, “this is a collective decision and I will recall them if you want me to.”

This certainly gives new meaning to the phrase “leading from behind” that administration officials used to describe our role. Clinton was supposedly “irritated,” but she capitulated readily enough.

“’I’m not going to be the one to recall the planes and create the massacre in Benghazi,’ she grumbled to an aide. And the bombing began.”

The Libyan leader, who had ruled his country for more than 40 years, knew what the outcome would be. His regime, “he railed to anyone who would listen,” was Libya’s sole defense against Islamist crazies who would overrun the country if not for him. But no one in the West was listening.

Clinton was jazzed that this was supposedly a model of “multilateralism,” with the Arab League as well as the Europeans in on the deal. But that proved to be the original mission’s undoing as Qatar – a little shithole of an oil-rich country long dependent on the US military for its miserable existence – starting funneling weapons to Islamist militias with dubious credentials. This is how we were pressured into going from “humanitarian intervention” to regime change. If we didn’t arm the “good” militias, Clinton argued, the bad ones being empowered by Qatar would prevail. Yet military officials were not convinced:

“NATO’s supreme allied commander, Adm. James G. Stavridis, had told Congress of “flickers” of Al Qaeda within the opposition. Mr. [Tom] Donilon, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, argued that the administration could not ensure that weapons intended for ‘the so-called good guys,’ as one State Department official put it, did not fall into the hands of Islamist extremists.”

As the Times makes all too clear, Clinton has a bias in favor of action, as well as relying on what can only be called a woman’s intuition. Her aides, the Times says, “described her as feeling her way through a problem without being certain of the outcome.” Another word for this is recklessness.

Clinton eventually succeeded in persuading President Obama, who signed a presidential finding authorizing a covert action to overthrow Gaddafi. US weapons poured into the country. The militias were unleashed, while Clinton hailed the elections that were staged shortly after the “liberation.” Yet as it turned out the elected officials had no real power: the guns were in the hands of the militias, who extorted government officials for more weapons in return for not being killed. The country went to pieces rather quickly, but our Secretary of State and would-be President had already moved on: she was too busy plotting regime change in Syria to be bothered with the unraveling of Libya.

Clinton wanted to make a deal with the Qataris that we would arm their favored radical Islamists in Syria if they would lay off aiding al-Qaeda-type crazies in Libya. But when the President vetoed her Syrian regime change plan, the proposed deal was off – and Libya continued to deteriorate into the Mad Max scenario we see today.

She quit the State Department after losing the internal debate over Syria, and is now campaigning for the highest office in the land on a platform of “love and kindness.”

Not that there’s much “love and kindness” in the country she destroyed almost single-handedly.

This Times story dropped like a stone: although normally one would expect such a damning account of a presidential candidate’s tenure as Secretary of State to be grist for the media mill, there wasn’t so much as a peep about it from anywhere else – including from the Republican candidates, never mind from Bernie Sanders.

A woman who could very well occupy the highest office in the land, with near total control of US foreign policy, basically committed an entire nation to perdition. Where’s the outrage? Who is drawing the lessons learned from all this? is almost alone in underscoring Hillary Clinton’s horrific foreign policy record. The Republicans, who mostly agree with her interventionist views, are screaming about "Benghazi! Benghazi!" without understanding what led to the death of an American ambassador. The liberal media, which is clearly rooting for Hillary, isn’t about to point to this horrific example of incompetence and hubris. So it’s left to us – our little singlejack operation here at – to speak truth to power.


Moral bankruptcy, July 31, 2009 Directive of 2009 to spy on foreign diplomats 

Propensity of Hillary Clinton to play dirty played a bad joke with her in so called emailgate or "bathroom server" scandal.

No matter how you treat emailgate is clear  that Hillary's judgment in setting up a private email server was exceptionally poor. Her decision to use the server which was set up for her 2008 campaign during her tenure as the Secretary of State and not only dangerous, arrogant and stupid. It was a gross negligence of her as  state employee, as is defined in criminal statutes. This lack of judgment is enough for me to consider her a poor candidate for president.  At the same time role of Obama as her supervisor is unclear here. Somebody need to "bless" such a gross and dangerous violation of State Department policies.  See  Hillary Clinton email scandal for more details.

Ironically Hillary Clinton did almost everything what was in her power to make the server penetrated by foreign intelligence agency

Formally Clinton was the top US diplomat and diplomatic communication are protected by Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. But the USA themselves destroyed this convention after 2000 in a quest for world hegemony.  It is important to note that the State Department under a typical neocon such as Secretary Clinton (but actually starting from  Madeleine Albright) would be more properly named the Department of Imperial Expansion, engaging in activates that directly violate Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations. Activities that previously were the domain of CIA.  Emailgate happened in conditions when Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations (1961) was deliberately destroyed and gloves were off for spying of diplomatic communications. Of course the USA was not the only party undermining Vienna convention, but it was the most influential.

Hillary Clinton herself ordered State Department staff to spy on foreign diplomats. Essentially she behaved in best KGB traditions. The document containing spying orders was sent to the United States Mission to the United Nations in New York as well as 30 US embassies worldwide, from Amman to Berlin, Paris, London and even Zagreb. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton signed the directive. The "National HUMINT Collection Directive" has revealed in November 2010 by Wikileak.    " The leaked cables make it impossible for Hillary Clinton to continue as secretary of state."

But what makes Clinton's sleuthing unique is the paper trail that documents her spying-on-their-diplomats-with-our-diplomat orders, a paper trail that is now being splashed around the world on the Web and printed in top newspapers. No matter what sort of noises Clinton makes about how the disclosures are "an attack on America" and "the international community," as she did today, she's become the issue.

She'll never be an effective negotiator with diplomats who refuse to forgive her exuberances, and even foreign diplomats who do forgive her will still regard her as the symbol of an overreaching United States. Diplomacy is about face, and the only way for other nations to save face will be to give them Clinton's scalp.

... ... ...

There is no way that the new WikiLeaks leaks don't leave Hillary Clinton holding the smoking gun. The time for her departure may come next week or next month, but sooner or later, the weakened and humiliated secretary of state will have to pay.

That means that on any her foreign trip after November 2010 it became the matter of honor for foreign intelligence agencies to get even with Hillary Clinton. She also became morally bankrupt and due to this harmful for the USA as the top diplomat.

On any her foreign trip after November 2010 it became the matter of honor for foreign intelligence agencies to get even with Hillary Clinton. She also became morally bankrupt and due to this harmful for the USA as the top diplomat.


That means that on any her foreign trip after November 2010 it became the matter of honor for foreign intelligence agencies to get even with Hillary Clinton. She also became morally bankrupt and due to this harmful for the USA as the top diplomat.

On any her foreign trip after November 2010 it became the matter of honor for foreign intelligence agencies to get even with Hillary Clinton. She also became morally bankrupt and due to this harmful for the USA as the top diplomat.


Iraq voting fiasco

This vote alone actually enough to be vary of Hillary Clinton occupying any government position: this was essentially a war crime committed by Washington establishment. And tony Blair might still have troubles with UK justice system because of that, But not Bush II, his henchmen, neocon chickenhawks and Hillary. As Bloomberg noted (Hillary Clinton Finally Comes Clean on Her Disastrous Iraq War Vote - Businessweek):

It’s no exaggeration to say that Hillary Clinton’s Iraq war vote probably cost her the 2008 Democratic nomination.Barack Obama became a liberal favorite precisely because he’d delivered an early anti-war speech that contrasted so vividly with Clinton’s vote to give President George W. Bush the authorization to go to war.

So I think it’s highly notable that an early leak from Clinton’s forthcoming memoir reveals that she has finally stopped trying to defend that vote. According to CBS News, which obtained a copy of her book, she says: “I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.”

And this criminal (as in International war crimes statute) voting was just one demonstration of her jingoism ( Albright the Second -- bellicose and incompetent chicken hawk Hilary Clinton):

May 27, 2014

Since it’s foreign policy week this week, with President Obama delivering a major speech on Wednesday at West Point, Christie Watch will spend the next few days looking at the foreign policy views of the various 2016 candidates, starting today with the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.

When it comes to Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy, start first by disentangling the nonsense about Benghazi—a nonexistent scandal if ever there was one—from the broader palette of Clinton’s own, relatively hawkish views. As she consolidates her position as the expected nominee in 2016, with wide leads over all the likely GOP challengers, it ought to worry progressives that the next president of the United States is likely to be much more hawkish than the current one. Expect to be deluged, in the next few weeks, with news about Hard Choices, the memoir of her years as secretary of state under President Obama, to be released June 10.

But we don’t need a memoir to know that, comparatively speaking, two things can be said about her tenure at the State Department:

  • first, that in fact she accomplished very little;
  • and second, that both before her appointment and during her service, she consistently came down on the hawkish side of debates inside the administration, from Afghanistan to Libya and Syria. She’s also taken a more hawkish line than Obama on Ukraine and the confrontation with Russia.

In the brief excerpt that’s been released by her publisher, Clinton notes that as secretary of state she “ended up visiting 112 countries and traveling nearly one million miles.” But what, if anything, did she accomplish with all that to-ing and fro-ing? Not a lot. She largely avoided the Israel-Palestine tangle, perhaps because she didn’t want to risk crossing the Israel lobby at home, and it’s hard to see what she actually did, other than to promote the education and empowerment of girls and women in places where they are severely beaten down. And, while it’s wrong (and really silly) to call Clinton a neoconservative, she’s more of—how to put it?—a “right-wing realist” on foreign policy, who often backed military intervention as a first or second resort, while others in the White House—especially Obama’s national security staff and Vice President Biden’s own aides, were far more reluctant to employ the troops.

In that vein, it’s useful to explore the memoirs of Robert Gates, who was secretary of defense under George W. Bush and then, inexplicably, under President Obama, too. In Duty: Memoir of a Secretary at War (which could also be the subtitle of Clinton’s own memoir), Gates says several times that he and Clinton saw eye to eye. (This has also been extensively documented by Bob Woodward, if more narrowly focused, in his 2010 book, Obama’s Wars.) In Duty, Gates says that he formed an alliance with Clinton because both he and her had independent power bases and were, in his words, “un-fireable”:

Commentators were observing that in an administration where all power and decision making were gravitating toward the White House, Clinton and I represented the only independent “power center”, not least because…we were both seen as “unfire-able.” [page 289]

Gates confirms that he and Clinton lined up with the hawks against the doves on Afghanistan:

The Obama foreign policy team was splintering. [Joe] Biden, his chief of staff, [Rahm] Emanuel, some of the National Security Council staff, and probably all of the president’s White House political advisers were on a different page with respect to Afghanistan than Clinton, [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs] Mullen, [Dennis] Blair, and me. [page 350]

And Gates says that on the crucial decision to escalate the Afghan war in 2009 and then to slow the drawdown in 2010, he and Clinton were on the same side:

Yet again the president had mostly come down on Hillary’s and my side. And yet again the process was ugly and contentious, reaffirming that the split in Obama’s team over Afghanistan, after two years in office, was still very real and very deep. [page 502]

And, says Gates (page 587), Obama’s efforts to centralize foreign policy decision-making inside the White House “offended Hillary Clinton as much as it did me.”

The pot is calling the kettle black: "Putin acts as Hitler" blunder; Hillary role in creating ISIS

If is not clear was Hillary under influence during this dinner or not but the fact remains Hillary Clinton says Putin’s actions are like ‘what Hitler did back in the ’30s’, March 5, 2015, WashPost) :

Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday compared Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggression in Ukraine to actions taken by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler outside Germany in the run-up to World War II.

Making her first extensive comments about the crisis in Ukraine, Clinton said at a private fundraiser in California that Putin's campaign to provide Russian passports to those with Russian connections living outside his country's borders is reminiscent of Hitler's protection of ethnic Germans outside Germany, according to a report published overnight.

"Now if this sounds familiar, it's what Hitler did back in the '30s," Clinton said Tuesday, according to the Long Beach Press-Telegram. "All the Germans that were ... the ethnic Germans, the Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania and other places, Hitler kept saying they're not being treated right. I must go and protect my people, and that's what's gotten everybody so nervous."

Taking into account imperial foreign policy that Hillary Clinton pursuit would make Mussolini proud, this is a typical case of the pot calling the kettle black. No wonder that this brazen, arrogant statement generated strong backlash even among WashPost readership:

DoubleCheck, 3/6/2014 8:09 PM EST

This is shocking! The US, serial invader, bomber, and rapist of nations around the world are accusing the Russians of breaching international law for trying to deal with the fallout from the fascist coup organized in Washington.

Robert William, 3/6/2014 6:04 PM EST

Former candidate Hillary Clinton will do most anything to get her name in the media. But her remarks of late are completely out of line, even for her. I'm starting to agree with the wag who commented in Paris that her chief problem with Mr. Putin is that he is more attractive without a shirt than she.

jamescnevers, 3/6/2014 12:47 PM EST

I had previously thought, that based upon her experience as Sec of State & U.S. Senator, that Hilary may be the best qualified person to run for the office of The Presidency in our lifetimes. However, Hilary's comment drawing comparisons between Hitler & Putin ARE THE STUPIDIST things I have heard an ex-American diplomat say in a long, long time. LET US NOT FORGET THAT the RUSSIAN PEOPLE LOST 5 MILLION LIVES TO HITLER in WW2!!! In 60 seconds Hilary uttered a sentence that will NEVER BE FORGOTTEN by the Russian people or Putin.

Assuming that Hilary plans to hold the office of The Presidency this highly inflammatory AND IGNORANT remark is guaranteed to cloud Putin and Clinton's ability to cooperate or compromise on future issues for many years to come. Ignorant, Stupid, and Highly Provocative to compare any Russian..or Russian leader to might be appropos to compare Stalin to Hitler.....but compared to Stalin Putin is is truly a moderate...on the continuum of Russian leaders throughout time.

In reality Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were instrumental in creating ISIS. Santorum Obama, Hillary created ISIS TheHill

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum says President Obama and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton  bear responsibility for creating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). 

“ISIS is a creation of a political decision by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama  to abandon Iraq — against all of our generals’ recommendations, against all of the policy recommendations,” Santorum told supporters at the Florida GOP’s Sunshine Summit in Orlando on Saturday. is even more direct (Hillary Clinton Policies Created Conditions for Rise of ISIS):

The history is very clear. When Barack Obama took office in 2008 with Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, one of his first moves on foreign policy was his New Beginning speech in Cairo, Egypt. With members of the Muslim Brotherhood in attendance, Pres. Obama claimed a new era had begun in America’s attitude toward Islam.

What followed was the “Arab Spring” uprisings throughout the region. Even though people initially hailed these as bold moves by people desperate for freedom, the “Arab Spring” was, in fact, a way for Islamists to dethrone the region’s more secular military dictators. Cairo itself made this clear: just months after Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton declared a new beginning, rebels removed Hosni Mubarak from office, and the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood came to power and installed brutal sharia law.

The single biggest factor that led to the rise of ISIS was the failed attempt to overthrow Syrian Pres. Bashar al-Assad. The United States openly called for the overthrow of Assad, even though it was clear that the result of that overthrow would be Islamist groups taking over.

Syria proved to be resistant to the Obama/Clinton calls for regime change. Instead of the quick overthrow that happened in Egypt, Assad, aided by the Russians and opposed by the U.S., held on – even as the United States was giving weapons to the so-called “rebels” that would eventually find their way into the hands of Islamist groups.

This power vacuum in Syria created the conditions for ISIS to rise. In Iraq, the continued withdrawals that happened under Hillary Clinton’s watch created another power vacuum that led to ISIS gaining more land and resources.

This interview, which I did with Clare Lopez from the Center for Security Policy, gives even more detail — in just five minutes.


Hillary character flaws: how close is she to sociopathic personality?

There is a lot of discussion if Hillary is a classic female sociopath. She really demonstrates several key features of such a personality. Callousness and the lack of empathy which she demonstrated in the episode of killing of Kaddafi is really sociopathic. A callous indifference to suffering is one of the most reliable feature for diagnostic of psychopathic personality. At the same time, some commentators think that not quite true (

I never thought, Mr. *"Blind With Hillary Hate"* (per  Alegre) would have to defend Hillary Clinton.  But sometimes opposition derails the political agent--you and I--as independent consumers of media.  So here we go.

Problem <>:

She has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder (*32+* / 0-)   The only "reality" that is meaningful to her is one that can be  construed to bathe her in the golden light she feels radiating  around her. 

The conversation then preceded to turn down the avenue of unfounded claims she is a sociopath. As someone who was probably raised by a sociopath, let me tell you why this is not ok.

Then in this <> comment Hillary allegedly is a "sociopath" who " she has no sense of people's needs and I believe she has lost all sense of what's right and wrong".  I agree that her morals are compromised in light of the decisions her campaign's made.

Race baiting. Empowering the GOP in an election she almost surely won't have to worry about winning.  Uncertain election practices at the NV caucuses.  These all show a lack of *leadership*  Hence why I was criticizing Hillary Clinton in /2006/ for her failures to demonstrate critical thinking and courage and integrity when it came to Iraq and, if you might have the kindness to remember, passivity in all of Washington while Israel lobbed the hell out of Lebanon--including residential areas--with the residual, child-mangling menace of cluster bombs, which she still has not opposed.

But lesson number one in pulling psychiatric diagnosis out of your ass: make sure they actually fit your amateur analysis. The case has been made for Bush before, and cogently:

   *no, he's a sociopath, the real thing* (3+ / 0-)
   though and through.
   by kate mckinnon

   <> on
   Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:59:19 PM PDT

   *he's fucked up everything he's ever touched.*

   But since he is from a wealthy, powerful family, he just keeps  getting reassigned, with no penalty.  And he should be in jail, because of his crimes, but it's doubtful   that he ever will be.

Bush not only is indifferent to the needs of others (which I don't think HC clinically is) but the real clincher is that he has very little control over himself (20 years of alcoholism, cocaine, explosive temper), little to no interest in academic or work pursuits, and never actually worked if he could avoid it, even when he was a businessman.  He would joke his way through the office because it covered up the fact that he didn't know what he was doing --

I've made the case before about the Senator McJackass <> from Alaska, Ted Stevens.  If you care enough to throw around words you're not professionally qualified to use, maybe we could start caring more about his impending re-election vote when he personally hobbled into the Senate to take up time to accuse *Mike Gravel* (there's somebody who's been kicked around far too many times for no reason to ever qualify for being a sociopath) of killing his wife, Mrs. Stevens on Congressional record?  You know, a serial liar and financial baby who's never had to face a tough political battle in the last twenty or so years?

That's another reason where he and Clinton differ.  See, anti-socials are geniuses at getting what they want.  Hillary Clinton doesn't always get what she wants.  She doesn't have the social skills of say, the psychopath, to get people to go along with her.  Her lying backfires, as with most normal people.  Her bullying backfires. It didn't with Bush.  Bush achieved his primary goals.  And like marriage to a sociopath, we're only backpedalling and turning away when it's way too late.

Now, Bill Clinton is definitely narcissistic, if whether or not he has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder is up for debate.  You can find actual examples  to correlate with the diagnostic criteria for being such-and-such.  Even George Stephanopolous has admitted that Bill Clinton is extremely inflexible, but more so he has an outrageous temper, and has alienated many of his personal allies over the years.   Again, poor personal control and extreme grandiosity. Bill Clinton is known for both pathological lying and promiscuity, two of the central traits of psychopaths.  His charitable trust is essentially narcissistic -- how better to keep him in the spotlight /and/ convince himself he's a great person?  All he has to do is see a charitable poster with his name on it and know he's keeping the world spinning!

What some of you may not also know is that narcissist's, with a 'n' or an "N" can often change and mold their spouses personalities.  Their behavior is so abusive and so warped that the spouse begins to cope and adapt.  That's the only way to exist in such a bizarre, dysfunctional relationship.

Bill needs to constantly be worshipped.  Bill takes the attacks on his wife more personally than a normal spouse.  Weren't we rec'ing that up the diary list only recently?  Bill, if anyone, is the Narcissistic Personality Disordered one or psychopath.

   pathological liar, narcissist (16+ / 0-)
   but not a sociopath.  True sociopaths can't rise to the level as she
   has, they tend to be criminals and can't hold down jobs.

   It's a term that's been thrown around with regards to Clinton, and
   as much as I loathe her behavior, *as a mental health clinician, I
   have to take exception to the sociopath label.*
   by leawood on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:21:43 PM PDT

   [ Parent | Reply to This |Recommend  Hide ]

Hillary's lying is probably compulsive, but not pathological.  She lies like most politicians do, out of perceived necessity. She's neurotic and wrong.  So are millions of people also not sociopaths.  Workplaces often cause decent or at least sane people to behave in anti-social (without regard for the rights of others) manner.  Hillary Clinton, unlike Bill, actually cares about liberalism.  She does care about health care, and you're an idiot if you think otherwise about 1994.  She did it wrong because she has unhealthy personality habits, and she is intolerant and vindictive at times,  Her least successful traits.  The number of vindictive and closed-minded men and women I've known?  Holy shit, I'm surrounded by sociopaths!

   *Two things about Hillary's political personality* (4+ / 0-)
   she is married to a *serial obfuscater.  This is a fact, this is
   neither hatred of Bill Clinton for his more loyal supporters lately,
   nor... hatred of Bill Clinton, for those who want it.  Real
   narcissists (and therefor, /pathological/ liars) are known to
   influence and mold their spouse's personalities.

   Secondly, Hillary Clinton was a late comer to a generation of New
   Democrats that believed in pandering, even Senator Gore among them.
     Her formative political years were spent married to one, but then
   later in Washington when the other successful Democrats showed a
   deep distrust of public sentiment.

   by Nulwee

Her lying is compulsive.  It's situational.  If you don't think people lie all the time in this manner, being conditioned to, you live in a dream world.  I avoid lying.  I know people who don't lie, but lying itself is pretty common, if not to Hillary Clinton's degree.  Again, debatable.

There's no shortage of coy political wives, cronies, oblivious jerks, moral idiots and shortsightedness in Washington, in America, or in the world.  Not everyone who's an asshole is a sociopath.  In case you don't see the problem in overstating the case, millions of people out there have been raised, dated, married to or worked for sociopaths.  These waking monsters without conscience are not the average nightmare boss or bloviating schmuck.  Out of thousands of people I've known, hundreds are bad people, mean, vindictive, petty, abusive.  Maybe 10-20 are sociopaths, psychopaths and clinically narcissistic, as in NPD. But ultimately I'm not a psychiatrist, I'm merely saying that while I can't diagnose those individuals, their anti-social behavior is markedly worse than your run of the mill, power-drunk, ladder-climbing jerk.

It just makes you look bad when you have to raise the stakes throwing around verbose nonsense to try to grab attention.  Clinton is many things, but run of the mill sociopath she is not.

Clinton might not have the intellectual capacity to discern critically important distinctions

That's start with her resume ( Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary ):

Then there are questions of competence. Hillary has a résumé of glittering titles with disasters or at best thin accomplishments under each. Her vaunted co-presidency with Bill? After her first major project, health care reform, turned into such a debacle that it was impossible to broach the topic for a generation, she retreated into a more traditional first lady role. As New York senator, she accomplished less with a bigger name and from a more powerful state than Sanders did. As secretary of state, she participated and encouraged strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria. She bureaucratically outmaneuvered Obama, leading to U.S. intervention in Libya, which he has called the worst decision of his administration. And her plan to fob her domestic economic duties off on Bill comes off as an admission that she can’t handle being president on her own.

Moreover, Clinton might not have the intellectual capacity to discern critically important distinctions (Clinton might not have the intellectual capacity to discern critically important distinctions)

"...My own antenna always goes up when I hear a politician assert as fact a generic statement that is intended to imply what I know is a falsity or that patently makes no sense. In this instance, it was both, and, stunningly, was intended to imply a false fact that supports a key line in the Republican playbook: that federal regulation is keeping middle-class folks from starting or expanding a small business."
"...Elsewhere in her LinkedIn letter she says that it takes longer to complete small-business federal tax forms than it is to complete multi-national corporations' federal tax forms. Maybe so, but is that because the multi-nationals keep PricewaterhouseCoopers or Deloitte on retainer and the owners of the Thai food restaurant down the road probably don't? She doesn't say. She thinks the ultimate in clever political rhetoric is to make some dramatic comparison; the accuracy and even the coherence of the comparison doesn't matter to her."
"...Vanden Heuvel's column, titled "A new definition of freedom in America," argues that the term "freedom" has had different meanings in different political eras, and that it's imperative now that the Democratic presidential nominee, presumably Clinton, move aggressively away from the Conservative Movement definition of freedom as economic laisse faire, and reinstitute and expand upon FDR's famous Four Freedoms."
June 10, 2015 | Angry Bear
What Worries Me Most About Clinton: That she may not have the intellectual capacity to discern even critically important distinctions. Including glaring ones.

"It should not take longer to start a business in America than it does in Canada or France. But that is the fact."

— Hillary Clinton, during a small business discussion, Cedar Falls, Iowa, May 19, 2015

Our antenna always goes up when a politician asserts a "fact." Clinton made this remark in the midst of a discussion about the "perfect storm of crisis" that she said small businesses face in the United States.

She made a similar point in an article she posted on LinkedIn on May 21, but with an additional country added: "It should not take longer to start a business in the U.S. than it does in Canada, Korea, or France."

Clinton's claim that it takes longer to start a business in the U.S. than in Canada or France, Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, May 22

My own antenna always goes up when I hear a politician assert as fact a generic statement that is intended to imply what I know is a falsity or that patently makes no sense. In this instance, it was both, and, stunningly, was intended to imply a false fact that supports a key line in the Republican playbook: that federal regulation is keeping middle-class folks from starting or expanding a small business.

Marco Rubio claimed something similar in April—to which Martin O'Malley famously responded, when asked about it in an interview, "It is not true that regulation holds poor people down or regulation keeps the middle class from advancing. That's kind of patently bulls—." And Jeb Bush hinted at it a couple of months earlier.

When I read about Clinton's statements before I read Kessler's post (I didn't see the post until about a week after it was posted), I was absolutely dumbfounded. As Kessler notes, Clinton complains about "red tape" in starting small businesses and says that the length of time in starting a business, caused by red tape, keeps people from starting businesses. The claim startled me; most red tape in starting businesses is state and local red tape, not federal, and the amount and type of red tape depends almost entirely upon the type of business and factors such as whether it requires a trade license of some sort (e.g., beautician), or a liquor license, and whether a permit of some sort must be obtained. Opening a restaurant, for example, requires local health department permits and adherence to health department rules. It also requires procuring a physical space in which to have the restaurant, and usually also means obtaining a business loan. Starting a home-based web-design business requires none of those things. The incorporation process involves filing a short filled-out form with the state Secretary of State's office and paying a fee.

Clinton doesn't know these things?

So the generic breadth of her statement was stupefying. She holds a law degree from Yale, was a partner in a corporate law firm, an active First Lady of a state and then of the country. Did she really not know that most red tape in starting a business does not touch upon anything that the federal government regulates? Or did she have something accurate and specific in mind, but rather than identifying it, indulged her penchant for talking in incoherencies apparently in order to avoid ever saying anything specific about, well, anything?

Kessler's post answered that question. She did indeed have something specific in question: average statistics for businesses that employ between 10 and 50 people within one month, having five owners, using start-up capital equivalent to 10 times income per capita and being engaged in industrial or commercial activities and owning no real estate. In Los Angeles, where it takes an average of eight days to start such a business. Whereas in Paris it takes only 4.5 days and in Toronto five days. In New York City, though, it takes only four days.

Clinton lives near New York City and represented New York state as a senator. She knows that New York City is in this country.

This information was taken from the World Bank website, which, Kessler says, provides statistics that "lets you compare the individual cities to countries, so New York ends up tied for 6th place — with Belgium, Iceland, South Korea, the Netherlands and Sao Tome." Los Angeles, he says, is in 15th place, tied with Cyprus, Egypt, Madagascar and the Kyrgyz Republic, among others. Oh, dear. But he points to another World Bank report that notes that "the differences are so large because, in the United States, 'company law is under state jurisdiction and there are measurable differences between the California and New York company law.'"

I knew that! I should run for president in the Democratic primary. Every small-business owner and aspiring small-business owner knows that, so I'd have a natural constituency. And I have the advantage of actually recognizing problems that do affect many small businesses and that the federal government can address, by regulation. Including ones that recent Democratic congresses, together with a Democratic president, actually enacted.

Kessler comments, "So what does data about starting a business in the largest city have to do with small businesses in Iowa? Beats us." It surely also beats small-business owners and people who are seriously considering becoming one. Including those who are fairly recent immigrants to this country and who don't hold a law degree from Yale.

Kessler notes that even if Clinton were accurate in her claim that it takes longer, on average, throughout this country than in the other countries she mentioned to start small businesses generally, the difference would be a matter of a day or two. He writes:

The World Bank's database lists 189 countries in terms of the time required to start a business. For 2014, in first place is New Zealand, with one day. In France and Canada, along with eight other countries, it takes five days. (South Korea, along with six other countries, is listed as four days.) The United States, with 12 other countries, is listed as six days.

First of all, one extra day does not seem like much of a hindrance — so much so that, as Clinton asserted in the LinkedIn article, the fact signified the "red tape that holds back small businesses and entrepreneurs."

This is crazy. What, pray tell, is her point? To show that she's too dumb to recognize distinctions between state and federal regulation, and between one type of small business and another? If you've seen one small business, you've seen 'em all? And if you've seen state or local regulation, you've seen federal regulation?

Elsewhere in her LinkedIn letter she says that it takes longer to complete small-business federal tax forms than it is to complete multi-national corporations' federal tax forms. Maybe so, but is that because the multi-nationals keep PricewaterhouseCoopers or Deloitte on retainer and the owners of the Thai food restaurant down the road probably don't? She doesn't say. She thinks the ultimate in clever political rhetoric is to make some dramatic comparison; the accuracy and even the coherence of the comparison doesn't matter to her.

Clinton does this conflation/sweeping-two-or-more-things-together-that-need-to-be-recognizated-as-separate-things thing regularly. In her brief comment in Iowa in April in which she said she would support a constitutional amendment, if necessary, to reverse Citizens United and get "unaccountable" money out of politics, she misrepresented that Citizens United bars election laws that would require super PACs to identify their donors, and corporations to report the recipients of their political largesse. It doesn't. No constitutional amendment is needed to permit such statutes and SEC, IRS and FEC regulations.

I had planned to post on all this earlier but didn't get around to it. But two articles published in recent days, one in the Washington Post last weekend about the 2008 Clinton campaign's gift of snow shovels to supporters in Iowa before the caucuses, the other a Washington Post column yesterday by Katrina vanden Heuvel, prompted this post. The snow shovels article, by David Fahrenthold, begins:

AMES, Iowa — In Phyllis Peters's garage, there is a snow shovel. A nice one: green, shiny, with an ergonomic steel handle. It came from Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And it plays a part in a modern-day political legend, about some of the strangest money a candidate has ever spent.

Eight years ago, Peters was a volunteer for Clinton's first presidential run. She had been an admirer of Clinton since her time as first lady. But just before Clinton lost the Iowa caucuses, her staffers did something odd: They bought shovels for Peters and the hundreds of other volunteers.

"If you're in Iowa, you [already] have a snow shovel," the article quotes Peters as saying. But she accepted the gift so as not to be rude. "For both those who gave out the shovels and those who received them," the article says, "they came to symbolize a candidate who never quite got their home state."

Clinton grew up in a suburb of Chicago, then spent four winters in Wellesley, MA. That was decades ago. But, geeez. She didn't get cold-climate folks?

Vanden Heuvel's column, titled "A new definition of freedom in America," argues that the term "freedom" has had different meanings in different political eras, and that it's imperative now that the Democratic presidential nominee, presumably Clinton, move aggressively away from the Conservative Movement definition of freedom as economic laisse faire, and reinstitute and expand upon FDR's famous Four Freedoms. She writes:

This is Hillary Clinton's historic opportunity. The greatest threat to freedom now is posed by the entrenched few that use their resources and influence to rig the rules to protect their privileges. She would do a great service for the country — and for her own political prospects — by offering a far more expansive American view of what freedom requires, and what threatens it.

Clinton should make it clear to Americans that in a modern, globalized world, we are in the midst of a fierce struggle between economic royalists and a democratic citizenry. If we are to protect our freedoms, citizens must mobilize to take back government from the few, to clean out the corruption and to curb the oppressive power of the modern day economic royalists.

But this requires a candidate who is both mentally quick enough and willing to respond, accurately and in specifics, to the Republican anti-regulation, supply-side-economics nonsense. Clinton doesn't seem like she has either of these attributes.

Clinton appears to think that all that matters is the generic ideas people have about what she stands for, and a few specific policy proposals all in good time. She's wrong. She needs to respond, in full oral statements, using clear fact-based arguments, to the anti-government policy cant of the Republican sheep herd, from which her opponent eventually will come. But I don't think she can.

Mark Jamison June 10, 2015 4:42 pm

I could very easily imagine Mrs. Clinton having a moment similar to Poppy Bush's astonishment at the price scanners in a grocery store. With few exceptions, most notably Warren and Sanders, our politicians much above the lowest local levels are part of an elite that has no conception much less a connection with what the life of most Americans is like (I hesitate to say average because there may not be such a thing).

Her "starting a business" comment is one of those banal, off the shelf, ready made campaign vomit sentences that insults the intelligence of any thinking being. It's not even one step away from the standard Republican talking point regurgitation that salutes small business while advocating ALEC sponsored corporate policies.

I've got a Sanders sign in the front yard and it will stay there until November 2016. If Clinton is the nominee I will grudgingly vote for her because of SCOTUS but I will do so unenthusiastically. In the meantime I will work for local candidates who show promise in the hopes of building a progressive bench that can push aside .01 percenters.

Beverly Mann June 10, 2015 5:01 pm

One thing that comes through loud and clear from her attempt to Sister Souljah small-business owners and aspirants, Mark, is that she thinks Democrats NEED a Sister Souljah moment for small-business owners and aspirants. Dick Durbin could educate her on that, simply by referring her to what's known as the Durbin Amendment.

Another thing that comes across is that, just as she didn't realize in 2008 that Iowans all have snow shovels, she apparently doesn't recognize that small-business owners and aspirants want solutions to problems that they actually have, and that that requires knowing the specifics of the problem, including the cause.

She'll win because, well, the Republican nominee won't. But she could have been beaten in the primaries by, say, Sherrod Brown or Jeff Merkley. Someone very progressive who thinks and speaks like a normal person rather than an automaton and is younger than Sanders

Inability to apologize for mistakes

Sorry does seem to be the hardest word. Some people find it so hard to apologize that getting them to admit to even the smallest wrongdoing involves a major battle—often, a fruitless one. Although we might perceive the reluctance of these non-apologists as simple defensiveness or pride, a far deeper psychological dynamic is often at play: Refusing to apologize often reflects efforts to protect a fragile sense of self.  Which is typical for narcissists.

When pressed against the wall Hillary usually issues one of those tedious non-apology apologies in which it sounds like the person who is being offended is somehow at fault. In one recent case "A spokesman for Hillary Clinton said that she won't apologize to Donald Trump for her comments at Saturday night’s debate that he is being used as a recruiting tool for ISIS and is featured in ISIS videos. "

Hillary Clinton is apparently so concerned with the specter of flip-flopping she will never apologize for her vote to authorize military action against Iraq. Speaking at a recent campaign event, the candidate herself said, “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from.” Indeed, there are.

New York Times:

In the end, she settled on language that was similar to Senator John Kerry’s when he was the Democratic nominee in 2004: that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force.

Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).

At the same time, the level of Democratic anger has surprised some of her allies and advisers, and her campaign is worried about how long it will last and how much damage it might cause her.

In email scandal she gradually moves from denial to apology

You can clearly see she thinks she is above the rules she gave the same answers about her "sniper fire" lie. She first laughs & mocks you for asking her about it then eventually says you misunderstood her to her final I made a mistake let's move on...

Faux feminism, documented cases of misogyny

What an election cycle for feminism! Hillary is running as self-declared feminist. If elected, she be the first woman to serve as president of the United States. Major feminist organizations like Planned Parenthood have endorsed her, as have feminist leaders and heroines as varied as Gloria Steinem, Lena Dunham, Roxane Gay and Eileen Myles.  But her feminism is completly fake.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters often point to the potential of a woman president to inspire little girls, letting them know that women can do anything. Yet her own life narrative does not fit a stirring feminist parable. It is probably true that  Hillary Clinton could have come so far without Bill Clinton. But who wants to advise our daughters to marry an ambitious, egomaniacal man; stay with him no matter what; and be the first lady for many years? Eventually it will be your turn. Is this a career plan for women that Hillary promotes ?

Hillary Clinton is not alone: Around the world, many female heads of state have attained their positions through marriage or bloodlines. While it is common for a woman to advance in this way, it is definitly not a feminist career path.

Clinton preaches trickle-down feminism, which just like trickle-down economics, serves only the interests of those at the top of the food chain. She essentially established women and children trafficked rings in Libya and Syria. In any case here is not much difference between neoliberal attitude toward woman ( women as marketable "perishable goods" including such things as sex trade, sex slavery, etc) and Saudi attitude.

Sexual slavery is slavery for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Sexual slavery may involve single-owner sexual slavery; ritual slavery, sometimes associated with certain religious practices, such as ritual servitude in Ghana, Togo and Benin; slavery for primarily non-sexual purposes but where non-consensual sexual activity is common; or forced prostitution. Concubinage was a traditional form of sexual slavery in many cultures, in which women spent their lives in sexual servitude. In some cultures, concubines and their children had distinct rights and legitimate social position.

The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action calls for an international response in order to attempt to eradicate sexual slavery on the basis that it is a human rights issue. The incidence of sexual slavery by country has been studied and tabulated by UNESCO, with the cooperation of various international agencies.[1]

... ... ...

In areas controlled by Islamic militants, non-Muslim women are enslaved in occupied territories. Many Islamists see the abolition of slavery as forced upon Muslims by the West and want to revive the practice of slavery.[citation needed] (see Slavery in 21st century Islamism).

... ... ...


Main article: Human trafficking

Trafficking in human beings (also called human trafficking) is one method of obtaining slaves.[44] Victims are typically recruited through deceit or trickery (such as a false job offer, false migration offer, or false marriage offer), sale by family members, recruitment by former slaves, or outright abduction. Victims are forced into a "debt slavery" situation by coercion, deception, fraud, intimidation, isolation, threat, physical force, debt bondage or even force-feeding with drugs of abuse to control their victims.[45] "Annually, according to U.S. government-sponsored research completed in 2006, approximately 800,000 people are trafficked across national borders, which does not include millions trafficked within their own countries. Approximately 80 percent of transnational victims are women and girls and up to 50 percent are minors", reports the U.S. State Department in a 2008 study.[46]

While the majority of trafficking victims are women, and sometimes children, who are forced into prostitution (in which case the practice is called sex trafficking), victims also include men, women and children who are forced into manual labour.[47] Due to the illegal nature of human trafficking, its exact extent is unknown. A U.S. government report published in 2005, estimates that 600,000 to 800,000 people worldwide are trafficked across borders each year. This figure does not include those who are trafficked internally.[47] Another research effort revealed that between 1.5 million and 1.8 million individuals are trafficked either internally or internationally each year, 500,000 to 600,000 of whom are sex trafficking victims.[35]

Hillary was ruthless toward other women  -- misogynistic if you wish. The first documented case was the recently unearthed 1975 case when she successfully (and voluntarily) defended a teenage girl rapist (HILLARY Clinton Took Me Through Hell Says 12yr. Old RAPE Victim! )

1975 Rape Case in which she representing rapist Haunting Hillary Clinton
Notable quotes:
"... I think she wants to be a role model being who she is, to look good, but I don't think shes a role model at all... If she had have been, she would have helped me at the time, being a 12-year-old girl who was raped by two guys, ..."
Jun 24, 2014 |

HILLARY Clinton Took Me Through Hell Says 12yr. Old RAPE Victim!

Ann Coulter On 1975 Rape Case Haunting Hillary Clinton

Published on Jun 24, 2014 

Hillary tapes reveal she voluntarily defended a child rapist that she knew was guilty. In this 1980's taped interview, Hillary Clinton laughed about getting the convicted rapist of a 12 year old child off on a technicality. Hillary got him off with time served in county jail, about 2 months. She says she used a legal technicality to plead her client, who faced 30 years to life in prison, down to a lesser charge."

The audio recordings also capture Hillary chuckling about her efforts to exploit the local authorities' mistake, which ultimately allowed her client to get off with an extremely reduced sentence on lesser charges. Her laughter over decidedly unfunny developments is strange and off-putting. A legal expert quoted by the Washington Free Beacon, which published the original story, also questioned the ethics of Clinton revealing the results of her client's polygraph test. She told a reporter that the accused man passed the test, which "forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs," a clear indication that Hillary knew of her client's guilt. The Free Beacon piece did not quote the victim extensively, saying that the woman (now 52 years old) declined an interview.

In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers' guilt on the recordings. "Hillary Clinton took me through Hell," the victim said.

The Daily Beast agreed to withhold her name out of concern for her privacy as a victim of sexual assault. The victim said if she saw Clinton today, she would call her out for what she sees as the hypocrisy of Clinton's current campaign to fight for women's rights compared to her actions regarding this rape case so long ago. "I would say [to Clinton], 'You took a case of mine in '75, you lied on me... I realize the truth now, the heart of what you've done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing."

The victim, who remains anonymous, says Hillary's claims about her supposed history of unfounded accusations were flat-out lies:

She also says that listening to the clip of Hillary discussing her case reduced her to tears and compelled her to speak out at greater length:

The Hillary Clinton Tapes;
Links to ALL Documentation; Clinton ruthlessly challenged the victim in court documents. Child Rape Victim: Hillary Clinton 'Took Me Through Hell' Guy Benson | Jun 20, 2014 Exclusive: 'Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,' Rape Victim Says 06.20.14 Unearthed Audio: Hillary Discusses Defending Child Rapist Guy Benson | Jun 16, 2014

For the victim, the tapes prove that while Clinton was arguing in the affidavit that the victim could have some culpability in her own attack, she actually believed that her client was guilty. Taylor's light sentence was a miscarriage of justice, the victim said. "It's proven fact, with all the tapes [now revealed], she lied like a dog on me.

"I think she wants to be a role model being who she is, to look good, but I don't think she's a role model at all... If she had have been, she would have helped me at the time, being a 12-year-old girl who was raped by two guys," she said. "She did that to look good and she told lies on that. How many other lies has she told to get where she's at today? If she becomes president, is she gonna be telling the world the truth? The victim is concerned that speaking out will make her a target for attacks but she no longer feels she is able to stay silent. "I'm a little scared of her... When this all comes about, I'm a little worried she might try to hurt me, I hope not," she said. "They can lie all they want, say all they want, I know what's true." This woman may sound like she has an axe to grind. Hell yes, she does. She was raped at a very young age, and Hillary Clinton called her a liar at the time, then laughed about how her guilty client eluded justice years later. The victim was a virgin at the time of her attack, and has struggled with addiction and depression throughout her adult life.

"Fair Use" provision, which allows reasonable use of copyrighted work, without permission, for criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, or educational purposes.

It continued in her attitude to victims of her husband philandering in hich he clearly abused his position and in Arkansas cases forced some of his victim into sex (which is as close to a rape as one can get and Trump accused Bill Clinton of rape without any denial on Clinton part). Here are some quotes from )

It was Hillary who instructed the campaign to put the ruthless private investigator Jack Palladino on the case. In her memo to Palladino, she ordered him to “impeach Flowers’ character and veracity until she is destroyed beyond all recognition.” Thus primed, Palladino went into action, seeking to portray Flowers as a prostitute, a shakedown artist and career scamster.

... ... ...

Gerth and Van Natta establish that she knew the full extent of her husband’s relations with the woman she called “Elvira” (the mid-’90s horror queen) on January 21, 1998, eight months before the official narrative claims that Bill informed her of his treachery the night before he gave his deposition. She ordered a full-bore attack on Lewinsky as “a stalker with a weight problem” and shoved Bill toward the doomed posture of total denial

... ... ...

Hillary lashed him into the categorical denial – “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky” – that exploded so disastrously in the months and years ahead. (Only months earlier, Hillary had been the one who insisted that no deal be made with Paula Jones, who could have been bought off with the modest settlement her lawyer was requesting. Hillary said she didn’t want Jones to get “a single dollar”.) ... ... ... Since Vietnam, there’s never been a war that Mrs. Clinton didn’t like.

She argued passionately in the White House for the NATO bombing of Belgrade. Five days after September 11, 2001, she was calling for a broad war on terror. Any country presumed to be lending “aid and comfort” to al-Qaeda “will now face the wrath of our country.” Bush echoed these words eight days later in his nationally televised speech on September 21. “I’ll stand behind Bush for a long time to come”, Senator Clinton promised, and she was as good as her word, voting for the Patriot Act and the wide-ranging authorization to use military force against Afghanistan.

Pathological lying (Snipergate, Sir Edmund Hillary story, etc)

Which brings me to ABC, Anyone But Clinton, where the Democrats are concerned. I never thought I’d see the day where I would agree with anything Ted Kennedy had to say, but he hit the nail on the head when he finally admitted that the Clintons—because we will have a dual presidency if that woman gets elected—are not only demonizers of their opponents—any opponent, even if our Lord Jesus came down and decided to run—but also have a propensity to lie even when the truth serves them better. Taking the low road is the only road the Clintons know. They defame and distort and vilify anyone who stands in their way and call it politics. Al Capone would be proud of them for getting it done without wasting bullets or risking jail time.

Anyone But Clinton! - Taki's Magazine

On  November 12, 2005 Fox News reported that FBI agents are expanding their investigation into Clinton’s private email server. They are considering US Code 18, Section 1001, a statute used against those who cost federal agents time or resources with “materially false” statements. Violation of Section 1001 results in a felony, punishable by up to five years of prison time.

Pathological lying is an interesting trait, common to many politicians. So, in a way she is in a good company. People affected resort to a lie even when there is no clear necessity. One such case involving Secretary Clinton was sniper fire in Bosnia

Black News

Is Hillary Clinton a pathological liar?

By Sinclere Lee

Washington (BNW) — Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar, proper. In fact, she’ll tell a lie when the truth sounds better. She’ll tell a lie quicker than a Jew will sell a Blood Diamond. She’ll tell a lie even before a cat can lick its ass. She’s such a big liar, that she needs to get psychological help. Bill Clinton is a big liar too; who ever heard of smoking weed and not inhaling,

Who can forget the big lie about sniper fire in Bosnia?

"I remember landing under sniper fire in Bosnia. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base," Hillary remembered.

Fortunately, the nightly news showed what really happened. There she was in long black coat and scarf (no helmet or flack jacket) walking about 50 feet to an eight year old girl who handed her a piece of paper. Hillary was traveling with Sinbad, the comedian, and he denies it happened. This was the second time she told the same lie.

We all have heard of 'Jacob the Liar'… Well now we have Hillary the liar and everybody knows it. In his 1996, article “Essay: Blizzard of Lies,” William Safire exposed her lies as First Lady on several points.

" Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.

Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit and she will do the same thing as president.

1. Remember the story she told about studying The Wall Street Journal to explain her 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading? We now know that was a lie told to turn aside accusations that as the Governor's wife she profited corruptly... her account being run by a lawyer for state poultry interests through a disreputable broker.

She lied for good reason: To admit otherwise would be to confess taking, and paying taxes on, what some think amounted to a $100,000 bribe.

2. The abuse of Presidential power known as Travelgate elicited another series of lies....

3. In the aftermath of the apparent suicide of her former partner and closest confidant, White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster... [h]er closest friends and aides, under oath, have been blatantly disremembering this likely obstruction of justice, and may have to pay for supporting Hillary's lie with jail terms.

Again, the lying was not irrational. Investigators believe that damning records from the Rose Law Firm, wrongfully kept in Vincent Foster's White House office, were spirited out in the dead of night and hidden from the law for two years -- in Hillary's closet...

When this bizarre pattern of behavior is observed over-time — by family members, friends, psychiatric professionals — and they confront her with evidence of her pathological behavior, she invariably has one response: They are lying! Sound familiar?

Then there is the psychiatric disorder known as pathological lying, which is the compulsion of disturbed people to resort to lies rather than truth, the better to compensate for their feelings of inferiority. Some of the stories they make up may have a grain of truth, which allows them – or in the case of politicians, their surrogates or the media – to “spin” them to advantage. Their lies are always designed to put them in a good light and to resonate with people who also feel like victims. Sound familiar?

What is the diagnosis for Hillary’s lies?

In Dick Morris' new book, “Rewriting History,” which is basically a rebuttal of Hillary's own book, “Living History,” which is full of false claims, distortions, and flat out lies if Morris it to be believed.

For example, she said that in an airport, she happened to run into Sir Edmund Hillary, who was the first man to climb Mt. Everest. She claimed that her mother named her Hillary after Sir Edmund Hillary the climber. Only problem with this lie Sir Edmund Hillary didn't make news climbing anything until 5-years after Clinton was born. Before then, he was a beekeeper

Here is another episode:

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 19:48 | 5950714 Bobportlandor

Sen. Hillary Clinton finally has admitted she was not named for the famous conqueror of Mount Everest, Sir Edmund Hillary.

Why is this lying sack of shit anywhere near WDC?

[Jul 09, 2015] Hillary Clinton lied about not receiving email subpoena, Benghazi chair claims US news

Hillary Clinton lied about not receiving email subpoena, Benghazi chair claims US news

According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them."
Jul 09, 2015 | The Guardian

In a statement on Wednesday, Republican congressman Trey Gowdy accused the former secretary of state of making an "inaccurate claim" during an interview on Tuesday. Responding to a question about the controversy surrounding her email server while at the US state department, Clinton had told CNN: "I've never had a subpoena."

But Gowdy said: "The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not sought to make them public. I would not make this one public now, but after Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy."

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told the Guardian that Gowdy's accusation itself was inaccurate, insisting that the congressman had not issued a subpoena until March.

"She was asked about her decision to not to retain her personal emails after providing all those that were work-related, and the suggestion was made that a subpoena was pending at that time. That was not accurate," Merrill wrote in an email.

Gowdy also posted a copy of the subpoena on the Benghazi committee's website.

According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them."

Lester Smithson 9 Jul 2015 16:00

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi

The Republicans chant while Rome burns.

How about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq....

kattw 9 Jul 2015 12:41

Gotta love when people say they have no choice but to do something absurd, then choose to do something absurd rather than not.

Did Clinton say she's never had a subpoena? Yes. Did a subpoena get issued? Yes. Was the whole interview at that point discussing a point in time months before the subpoena got issued? Yes.

Yes, Mr. Legislator: you DID subpoena Clinton. Several months AFTER she did the thing in question, which the interviewer wanted to know why she did in light of subpoenas. And really, what was she thinking? After all, a subpoena had already been issued, ummm, 3 months into the future! Why was she not psychic? Why did she not alter her actions based on something that congress would do eventually? How DARE she not know what the fates had decried!

Mr. Legislator, you were given the opportunity to not spin this as a political issue, and to be honest about the committee's actions. You chose to do otherwise. Nobody forced you to do so. You had plenty of choices - you made one. Don't try to shift that onto a lie Clinton never told. She's got plenty of lies in her closet, many stupidly obvious - calling one of her truths a lie just shows how much of an ideological buffoon you really are.

ExcaliburDefender -> Dan Wipper 8 Jul 2015 23:47

Whatever. Dick Cheney should have been tried in the Hague and incarcerated for 50 lifetimes. Most voters have decided to vote party lines, the next 16 months is for the 10% undecided and a few that can be swayed.

Karl Rove has so often said that it is who DOES NOT vote that determines the outcome, and now we have the Tea Party.

Plenty of time for outrage, faux or real. We haven't had a single debate yet. Still get to hear from Chafee on the metric system and whether evolution is real or not from the GOP.

Jill Stein for President <-------|) Paid for by David Koch and Friends

Herr_Settembrini 8 Jul 2015 23:25

Quite frankly, I've long since passed the point of caring about Benghazi, and the reason why is extremely simple: this has been a nakedly partisan investigation, stretching on for years now, that has tried to manufacture a scandal and fake outrage in order to deny Obama re-election in 2012, and now (since that didn't work) to deny Clinton the election in 2016.

The GOP doesn't have one shred of credibility left about this issue-- to the point that if they were able to produce photographs of Obama and Clinton personally storming the embassy, America would collectively shrug (except of course for the AM talk radio crowd, who are perpetually angry anyway, so nobody would notice).

TET68HUE -> StevePrimus 8 Jul 2015 23:08

The Clintons ARE very close personal family friends with the entire Bush clan. When the TV cameras are off and the reporters are gone, they are a very tight group who see the world thru like greedy eyes. Check this out.



Jeb Bush yesterday strongly suggested he was running for President in 2016. If he wins the GOP nomination, it is highly likely that his opponent for the presidency would be Hillary Clinton.Having someone who is the brother of one former president and the son of another run against the wife of still another former president would be sweetly illustrative of all sorts of degraded and illusory aspects of American life, from meritocracy to class mobility. That one of those two families exploited its vast wealth to obtain political power, while the other exploited its political power to obtain vast wealth, makes it more illustrative still: of the virtually complete merger between political and economic power, of the fundamentally oligarchical framework that drives American political life.

Then there are their similar constituencies: what Politico termed "money men" instantly celebrated Jeb Bush's likely candidacy, while the same publication noted just last month how Wall Street has long been unable to contain its collective glee over a likely Hillary Clinton presidency. The two ruling families have, unsurprisingly, developed a movingly warm relationship befitting their position: the matriarch of the Bush family (former First Lady Barbara) has described the Clinton patriarch (former President Bill) as a virtual family member, noting that her son, George W., affectionately calls his predecessor "my brother by another mother."

If this happens, the 2016 election would vividly underscore how the American political class functions: by dynasty, plutocracy, fundamental alignment of interests masquerading as deep ideological divisions, and political power translating into vast private wealth and back again. The educative value would be undeniable: somewhat like how the torture report did, it would rub everyone's noses in exactly those truths they are most eager to avoid acknowledge. Email the author: [email protected]

RossBest 8 Jul 2015 20:24

There is an obvious possible explanation here. She was talking about things in the past and ineptly shifted in effect into the "historical present" or "dramatic present" and didn't realize she was creating an ambiguity.

That is, she was talking about the times when she set up the email system and used it and later deleted personal emails and she intended to deny having received any relevant subpoenas AT THOSE TIMES.

I'm not a Clinton supporter but this seems plausible. But inept.

zchabj6 8 Jul 2015 20:10

The state of US politics...

Clinton is not materially different to many GOP candidates outside the loons.

CitizenCarrier -> Carambaman 8 Jul 2015 17:54

My personal favorite was when as 1st Lady during a trip to New Zealand she told reporters she'd been named in honor of Sir Edmund Hillary.

She was born before he climbed Everest. He was at that time an obscure chicken farmer.

BorninUkraine -> duncandunnit 8 Jul 2015 17:44

You mean, she lies, like Bill? But as snakes go, she is a lot more dangerous than him.

BorninUkraine -> Barry_Seal 8 Jul 2015 17:40

She has stiff competition: Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power, Carly Fiorina, etc. She might win the title, though.

Dennis Myers 8 Jul 2015 16:30

This sort of thing is exactly why anything they throw at her won't stick. Like the boy who cried wolf, when the wolf actually came, no one was listening anymore. So after years of trying to turn Benghazi into a scandal, the email thing is mostly meaningless to Democrats. So congratulations Republicans, you blew your chance.


Rudeness and arrogance to staff, Secret Service Agents and people lower then her in social status

'Get the fuck away from me, Hillary Clinton shouted at minder who refused to carry her bag. She treated Secret Service like and treated her detail like hired help

If Hillary Clinton runs, and wins the Presidential race in 2016, the Republicans won't be the only ones with trepidation. The Secret Service, who have tangled with Hillary since she became First Lady in 1993, will also be quaking in their lace-ups.

Hillary has been known to hurl a book at the back of the head of one agent driving her in the Presidential limo accusing him of eavesdropping, forget her ps and qs by never thanking her protectors and lob profanity-laced orders when she just wanted the agents to carry her bags - a job not on agents' 'to do' list.

'Stay the f**k away from me! Just f*****g do as I say!!!' she is quoted as saying to an agent who refused to carry her luggage in the book Unlimited Access by FBI agent Gary Aldridge.

Compared to Hillary's salty language, Bill Clinton was a gentleman, according to now-retired Secret Service agent, Dan Emmett, who began covering President Clinton on his first day in office in January 1993 and writes about guarding the president in a new version of his book Within Arm's Length, published by St. Martin's Press.

Emmett worked the most coveted of all assignments in the Secret Service, the Presidential Protective Division –- sworn to protect Potus (President of the United States). He worked that detail for George H. W. Bush (Bush 1), Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush (Bush 2).

Although agents are urged by the agency not to write about the people they protect, Emmett has disclosed the inner workings of the Service and the elite Presidential Protective Division (PPD).

Emmett launches a stinging attack on the Clinton administration staff he used to protect - branding them arrogant and claiming that ex-First Lady Hillary Clinton was aloof.

He tells how Hillary never said 'thank you' to agents, unlike her husband, Bill, and their daughter, Chelsea and treated the Secret Service agents like 'hired help', he said.

In the new book, Emmett tells of one stormy night, St Valentine's Day in 1994 to be precise, when Bill and Chelsea had him accompany them to Andrews Air Force Base to surprise Hillary, returning from a trip.

Although Bill and Chelsea thanked him for the effort, Hillary did not.

This disregard, he added, was found in even greater measure among the young White House personnel, whom he said displayed 'fundamental traits of rudeness and arrogance' which, at times, bordered on dangerous.
... ... ...

In contrast to Hillary's chilly demeanour, President Clinton was always friendly with the Secret Service agents, inquiring about their families and making small talk.

And he was always willing to pose for a picture with the agent's family.

Lock her up and "Anyone but Clinton" movement

Lincoln Chafee was probably the first to campaign against Hillary as a huge threat to American people.  His challenge to Clinton was based strictly on understanding what a disaster this woman will be as the next US President. He essentially  started "Anyone but Hillary" movement. As he told  the Washington Post about Hillary Iraq vote:

“I don’t think anybody should be president of the United States that made that mistake". “It’s a huge mistake and we live with broad, broad ramifications today—of instability not only in the Middle East but far beyond and the loss of American credibility. There were no weapons of mass destruction.”

Later Twitter hashtags such as #NeverHillary became important integrators of "anti-Hillary" news, effectively providing counterweight to fawning MSM presstitutes.  Among this category of hashtags we can mention:
  1. #CrookedHillary
  2. #LyingHillary
  3. #NeverHillary 
  4. #NotFitToServe
  5. #LiedUnderOath,
  6. #DeceitfulHillary
  7. #Demexit

Partial list of anti-Hillary websites provided by Free Republic includes 172 sites. Recently "Anybody but Clinton"(ABC) parcially transformed into "lock her up" movement. Proliferation of anti-Hillary websites suggest that this is a powerful movement that enjoys widespread support. If we assume that approximately 2/3 of US citizens view Hillary as untrustworthy, you can only guess what will be this figure closer to November elections.

FOR REFERENCE:  A list of anti-Hillary websites (FOR REFERENCE ) ^ | 2005

Posted on ‎10‎/‎23‎/‎2005‎ ‎4‎:‎42‎:‎01‎ ‎PM by doug from upland

As Clare Foran wrote in her article The Bernie Sanders Supporters Who Insist They Will Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

( The Atlantic, May 5, 2016):

At least some supporters of the Vermont senator insist they won’t vote for Clinton, no matter what. Many view the former secretary of state with her deep ties to the Democratic establishment as the polar opposite of Sanders and his rallying cry of political revolution. Throwing their weight behind her White House bid would feel like a betrayal of everything they believe.

These voters express unwavering dedication to Sanders on social media, deploying hashtags like NeverClinton and NeverHillary, and circulating petitions like, which asks visitors to promise “under no circumstances will I vote for Hillary Clinton.” It’s garnered more than 56,500 signatures so far. Many feel alienated by the Democratic Party. They may want unity, but not if it means a stamp of approval for a political status quo they believe is fundamentally flawed and needs to be fixed.

“Just pack up your revolution and go home? Really? That’s not going to happen,” said Tara Margolin, a 50-year-old Sanders supporter and self-described Democrat who lives in Los Angeles. She dismissed the idea that Sanders voters might coalesce behind Clinton. “She would cement in place everything we are fighting against. I could never in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton.”

The Democratic primary has been far less divisive than the Republican race. Trump, now the presumptive GOP nominee, has inspired some Republicans to tear up their voter registration, while others declare they would rather vote for Clinton. Insults and sparring reached a fevered pitch on the Republican side of the race that the Democratic candidates have not matched. More than two-thirds of Democratic voters even insist the race has done more to energize than divide the party, exit polls from recent primary contests indicate. Republican voters are far more likely to view the race as divisive.

...“She’s lost my trust, frankly,” said Matt Brownfield, a 31-year-old Sanders supporter living in South Carolina. “I don’t think there’s anything Clinton could say or do that would change my mind.” Brownfield plans to write in the senator’s name when it comes time to cast a ballot in the general election if Sanders fails to secure the nomination. The decision wasn’t easy. “The thought of Trump becoming president is vile and disgusting,” Brownfield said. “But I realized I couldn’t live with myself if I voted for Clinton. I would say I’m Bernie or Bust.”

Chafee has said Hillary Clinton’s vote for the war is disqualifying and that the 2003 invasion helped trigger much of the chaos rippling through the rest of the world:

The American Conservative

Lincoln Chafee was the only Republican senator to vote against the Iraq War. Now neither a senator nor a Republican, the war is a major reason he is contemplating a run for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Although Iraq went unmentioned in a halting announcement video of sorts, Chafee has said Hillary Clinton’s vote for the war is disqualifying and that the 2003 invasion helped trigger much of the chaos rippling through the rest of the world.

“I don’t think anybody should be president of the United States that made that mistake,” he told the Washington Post. “It’s a huge mistake and we live with broad, broad ramifications today — of instability not only in the Middle East b ut far beyond and the loss of American credibility. There were no weapons of mass destruction.”

As such he initiated a powerful movement "Anyone but Clinton" (ABC).  This movement had grown especially strong among Sanders supporters with approximately half determined to vote for another candidate.  Adherent of the movement communicate on Twitter under using several hashtags such as  #NeverHillary. Reddit has similar  Hillary Clinton For Prison  that published liknks connected with this theme (snapshot taken on June 2, 2016):

Actress Susan Sarandon, a Sanders supporter, suggested that a Trump presidency might be preferable to a Clinton one. Her position underscores the basic fact that many Sanders Supports consider Clinton a hostile to Democratic Party candidacy, a candidate of neoliberal establishment which hijacked the Party during Clinton presidency,  and will vote against her "no matter what":. 

"I think Bernie would probably encourage people, because he doesn't have any ego in this thing," Sarandon told MSNBC's Chris Hayes. "But I think a lot of people are, 'Sorry, I just can't bring myself to [vote for Clinton]."

Here is a very interesting article by W. James Antle III Lincoln Chafee’s Clinton Critique Is. Twitter hashtags like  #NeverHillary is testament of this trend.

As Chris Deaton noted  this tendency was noticed by Karl Rove (Weekly Standard, April 1, 2016):

...Pulling cross-tab data from a recent survey, The Wall Street Journal caught the media's attention with a headline saying that 33% of Bernie Sanders supporters couldn't see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in the general election.

"In a year when political outsiders in both parties appear to be capitalizing on voter support, the view among Sanders supporters that Clinton is the embodiment of establishment politics could prove to be a liability," the story states.

... ... ...

Despite all this, there is still an anti-Hillary atmosphere out there. Just recently, Sanders supporter and actress Susan Sarandon hinted that a Trump presidency would be better than a Clinton presidency.

“I think Bernie would probably encourage people, because he doesn’t have any ego in this thing,” Sarandon said to Chris Hayes of MSNBC. “But I think a lot of people are, ‘Sorry, I just can’t bring myself to vote for Clinton.’”

“I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens.”

Conservative groups have been happy and enthusiastic about the anti-Hillary sentiment out there. A Super PAC named American Crossroads, which was founded by Karl Rove, released a new #NeverHillary advertisement this week. They said more advertisements like this one will be coming in the future as well.

“With a long resume of scandals and unethical behavior, Hillary Clinton is the one candidate unfit to be president of a condo association, much less the United States,” Ian Prior said, who is a spokesman for the PAC. “Because of that, it is important for everyone to consider what would happen if Hillary reached the Oval Office and then focus on making sure that never happens.”

Amazon is selling stickers Anyone but Clinton  and Anyone but Hillary.

An interesting take on this movement was the article Anyone But Clinton! - Taki's Magazine which suggests that Clinton is democratic party variant of Rudi "Gravedigger"  Guiliani.

The most gruesome sight imaginable was Rudy Giuliani taking the oath of the highest office in the land sometime early next year. In fact, I had nightmares about it. Giuliani the gravedigger standing on the steps of the Capitol and swearing to uphold the Constitution. Giuliani is the inspector Javert personified, cruel, vindictive and unforgiving. But worse are the bums he would have swept into power with him: the Podhoretzes, Daniel Pipes, Michael Rubin, Martin Kramer, and so on. All neo-cons, all Israel Firsters, all committed to war until Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian Authority come under Israeli orders. And let us not forget Iran. If those crum bums got into the White House, the mushroom clouds would be over Iran in a jiffy.

Americans, however, had different ideas. Once upon a time Americans were considered compassionate, friendly, and generous. They still are, as far as I am concerned, but I’m among the few who know it. The rest of the world hates Uncle Sam and puts him on a par with Hitler and Stalin for throwing his weight around. Poor George W. never had a chance, did he? With people like Kristol and Frum, Feith and Wolfowitz, it would have needed the brains of George W— as in Washington—to remain an effective leader. Now that the neo-cons wrecked the 43rd presidency, they were eager to get into the act early with Giuliani, a man who should now try horror films and forget public relations. He’d be very good at playing evil undertakers who buries innocent young people alive.

Which brings me to ABC, Anyone But Clinton, where the Democrats are concerned. I never thought I’d see the day where I would agree with anything Ted Kennedy had to say, but he hit the nail on the head when he finally admitted that the Clintons—because we will have a dual presidency if that woman gets elected—are not only demonizers of their opponents—any opponent, even if our Lord Jesus came down and decided to run—but also have a propensity to lie even when the truth serves them better. Taking the low road is the only road the Clintons know. They defame and distort and vilify anyone who stands in their way and call it politics. Al Capone would be proud of them for getting it done without wasting bullets or risking jail time.

But Hillary will, I fear, get the nomination. We may have been saved from Giuliani, but we still might see Sid the scumbag Blumenthal back in the White House whispering in the Clinton ears and destroying opponents. God help America.

At the same time Clinton can get support of neoconservative wing of Republican Party with several prominennt neocons, such as Robert Kagan,  claiming the "She is one of us". (M of A - Neocon Kagan Hillary Clinton Is One Of Us )

A (sympathetic) New York Times profile of neocon Robert Kagan has this on Clinton II:

But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

Recommended Links

Google matched content

Softpanorama Recommended

Top articles





Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy


War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes


Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law


Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

Classic books:

The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

Most popular humor pages:

Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D

Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site


The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

Last modified: January, 19, 2020