The value of pathological lying as a trait is that it often point to a psychopathic personality.
People with a psychopathic personality lie as easily as we breeze. Remember “I did not have sex with
that woman.” ;-)
Let's reiterate some key feature of a female sociopathic personality (which is very close to borderline
personality as most boderliners are females) and compare it with the known profile of Hillary Clinton.
The prevalence of BPD in the general population is 1-2%. Due of "BPD troika" of traits:
“manipulative” + “demanding” + “attention seeking" this group is seen as among the most
challenging groups of psychiatric patients, requiring a high degree of skill and training for both the
psychiatrists, and nurses involved.
Borderline personality disorder is diagnosed in three times as many females as males.
It's like a feminine version of
sociopathy, and is nearly as dangerous.
Inappropriateangeror difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent
physical fights) is probably one of the key diagnostic criteria for BPD.
The features of BPD include emotional instability, "black-and-white" thinking, intense
unstable interpersonal relationships, a need for relatedness, a fear of rejection and impulsivity.
As a result, people with BPD often evoke intense emotions in those around them.
Borderline personality disorder (BPD), (according to the ICD-10 World Health Organization disease
classification), is a personality disorder marked by extreme "black and
white" thinking, instability in relationships, and impulsivity.
Manipulation and deceit are viewed as common features of BPD by many
of those who treat the disorder as well as by the DSM-IV. Borderlines typically
are ruthless, conniving, mean, heartless, two-faced, and worse. They are perfectly able to cause
psychical harm.
Manipulation and deceit are viewed as common features of BPD
by many of those who treat the disorderas well as by the DSM-IV.
Borderlines typically are ruthless, conniving, mean, heartless, two-faced, and worse.
Recklessness in general is a very typical trait of BPD that makes them very common with female sociopaths.
Like sociopaths they are impulsive and easily engage
in self-destructive behaviors including alcohol or drug abuse, promiscuous (and intense) sexuality.
Many are attracted to gambling.
Remember BPD "troika" of traits: they are “manipulative” + “demanding” + “attention
seeking" . Recklessness, manipulation and deceit makes them almost undistinguishable
from female sociopaths
Oscillations between idealizing and demonizing others (intense love changes to intense hate with
no "grey area") is another typical symptom (kind of bipolar relationships). This, combined with
mood swings, quickly and irrevocably undermines relationships with family, friends, and
co-workers. Threatening suicide often is the only way to keep a partner. Suicidal or self-harming behavior is one of the core diagnostic criteria
that help to provide a differential diagnose as most listed traits are common for other
types of disorders too and first of all to female psychopaths. Female psychopaths tend not to harm themselves
and have a low suicide rate. They are kind of human Terminators. BPD
patients have high suicide rate (approximately 8-10%).
Individuals with BPD are very sensitive to the way others treat them, reacting strongly and
disproportionally to perceived criticism or hurtfulness.They tend
to view the world as generally dangerous and malevolent.
Individuals with BPD are very sensitive to the
way others treat them. They tend to view the world as generally dangerous and malevolent.
This is from sources on the web, and is based on Robert Hare's psychopathy checklist.
+-
Look for glib and superficial charm. A psychopath will also put on what professionals
refer to as a 'mask of sanity' that is likable and pleasant. It is a thin veneer.
"Mask of sanity" is present. Hillary is really wearing mask in public appearances
and is abusive and nasty in private
Unlike Bill, she
is completely devoid of any charm and comes as cold and calculating even in her public appearances
+++++
Look for a grandiose self perception. Psychopaths will often believe they are smarter
or more powerful than they actually are.
Really grandiose, pathological sense of entitlement is definitely present
?
Watch for a constant need for stimulation. Stillness, quiet and reflection are not
things embraced by psychopaths. They need constant entertainment and activity.
Probably not applicable. There were rumors of cocaine
abuse.
+++++
Determine if there is pathological lying. A psychopath will tell all sorts of lies;
little white lies as well as huge stories intended to mislead. Psychopaths are gifted or dull,
high functioning or low performing like other people. An untalented psychopath may harm a few;
a highly talented psychopath may lay waste to nations. The difference between the psychopath and
others lies in their organic lack of conscience and empathy for others. The sociopath is trained
to lack empathy and conscience. The psychopath is a natural.
Yes, this is trait is present to really astonishing degree.
?
Evaluate the level of manipulation. All psychopaths are identified as cunning and
able to get people to do things they might not normally do. They can use guilt, force
and other methods to manipulate.
Looks like Bill Clinton is cunning, but Hillary?
+++
Look for any feelings of guilt. An absence of any guilt or remorse is a sign of
psychopathy. They will often blame the victim.
Definitely present. Emailgate is a good example
+++++
Consider the level of emotional response a person has.Psychopaths
demonstrate shallow emotional reactions to deaths, injuries, trauma or other events that would
otherwise cause a deeper response. Other people are satisfaction suppliers, nothing more.
"We came, we saw, he died"
+++++
Look for a lack of empathy. Psychopaths are callous and have no way of relating to
others in non-exploitative ways. They may find a temporary kinship with other psychopaths
and sociopaths that is strictly utilitarian and goal-oriented.
Psychopaths are often parasitic. They live off other people, emotionally, physically,
and financially. Their modus operandi is domination and control. They will claim to be
maligned or misunderstood to gain your sympathy.
?
Look for obsessive risk taking and lack of self-control. The Hare
Checklist includes three behavior indicators; poor behavior control, sexual promiscuity, and behavioral
problems.
---
Psychopaths have unrealistic goals or none at all for the long term. Either
there are no goals at all, or they are unattainable and based on the exaggerated sense of one's
own accomplishments and abilities.
Not applicable. The goal to became president was present
for all Hillary adult life. She is definitely capable of long-term planning.
+++
A psychopath will not genuinely accept personal responsibility. A psychopath
will never admit to being wrong or owning up to mistakes and errors in judgment, except as part
of a manipulative ploy. They will despise and denigrate their victims once they are done with
them. If they have any regret it is that their source of satisfaction supply has ended and they
must seek another.
Yes, this is trait is present
+++
Psychopaths will often be shockingly impulsive or irresponsible. Their shamelessness
knows no bounds. You will ask, what were they thinking? And the answer was, they weren't because
they did not care.
Psychopaths lack long term personal relationships. If there have been many short term
marriages, broken friendships, purely transactional relationships, the chances the person
is a psychopath increase. Watch especially how they treat other people in weaker positions
and even animals.
Bad treatment of people in lower positions is proven.
Hillary has some long time staff like Huma Abedin. At the same time she has a lot of detractors,
people who were close to her but now hate her
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.
Hillary Clinton has indeed become well known as a serial liar. no wonder that more then 60% of Americans,
68 percent in a recent poll, consider her neither honest nor trustworthy. Not only does Clinton
lie to protect herself, as she has regarding Benghazi and her private email server, but she lies when
there appears to be no benefit to doing so. That's what term pathological lying" or "compulsive lying"
implies.
For example, in the past she claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary for his conquering of
Mt. Everest, even though that didn’t happen until six years after Clinton was born. The second telling
case is her claim she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996, when newspaper and video accounts
revealed exactly the opposite.
“Robert Reich, M.D., a New York City psychiatrist and expert in psychopathology, says compulsive
lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury,” Dr. Gina Loudon, a political psychology and
behavior expert, told WND. “Otherwise, compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses,
such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders.
“This might explain Hillary’s consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial
of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most
of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the
point of costing American lives.”
In addition to pathological lying, Clinton’s temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. Not
only temper but also dulicity, She will smile to people who are above her or equal to her, but treat
people who depend on her like dogs, or worse. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary
of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling
“get that f**king dog away from me.” She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes
about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the
leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, “Happens every day, brother.”
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
This pathological lying extends to political issues. For example, Hillary tries to ride to the White
House on staunch feminism (first female president, dream of all girls in the USA and similar nonsense,
as if gender matter more that principles). Her feminism is completely fake. She is actually pretty misogynic
woman, and a horrible mother who neglected her only child.
Sinclere Lee in Black News
has an interesting discussion of this defining trait of Hillary Clinton character:
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
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."
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 V. HILLARY CLINTON: THE PERFECTLY ILLUSTRATIVE ELECTION
BY GLENN GREENWALD
@ggreenwald
12/17/2014
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.
Carl Bernstein. That would be the Bernstein of “Woodward and…” He wrote a book about
Hillary in 2008 called A Woman in Charge. In the book Bernstein noted that Hillary has always
had a “difficult relationship with the truth.” In plain English that means Hillary is a pathological
liar. Hillary is a Pathological Liar Says Reporter of WaterGate Fame Is this worse that that?
Bernstein goes on ad nauseam about how her messy childhood and early years set her up to be a
phony. And a liar.
Apparently she did have a messy, if moneyed, childhood. She’s also led a very privileged and VERY
moneyed adulthood. She’s also spent her adult life surrounded by enablers and enabling her husband.
Bottom line, Hillary’s enablers – Bernstein at the head of the list – may be willing to admit
Hillary has “some problems” but they’ll brush them off. In fact, Hillary Clinton has serious character
flaws. She’s fundamentally dishonest to her very core, and she’s obviously paranoid, we would say
to the point of advanced mental illness.
All we have to do is look at the latest chapter in ClintonLies. Hillary, as Secretary of State, set
up her own personal email server. She says it was so she didn’t have to carry two phones around.
A couple of weeks after that story was floated we found out she carried two phones routinely.
The real story, which she will never admit, was that the private email server served one purpose,
and one purpose only. It gave Hillary the ability to avoid complying with FOIA laws. And not just
for her, but for her closest advisers as well. They all had email addresses on the Clinton server.
The reason for the private server is simple. Hillary is paranoid about the public – and especially
the Republican version of the public – looking over her shoulder.
This woman is sick. And the Democrats want her to be President. That’s the only part of the story
that actually makes sense.
Can it be worse then that?
<
It is well known that Hillary Clinton has been a notoriously vicious to her Secret Service
and State Trooper protectors as well as White house staff, who was simply live in terror of becoming
the target of her wrath.
It all goes back to those stolen FBI files that ended up in HRCs possession in the first
week of BCs presidency.
SergeA.Storms , 2 hours ago
900+ if I recall correctly. Then Travelgate and the list over 50 years is extraordinary
for any criminal...wish we could talk to Barry Seal...
deFLorable hillbilly , 2 hours ago
I'm thinking it's a "Foundation Sponsor".
Lord Raglan , 2 hours ago
absolutely true. Great memory. Good for you! 450 FBI files of Congresspeople that were
lost for 3 years and then wound up found in HilldeKunt's White HOuse Office...........
Highly recommenced to listen. Judge Napolitano is an interesting speaker (start at 41 min)
As CIA in the USA government organizational chart stands above the Presidential Office Hillary is really untouchable, unless the
Presidential Office is also occupied by CIA-democrat like Obama.
Notable quotes:
"... She absolutely thinks she is untouchable ..."
"... Every corrupt person was praised and given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!! ..."
"... Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25% of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States. ..."
Congress is a waste of tax money, they have no power, so obvious! Criminal leaders just lie to them, knowing they can't do
a thing and most of them are paid off anyway, they don't want to do anything! Elections are rigged, so they don't have to worry
about, "we the poor, lowly people!" We are not even in the equation!
Why is this pathological liar Hillary still running around free ?? Isn't lying to Congress a felony ??? If this lowlife is
simply above the law lets change the laws !
Prosecute everyone of them that knew and allowed even the smallest bit of knowledge and make every one of them ineligible for
their pensions. They do not deserve those pensions, they stole them, treasonous acts against your government does not make you
eligable..they do not deserve it!!
Not only a habitual serial liar but a career Criminal! Hillary and Bill have been involved in illegal manners for over 40 years!
Hillary stated it best last year during the time of the election!. " If Donald Trump becomes president, WE WILL ALL HANG!" She
finally told the truth!
She absolutely thinks she is untouchable because not one person has been brave enough and bold enough to take her
down the Clinton's have been corrupt and evil from child good and they were taught from NWO that they will never be taken down
go child rob steel kill do everything in the power we Give you both and bring me all glory!!! We will let you control the United
States as long as you want!!!
All the connected deaths that embrace the Clinton's and not single piece of evidence is kept found
or stored that it doesn't come up missing so they sit back and allow these foreign governments to take over major areas and promote
child sex trafficking who're houses with kids being sold to any man with air in his lungs!
Every corrupt person was praised and
given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young
men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of
Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!!
She gas lied straight face looked him dead in the eyes and laughed at the bengahzi deaths that She is on record having him
killed she laughed and she didn't Give a f*** about killing him and leaving his remains behind but my question is why hasn't she
been arrested booked finger printed and mugshot took with a huge bond or mot and put behind bars until you beat the f******truth
out if her??? I would get the death penalty she wouldn't and hasn't gotten a contempt of court for not complying with mr. Gowdy
Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25%
of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States.
To say that 80 million people are "deplorable" IS TRULY DEPLORABLE!!! After hearing this I can't really understand WHY she got
even a single vote!
This is a fantastic mosaic of the state of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. It is absolutely clear that she is an
habitual liar, corrupt to the extreme and has absolutely no credibility.
I'd love to see Mr Gowdy take the gloves off and take
her down. She must be removed from the public as she is a menace. She is the mother of deplorable.
"... The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease,
as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly,
we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's
all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured. ..."
"... The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car,
er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped,
repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state. ..."
"... Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should
evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest
of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll
settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding
their own business. ..."
"... Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media.
Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive
in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command. ..."
"... Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks
doesn't. ..."
"... The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The
social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible
to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get
fat, hogs get slaughtered. ..."
So, after getting up late, groggy, and feeling overworked even before I started, I read
this article . Just
after, I had to feed a dozen cats and dogs, each dog in a separate room out of respect for their territorialism and aggressive desire
to consume more than they should (hmm, where have I seen this before), and in the process, forgot where I put my coffee cup. Retracing
steps, I finally find it and sit back down to my 19-inch window on the ugly (and perhaps remote) world of the state, and the endless
pinpricks of the independent media on its vast overwhelmingly evil existence. I suspect I share this distractibility and daily estrangement
from the actions of our government with most Americans .
We are newly bombing Libya and still messing with the Middle East? I thought that the wars the deep state wanted and started were
now limited and constrained! What happened to lack of funds, lack of popular support, public transparency that revealed the stupidity
and abject failure of these wars?
Deep state. Something systemic, difficult to detect, hard to remove, hidden. It is a spirit as much as nerves and organ.
How do your starve it, excise it, or just make it go away? We want to know. I think this explains the popularity of infotainment
about haunted houses, ghosts and alien beings among us. They live and we are curious
and scared.
The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the
disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak
perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your
pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It
can and should be cured.
My summary of the long Jeffrey Goldberg piece is basically that Obama has become more fatalistic (did he mean to say fatal?) since
he won that Nobel
Peace Prize back in 2009 . By the way, the "Nobel prize" article contains this gem, sure to get a chuckle:
"Obama's drone program is regularly criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability, especially considering incomplete
intelligence means officials are often unsure about who will die. "
[M]ost individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names," Micah Zenko, a scholar at
the Council on Foreign Relations told the New York Times."
This is about all the fun I can handle in one day. But back to what I was trying to say.
The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new
car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked,
stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state.
Because
inflated salaries ,
inflated
stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities
are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field
once known as some of richest
counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government
basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with
people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business.
Can a lack of public support reduce the deep state, or impact it? Well, it would seem that this is a non-factor, except for the
strange history we have had and are witnessing again today, with the odd successful popular and populist-leaning politician and their
related movements. In my lifetime, only popular figures and their movements get assassinated mysteriously, with odd polka dot dresses,
MKULTRA suggestions, threats against their family by their competitors (I'm thinking Perot, but one mustn't be limited to that case),
and always with concordant pressures on the sociopolitical seams in the country, i.e riots and police/military activations. The
bad dealings toward, and genuine fear
of, Bernie Sanders within the Democratic Party's wing of the deep state is matched or exceeded only by the genuine terror of
Trump among the Republican deep state wing. This reaction to something or some person that so many in the country find engaging and
appealing - an outsider who speaks to the growing political and economic dissatisfaction of a poorer, more indebted, and
more regulated population – is
heart-warming, to be sure. It is a sign that whether or not we do, the deep state thinks things might change. Thank you, Bernie and
especially Donald, for revealing this much! And the "republicanization" of the Libertarian Party is also a bright indicator blinking
out the potential of deep state movement and compromise in the pursuit of "stability."
Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment
media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle
to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command.
Maybe we will one day soon be able to debate how deep the deep state really is, or whether it was all just a dressed up, meth'ed
up, and eff'ed up a sector of society that deserves a bit of jail time, some counseling, and a new start . Maybe some job training
that goes beyond the printing of license plates. But given the destruction and mass murder committed daily in the name of this state,
and the environmental disasters it has created around the world for the future generations, perhaps we will be no more merciful to
these proprietors of the American empire as they have been to their victims. The ruling class deeply fears our judgment, and in this
dynamic lies the cure.
LIST OF DEMANDS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE
I.CURB CORRUPTION AND EXCESSIVE POWER IN THE FINANCIAL ARMS OF THE US GOVERNMENT
A. FEDERAL RESERVE
1. Benjaman Bernanke to be removed as Chairman immediately
2. New York Federal Reserve Bank and all New York City offices of the Federal Reserve system will be closed for at least 3
years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Interest rate manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
6. Balance sheet manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT
1. Timothy Geithner to be removed as Secretary immediately
2. All New York City offices of the Department will be closed for at least 3 years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Market manipulation/intervention to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
II. END THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF GIANT BANKS AND PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FURTHER EXPOSURE TO THEIR COLLAPSE
A. END CORRUPT INFLUENCE
1. Lifetime ban on government employment for TARP recipient employees and corporate officers, specifically including Goldman
Sachs and JP Morgan Chase
2. Ten year ban on government work for consulting firms, law firms, and individual consultants and lawyers who have accepted
cash from these entities
3. All contacts by any method with federal agencies and employees prohibited for at least five years, with civil and criminal
penalties for violation
B. PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM FURTHER HARM AT THE HANDS OF GIANT BANKS
1. No financial institution with assets of more than $10billion will receive federal assistance or any 'arm's-length' bailouts
2. TARP recipients are prohibited from purchasing other TARP recipient corporate units, or merging with other TARP recipients
3. No foreign interest shall be allowed to acquire any portion of TARP recipients in the US or abroad
III. PREVENT CORPORATE ACCOUNTING AND PENSION FUND ABUSES RELATED TO THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
A. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING
1. Immediately implement mark-to-market accounting rules which were improperly suspended, allowing six months for implementation.
2. Companies must reserve against impaired assets under mark-to-market rules
3. Any health or life insurance company with more than$100 million in assets must report on their holdings and risk factors,
specifically including exposure to real estate, mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other exotic financial instruments.
These reports will be to state insurance commissions and the federal government, and will also be made available to the public
on the Internet.
B. PENSION FUNDS
1. All private and public pension funds must disclose their funding status and establish a plan to fully fund accounts under
the assumption that net real returns across all asset classes remain at zero for at least ten years.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You know what happens when politicians get into Number 10; they want to take their place on the
world stage.
Sir Richard Wharton: People on stages are called actors. All they are required to do is look plausible, stay sober,
and say the lines they're given in the right order.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Some of them try to make up their own lines.
The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences.
The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally
susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on
Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
The failed coup in Turkey is a significant indication of institutional weakness and also vulnerability. The inability to exercise
force of will in Syria is another. The list of failures is getting too long.
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the
government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success
of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, controlled press and a mere token opposition
party.
1. Dummy up . If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
2. Wax indignant . This is also known as the "how dare you" gambit.
3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news
blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."
4. Knock down straw men . Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better,
create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk
all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot" and,
of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people
you have thus maligned.
6. Impugn motives . Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not
really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to
make money.
7. Invoke authority . Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."
9. Come half-clean . This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out
route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively
harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back
position quite different from the one originally taken.
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
11. Reason backward , using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction,
troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of
evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma
City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge
by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a
press that would report it.
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.
13. Change the subject . This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.
"... "Class first" amongst men of the left has always signaled "ME first." What else could it mean? ..."
"... So "Black Lives Matter" actually means "Black Lives Matter First". Got it. So damn tired of identity politics. ..."
"... Meanwhile, in the usual way of such things, #BlackLivesMatter hashtag activism became fashionable, as the usual suspects were elevated to celebrity status by elites. Nothing, of course, was changed in policy, and so in a year or so, matters began to bubble on the ground again. ..."
"... I'm not tired of identity politics. I'm just tired of some identity-groups accusing other identity-groups of "identity-politics". I speak in particular of the Identity Left. ..."
"... Identity politics, any identity, is going to automatically split voters into camps and force people to 'pick' a side. ..."
"... The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I and many other writers argued that the bourgeois feminism Clinton represents works against the interests of the vast majority of women. This has turned out to be even more true than we anticipated. That branding of feminism has delivered to us the most sexist and racist president in recent history: Donald Trump. ..."
"... Hillary spoke to the million-dollar feminists-of-privilege who identified with her multi-million dollar self and her efforts to break her own Tiffany Glass ceiling. And she worked to get many other women with nothing to gain to identify with Hillary's own breaking of Hillary's own Tiffany Glass ceiling. ..."
"... For me (at least) the essence of the "Left" is justice. When we speak of Class we are putting focus on issues of economic justice. Class is the material expression of economic (and therefore political) stratification. Class is the template for analysing the power dynamics at play in such stratification. ..."
"... in the absence of economic justice, it's very difficult to obtain ANY kind of justice - whether such justice be of race, gender, legal, religious or sexual orientation. ..."
"... I find it indicative that the 1% (now) simply don't care one way or another about race or gender etc, PROVIDED it benefits or, has no negative effects on their economic/political interests. ..."
"... "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." ..."
"... In ship sinking incidents, where a lot of people are dumped in the water, many adopt the strategy of trying to use others as flotation devices, pushing them under while the "rich class" tootle off in the lifeboats. Sounds like a winner, all right. ..."
"... The rich class has enlisted the white indentured servants as their Praetorian Guard. The same play as after Bacon's Rebellion. ..."
"... Is what is actually occurring another Kristallnacht, or the irreducible susurrus of meanness and idiocy that is part of every collection of humans? It would be nice not to get suckered into elevating the painful minima over the importance of getting ordinary people to agree on a real common enemy, and organizing to claim and protect. ..."
"... If even one single banker had gone to jail for the mess (fed by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) that blew up in 2008, we would be having a different conversation. We are in a huge legitimacy crisis, in part because justice was never served on those who made tens of millions via fraud. ..."
"... The Malignant Overlords - the King or Queen, the Financial Masters of the Universe,, the tribal witch doctor- live by grazing on the wealth of the natural world and the productivity of their underlings. There are only a few thousand of them but they control finance and the Money system, propaganda organizations (in the USA called the Media) land and agriculture, "educational" institutions and entire armies of Homeland Insecurity police. ..."
"... Under them there are the sycophants– generals and officers, war profiteers and corporate CEO's, the intelligentsia, journalists, fake economists, and entertainment and sports heroes who grow fat feasting on the morsels left over after the .0001% have fed. And far below the Overlords are the millions of professional Bureaucrats whose job security requires unquestioning servitude. ..."
"... Race, gender identity, religion, etc. are the false dichotomies by which the oligarchs divide us. Saudi princes, African American millionaires, gay millionaires etc. are generally treated the same by the oligarchs as wasp millionaires. The true dichotomy is class, that is the dichotomy which dare not speak its name. ..."
"... For Trump it was so easy. He just says something that could be thought of as racist and then his supporters watch as the media morphs his words, removes context, or just ignores any possible non-racist motivations for his words. ..."
"... Just read the actual Mexican- rapists quote. Completely different then reported by the media. Fifteen years ago my native born Mexican friend said almost exactlly the same thing. ..."
"... whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades – since the days of Nixon in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn. ..."
"... Yes, class identity can be a bond that unites. However, in the US the sense of class identity remains underdeveloped. In fact, it is only with the Sanders campaign that large swaths of the American public have had practical and sustained exposure to the concept of class as a political force. For most of the electorate, the language of class is still rather alien, particularly since the "equality of opportunity" narrative even now is not completely overthrown. ..."
"... It seems inevitable that populist sentiment, which both Sanders and Trump have used to electoral advantage, will spill over into a variety of economic nationalism. ..."
"... Obama was a perfect identity candidate, i.e., not only capable of getting the dem nomination, but the presidency and than not jailing banksters NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID, OR WILL DO… ..."
"... One truism about immigration, to pick a topical item, is that uncontrolled immigration leads to overwhelming an area whether city, state or country. Regardless of how one feels about the other aspects of immigration, there are some real, unacknowledged limits to the viability of the various systems that must accommodate arrivals, particularly in the short term. Too much of a perceived ..."
"... There is an entrenched royal court, not unlike Versailles in some respects, where the sinecures, access to the White House tennis court (remember Jimmy Carter and his forest for the trees issues) or to paid "lunches in Georgetown" or similar trappings. Inflow of populist or other foreign ideas behind the veil of media and class secrecy represents a threat to overwhelm, downgrade (Sayeth Yogi Berra: It is so popular that nobody goes there anymore) or remove those perks, and to cause some financial, psychic or other pain to the hangers-on. ..."
"... Pretty soon, word filters out through WikiLeaks, or just on the front page of a newspaper in the case of the real and present corruption (What do you mean nobody went to jail for the frauds?). In those instances, the tendency of a populace to remain aloof with their bread and circuses and reality shows and such gets strained. ..."
"... Some people began noticing and the cognitive dissonance became to great to ignore no matter how many times the messages were delivered from on high. That led to many apparent outbursts of rational behavior ..."
if poor whites were being shot by cops at the rate urban blacks are, they would be screaming
too. blm is not a corporate front to divide us, any more than acorn was a scam to help election
fraud.
It's lazy analysis to suggest Race was a contributing factor. On the fringes, Trump supporters
may have racial overtones, but this election was all about class. I applaud sites like NC in continually
educating me. What you do is a valuable service.
"We won't need a majority of the dying "white working class" in our present and future feminine,
multiracial American working class. Just a minority."
Indeed, this site has featured links to articles elaborating the demographic composition of
today's "working class". And yet we still have people insisting that appeals to the working class,
and policies directed thereof, must "transcend" race and gender.
And, of course this "class first" orientation became a bone of contention between some loud
mouthed "men of the left" during the D-Party primary and "everyone else" and that's why the "Bernie
Bro" label stuck. It didn't help the Sanders campaign either.
"Class first" amongst men of the left has always signaled "ME first." What else could it
mean?
This is, actually, complicated. It's a reasonable position that black lives don't
matter because they keep getting whacked by cops and the cops are never held accountable. Nobody
else did anything, so people on the ground stood up, asserted themselves, and as part
of that created #BlackLivesMatter as an online gathering point; all entirely reasonable. #AllLivesMatter
was created, mostly as deflection/distraction, by people who either didn't like the movement,
or supported cops, and of course if all lives did matter to this crowd, they would have
done something about all the police killings in the first place.
Meanwhile, in the usual way of such things, #BlackLivesMatter hashtag activism became fashionable,
as the usual suspects were elevated to celebrity status by elites. Nothing, of course, was changed
in policy, and so in a year or so, matters began to bubble on the ground again.
Activist time (we might say) is often slower than electoral time. But sometimes it's faster;
see today's Water Cooler on the #AllOfUs people who occupied Schumer's office (and high time,
too). To me, that's a very hopefully sign. Hopefully, not a bundle of groups still siloed by identity
(and if that's to happen, I bet that will happen by working together. Nothing abstract).
I'm not tired of identity politics. I'm just tired of some identity-groups accusing other
identity-groups of "identity-politics". I speak in particular of the Identity Left.
"We won't need a majority of the dying "white working class" in our present and future
feminine, multiracial American working class. Just a minority."
That statement is as myopic a vision as the current political class is today. The statement
offends another minority, or even a possible majority. Identity politics, any identity, is
going to automatically split voters into camps and force people to 'pick' a side.
In False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I and many other writers
argued that the bourgeois feminism Clinton represents works against the interests of the vast
majority of women. This has turned out to be even more true than we anticipated. That branding
of feminism has delivered to us the most sexist and racist president in recent history: Donald
Trump.
I wonder if there is an even simpler more colorful way to say that. Hillary spoke to the
million-dollar feminists-of-privilege who identified with her multi-million dollar self and her
efforts to break her own Tiffany Glass ceiling. And she worked to get many other women with nothing
to gain to identify with Hillary's own breaking of Hillary's own Tiffany Glass ceiling.
If the phrase "Tiffany Glass ceiling" seems good enough to re-use, feel free to re-use it one
and all.
For me (at least) the essence of the "Left" is justice. When we speak of Class we are putting
focus on issues of economic justice. Class is the material expression of economic (and therefore
political) stratification. Class is the template for analysing the power dynamics at play in such
stratification.
Class is the primary political issue because it not only affects everyone, but in the absence
of economic justice, it's very difficult to obtain ANY kind of justice - whether such justice
be of race, gender, legal, religious or sexual orientation.
I find it indicative that the 1% (now) simply don't care one way or another about race or gender
etc, PROVIDED it benefits or, has no negative effects on their economic/political interests.
"Just how large a spike in hate crime there has been remains uncertain, however. Several reports
have been proven false, and Potok cautioned that most incidents reported to the Southern Poverty
Law Center did not amount to hate crime.
All us ordinary people are insecure. Planet is becoming less habitable, war everywhere, ISDS
whether we want it or not, group sentiments driving mass behaviors with extra weapons from our
masters, soil depletion, water becoming a Nestle subsidiary, all that. But let us focus on maintaining
our favored position as more insecure than others, with a "Yes, but" response to what seems to
me the fundamental strategic scene:
"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war,
and we're winning."
Those mostly white guys, but a lot of women too, the "rich classs," are ORGANIZED, they have
a pretty simple organizing principle ("Everything belong us") that leads to straightforward strategies
and tactics to control all the levers and fulcrums of power. The senators in Oregon are "on the
right side" of a couple of social issues, but they both are all in for "trade deals" and other
big pieces of the "rich class's" ground game. In ship sinking incidents, where a lot of people
are dumped in the water, many adopt the strategy of trying to use others as flotation devices,
pushing them under while the "rich class" tootle off in the lifeboats. Sounds like a winner, all
right.
The comparison with 9/11 is instructive. That is not minimizing hate crimes. Within days after
9/11, my Sikh neighbor was assaulted and called a "terrorist". He finally decided to stop wearing
a turban, cut his hair, and dress "American". My neighborhood was not ethnically tense, but it is ethnically diverse, and my neighbor had
never seen his assailant before.
Yes, the rich classes are organized…organized to fleece us with unending wars. But don't minimize
other people's experience of what constitutes a hate crime.
In 1875, the first step toward the assassination of a black, "scalawag", or "carpetbagger"
public official in the South was a friendly visit from prominent people asking him to resign,
the second was night riders with torches, the third was night riders who killed the public official.
Jury nullification (surprise, surprise) made sure that no one was punished at the time. In 1876,
the restoration of "home rule' in Southern states elected in a bargain Rutherford B. Hayes, who
ended Reconstruction and the South entered a period that cleansed "Negroes, carpetbaggers, and
scalawags" from their state governments and put the Confederate generals and former plantation
owners back in charge. That was then called The Restoration. Coincidence that that is the name
of David Horowitz's conference where Donna Brazile was hobnobbing with James O'Keefe?
The rich class has enlisted the white indentured servants as their Praetorian Guard. The
same play as after Bacon's Rebellion.
Not minimizing - my very peaches-and-cream Scots-English daughter is married to a gentleman
from Ghana whose skin tones are about as dark as possible.
the have three beautiful children, and are fortunate to live in an area that is a hotbed of
"tolerance." I have many anecdotes too.
Do anecdotes = reality in all its complexity? Do anecdotes = policy? Is what is
actually occurring another Kristallnacht, or the irreducible susurrus of meanness and idiocy
that is part of every collection of humans? It would be nice not to get suckered into
elevating the painful minima over the importance of getting ordinary people to agree on a real
common enemy, and organizing to claim and protect.
If even one single banker had gone to jail for the mess (fed by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush
II) that blew up in 2008, we would be having a different conversation. We are in a huge legitimacy
crisis, in part because justice was never served on those who made tens of millions via fraud.
When there's no justice, its as if the society's immune system is not functioning.
Expect more strange things to appear, almost all of them aimed at sucking the remaining resources
out of the system with the knowledge that they'll never face consequences for looting. The fact
that they're killing the host does not bother them.
Corruption is both cause & effect of gross wealth inequities. Of course to the 1% it's not
corruption so much as merely what is owed as of a right to the privileged. (Thus, the most fundamental
basis of liberal democracy turns malignant: that ALL, even rulers & law makers are EQUALLY bound
by the Law).
The Malignant Overlords - the King or Queen, the Financial Masters of the Universe,, the
tribal witch doctor- live by grazing on the wealth of the natural world and the productivity of
their underlings. There are only a few thousand of them but they control finance and the Money
system, propaganda organizations (in the USA called the Media) land and agriculture, "educational"
institutions and entire armies of Homeland Insecurity police.
Under them there are the sycophants– generals and officers, war profiteers and corporate
CEO's, the intelligentsia, journalists, fake economists, and entertainment and sports heroes who
grow fat feasting on the morsels left over after the .0001% have fed. And far below the Overlords
are the millions of professional Bureaucrats whose job security requires unquestioning servitude.
Once upon a time there was what was known as the Middle Class who taught school or built things
in factories, made mortgage payments on a home, and bought a new Ford every other year. But they
now are renters, moving from one insecure job in one state to an insecure one across the country.
How else are they to maintain their sense of self-worth except by identifying a tribe that is
under them? If the members of the inferior tribe look just like you they might actually be more
successful and not a proper object of scorn. But if they have a black or brown skin and speak
differently they are the perfect target to make you feel that your life is not a total failure.
It's either that or go home and kick the dog or beat the wife. Or join the Army where you can
go kill a few foreigners and will always know your place in the hierarchy.
Class "trumps" race, but racial prejudice has its roots far back in human social history as
a tribal species where the "other" was always a threat to the tribe's existence.
Anyone who thinks it is only class and not also race is wearing some very strange blinders
No one with any sense is saying that, Katharine, and constantly bringing it up as some kind
of necessary argument (which, you may recall, was done as a way of trying to persuade people of
color Sanders wasn't working for them in the face of his entire history) perpetuates the falsehood
dichotomy that it has to be one or the other.
I can understand the desire to reduce the problems to a single issue that can then be subjected
to our total focus, but that's what's been done for the last fifty years; it doesn't work. Life
is too complex and messy to be fixed using magic pills, and Trump's success because those who've
given up hope of a cure are still enormously vulnerable to snake oil.
Race, gender identity, religion, etc. are the false dichotomies by which the oligarchs divide
us. Saudi princes, African American millionaires, gay millionaires etc. are generally treated
the same by the oligarchs as wasp millionaires. The true dichotomy is class, that is the dichotomy
which dare not speak its name.
yes, racism still exist, but the Democrats want to make it the primary issue of every election
because it is costs them nothing. I've never liked the idea of race based reparations because
they seem like another form of racism.
However, if the neolibs really believe racial disparity
and gender issues are the primary problems, why don't they ever support reparations or a large
tax on rich white people to pay the victims of racism and sexism and all the other isms?
Perhaps
its because that would actually cost them something. I think what bothers most of the Trumpets
out here in rural America is not race but the elevation of race to the top of the political todo
list.
For Trump it was so easy. He just says something that could be thought of as racist and
then his supporters watch as the media morphs his words, removes context, or just ignores any
possible non-racist motivations for his words.
Just read the actual Mexican- rapists quote. Completely
different then reported by the media. Fifteen years ago my native born Mexican friend said almost exactlly the same thing. Its a trap the media walks right into. I think most poor people of whiteness
do see racism as a sin, just not the only or most awful sin. As for Trump being a racist, I think
he would have to be human first.
… whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump
was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades – since the days of Nixon
in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn.
Spot-on statement. Was watching Fareed Zakaria (yeah, I know, but he makes legit points from
time to time) and was pleasantly surprised that he called Bret Stephens, who was strongly opposed
to Trump, out on this. To see Stephens squirm like a worm on a hook was priceless.
"…what divides people rather than what unites people…"
Yes, class identity can be a bond that unites. However, in the US the sense of class identity
remains underdeveloped. In fact, it is only with the Sanders campaign that large swaths of the
American public have had practical and sustained exposure to the concept of class as a political
force. For most of the electorate, the language of class is still rather alien, particularly since
the "equality of opportunity" narrative even now is not completely overthrown.
Sanders and others on an ascendant left in the Democratic Party - and outside the Party - will
continue to do the important work of building a sense of class consciousness. But more is needed,
if the left wants to transform education into political power. Of course, organizing and electing
candidates at the local and state level is enormously important both to leverage control of local
institutions and - even more important - train and create leaders who can effectively use the
tools of political power. But besides this practical requirement, the left also needs to address
- or co-opt, if you will - the language of economic populism, which sounds a lot like economic
nationalism.
It seems inevitable that populist sentiment, which both Sanders and Trump have used to
electoral advantage, will spill over into a variety of economic nationalism. Nationalist
sentiment is the single most powerful unifying principle available, certainly more so than the
concept of class, at least in America. I don't see that changing anytime soon, and I do see the
Alt-Right using nationalism as a lever to try to coax the white working class into their brand
of identity politics. But America's assimilationist, "melting pot" narrative continues to be attractive
to most people, even if it is under assault in some quarters. So I think moving from nationalism
to white identity politics will not so easy for the Alt-Right. On the other hand, picking up the
thread of economic nationalism can provide the left with a powerful tool for bringing together
women, minorities and all who are struggling in this economy. This becomes particularly important
if it is the case that technology already makes the ideal of full (or nearly full) employment
nothing more than a chimera, thus forcing the question of a guaranteed annual income. Establishing
that kind of permanent safety net will only be possible in a polity where there are firm bonds
between citizens and a marked sense of responsibility for the welfare of all.
And if the Democratic Party is honest, it will have to concede that even the popular incumbent
President has played a huge role in contributing to the overall sense of despair that drove people
to seek a radical outlet such as Trump. The Obama Administration rapidly broke with its Hope and
"Change you can believe in" the minute he appointed some of the architects of the 2008 crisis
as his main economic advisors, who in turn and gave us a Wall Street friendly bank bailout that
effectively restored the status quo ante (and refused to jail one single banker, even though many
were engaged in explicitly criminal activity).
====================================================================
For those who think its just Hillary, its not. There is no way there will ever be any acknowledgement
of Obama;s real failures – he will no more be viewed honestly by dems than he could be viewed
honestly by repubs. Obama was a perfect identity candidate, i.e., not only capable of getting
the dem nomination, but the presidency and than not jailing banksters NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID,
OR WILL DO…
I imagine Trump will be one term, and I imagine we return in short order to our nominally different
parties squabbling but in lock step with regard to their wall street masters…
Democrats seem to be the more visible or clumsy in their attempts to govern themselves and
the populace, let alone understand their world. By way of illustration, consider the following.
One truism about immigration, to pick a topical item, is that uncontrolled immigration leads to
overwhelming an area whether city, state or country. Regardless of how one feels about the other
aspects of immigration, there are some real, unacknowledged limits to the viability of the various
systems that must accommodate arrivals, particularly in the short term. Too much of a perceived
good thing may be hazardous to one's health. Too much free stuff exhausts the producers,
infrastructure and support networks.
To extend and torture that concept further, just because, consider the immigration of populist
ideas to Washington. There is an entrenched royal court, not unlike Versailles in some respects,
where the sinecures, access to the White House tennis court (remember Jimmy Carter and his forest
for the trees issues) or to paid "lunches in Georgetown" or similar trappings. Inflow of populist
or other foreign ideas behind the veil of media and class secrecy represents a threat to overwhelm,
downgrade (Sayeth Yogi Berra: It is so popular that nobody goes there anymore) or remove those
perks, and to cause some financial, psychic or other pain to the hangers-on.
Pretty soon, word filters out through WikiLeaks, or just on the front page of a newspaper in
the case of the real and present corruption (What do you mean nobody went to jail for the frauds?).
In those instances, the tendency of a populace to remain aloof with their bread and circuses and
reality shows and such gets strained.
Some people began noticing and the cognitive dissonance
became to great to ignore no matter how many times the messages were delivered from on high. That
led to many apparent outbursts of rational behavior (What, you sold my family and me out and reduced
our prospects, so why should we vote for a party that takes us for granted, at best), which would
be counter-intuitive by some in our media.
> Ashcroft: What sort of president then will Hillary Clinton be?
> Hudson: A dictator. She… a vindictive dictator, punishing her enemies, appointing neocons in the secretary
of state, in the defense department, appointing Wall Street people in the Treasury and the Federal Reserve,
and the class war will really break out very explicitly. And she'll-as Warren Buffet said, there is
a class war and we're winning it.
> Ashcroft: As in the one percent are winning it.
> Hudson: The one percent are winning it. And she will try to use the rhetoric to tell people: "Nothing
to see here folks. Keep on moving," while the economy goes down and down and she cashes in as she's
been doing all along, richer and richer, and if she's president, there will not be an investigator of
the criminal conflict of interest of the Bill Clinton Foundation, of pay-to-play. You'll have a presidency
in which corporations who pay the Clintons will be able to set policy. Whoever has the money to buy
the politicians will buy control of policy because elections have been privatized and made part of the
market economy in the United States. That's what the Citizens United Supreme Court case was all about.
"... He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors, the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary." ..."
"... "She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another lesser of two evils, there's no point." ..."
Just a few days before the general election, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham
Clinton and her running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) still can't unite her party. Supporters of
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her Democratic primary rival, are disrupting her campaign's
efforts to take on GOP nominee Donald J. Trump, and in Iowa on Saturday one prominent Sanders
backer was actually escorted out of a Clinton campaign event for urging those present not to vote
for Clinton-for which he was cheered by the crowd.
Kaleb Vanfosson, the president of Iowa State University's Students for Bernie chapter, bashed
Hillary Clinton and told rally-goers at her own campaign event not to vote for her. He was
cheered.
He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly
turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care
about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors,
the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman
Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good
friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary."
The crowd at the Clinton-Kaine event erupted in applause.
"She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what
it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another
lesser of two evils, there's no point."
At that point, a Clinton staffer rushed on stage and grabbed the young man by the arm to
escort him off the stage and out of the event.
Further to throwing Comey under the bus yesterday, Obama had this to say:
"I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute
confidence in her integrity."
No amount of Bleach-bit can remove that yellow streak running down his back and straight through
the entirety of his 'legacy'. Not once did he come down on the side opposite entrenched power
– in fact, we can now add major 'obstruction of justice' to his prior litany of failures to prosecute
white collar criminals as the basis for its own section, splitting criminal activity into two
parts, one domestic, the other for a raft of war crimes.
"... If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff. ..."
"... In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this". ..."
"... Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". ..."
If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff.
In
an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under
fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show
Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and
then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is
the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard
wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing
this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this".
Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like
a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for
really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NfFAaPZqs8
Mrs. Clinton's legal work included unsavory criminal cases. When a 41-year-old factory worker
was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, and requested a female lawyer, a Fayetteville judge appointed
Mrs. Clinton, over her objections. The crime lab mistakenly discarded crucial evidence, and she reached
a plea bargain, reducing the charge to unlawful fondling; her client served less than a year in jail.
The victim in that case, Kathy Shelton, who supports Donald J. Trump, has accused Mrs. Clinton
of attacking her character and putting her through "something you would never put a 12-year-old through."
Mrs. Clinton's first jury trial was distasteful in an entirely different way.
She had married Mr. Clinton, moved with him to Little Rock - he was then the state attorney
general - and joined Rose, the state's most prestigious law firm and the oldest one west of
the Mississippi, as it calls itself. Her clients were mainly businesses
"... About three minutes into her 20-minute stump speech, a heckler shouted, "Bill Clinton is a rapist!" as he waved a neon green sign declaring the same statement. ..."
Hillary Clinton raged Tuesday night against a protester at her rally who denounced her husband
as a sexual predator.
About three minutes into her 20-minute stump speech, a heckler shouted, "Bill Clinton is a rapist!"
as he waved a neon green sign declaring the same statement.
Clinton pointed a finger at the protester.
"I am sick and tired of the negative, dark, divisive, dangerous vision and behavior of people
who support Donald Trump," Clinton shouted at her Fort Lauderdale, Fla., rally.
It's not uncommon for "rapist" protesters to show up at Clinton rallies, but the Democratic nominee
offered a rare reaction.
"... It also demands Brock "immediately and publicly retract any statement or inference by yourself and/or Media Matters to the effect that Officer Byrne was not fully truthful in recounting within 'Crisis of Character' details from any previous testimony." ..."
"... His lawyer states that "some of our best witnesses to such immediacy are George Stephanopoulos, John Podesta, Leon Panetta, Bruce Lindsey, Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Clinton himself - who appear to have already confirmed … under oath … the regular proximity of Officer Byrne to the President for many years." ..."
"... Byrne claims the liberal advocacy group tried to hurt his credibility to defend the Clintons. ..."
"Officer Byrne will bring legal action against you, in your personal capacity, and against Media
Matters," a lawyer for the former Secret Service officer wrote to Brock, a loyal Clinton ally and
the founder of the liberal advocacy group Media Matters.
The letter requests Brock and Media Matters to "hold" all records and communications associated
with their communications regarding Byrne - including "Any communication(s) between David Brock and
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton" regarding the former Secret Service officer, suggesting there
might be collusion between the campaign and her defenders.
It also demands Brock "immediately and publicly retract any statement or inference by yourself
and/or Media Matters to the effect that Officer Byrne was not fully truthful in recounting within
'Crisis of Character' details from any previous testimony."
Additionally, Byrne's attorney demanded a retraction for "the utterly false statement(s) that
Officer Byrne was not in close proximity to President William Jefferson Clinton."
His lawyer states that "some of our best witnesses to such immediacy are George Stephanopoulos,
John Podesta, Leon Panetta, Bruce Lindsey, Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Clinton himself -
who appear to have already confirmed … under oath … the regular proximity of Officer Byrne to the
President for many years."
Byrne claims the liberal advocacy group tried to hurt his credibility to defend the Clintons.
"... "The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that." ..."
"... Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau. ..."
"... "The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said. ..."
A former FBI official said Sunday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a "crime family"
and added that top officials impeded the investigation into Clinton's email server while she was
secretary of state.
Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom praised Donald Trump before he offered a take down
of the Clintons in a radio interview with John Catsimatidis,
The Hill reported.
"The Clintons, that's a crime family, basically," Kallstrom said. "It's like organized crime.
I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool."
Kallstrom, best known for spearheading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800
in the late '90s, called Clinton a "pathological liar" and blamed Attorney General Loretta Lynch
for botching the Clinton email server investigation.
"The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the
problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled,
I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that."
"God forbid we put someone like that in the White House," he added of Clinton.
Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation
was held back, but not the rest of the bureau.
"The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said.
Bill and Hillary Clinton failed to get required permits for a
rushed renovation of the house and grounds they recently bought next to
their original Westchester home, it was reported Friday.
Records show that the Clintons' contractors filled in an in-ground pool,
covering it with gravel, and extensively remodeled the interior of the
property - all without applying for permits and paying the required fees to
the town of New Castle.
Building Inspector William Maskiell inspected the Chappaqua property
after getting the tip about the pool work and then discovered the other
renovations that were underway.
Attached to the building inspector's letter was a document titled Clinton
Violation Inspection Report in which Maskiell said the contractor told him
the Clintons "were quite adamant about [the Thanksgiving deadline] and what
had started as a paint job turned into this," meaning the major renovation.
Crazy - there are more problems than just the lack of building permits:
The Clintons also have outstanding zoning and Building Department
problems at their residence next door at 15 Old House Lane,
They obtained variances in 2000 for a guard house on the property, for
a higher fence and for "lot coverage," or the amount of space buildings
take up on the property.
The variances must be renewed every five years - but the Clintons
never showed up before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
"Consequently, they are null and void. They should have come back in
2005, 2010 and 2015. So the variances have expired and they have to start
from scratch" and reapply, said the inspector.
The original home and a combination library and gym in an outbuilding
still have outstanding building permit issues as well, including a
sprinkler "sign off" by the town engineer and an electrical inspection in
the library/gym
I'm not seeing much basic competency here in executing home ownership
responsibilities. Next I'll hear Bill steals the neigbor's Sunday newspaper
off their porch.
"... Remember back when President Bill Clinton got into all that trouble molesting the young intern in his Oral Office? Remember the first thing the lying, conniving, dissembling commander-in-cheek did? ..."
"... In the latest batch of leaked emails, one top Democratic operative is still grappling with "WJC Issues." "How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?" Ron Klain asks in a list of questions worth posing to Mrs. Clinton. "You said every woman should be believed. Why not the women who accused him?" And, perhaps the best: "Will you apologize to the women who were wrongly smeared by your husband and his allies?" ..."
"... Never apologize. Never admit. And always keep lying. ..."
"... That is the very heart of the ethos of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Lie about everything. Lie all the time. ..."
"... Lie about emails. Lie about servers. Lie about national security. Lie about who knew what when. Lie about spilling classified secrets. Lie about dead soldiers. ..."
...l each batch of stolen emails is worse than the last.
Hillary Clinton is a liar. She has terrible instincts. She doesn't believe in anything. Her head
is broken. She doesn't know why she should be president. She is pathological. And she is psychotic.
Just ask everybody who works for her. Just ask campaign chairman John Podesta. Just ask the people
working the hardest to get her elected president.
I mean, in her most rabid streak of attacks on Donald Trump's alleged unfitness for office, Mrs.
Clinton doesn't call him "psychotic."
Psychotic! That is what her campaign chairman called her.
Remember back when President Bill Clinton got into all that trouble molesting the young intern
in his Oral Office? Remember the first thing the lying, conniving, dissembling commander-in-cheek
did?
Take a poll. And he found out that he could skate by on even this - even this! But first - the
poll told him - he had to stall for time. He had to lie about it for as long as he possibly could
before coming clean.
And that was exactly what he did. And he survived.
And good thing he survived so he could go on to haunt America another 15 years later.
In the latest batch of leaked emails, one top Democratic operative is still grappling with "WJC
Issues." "How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?" Ron Klain asks in a list of
questions worth posing to Mrs. Clinton. "You said every woman should be believed. Why not the women who accused him?" And, perhaps the best: "Will you apologize to the women who were wrongly smeared by your husband
and his allies?"
Answer: Not likely.
Never apologize. Never admit. And always keep lying.
That is the very heart of the ethos of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Lie about everything. Lie all
the time.
Lie about emails. Lie about servers. Lie about national security. Lie about who knew what when.
Lie about spilling classified secrets. Lie about dead soldiers.
Exhaust the people with lies. And then, very flippantly, after months or years of lying, say whatever
you have to say to make the press go away.
"I am sorry you were confused."
"I have already said I wish I had done it differently."
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
It is all so shameless and dirty and befuddling that it would make Niccolo Machiavelli blush.
Rank Name Donations
1 Tom Steyer $38 million
2 Donald Sussman $23.4 million
3 Miriam &
Sheldon Adelson $21.5 million
4 Robert Mercer $20.2 million
5 Michael
Bloomberg $20.1 million
6 Fred Eychaner $20 million
7 Paul Singer $17.3 million
8 George Soros $16.5 million
9 Maurice "Hank"
Greenberg $15.1 million
10 Elizabeth &
Richard Uihlein $14 million
"... Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems.... ..."
"... She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President ..."
"... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women. ..."
"... The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors! ..."
"... Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA. ..."
"... So here's the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
"... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
"... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear
Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came
from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood
swings' and her health problems....
She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear
Codes much less be running for President because she also is a Criminal and belongs in Federal
Prison.
This is coded speech microaggression. They are discriminating against her because she is a
woman, implying she is 'moody' you know 'hysterical'... hysterectomy... its sexist, its misogynist
its harassment, its abuse, its hate speech.
Come on Liberal media, where are you ... call it out... this is your bread and butter...
Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women.
They did it to Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachman... You know they'd do it if Trump said Hillary
was 'moody'.
The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors!
Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player
in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked
them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter
them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence
she is unqualified to lead the USA.
Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):
So here's the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve
US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission.
Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some
of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July
25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot
Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance
team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept
in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to
retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down
orders given to multiple commando teams.
It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus
wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then,
Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking
points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.
Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about,
why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks
after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone
knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy
without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing
the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone
KNEW he was a traitor.
So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that
is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. Only
the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft
was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.
Tim Kaine: "I don't think we can dignify documents dumped by WikiLeaks and just assume that they're
all accurate and true,"
They were confirmed true when John Podesta's Twitter password was distributed in one of the
WikiLeaks email releases and his Twitter account was hijacked the same day by a troll saying,
"Trump 2016! Hi pol". Checkmate b!tch. see more DNC Russian Hacker Pepe
Regular Guy •
12 minutes ago The way they parse words, the Kaine statement still doesn't state the documents
are not accurate. He makes an editorial statement to mislead the listener into thinking there
is some reason to question the facts.
Sounds pretty much like poor temperament to me when you have mood problems. Can we please put
national security on hold for now, we have to check her mood ring. It is imperative for the best
outcome that we check her head space. WOW! That's a real dumb explanation. Maybe if we use the
word mood instead of temperament that will be better than telling people she has health problems
in her head.
Qatar, like most Muslim countries, treats women as second-class citizens, but
champion-of-women Hillary never lets a little thing like that stop her from doing business. (See:
"On favors.") And a far greater threat than murderous Muslims adhering to a fanatical 7th-century
religious ideology lurks right here at home - those pesky Roman Catholics and their silly
2,000-year-old faith. (See: "On Catholics.")
That's explains vicious campaign by neoliberal MSM against Trump and swiping under the carpet all
criminal deeds of Clinton family. They feel the threat...
Notable quotes:
"... It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism. ..."
"... That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness. That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. ..."
It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by
race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously
the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives:
socialism and communism.
That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness.
That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the
United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge.
The North's abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War
had more to do a desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from
the competition of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.[…]
There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to
screw Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core
of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten
her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism.
In other words it's all part of a grand plan when the Clintonoids aren't busy debating the finer
points of her marketing and "mark"–a term normally applied to the graphic logo on a commercial product.
In a recently-leaked speech from 2013, Hillary Clinton said that it is important to take both public
and private positions on each issue. Is this the language of the typical politician, or something
even more deceptive? How does that explain her positions on Syria and Saudi Arabia?
We could always have a few murders and suspecious deaths looked
into again. .... A few to chose from:
-
Kevin Ives
and
Don Henry
, both 17, crushed by a train, August
23, 1987. Their deaths were ruled accidental, with the medical examiner saying
they had fallen asleep on a railroad line after smoking marijuana, but a grand
jury found they had been murdered before being placed on the tracks. They had
allegedly stumbled on a plot to smuggle drugs and guns from an airport in Mena,
Arkansas, that Bill Clinton was said to be involved in as state governor.
-
Victor Raiser
,
53, small plane crash, July 30, 1992. The second finance co-chair of Bill
Clinton's presidential campaign was killed along with his son during a fishing
vacation in Alaska. Campaign press secretary Dee Dee Myers called Raiser a major
player in the organization.
-
Paul Tully
,
48, heart attack, September 25, 1992. A chain-smoking, heavy drinking political
consultant who weighed more than 320lb. Tully died seven weeks before Clinton's
first presidential election win. He had been political director of the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) during Clinton's rise. Tully was on the left of the
Democratic Party and usually worked for those who shared his views, however he
agreed to work for Clinton because he thought he was the only Democrat who could
beat President George Bush.
-
Paula Gober
,
36, single car accident, December 7, 1992. She was Clinton's interpreter for the
deaf for several years and traveled with him while he was governor of Arkansas.
Her vehicle overturned on a bend, throwing her 30 feet. There were no witnesses.
-
Vince Foster
,
48, suicide, July 20, 1993. A long-time friend of the Clintons in Arkansas, new
president Bill Clinton appointed him Deputy White House Counsel. Foster soon
realized he hated the job and fell into a deep depression. He was found shot to
death in Fort Marcy Park in Washington.
-
Stanley Heard
,
47, small plane crash, September 3, 1993. An Arkansas chiropractor who, according
to the book, A Profession of One's Own, treated the Clinton family, Heard was
asked by Bill Clinton to represent the practice as plans for 'Hillarycare' were
being finalized. His attorney Steve Dickson, was flying him home from a healthcare
meeting in Washington, DC. On the way to the capital from his home in Kansas,
Dickson's small plane developed problems so he landed in St Louis and rented
another plane. That rented plane was the one that crashed in rural Virginia,
killing both men.
-
Jerry Parks
,
47, shot to death, September 23, 1993. The head of security for Bill Clinton's
headquarters in Arkansas was driving home in West Little Rock when two men pulled
alongside his car and sprayed it with semi-automatic gunfire. As Parks's car
stopped a man stepped out of the Chevy and shot him twice with a 9mm pistol and
sped off. Despite several witnesses, no-one was ever arrested. The killing came
two months after Parks had watched news of Foster's death and allegedly told his
son Gary 'I'm a dead man'. His wife Lois remarried, and her second husband, Dr
David Millstein was stabbed to death in 2006.
-
Ed Willey
, 60,
suicide, November 29, 1993. Husband of Bill Clinton accuser Kathleen Willey, he
was deeply in debt and shot himself to death on the day that his wife alleges she
was groped by Bill Clinton in the Oval Office.
-
Herschel Friday
,
70, small plane crash, March 1, 1994. Friday was an Arkansas lawyer who Richard
Nixon had once considered for the Supreme Court. Friday was known as a benefactor
of Bill Clinton, serving on his campaign finance committee.
-
Kathy Ferguson
,
37, gun suicide, May 11, 1994. She was the ex-wife of Arkansas State Trooper Danny
Ferguson, who was named in a sexual harassment suit brought by Paula Jones against
Bill Clinton. Ferguson left a note blaming problems with her fiancé, Bill Shelton.
A month later Shelton, upset about the suicide verdict, killed himself.
-
Ron Brown
, 54,
plane crash, April 3, 1996. Brown was chair of the Democratic National Committee
during Bill Clinton's rise to the presidential nomination and was rewarded with
the cabinet position. He was under a corruption investigation when his plane
slammed into a mountainside in Croatia. Doctors who examined his body found a
circular wound on the top of his head which led to suspicions that he had died
before the plane crashed, but that theory was later discounted. The crash was
attributed to pilot error.
-
Charles Meissner
,
56, same plane crash as Brown. Meissner was assistant secretary for international
trade and had been criticized for allegedly giving special security clearance to
John Huang, who later pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges for violating
campaign finance laws, in a case that enmeshed the Clinton administration.
-
Barbara Wise
,
48, natural causes, November 29, 1996. Wise, who worked alongside Brown, Meissner
and Huang in the Commerce Department was found dead at her desk on the day after
Thanksgiving 1996. Her death was originally classified as a homicide but police
later said Wise, 48, who had a history of severe ill health, had died from natural
causes. A local TV station initially quoted an unidentified police source as
saying her body was partially nude and her office was locked, but those reports
were later denied.
-
Mary Mahoney
,
25, armed robbery, July 7, 1997. Mahoney was a White House intern during the
Monica Lewinsky scandal. A lesbian gay rights activist, she never found herself
troubled by Clinton, but she did take to counseling those who did. She was shot
dead during a robbery at a Washington Starbucks where she worked.
-
Jim McDougal
,
57, heart attack, March 8, 1998. McDougal and his wife Susan were involved in the
Whitewater real estate scandal that rocked the Clinton administration. They and
the Clintons had invested $203,000 to buy land in the Ozarks but the venture
failed and McDougal was convicted of corruption for borrowing money from his
Savings and Loan to cover the cost. He died in federal prison in Fort Worth,
Texas.
-
John Ashe
, 61,
weightlifting accident, June 22, 2016. The Antiguan diplomat dropped a dumbbell on
his neck and asphyxiated himself at his home in Dobbs Ferry, New York. He was due
to stand trial for allegedly receiving $500,000 from billionaire real estate
developer Ng Lap Seng who was involved in a scandal involving illegally funneling
hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic National Committee during Bill
Clinton's presidency.
-
Seth Rich
, 27,
armed robbery, July 26, 2016. A rising star in the DNC, Rich was robbed at
gunpoint after a night of drinking in Washington, DC. The robbers took nothing,
leaving his watch and wallet after shooting him several times in the back. Rich
had allegedly been involved in the leak of documents that brought down Hillary
Clinton ally Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
-
Mark Weiner
,
62, leukemia, July 26, 2016. Despite his condition, Weiner, a prodigious Clinton
fundraiser, was due to attend the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia
and was dressing on the day he was due to travel from his home in Rhode Island.
But he suddenly felt ill and went to bed and never got up again.
-
Victor Thorn
,
54, suicide, August 1, 2016. Thorn shot himself in the head at the top of Nittany
Mountain, Pennsylvania, on his birthday. He had written four books highly critical
of the Clintons. He was also a Holocaust denier.
-
Shawn Lucas
,
38, unexplained, August 2, 2016. Just days before his death, Lucas, a process
server had delivered papers to the Democratic National Committee's headquarters in
Washington, DC, filming himself as he did so. He was found dead in his apartment
in the city.
There are more but these are a good start.
Live Hard, This Many Deaths Are Way More Than
Happenstance, Die Free
kevin b
1
day ago
+Eric Shutter tell that to the
investigation committee..the FBI and the
congress investigation who all covered her
with "gross misconduct" instead of guilty
by hacked emails to known hacking and
homeland security of confidential
documents! another clinton victory by
paying off or threatening these guys if she
gets into office. what an ugly person she
is..she does think the law is beneath her
to follow...typical elitist narcissistic
profile!
Hank Chinaski
1
day ago
This psycho bitch will start WWIII... elect her at
your own risk.
Tam
1
day ago
0:17
Travelgate
1:03
Vince
Foster's
Death
1:29
Hillary
Care
2:56
Whitewater
Investigation
4:44
Cattlegate
5:48
Filegate
6:22
The
Clinton
Legal
defense
fund
6:33
Chinagate
7:18
IRS
Abuses
7:52
Pardongate
9:41
FALN
Terrorists
10:58
New
York
Senate
Campaign
Finance
12:15
New
York
Senate
performance
12:50
Senate
Rules
Violations
13:11
2008
Presidential
Canidate
13:45
Madam
Secretary
15:08
State
Department
Scandals
and
Cover-ups
15:59
Benghazi
Terrorist
Attack
Cover-up
17:12
Clinton
Secrets
(FoI)
17:37
Clinton
Foundation
Conflicts
of
Interest
20:37
Various
snippets
hellopuppy00
2
days ago
The fact that so many corrupts scandals of one
person can be listed for 25 minutes straight like
this is bad enough. The horrific part is that
American is about to make her President.
Eric Barth
1
day ago (edited)
we have no control over who we get to
choose and even then electoral votes
control th powers above popular votes.
Citizens do not matter in this regard
whatsoever. This game is controlled from
the top while feigning that it is
controlled by the people.
Raymond Cestaro
1
day ago
and this video is just scratching the
surface
Erkuht Ateue
5
months ago
HOLY SHIT, How can american people be so fucking
blind? This is outrageous!
View all 55 replies
Kevin S
3
days ago
Two ways. 1. Dumbing Down of the
population. 2. Entertainment. It is
sickening!
Tom F
48
minutes ago
Past Mobsters never come close to besting this bitch
and her Billy.
Took the Red Pill
1
day ago
Holy shit this is amazing. The work here is
fantastic. FBI really outdid themselves here. Still
gonna vote for Clinton, we cannot allow a man who
likes Pussy into office. I'm with HER :D
jefftc14
4
months ago
anyone else notice or remember how the Clinton's
were heavily involved in massive amounts of cocaine
smuggling into the U.S. and then hmm look at all
their friends they bail out.. all cocaine kingpins..
"... I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent." ..."
"In an election in which one of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll
deliver everything under the sun, without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically
possible-there's something bold, even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political
deal-making.
Maybe it's not a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being
honest."
"The Case for a 'Two-Faced' Hillary Clinton" [The New Republic]. "In an election in which one
of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll deliver everything under the sun,
without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically possible-there's something bold,
even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political deal-making. Maybe it's not
a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being honest."
I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie
detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick
… we're both innocent."
Yikes:
"We therefore hold that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured,' the court said" … PHH said
the law creating the CFPB gave an unaccountable director too much authority."
Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any
case brought regarding NSA spyiny?
"Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any
case brought regarding NSA spyiny?"
Unfortunately, this very same judge has a long history on those issues,
including time in the Bush Cheney White House before getting a lifetime appointment
on the bench,
and for the most part it's not pretty. Emptywheel has an
entire archive devoted
to him.
This segues into an argument in favor of voting for Hillary Clinton that I can't rebut: Republicans
appoint bad people to both the Executive branch and to the Judiciary, but Democrats only appoint
bad people to the Executive branch. Therefore, one should vote for Hillary Clinton, Democrat.
I've oversimplified the argument, but in general, that's what some people have told me, and I
don't have a good counter argument.
That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Clinton. She's a crook. I'll either leave the Presidential
part of the ballot blank, or vote for Stein, despite my great annoyance over some of the things
that Ajamu Baraka has said.
Merrick Garland, Obama's latest nominee, is pro-Ciizen's United, so not sure how "good" he
is. Conventional wisdom about Democratic vs. Republican appointees to the bench would seem suspect
to me in a day when the Overton window has shifted so far to the right that the Democratic candidate
for President is more conservative, more pro-business, more hawkish, and less environmentally
responsible than Richard Nixon,
I challenge you to find any Democratic judicial appointments of the past 3 decades that are
as bad as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, or Samuel Alito.
As for Garland, he's not good, but he's certainly not as bad as any Republican
nominee would be. And he hasn't even been confirmed.
Hillary is surrounding herself with exactly the same cast of characters as those who appointed
the judges you name. Why do you think her taste in justices will be any different than her taste
in policy advisors or potential cabinet members?
After Clinton signs the TPP, the Supreme Court will be moot anyway.
Obama's Executive branch appointments have been dismal, but his judicial appointments seem
to be better - Sotomayor and Kagan. Bill Clinton appointed Breyer and Ginsburg. None of these
4 judges is remotely like Scalia.
I strongly suspect that Hillary Clinton would nominate similar judges.
We definitely don't want the TPP to pass. We need to keep the pressure on Congress, so we don't
have to worry about what a President might do.
I reiterate: there are many things wrong with Clinton, and I will not vote for her.
Sotomayor has been great, but Kagan has been a mixed bag. She voted (in a losing dissent,
along with Scalia, Kennedy and Silent Clarence) , to allow Sarbanes-Oxley to be used against
a fisherman for throwing his catch overboard. She was to the right of Roberts on this one. Even the liberal Harvard Law School …
Clinton's first "appointment," first in the line of succession, Tim Kaine, is pro-TPP, pro-Hyde
Amendment, anti-labor (pro-right-to-work-for-nothing), and pro-intervention in Syria.
Know what you mean but try asking people who bring up judges as the reason to vote blue, why
should we believe that when Dems can't even deliver on judges when their nominee is a
REPUBLICAN for goodness sakes? Then take exaggerated offense at being expected to settle
for so LITTLE .
I appreciate the feedback. However, I don't think it's clear that Garland is a Republican.
Prior to nominating him, there were trial balloons from the White House suggesting that Republican
Brian Sandoval of Nevada would be chosen.
The New Republic piece is a festering pile of shit, and I intend that phrase as purely descriptive
account of the object.
This is a woman who with her husband earned over $139 MILLION DOLLARS in paid speeches to the
.1%–the OLIGARCHY–between 2007-2014 ALONE!
And yet the cretin of a human being calling himself the author of this "piece" [of shit] chooses
to insult my intelligence–yea, even perpetrate fraud upon the species!–by pretending as if this
UNQUESTIONABLE FACT is simply IRRELEVANT to Clinton's "nuanced"–[insert sounds of my heaving vomit]–distinction
between her public and private position. A DISTINCTION THAT WOULD ITSELF HAVE BEEN WITHHELD FROM
THE PUBLIC RECORD IF IT HAD NOT BEEN LEAKED BY WIKILEAKS, THE FOUNDER OF WHOM SHE HAS PROPOSED
BE MURDERED BY DRONE STRIKE!!
No, MY PROBLEM, YOUR PROBLEM, ANYBODY'S PROBLEM with this avaricious sociopathic warmongering
ulcerous wretch is–MUST BE–that she is a WOMAN?!
"As substantively defensible-even virtuous-as dealmaking can be, taking this tack runs the
risk of confirming the public's worst fears about Clinton: that she's dishonest and lacking in
core conviction. That notion, which has a gendered element to it…." [but might also perhaps not
be unrelated to her long history of manipulation, lying, stealing, backstabbing, fraud, embezzlement,
fraud, more lying, murder, more murder, more fraud]…
Fuck it. The oligarchy doesn't even have to be good at "public relations" anymore. Might as
well get ahead of the curve and move to Brazil.
PHH is horrible. They purchased my mortgage last year, and started forclosure proceedings within
the 60 day grace period while my autopayment was still going to the previous servicer (as allowed
by law). Their customer support in Asia lied repeatedly, and when I starting informing them that
I would record the calls, they would hang up or refuse to talk to me.
They finally acknowledged their error after 3-4 calls (particularly once I found out I had
to keep asking for a supervisor until I was connected to the US), but it was a huge waste of my
time.
Nor the 'Necrotelecomnicon.' The handy guide to contacting H Clinton's core advisor circle.
As for which precise 'circle' (of H-,) H Clintons advisors come from; opinions are divided.
I did not take that to mean she hated actual, everyday Americans – I took it that she hates
that phrase.
I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once
the first time she says I'm running for president because you and everyday Americans
need a champion. I think if she doesn't say it once, people will notice and
say we false started in Iowa.
And no, I don't know why the phrase wasn't put into quotes, but I note that there aren't any
quotes around the part that begins "she says I'm running for president because…" either. As I
read the e-mail, it sure seems to me like it's about the phrase, not about people.
(The email is a compilation of quotes from Clinton's paid speeches, not
otherwise available. It begins: "Attached are the flags from HRC's paid
speeches we have from HWA." The asterisked material is how the Clinton campaign
staffer "flagged" the quotes they considered dangerous.) Since these quotes are
from paid speeches, we can expect Clinton's private position - expect, that is,
if we assume that Clinton isn't cheating her clients by failing to deliver
value for money in terms of services to be rendered - to be a more accurate
representation of her views than her public one. In other words, we're looking
at a pitch to the donor class, when Clinton was laying the groundwork for her
campaign. In an oligarchy, this would be natural.
===============================================
Sorry, but as I have said before, I don't believe Clinton's speeches are
important – they are just a McGuffin to deflect from the real travesty
occurring in plain site – what Lloyd Blankfein tells Clinton at the gladhanding
after the speech….
As someone once told me in Washington, nothing TRULY important is ever
committed to paper.
I'm surprised not to see anything here about the "political bombshell" of Trump's latest sexist
remarks.
As I listen to the talking heads bloviate about what a "death blow" this is to the Trump campaign,
it occurs to me that if the Repubs could engineer Trump's withdrawal from the top of the ticket,
they could probably beat Hillary with Pence. They would have to arrange it so that Trump goes
agreeably - should not be too hard to do, since many doubt if he WANTS to be president - and Pence
could pledge that he would carry forward all of Trump's wonderful Screw the Establishment policies.
Trump without the messy Trump_vs_deep_states.
Disgusting as Trump is, I'm sure not looking forward to the howls of misogyny that will be
coming from the Clinton camp. And, just another distraction from talking about policy.
1. Clinton is corrupt (again), liar (still), dishonest (again), warmonger (still) etc. Trump
is racist(still), bigot (again), misogynist (still), Hitler (Putin, Ahmedinejad)…. gets tedious
after the 20th time.
2. I think Trump does it on purpose as a response to a Clinton dump. It looks like her GS speeches
are out today so the networks can cover Trump's latest bigoted statement and ignore Clinton insulting
the voters and sucking up to the oligarchs.
"... Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff for underhanded tactics. ..."
"... "We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks, which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us, lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email. ..."
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign collaborated with Bloomberg reporter Jennifer Epstein to
create an anti-Bernie Sanders story prior to the Nevada caucus.
In the vast trove of Clinton emails leaked Thursday by the organization DCLeaks, there is an email
exchange between Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and Emily Ruiz, head of the campaign's Nevada
operation. In the exchange, Ruiz and Mook discuss rumors that Sanders volunteers were posing as Clinton
operatives and engaging in irritating behavior like knocking on voters' doors at 11 pm.
Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff
for underhanded tactics.
"We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks,
which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us,
lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email.
"... Hillary Clinton and husband Bill will turn the White House and the U.S. Government into their personal bank. ..."
"... If the American electorate selects Hillary as their commander and chief she will immediately demand a No-Fly Zone over Syria. She will impose more economic sanctions on Russia, including an increase in NATO strength on Russia's western borders, just to show she is the Queen bitch. She will give israHell carte blanche to increase and expand further abuse in the Gaza strip. She is a woman scorned. And a very dangerous one. ..."
"... [neo]Liberalism is in terminal decline, and not a moment too soon. ..."
"... Hillary does not have any creative spark at all. She, like Obama is a dud, but one thing is for sure, she is not Donald. ..."
"... These same americans should go back, for once, to his 2008 campaign to defeat first Hillary in the primaries and then the republican McCain. ..."
"... The climate was dominated by the financial meltdown, which really started in the summer of 2007 and was evident by early spring of 2008. Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street, according to Obama, the republicans were one and the same with Wall Street and all the big corporate world, he was Hope and Change. ..."
"... Hope? What hope? And even more: change, what change? There has been little change, if almost half of the nation is now ready to accept Trump as a promise of change. Obama's main financial support came in 2008 from Wall Street, hedge funds in particular, and they were right because nobody like the first Afro-American president, himself inevitably the incarnation of progressivism, could save their ass after all the criminal finance they indulged in. ..."
"... So, Obama's inheritance is a problem, and Hillary is running on Obama's inheritance. ..."
"... Robert Kagan, ringleader of the cabal of neo-cons has endorsed Hillary, who is Roberts wife? why bless me if it isn't Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland, ..."
"... Samantha Powers is a neo-con acolyte, Ashton Carter is too, the State Dept. and the council of foreign relations is riddled with their people, all the horror figures of Dubya's days are lurking there and pulling strings, ..."
"... Kerry isn't really a neo-con, but the Pentagon and CIA sabotage anything half decent he tries to do, ..."
"... Basically Hillary is as genuine, left leaning and honest as Tony Blair.... ..."
"... Also remember the lack of believability of Hillary. She is a politician that has been caught in lies so often that people just don't believe her. She pushed the soda tax in Philly until Coca-Cola complained that they gave too much money to the Foundation to be treated that way. Hillary backed off. She made millions from speaking to Big Banks. So we really believe she will go after Wells Fargo? She is beholden to them (unless Goldman Sachs gets to choose). She says raise taxes to pay fair share, but her biggest supporters are Apple, Google, and their executives that keep billions of income overseas to avoid the highest corporate income tax in the world. Do we really think she will hurt the contributors to the Foundation? And the more the email saga plays out, the longer the untrustworthy issue remains in everyone's mind. MonotonousLanguor , 2016-10-07 20:58:06 Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton will hold anyone on Wall Street accountable??? She is bought and paid for by Wall Street, starting with all the green backs Hillary and Bill stuffed in their pockets from the those speaking fees. Obama's Justice Department motto was, Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail. The Democrats are not going to bite their masters on Wall Street, and of course neither will the Republicans. IanB52 -> NoctilucentGinswig , 2016-10-07 20:41:06 Prosecuting bankers, prosecuting torturers, stopping white collar crime, wars, assassinations, warrantless spying and even scheduling of Marijuana are all under the control of the Executive Branch. Find even one of these where the President did the right thing. Uncle Putin , 2016-10-07 20:26:49 This is exactly what I was thinking during the first presidential debate. Hillary is an old pro at saying all the right things, pushing all the right buttons to get the votes she needs, but can you believe much of what she says? ..."
"... This is why, despite a poor debate performance overall, I thought Trump was spot on when he simply said she was a typical politician--all talk, no action, sounds great, none of it will ever happen. He's correct. ..."
"... What Frank seldom writes of but remains extremely important to many people on the left in the US is that Obama has governed as the effective prisoner of the Pentagon and security establishment. His wars (including on whistleblowers), nuclear build-up, and confrontation with Russia have given added momentum to growing neoconservative bipartisan consensus that will likely see a new President Clinton start a war with Russia in Syria and/or Ukraine. ..."
"... The Democrats are now both so neoliberal and so neoconservative that the only thing that differentiates them from Republicans is social progressivism. Given a choice between the latter and greatly increased likelihood of nuclear war, I have to confess to preferring that Trump win. Trump has been consistent in wanting to lessen tensions with Russia. ..."
"... Not even social progressivism, so much as a set of captive client constituencies whom they name-drop and weaponize. ..."
The puzzle that is currently frustrating the pundit minds of America is this: why is Hillary
Clinton not simply clobbering Donald Trump? How is this ranting, seething buffoon still competitive
with her? Trump has now stumbled through a series of the kind of blunders that break ordinary
political campaigns – the sort of deadly hypocrisies that always kill the demagogue in old movies
– and yet this particular demagogue keeps on trucking. Why?
Let us answer that burning pundit question of today by jumping to what will undoubtedly be
the next great object of pundit ardor: the legacy of President Barack Obama. Two months from now,
when all the TV wise men are playing historian and giving their estimation on where Obama ranks
in the pantheon of the greats, they will probably neglect to mention that his legacy helped to
determine Hillary's fortunes in this election cycle.
"As a beloved figure among Democrats, for example, Obama was instrumental in securing the nomination
for her. As a president who has accomplished little since 2011, however, Obama has pretty much
undermined Clinton's ability to sell us on another centrist Democratic presidency. His legacy
has diluted her promise
…. Or take this headline from just a few days ago: "Clinton promises to hold Wells Fargo accountable".
Go get 'em, Hillary! To see a president get tough with elite bankers and with CEOs in general
– that's something we can all cheer for. But then that nagging voice piped up again: if Democrats
think it is so critical to get tough with crooked banksters, why oh why didn't Barack Obama take
the many, many opportunities he had to do so back in the days when it would have really mattered?"
Senator Elizabeth Warren pronounced on the current state of middle America as follows:
Look around. Americans bust their tails, some working two or three jobs, but wages stay
flat. Meanwhile, the basic costs of making it from month to month keep going up. Housing, healthcare,
child care – costs are out of sight. Young people are getting crushed by student loans. Working
people are in debt. Seniors can't stretch a social security check to cover the basics.
It was a powerful indictment of what Warren called a "rigged" system – except for one thing:
that system is presided over by Barack Obama, a man that same Democratic convention was determined
to apotheosize as one of the greatest politicians of all times.
The larger problem facing them is the terminal irrelevance of their great, overarching campaign
theme. Remember the "man from Hope"? "Hope is on the way"? "Keep hope alive"? Well, this year
"hope" is most assuredly dead. Thanks to Obama's flagrant hope-dealing in the dark days of 2008
– followed up by his failure to reverse the disintegration of the middle class – this favorite
Democratic cliché has finally become just that: an empty phrase.
If the American electorate selects Hillary as their commander and chief she will immediately
demand a No-Fly Zone over Syria. She will impose more economic sanctions on Russia, including
an increase in NATO strength on Russia's western borders, just to show she is the Queen bitch.
She will give israHell carte blanche to increase and expand further abuse in the Gaza strip. She
is a woman scorned. And a very dangerous one.
[neo]Liberalism is in terminal decline, and not a moment too soon. It's far past time
we redeveloped a politics of interests rather than this Christianised values sham.
Hillary will win because she is not Trump. If she wins it is another 4 Obama like years and it
is Bill's Third Term in Office. Hillary does not have any creative spark at all. She, like
Obama is a dud, but one thing is for sure, she is not Donald.
Too many americans are mesmerized by the fact that Obama is young and articulate, plays well
the presidential role, is generally speaking what is called a nice person or at least behaves
formally as if he were one, has but only of late (thanks to Hillary and Trump perhaps, by contrast)
a fairly high popularity score.
These same americans should go back, for once, to his 2008 campaign to defeat first Hillary
in the primaries and then the republican McCain.
The climate was dominated by the financial meltdown, which really started in the summer
of 2007 and was evident by early spring of 2008. Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street, according
to Obama, the republicans were one and the same with Wall Street and all the big corporate world,
he was Hope and Change.
Hope? What hope? And even more: change, what change? There has been little change, if almost
half of the nation is now ready to accept Trump as a promise of change. Obama's main financial
support came in 2008 from Wall Street, hedge funds in particular, and they were right because
nobody like the first Afro-American president, himself inevitably the incarnation of progressivism,
could save their ass after all the criminal finance they indulged in.
And Obama did save their skin, as everybody knows. Obama took on board plenty of Clinton (and
Wall Street) people, starting in June 2008, when Hillary was finished. You cannot change that
much after the financial crisis if you take Lawrence Summers as economic top advisor and you install
young Geithner at the Treasury. Paul Volcker, who inspired so many good and useful judgements
for candidate Obama, was put in the closet.
Obama is a lawyer by education and he knows who is the best customer. That's not the man or
the woman of Main Street. To them, some of them, he gave Obamacare, which is not all bad and something
of it will remain, I think, but it's not at all that major reform he has been boasting about.
By november 8 everybody will know that Obamacare has serious problems.
So, Obama's inheritance is a problem, and Hillary is running on Obama's inheritance.
nice to see the Guardian have a moment of clarity!
I do feel sympathy for Obama, he, and his family, have effectively spent 8 years held hostage
in the White House by those perfidious neo-conservatives,
they existed in Ronnie Raygun's day but he laughed at them, G H Bush referred to them as 'the
crazies in the basement' and kept close tabs on them,
they were happily meddling away during Bill Clintons era helping destroy Yugoslavia and furiously
planning their 'Project for a New American Century' PNAC basically a blueprint and justification
for every shitty thing done since,
G W Bush let loose the neo-cons of war and we know what they've done,
Barack Obama's greatest folly was to not round them up on the first day of his presidency,
put them in a sack with a brick and throw them in the river,
they have infested his government and followed their own agenda whilst laughing at him, so
the story goes, at a private dinner party Barack was asked why he wasn't doing anything to thwart
these shits and his reply was 'you saw what they did to MLK'
now at the transition to Clinton these neo-cons are actively endorsing her, they consider her
'their girl' Clinton may well turn out to be George 'Dubya' with tits,
Robert Kagan, ringleader of the cabal of neo-cons has endorsed Hillary, who is Roberts
wife? why bless me if it isn't Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland,
Samantha Powers is a neo-con acolyte, Ashton Carter is too, the State Dept. and the council
of foreign relations is riddled with their people, all the horror figures of Dubya's days are
lurking there and pulling strings,
Kerry isn't really a neo-con, but the Pentagon and CIA sabotage anything half decent he
tries to do,
Elizabeth Warren as VP would have given Hillary great credibility but she is explicitly not
a neo-conservative,
Basically Hillary is as genuine, left leaning and honest as Tony Blair....
and people wonder why they pin their last tatter of hope Donald 'Mr Bombastic' Trump?
much as I find Trump and his hardcore supporters loathsome I have to point out that he has:
expressed interest in talking with and working with Putin as opposed to starting WW3
accepted the concept of climate change (massive move for a Republican) but pointed out nuclear
war is an even greater and more immediate threat,
pointed out the expenditure of 5-6 Trillion dollars on pointless wars whilst the country crumbles
to ruins, basically a third of the US national debt run up in 15 years,
the fact he wants to make America great again is because he acknowledges that it isn't great
atm,
he's pointed out that Hillary makes all these pledges but has been in a position of power for
decades and has done sod all about it,
and the establishment , especially the neo-cons absolutely hate him...
if you're going to hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil maybe chauvinism and casual
racism are those lesser evils,
LGBT rights will not defend you from nuclear bombs, the heat flash that vaporises you is fairly
indifferent to skin colour or religion,
Also remember the lack of believability of Hillary. She is a politician that has been caught
in lies so often that people just don't believe her. She pushed the soda tax in Philly until Coca-Cola
complained that they gave too much money to the Foundation to be treated that way. Hillary backed
off.
She made millions from speaking to Big Banks. So we really believe she will go after Wells
Fargo? She is beholden to them (unless Goldman Sachs gets to choose).
She says raise taxes to pay fair share, but her biggest supporters are Apple, Google, and their
executives that keep billions of income overseas to avoid the highest corporate income tax in
the world. Do we really think she will hurt the contributors to the Foundation?
And the more the email saga plays out, the longer the untrustworthy issue remains in everyone's
mind.
Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton will hold anyone on Wall Street accountable??? She
is bought and paid for by Wall Street, starting with all the green backs Hillary and Bill stuffed
in their pockets from the those speaking fees.
Obama's Justice Department motto was, Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail. The Democrats are not
going to bite their masters on Wall Street, and of course neither will the Republicans.
Prosecuting bankers, prosecuting torturers, stopping white collar crime, wars, assassinations,
warrantless spying and even scheduling of Marijuana are all under the control of the Executive
Branch. Find even one of these where the President did the right thing.
This is exactly what I was thinking during the first presidential debate. Hillary is an old
pro at saying all the right things, pushing all the right buttons to get the votes she needs,
but can you believe much of what she says?
This is why, despite a poor debate performance overall, I thought Trump was spot on when
he simply said she was a typical politician--all talk, no action, sounds great, none of it will
ever happen. He's correct.
Hillary is promising all sorts of things that she knows will never come to fruition. I voted
for Obama twice, but I'm chomping at the bit to vote for Trump, for no other reason then the fact
that he is the true outsider here. It's a gamble for sure, but with the right advisors he could
potentially institute some major changes that will never happen under a cautious Hillary who will
be obsessed with re-election the minute she starts her first term.
What Frank seldom writes of but remains extremely important to many people on the left in
the US is that Obama has governed as the effective prisoner of the Pentagon and security establishment.
His wars (including on whistleblowers), nuclear build-up, and confrontation with Russia have given
added momentum to growing neoconservative bipartisan consensus that will likely see a new President
Clinton start a war with Russia in Syria and/or Ukraine.
The Democrats are now both so neoliberal and so neoconservative that the only thing that
differentiates them from Republicans is social progressivism. Given a choice between the latter
and greatly increased likelihood of nuclear war, I have to confess to preferring that Trump win.
Trump has been consistent in wanting to lessen tensions with Russia.
As a voter, of course, I could vote for neither, and so am voting for Jill Stein.
Kathleen Lake
9m ago
1
2
Hillary, we believe Assange not you and you have earned
out contempt. It's sickening to know isn't it, that
almost ANY anonymous hacker has more credibility than
she who pretends to the throne (and in Clinton's case
it is a monarchy not a democracy as thev"line of
succession" was determined long before even one vote
was cast). Thanks for allowing your (lack of) character
to give us one more entry into you litany of lies,
corruption, deceit and infamy.", hillary. I will not
vote for corruption, lies and oil wars, so I will not
vote you... ever.
David Stalker
11m ago
0
1
Well what with Bill Clinton gaining the presidency and
Hillary the secretary of state position along with the
wealth they have generated how could they be none other
than establishment for those not familiar with that
phrase. and i quote from wikipedia. The Establishment
generally denotes a dominant group or elite that holds
power or authority in a nation or organization. The
Establishment may be a closed social group which
selects its own members or specific entrenched elite
structures, either in government or in specific
institutions. And as such my view is she will get the
job as President.
eldudeabides
14m ago
1
2
In public we hear her yarn about being against TTIP.....in
private, the opposite.
....In April 2015 the New York Times published a
story about a company called "Uranium One" which was
sold to Russian government-controlled interests,
giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all
uranium production capacity in the United States.
Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with
implications for the production of nuclear weapons,
the deal had to be approved by a committee composed
of representatives from a number of US government
agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed
off the deal was the State Department, then headed
by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises,
among others, the secretaries of the Treasury,
Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of
Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the
Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from
individuals directly connected to the deal including
the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although
Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White
House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton
Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of
Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the
Clintons.
sblejo
1h ago
3
4
How can anyone trust Clinton and CO. when they
undermined Bernie Sanders, of their own party, because
he was winning??? Despicable, disreputable, dishonest,
power hungry, corrupt. What else can be said about her
and her ilk. And then they blame Russia for exposing
the treachery, Americans, so easily led, ignored the
truth of the situation. Americans, still do not admit
the ugly truth, voting for power rather than ethics.
Incredible, she is the other side of the Trump coin.
Confucion
2h ago
3
4
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue
and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"
Trump said at a campaign rally here.
No difference between Trump and Hillary. They are
pathological liars, sociopath and extremely sick minds.
They can be caught constantly in their bad deeds but
yet they still US presidential candidates.
Time ago people will reject slavery, injustice and
abuse. Today it is laissez faire, laissez passer
because US people became zombies. Hopeless of hopeless.
europeangrayling
2h ago
8
9
It does not matter, people who support Hillary they
support Hillary. Does not matter, either they don't
believe it, it's right wing conspiracy, or it's OK,
nothing wrong with it.
She has a 'private and public position', that's
Hillary, she is so smart and experienced. She is for
TPP, then against TPP in the primary, now we see 'her
private position' is as many 'free trade' deals as we
can, they are fine with it. There was survey that says
over 70% of Americans don't know what the TPP is, so
that makes sense. She even said she supports cutting SS
and raising retirement age in a speech, called it
'sensible'.
Hillary's support for the Iraq war, Libya,
supporting the Saudis in Yemen and Syria, LIkud in
Israel, the Honduras coup of a democratic government
helped greatly by the US, that she admitted and
advocated for in her book, but then took it out in the
new paper back version.
Where now environmental Native American activists
and regime critics are being killed by the new regime,
and there's a lot more violence in general, but the new
regime is friendly' to western corporate interests and
Hillary donors, so Hillary loves it, still says there
was no coup at all. Even as the EU and our ambassador
to Honduras said it was a coup.
I don't know why, but that Honduras thing really hit
me, and Berta Cáceres's murder. I mean Hillary is
ruthless, or is so detached from reality of life and
what these policies and politics do to regular people,
I don't know. Just like Cheney, so it makes sense that
Wolfowitz and the neocons support her too. But the
Honduras things alone, I can't vote for all that.
"Some of Clinton's pledges sound great. Until you remember who's president"
(Thomas Frank)
Yes, and I don't recall (hey, that's
her
line!) the exact phraseology, but something
Mrs. Clinton said during the first debate reminded me strongly of Bill in '92. And we all know how
that
worked out.
No one believes the Dems' talking points any more because they have largely been unfulfilled during
the last two Democratic presidencies.
"But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a
bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of
assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes so very onerous
and unnecessary."
Back aching scrubbing and knee straining cleaning to maintain a decent and safe environment is
exhausting. Accumulating wealth and being criticized for accumulating it at the expense of others
is equally exhausting. She is the personification of empathy.
Hmmm. … I thought this e-mail was a copy of the Wash Exam article, is
it really leaks of portions of Clinton's speeches? It's text book Clinton.
I couldn't find the WE article and now Buzzfeed writes it appears to be paid
speeches.
"SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said, you
know, when he came to Washington he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he had a small
– – MR. BLANKFEIN: That's how you
have a small fortune
, is you go to Washington.
. .
The sacrifices they make for us.
Reminds me of a saying in racing. How do you get a million bucks? Start with two.
*Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With
Open Trade And Open Markets. *"My dream is a hemispheric common market,
with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy
that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and
opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." [05162013 Remarks to
Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]
What? Open borders with Europe? She can't mean Russia. To be clear, she's also declaring
support for that greenest of projects, the Keystone pipeline in another speech.
Hillary is a very warm and nurturing person. When an 8-ball can't make
you feel good about your master of the universe self, you hire madame secretary
to fluff your fragile feelings a bit. Or you pay mr. president to put on
a comfortable pair of shoes and stand guard between you and the peasants
with the pitchforks.
Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges."
Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It
drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh.
It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary
Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on.
And when a person keeps pointing out the importance of keeping one's word, it almost always
means that he or she is lying.
At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble with
my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they're
the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! "
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from
prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did
not like.
Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in the
financial corruption of his administration.
The Presidency was pushed on him, and he admitted felt he was not qualified. I believe Harding gets a bad rap because he was not the leader of bold actions (wars) and the
corruption of people in his administration was well-documented. His death was widely mourned in the USA.
As far as long term harm to the country, the do-nothing Harding was not bad for the country.
If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding who
now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement,
perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sociopathic friends to give her good advice,
and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation)
Clinton is probably well coached by well paid advisors in her oratory. Probably Harding
wrote his own. I would prefer Clinton to be like the old Harding, and the country would muddle through.
"... The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. ..."
"... One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. ..."
Anarcissie @ 239: We basically have a whole class of people, at the top of the social order,
who seem devoid of a moral sense - a problem which the upcoming election isn't going to touch,
much less solve. I don't blame Clinton for this . . .
JimV @ 317: I am sorry if I mischaracterized BW as implying that HRC is evil, . . .
Peter T @ 320: Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose
that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess [the multi-sided
regional civil war engulfing Syria and northern Iraq]
stevenjohnson @ 324: The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles
and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's
not quite on board with plans for general war.
LFC @ 330: I disagree w the notion that the pt of nuclear 'modernization' is to make plausible
the threat of "imminent general nuclear war." If U.S. military planners took hallucinogenic drugs
and went nuts, they could "plausibly" threaten "imminent general nuclear war" right now with the
US nuclear arsenal as currently configured. They don't need to upgrade the weapons to do that.
The program is prob more the result of rigid, unimaginative thinking at top levels of Pentagon
and influence of outside companies (e.g. Boeing etc) that work on the upgrades.
I don't know if that seems like a somewhat random collection of precursors to assemble as preface
to a comment. I was thinking of picking out a few upthread references to climate change and the
response to it (or inadequacy thereof) as well.
I am a little disturbed by the idea of leaving the impression that I think Hillary Clinton
is "evil". What I think is that American politics in general is not generating realistic, adaptive
governance.
I am using that bloodless phrase, "realistic, adaptive governance", deliberately, to emphasize
wanting to step outside the passions of the Presidential election. I think the Manichean narrative
where Trump is The Most Horrible Candidate Evah and Everyone Must Line Up Behind Clinton as an
Ethical Imperative of a High Order is part of the process of propaganda and manipulation that
distorts popular discussion and understanding and helps to create a politics that cannot govern
realistically and adaptively. This is not about me thinking Trump is anything but a horrible mess
of a candidate who ought to be kept far from power.
I see Clinton as someone who is trapped inside the dynamics of this seriously deranged politics
qua political process. I don't see her as entirely blameless. Politicians like Obama and either
Clinton, at the top of the political order, are masters (keeping in mind that there are many masters
working to some extent in opposition to one another as rivals, allies, enemies and so on) of the
process and create the process by the exercise of their mastery, as much as they are mastered
by it. I see them as trapped by the process they have helped (more than a little opportunistically)
to create, but trapped as Dr Frankenstein is by his Creature.
Clinton must struggle with the ethical contradictions of governance at the highest levels of
leadership: she must, in the exercise of power in office and out, practice the political art of
the possible in relation to crafting policy that will be "good" in the sense of passably effective
and efficient - this may involve a high degree of foresightful wonkery or a lethally ruthless
statesmanship, depending upon circumstances. Beside this business of making the great machinery
of the state lumber forward, she must strive to appear "good", like Machiavelli's Prince, even
while playing an amoral game of real politick, gathering and shepherding a complex coalition of
allies, supporters, donors and cooperative enemies.
Machiavelli, when he was considering the Princely business of appearing "good", was contending
with the hypocrisies and impossible idealism of authoritarian Catholic morality. He barely connected
with anything that we would recognize as democratic Public Opinion and could scarcely conceive
of what Ivy Lee or Edward Bernays, let alone Fox News, Vox and the world wide web might do to
politics.
We are trapped, just as Clinton is trapped, in the vast communication nightmare of surrealistic
news and opinion washing in upon us in a tide that never ebbs. We are trapped by the politics
of media "gotchas" and Kinsley Gaffes (A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some
truth that a politician did not intend to admit.)
I don't think Clinton lacks a moral sense. What I think is that Clinton's moral sense is exhausted
calculating what to say or do within the parameters of media-synthesized conventional wisdom policed
by people who are themselves exhausted trying to manage it. Matt Lauer's interview with Clinton
was notorious for the relentless and clueless questioning about the email server, although I,
personally, was shocked when he asked her a question that seemed premised on the idea that veterans
should be offended by admitting the Iraq War was a mistake.
I would think it is easy to see that the media circus is out of control, especially when a
clown like Trump graduates from The Apprentice to the Republican nomination. YMMV, but
I think this is a serious problem that goes beyond vividly imagined sepia-toned parodies of Trump's
candidacy as the second coming of Mussolini.
While we're getting ourselves agitated over Trump's racism or threats to bar Muslims from entry,
apparently the Military-Industrial Complex, left on autopilot, is re-designing the nation's nuclear
arsenal to make the outbreak of nuclear war far more likely. And, the closest Clinton gets to
a comment, campaign commitment or public discussion, let alone an exercise of power, is a PR "leak"!!!
The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having
a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. Clinton offered up a sound-bite last year,
saying that she favored imposing a "no-fly" zone, which was exposed as kind of crazy idea, given
that the Russians as well as Assad's government are the ones flying, not to mention the recent
experience with a no-fly zone in Libya. One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as
a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright
and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more
likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has
enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. What's most
alarming to me is that we cannot count on personal character to put the brakes on that process,
which is now the process of governance. I am writing now of the process of governance by public
relations that was has been exposed a bit in profiles of the Deputy National Security Advisor
for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes.
In Syria, it has become almost comical, if you can overlook the bodies piling up, as the U.S.
has sought a the mythical unicorn of Syrian Moderate Democrats whom the Pentagon or the CIA can
advise, train and arm. This is foreign policy by PR narrative and it is insanely unrealistic.
But, our politics is trapped in it, and, worse, policy is trapped in it. Layer after layer of
b.s. have piled up obscuring U.S. interests and practical options.
Recently, U.S. forces supporting
the Turks have come dangerously close to blowing up U.S. forces supporting the Kurds. When you
find yourself on opposing sides of a civil war like Charles I you may be in the process of losing
your head. Some of the worst elements opposing Assad have been engaged in a transparent re-branding
exercise aimed at garnering U.S. aid. And, U.S. diplomats and media face the high challenge of
explaining why the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia in Yemen.
But, hey, Clinton will get Robert Kagan's vote and a better tomorrow is only a Friedman unit
away, so it is all good.
"... Wow, that 5 minute video is well worth watching. HRC calls multiple times for walls and "barriers" to be constructed along the Mexican border. ..."
"... trump campaign should distribute that to every spanish speaking organization that's out there. ..."
"... Understandably, Hillary was filled with enthusiasm after visiting Israel's security wall and seeing how well it keeps out unwanted brown people. /sarc ..."
"... I'd actually say that endorsing Hillary very much reflects conservative ideals and Republican (party) principles. Kudos to them on maintaining their streak. ..."
> "Since The Arizona Republic began publication in
1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican
for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical
appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican
principles"
I'd actually say that endorsing Hillary very much
reflects conservative ideals and Republican (party)
principles. Kudos to them on maintaining their streak.
"... First, I would certainly agree that Trump lies. Which is not to be confused with his inchoate policy prescriptions and vast ignorance. But as I have noted, Trump lies are – to use an overused phrase – "transparent". ..."
"... Compare to Hillary's lies – which are well crafted, well designed, and are lawyerly dissertations on misdirection and obfuscation. As well as being made to advance policy goals that are for the benefit of the 1%. Is Hillary against TPP in ANY sense of the meaning of the word "against" ? ..."
"... And with regard to media "fact checkers" – their "fact" checks take political statements at face value, and strike me as hopelessly unsophisticated and naive, and additionally hopelessly uninformed. As well as the "frame" of the question. Do a search regarding whether Clinton started birtherism. And than do a search whether Clinton used racist dog whistles to advance her 2008 campaign. Quite a difference. Which is effectively worse (hmmm – thats a twofer: is Clinton using dog whistles or is the media not asking relevant questions worse)??? ..."
"... People understand that it is all hype, all spin, and usually worse all the time. Is that too cynical? Well, when money and power are involved, it probably isn't…. ..."
"... An interesting take in that article, essentially arguing that the public has been gaslighted for so long by PR and image scrubbing that they crave Trump because his egotism is at least real ..."
"... So classic! The example Loofbourow gives to show how people are sick of gaslighting is… a classic case of gaslighting itself, as Trump never said he "loves" Putin, and Putin never called him a "genius". Rather these are the memes that our Acela Bubble gaslighters have been flooding into our brains. ..."
"... brangelina article . ..."
"... There is no perfect explanation that will account for Trump supporters' anger. They seem to share with Bernie Sanders supporters a deep sense of betrayal, of fundamental and unsolvable mistrust. ..."
"... One major problem with clinton's campaign message of portraying trump as nuts and 'unfit' is that 1) trump has no history of mental illness or known medical issues. I've read he doesn't drink and hasn't had any incidents where he's lost his temper and done something crazy that she can point to. 2) the whole 'unfit' thing presumes that people have confidence in the current political class and will reject someone who isn't up to that standard. ..."
"One visible frustration shared by Team Clinton and its many allies in the punditocracy is
that many voters are ignoring what they think the rules should be, particularly that Trump routinely
says things that are false, yet poll responses suggest that respondents don't care all that much
about how often Trump lies or wings it and gets it wrong."
First, I would certainly agree that Trump lies. Which is not to be confused with his inchoate
policy prescriptions and vast ignorance. But as I have noted, Trump lies are – to use an overused
phrase – "transparent".
Compare to Hillary's lies – which are well crafted, well designed, and are lawyerly dissertations
on misdirection and obfuscation. As well as being made to advance policy goals that are for the
benefit of the 1%. Is Hillary against TPP in ANY sense of the meaning of the word "against" ?
And with regard to media "fact checkers" – their "fact" checks take political statements
at face value, and strike me as hopelessly unsophisticated and naive, and additionally hopelessly
uninformed. As well as the "frame" of the question. Do a search regarding whether Clinton started
birtherism. And than do a search whether Clinton used racist dog whistles to advance her 2008
campaign. Quite a difference. Which is effectively worse (hmmm – thats a twofer: is Clinton using
dog whistles or is the media not asking relevant questions worse)???
Now, for me, its hard to believe that media people, whose ONLY job is to write about politics,
are so uninformed as to not understand the term "dog whistle" or to not understand that an awful
lot of politics is trying to smear your opposition without leaving fingerprints. How many stories
have you read in the MSM about the Clinton foundation that gave a detailed analysis of what they
spend money on by someone that you trust really understands and can explain how a charity should
operate???
Now, this link to "Brangelina" I think actually is pertinent to why media "fact checkers" are
so scorned – the second half of the article offers insight how the modern press relations business
runs circles around the media and how people who want to portray a "message" can easily do so.
People understand that it is all hype, all spin, and usually worse all the time. Is that
too cynical? Well, when money and power are involved, it probably isn't….
An interesting take in that article, essentially arguing that the public has been gaslighted
for so long by PR and image scrubbing that they crave Trump because his egotism is at least real:
You know who does seem authentic? Someone who does everything out of nothing but naked
self-interest, and admits it frankly. Someone who makes no pretense that he's trying to live
up to some notion of decency. Someone whose only metric - whose admitted basis of action on
any topic - is how it will affect him. Donald Trump loves Vladimir Putin. Why? Because Putin
called him a genius. What else could possibly matter? To pretend one cares about anything else
would be just that: a pretense. His rationale may not be good, but it is at least pure, uncontaminated
by considerations of how things will look.
So classic! The example Loofbourow gives to show how people are sick of gaslighting is…
a classic case of gaslighting itself, as Trump never said he "loves" Putin, and Putin never called
him a "genius". Rather these are the memes that our Acela Bubble gaslighters have been flooding
into our brains.
And another quote that ends the brangelina article
.
There is no perfect explanation that will account for Trump supporters' anger. They
seem to share with Bernie Sanders supporters a deep sense of betrayal, of fundamental and unsolvable
mistrust. And of course a great deal of that sense of grievance has to do with class,
and race, and gender - and the economy and our justice system and racism and education and
income inequality and foreign wars and xenophobia.
But we're in danger of missing a huge chunk of what drives the American psyche if we forget
just how frivolous we are, if we forget to look at what Americans actually think about and
watch in their spare time. And that isn't politics. It's The Bachelorette. It's Instagram.
It's the Kardashians. This week, it's Brangelina and the peculiar wave of nostalgia their breakup
inspired as we remember a time when we weren't quite this jaded.
The Jolie-Pitt divorce has been hailed as the end of an era. So it is: The end of their
union marks the end of a style of celebrity fluent in rewriting the narrative, of spinning
scandal into decency and a happy ending so convincing that people threw away their #TeamJen
shirts. Sure, sure, this is a "real family." Yes, these are "real people." This story is no
doubt "complicated." But secretly, we believe complexity is a con. Really, the end of Brangelina
just confirms our suspicions: It's lies all the way down, just as we always feared.
One major problem with clinton's campaign message of portraying trump as nuts and 'unfit'
is that 1) trump has no history of mental illness or known medical issues. I've read he doesn't
drink and hasn't had any incidents where he's lost his temper and done something crazy that she
can point to. 2) the whole 'unfit' thing presumes that people have confidence in the current political
class and will reject someone who isn't up to that standard.
Trump just needs to seems reasonable and not like the whacko seen in the constant barrage of
clinton ads.
"... True. I attribute it all to deep-seated self loathing. Somewhere deep down the vestigal organ known as the "conscience" is paying attention. ..."
"... was taken as evidence in his own mind ..."
"... Liberals believe in addressing every issue within a socio-economic context (Crime, Terrorism, …) Except racism. That issue is context free ..."
"... Kids just feel and act, unconditioned. ..."
"... They are pure and genuine. They are not cheaters. Kids are our masters, we must learn from them. We should be more like kids. ..."
"... Today we can learn from them, just watch these kids in action. ..."
"... I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes ..."
"... "I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari ..."
"... "In the minds of many, soil is simply dirt, but without it we would all cease to exist. Unlike the water we drink and the air we breathe, soil is not protected in the EU and its quality is getting worse" ..."
"Basket of deplorables," how pithy a metaphor for placing your detractors
in a container from which their voices and needs can be discounted. Clinton
gives us a great turn of phrase with which we can contemplate her inclination
to strip the prerogatives of citizenship – such as the inclination not to select
her at the ballot – from her detractors.
Agamben's thesis is that western constitutional democracies inevitably turn
to the state of exception and strip citizenship from their peoples on the way.
We have been at it a long time in America. The delightful new twist is contemplating
the election of a candidate who tells us that not being a card carrying identity
politics connected elitist, or sycophant of, will get you relegated to the ranks
of homo sacer – the bare human. And oh yes, the Secretary is inclined to be
the decider. There is no functional distinction between the nightmares these
candidates represent.
Re: Charles Blow, "if the basket fits…"
_____________
Blow makes it official: this is the Best Election Ever for Team Blue.
First they get to bring their "kick-the-left" game up to the next level
with the mugging of the Sanders campaign. Then they (finally!) get to copulate
in public with their neo-con friends-with-benefits. And now, as Blow demonstrates,
they are at last free to spew their hate against the ignorant chumps in
flyover: all the bile they have piled up but just couldn't articulate because
you gotta be PC ("impolitic" dixit Blow).
Read the comments on the NYT articles or in other liberal goodthink rags:
HRC was just articulating what the entire Acela bubble wanted to say but
was too tactful. Listen to HRC making the actual comments: there were no
boos or gasps, just laughter (sadly showing how part of the LGBT movement
has become appallingly intolerant: a vast cry from the movement's origins).
Blow is just one voice in a blue chorus singing battlesongs against the
poor and the left. A very clarifying election indeed.
> "Wells Fargo Exec Who Headed Phony Accounts Unit Collected $125 Million"
[Fortune]. I think it's very important that a woman –Carrie Tolstedt - shattered
the glass ceiling for accounting control fraud.
When the story first broke a few days ago, I knew right away (as in,
before even finishing reading the headline) that this was another accounting
control fraud. It's really sad that NC is the only place where the term
"control fraud" is used in connection with this scandal.
I was entertaining a variation of that very idea. Some honest to God
disgruntled and disappointed Justice Fighter from the FBI goes rogue, righting
Comey's wrong, with the Russian Conspiracy twist(polonium) thrown in for
ironic flair.
The only positive thing to happen during this election season is
the death of mainstream media. With their insufferable propaganda fully
exposed, there is no coming back.
I have a bleaker view of human cognition, and so disagree. It must be
noted that in the past couple weeks, an NC commenter honestly felt he needed
to inform me of my own country of origin, because in his mind this was something
that I clearly needed to be schooled about. Yes, the fact that I disagreed
with his narrative was taken as evidence in his own mind that he
needed to school me - to teach me where I'm from, and teach me how my friends
and family died. A clearer example of basic cognitive failure would be hard
to come by.
Yet, as 20th century world history shows very clearly, when a culture
shifts in that direction, such self-certain lunacy just becomes the new
order of the day. It becomes the style.
It seems that many of my previous NC comments mention Robert Jay Lifton's
books, and, well, can't avoid doing it again. Critics of his analyses fault
them for being "unfalsifiable," etc, but I counter by saying that they were
offered in a totally different spirit as a summary of his painstaking observations
rather than a cognitive theory.
If there's any hope of digging out of the cultural hole in the near term,
I'd say that'd be the place to start.
""Wells Fargo Exec Who Headed Phony Accounts Unit Collected $125 Million"
[Fortune]. I think it's very important that a woman –Carrie Tolstedt - shattered
the glass ceiling for accounting control fraud."
See? We're living in a post racist, sexist world. Now it's not only white
men who can eff over everyone else, African-Americans and women can join
that elite club of amoral people. And get rich doing it!
Liberals believe in addressing every issue within a socio-economic
context (Crime, Terrorism, …)
Except racism. That issue is context free
Maybe it is just me but I disagree vehemently with this sentiment.
The reasoning is fairly simple: these issues that are used to divide
us (racism, sexism, religion, economics) are made much stronger when the
economy is the weakest.
If you need proof look to the great industrial states of the Midwest
with their racist (now, never before) governments: Michigan, Wisconsin,
Ohio, and even Rauner in Illinois. These political beliefs would never gain
traction when the economies were going great. Working people have taken
the brunt of the globalization bullshit and the endless contempt of "Clinton
Liberals" everywhere (apparently)
Economic hardship is an amplifier of racism. This is what the limousine
liberals never seem to understand. For them is it much more satisfying to
demonstrate their moral superiority through contempt for the deplorables.
2 days ago i went to a local park just to swing and to be honest, cry…
where no one would be put out. took about a minute for a toddler to bring
me a tiny flower…i didn't even know she was near. at first i was embarrassed
but then realized her heart will grow thru endearing gestures. i smiled
and asked her if she could show me how to swing as high as she does. hope
yall get a rise out of kids. they can be near at the strangest moment…when
we let them.
Given that we're all becoming resigned to having a horrible president
yet again I'm taking a surprising delight in the proliferating Clinton conspiracy
theories after her collapse Sunday (the body double, the catheter, etc.).
I hadn't seen this one before and thought I would share with the group –
that Chelsea's 10M condo (where Hillary was taken), at
The Whitman at 21 E. 26th St. in the NY – is supposedly (I have no idea)
the same building as has listed "
Metrocare Home Services "
The conspiracy theory is that Hillary has her own private hospital in
the same building, which going to "Chelsea's apartment" is cover for.
I'm sure it's not true but, like all the others, it'd be pretty funny
if it was and I'm sure the Clinton team would have zero compunction about
the deception involved.
It is amazing what one can come up with when one absolutely does not
trust another. Let me say, first of all, that Hillary allowing herself to
go out on a hot day in the middle of a large crowd after working like a
"demon" (!!!) is not the best political move. It is like sticking one's
head into the jaws of the conspiracy theorists and saying bite down hard.
But, if, perhaps Clinton is not soooo politically inept, which, Lord
knows, she gives every evidence of being, here is an alternative perspective
I cooked up with a little appetizer. . .
First item..The Clintons tell Loretta Lynch they want to keep her on
at DOJ. But that will be hard to do if she is the face of not filing charges
against Hillary. Let's do an impromptu meeting (Bill and Loretta Lynch)
on airplane, then put it out in marquis letters so the conspiracy theorists
run with it. Loretta Lynch honorably steps down, gets to keep her job if
Hillary is elected.
From this line of thinking, conspiratorial as it also well is, Hillary
is expected to clobber Donald Trump in the debates. Politically speaking,
she has set for herself a very high bar, being so qualified and all. Let's
use this illness thing, cook up a minor illness and Hillary faints at the
9/11 memorial. The conspiracy theorists run away with it, she is on death's
door, yadayada. Some upside is that she will engender some sympathy.
Two weeks later at Hofstra, bar much lower, she comes back as robust
as can be, bar set much , much lower. Headlines read "Clinton Comes Back
Swinging" and "Clinton Alive and Well at Hofstra".
In the movie "Being There", the super rich guy played by Melvyn Douglas
has a mini hospital in his home. Maybe that's standard operating procedure
for the oligarchs!
And one door away from the emergency chute that empties in the sub basement,
where a disused subway tunnel has been refurbished to whisk away any particularly
privacy-oriented presidential candidate, safe from prying eyes.
The whole building seems to have been the admin. headquarters for an
outfit called Metrocare Home Services before it was refitted as a swanky,
4-unit residential building. Amusing, but no "there" there.
Besides, she or anyone else with dough can have an ostentatiously well-appointed
sickroom within the apartment, regardless of previous or present tenants
of the building. And a home health care business wouldn't make a particularly
useful front to stockpile advanced treatments etc. for what ails her. They
tend not to keep much inventory, in my limited experience.
Had my catalytic converter stolen by thieves with battery operated sawsall's.
They are under the car
and out in two minutes. Locally they get $40.00-50.00 for them. Cost to
replace…Dealer $2,200.00,
local guy you know $1200.00 .
Police report in my area from two weeks ago said 12 were stolen in one
night's rampage.
Car broken into, rummaged thru, change stolen from center console.
Money stolen = About four bucks
Damage to car = Shattered window, prybar damage to "A" pillar and window
seals, when they tried to pry the window open = $1500.
Damage/theft ratio = 375 to 1
But according to this morning's post, they were probably tearing up my
s##t because they were hungry, so I guess I should blame myself for only
paying half my income in various taxes.
That statement is wrong on numerous levels, number one of which is that
while an employer may withhold earnings of a W-2 employee for the purpose
of paying income taxes, it is the employee that pays those taxes. Until
a return is filed and processed, the withheld amount is a deposit made on
the employee's behalf. The amount of the deposit is based on the gross wages
of the employee. If the tax rate drops, also would the deposit, and ultimately
the tax. But the amount of gross wages are unaffected.
Also, last I checked, employers generally don't pay sales or property
taxes for employees on non-employment related purchases.
Oh good God, over 40% of the population gets their payroll taxes back.
Yes, it sucks that they are taken out to begin with, particularly when
there are definitely pay periods when the 50 bucks could be utilized to
pay a co pay or buy things that one needs.
Additionally, if you are paying property taxes to begin with you're one
up on much of the population, it means you have a house or a car. You've
made a conscious choice to own things. The streets your car and house are
located on aren't free. The schools in your communities aren't no cost.
I'm so over people whining about paying taxes.
My comment strictly relates to the erroneous characterizations of the
responsibility for paying taxes and the effect of a tax reduction on gross
wages asserted by Robert Hahl.
I did not intend to address the amount thereof, justification for, nor
the proper amount of self-righteousness a taxpayer may exude for paying
said taxes.
I probably should have just called BS on his claim that he pays 50% in
taxes or called him on his lack of empathy for those that actually go hungry(many
of which are CHILDREN.)
My first instinct to tell those fortunate enough to have to pay is to
tell them to go ahead and "spite" the system by getting that job at BK so
they can live the "good life" on minimum wage and then they too can not
pay taxes….of course, they'll also forgo retirement accounts, vacation days,
owning a home, struggle with owning a car and the costs associated with
it, etc, etc but hey, they won't be paying 50% in taxes.
Personally, I am profoundly grateful that our family pays a percentage
in taxes(not 50% but above Mitt Romney.) It means we can afford a car, a
house and we have a decent income. It means I can afford that DVD that I
pay sales tax on. All in all it means our family is accumulating wealth.
Anyway, I should have directed this at the OP, not you.
Pretty sure my federal taxes go to defense contractors to make war. My
state and local taxes cover what doesn't come from the feds anymore cause
they're too busy spending on war. That's why I complain.
They go organizations that work on roads, they go to organizations that
make sure you have clean water, organizations that make sure your kids don't
eat lead, organizations that make sure you aren't eating food filled with
e coli- Don't go to the states to help pay for schools or other local programs
not covered by your local or state taxes.
Don't get me wrong, way too much money goes to war. On that we are in
absolute agreement however, be angry instead that our government has so
much potential to do so much more than destroy with that money. Our government
could be doing more for things like schooling or health care and it would
be a way better use of the monies we pay.
I think the right and left agree that the government is failing us. Where
we disagree is on what to do about it. The right thinks that things will
be better if the government gets smaller and gets out of the way. I tend
to disagree. It needs good leaders that believe in accountability and have
vision. It needs people to right size it, not downsize it and people that
negotiate in good faith with the private sector, not roll over for it.
A government is only as good as it's leadership and right now we've got
some pretty questionable leadership.
I would dearly love to know how to get it all back every year, having
spent my entire life under 30k and paying (aggregate) about 20% per anum.
What really gets me is listening to co-workers go on about how people go
on welfare because the gov't gives them so much money.
All my experiences with those on welfare is it's a pretty miserable experience.
After my stepfather died, my mom had to get help financially for her 3 minor
children. They means tested everything, she couldn't even own a car for
more than something ridiculous like $3000.
I also know someone who turned down work because actually working hours
she did not know would be guaranteed the next month would have cut her food
stamps the following month.
It seems positively contradictory to me to set up a system that encourages
reliance forever because you are continually threatening the safety net
of a person the minute they get a tiny bit ahead.
Personally, I'd love to see the government start doing what it does for
the very rich and allowing or helping people to put assets away in an "emergency
account(up to $5,000)." Instead it's only the really rich and middle class
who get to put money away tax free for retirement(401ks, hsas, IRAs) schools
for their kids, health care, etc, etc. All of this money is meant for long
term savings which for someone on the bottom of the income ladder is something
they can't do because they're too worried about having access to money when
that crappy $3000 car breaks down.
It's a stupid, crazy system and I know we could be doing better.
I am told that the tattoo approval test is a generational thing…if you're
old, you are not likely to have one or know a friend who has one (most of
time…many wonderful older people – in this country or many other countries
– have them).
Then you have theft of theft, that is, theft of property.
Property theft is under reported, it feels to me (based on my personal
experience and talking with neighbors around here…do i live in a bad neighborhood?).
Going from memory here, but I seem to recall reading in a car magazine
- late 60s, early 70s - that master thieves in NYC could drop a 4-speed
transmission from a curb-parked Corvette in 8 minutes flat.
Dropping a trans is not a trivial task.
Now butchers with sawzalls can swipe a cat converter in 2 minutes, with
two quick, crude cuts through a thinwall exhaust pipe.
Just goes to show how skills have declined. :-(
I was a butcher cutting up meat
My hands were bloody, I'm dying on my feet
I was a surgeon 'till I start to shake
I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes
"I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending
by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will
lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine
private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari
I am surprised you didn't comment on this, Lambert. The federal deficit
is just a number. Kashkari's argument that increasing the deficit implies
future higher taxes is bunk – displaying a lack in understanding monetary
theory. I admit to only a cursory understanding, but the real purpose of
income taxes is to slow the flow of money through the economy to reduce
inflationary pressures. Federal infrastructure spending would boost the
lagging economy, with virtually no downside. There is absolutely no need
to pay-down the debt. I would be more comfortable with Kashkari as the treasurer
of my local PTA than a regional Federal Reserve Bank president. Can't we
do better?
Kashkari's argument that increasing the deficit implies future higher
taxes is bunk – displaying a lack in understanding monetary theory.
Kashkari, as a big banker, would presumably be the recipient of those
higher taxes, since he would presumably be part of those financing said
deficit. He's talking business, not monetary theory. It's the flexian way
to presume that managers are there to be served.
Can either cut taxes, boost spending, or raise interest rates to suppress
inflation.
Taxing citizens give value to the currency and thereby makes them willing
to sell their goods and services to gov to obtain sufficient taxes to pay
tax.
So gov levies a tax to obtain goods and services, not dollars that have
no value to the entity that creates them.
She argued in part that, thanks to its new tools of forward guidance
and long-term asset purchases, the Fed would be able to offset the next
recession, even if interest rates eventually stabilized at historically
low levels.
…
Yet] two years into this hypothetical recession, the Fed would be refusing
to provide more accommodation, even though the unemployment rate would
be above 9 percent and it would be expecting the inflation rate to be
falling further below its target for another three years.
But I wonder why the good econo-doctor has only got religion now that
he is off the Fed.
Southern California Gas Co. agreed to a $4-million settlement Tuesday
to end a criminal case filed by Los Angeles County prosecutors over
the utility's handling of the massive gas leak near Porter Ranch last
year.
The gas company pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor count of failing
to immediately notify the California Office of Emergency Services and
Los Angeles County Fire Department of the leak that began on or around
Oct. 23, 2015, in the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage field. The utility
will pay the maximum fine of $75,000 for that three-day delay, according
to the L.A. County district attorney's office.
The gas company will pay $232,500 in state penalties on top of that
fine and $246,672 for the fire department's response to the leak.
Three other misdemeanor counts will be dismissed when the utility
is sentenced on Nov. 29.
End of story. Literally.
This is believed to be one of the largest releases in human history of
the most powerful green house gas.
another confusing plantidote. Is the plantidoe the yellow flower or is
it the green thingies by the rocks?
I suppose it's up to the viewer to decide. Which seems like a lot of
work. Some crackpot might choose the rocks themselves and then argue that
there's microscopic plants on the rocks and that's what they mean. if you
can't see them, that's your problem. The world is like that, crackpots pointing
at things only they can see and blaming you for not seeing them. Then kicking
your ass if they can.
Things should be obvous. And they are obvious, if you know what's what.
Then you don't need to kick people's ass unless they really deserve it.
mostly you just lay around waiting for people to see the things you see,
knowing that they would if they could. That's a lot different than blaming
them and kicking their ass. That's a lot of work - to kick someone's ass.
What a pain. Work is to be avoided if at all possible. That should be obvious
to everybody
Thank you for keeping the spotlight focused on efforts of the TBTF banks
and transnational corporations to gain passage of the TPP, TTIP and TiSA,
Lambert. Appears their lobbyists and the Obama administration have a full-court
press underway on members of Congress now. One can only guess at what is
being offered our congressional representatives for their vote during the
lame duck session after the November election in exchange for trading away
our national sovereignty.
"……..Doctors get continuing medical education (CME) through events like
lectures and conferences. CME is necessary because many physicians practise
for 30 or 40 years, and medicine is changing continuously, so they cannot
rely on their medical school training, which might have happened in the
1960s. Doctors are required to get a certain number of hours of CME every
year. You might imagine that doctors learn from unbiased experts dedicated
to learning. Actually, nothing is further from the truth. The dirty little
secret is that virtually all CME is sponsored heavily by Big Pharma giving
them huge influence over what information is presented to doctors.
Every single level of CME has been corrupted by $$$. Let's start at the
bottom.
In virtually every hospital in North America, there are lectures called
'rounds'. They happen in every specialty and almost every single day, mostly
at lunchtime. What a great idea. Doctors would spend lunchtime teaching
each other the intricacies of their specialty. Sorry, no. Most doctors don't
prepare a full hours worth of lecture topic. Most are too busy to spend
an hour listening a the lecture anyway. So, the friendly drug rep from Big
Pharma helpfully gets lunch for everybody. Free lunch! That helps bring
in the audience, but it doesn't help the fact that they still need a speaker………"
This probably explains, IMO, the pickle that HRC finds herself in
It isn't about her health, it's about her judgment. It's about the apparent
decision not to disclose the pneumonia diagnosis until they were forced
to – and even then, they tried three other "explanations" before – hours
later – they announced that fully 48 hours earlier, she had been diagnosed
with pneumonia. First, she wasn't feeling well. Then she became overheated.
Then she was dehydrated. It wasn't until some time after her reappearance
on the street looking fine and dandy that they disclosed the pneumonia.
Do you see the pattern? It's the same one we saw with the e-mails. We're
seeing it with the Clinton Foundation. This is a woman who doesn't seem
to feel any obligation or accept any responsibility for playing by the rules,
for following the protocols.
And she has the nerve to blame the right-wing conspiracy that's out to
get her when in reality she creates much of the controversy all by herself.
I don't frankly care if she has or had pneumonia or her toenail fungus
was acting up, but what she has once again managed to do is make it impossible
for people to believe whichever story qualifies as the latest, and if anything
she said before then has even a shred of truth in it.
What I fear, and what I do think would be a concern, is if the pneumonia
diagnosis is a giant head-fake designed to cover up that she may be experiencing
some neurological problems, perhaps related to the 2012 concussion (and
Lord only knows if that story was factual) that even her husband says took
her every bit of 6 months to recover from.
I get why she would want to hide anything even remotely like that, but
what she doesn't seem to understand is that she really has no right, as
a candidate for the highest office in the land, to hide it. Again, and again,
she allows her personal ambition to cloud her judgment; years and years
of important and wealthy people telling her she's one of the smartest people
in the room, paying to be in her presence, have convinced her she just knows
better than anyone. That she doesn't have to listen, that she has nothing
to learn.
And sometimes, she probably does, but she doesn't ever seem to be able
to know when she doesn't. That – the judgment problem – that's what she
has, and that's what matters here.
Oh, I absolutely agree with you she has a judgment problem, straight
down to ignoring good advice.
I just think it is interesting that the post I was commenting on seems
to be a jab at doctors and continuing education and
Pharma may be responsible for many things, Hillary Clinton's decision
not to follow her doctor's instructions on rest and fluid aren't one of
them though. They are in no way responsible for "the pickle that HRC finds
herself in." Hillary owns that.
The EU did have a Soil Framework Directive in the works for years but
it was eventually stymied by the UK, as
George Monbiot has pointed out . One of the good things about Brexit
is that it will undoubtedly improve the EU's capacity to bring forward more
environmental protect directives – the UK has always been one of the main
obstacles in this.
"I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending
by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead
to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector
confidence" Neel Kashkari
"In the minds of many, soil is simply dirt, but without it we would
all cease to exist. Unlike the water we drink and the air we breathe, soil
is not protected in the EU and its quality is getting worse"
Primary Day in NH. I went about 6:45p, 15 minutes before the polls closed.
On my way out, I asked the nice ladies staffing the place if turnout had
been light. They said "Very" and made disappointed faces.
Neocons like Nicholas Kristof support Hillar y, no question about it. But that
does not make her less disonest. Actually that makes her more "dishonest/liar/don't
trust her/poor character."
Notable quotes:
"... But Clinton's big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early 2013 to 56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust her. Only a bit more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as "honest and trustworthy." ..."
"... Indeed, when Gallup asks Americans to say the first word that comes to mind when they hear "Hillary Clinton," the most common response can be summed up as "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character." Another common category is "criminal/crooked/thief/belongs in jail." ..."
"... Hillary isn't crooked. She is dishonest in the sense that she gets to power by any means she can, including doing a complete turn on long-held opinions or saying she's evolved but not changing the bits and pieces that go with that evolution. She is dishonest in the sense that she defends taking money from Wall Street but refuses to show what she took it for, while maintaining that she has never changed a decision as a result. The thing is, she's never been faced with having to vote against Wall Street in any significant way or make a decision that, potentially, Wall Street would view as negative. ..."
"... She is intellectually dishonest in that she adopts her opponents' positions in name only but refuses to adopt the planks that go along with it, all the while calling herself a progressive who gets things done. Hillary Clinton has always been a neoliberal Democrat. She and Bill Clinton redefined center right democrat during his tenure. There is nothing wrong with owning up to that political bent. There is everything wrong with pretending someone you are not, as evidenced by her favorability numbers. ..."
"... Dishonesty and the paranoid secrecy that goes with it are fundamental to her personality. That many American are not wrong in their widespread judgment of her character. That is something that juries and other such groups judge well. ..."
"... She has many specific instances of dishonesty. She was not shot at in Bosnia for example. Her sneaky dishonest attacks on Bernie were accompanied by sly smiles when she did them, pleased with herself for laying out a considered and prepared lie. ..."
"... To support Hillary, you must believe receiving hundreds of millions from special interests (speaking fees, the foundation & campaign) does not make you beholden to those special interests. Democrats used to claim money given to politicians had a corrupting influence, but now with Hillary the chosen one, Democrats require a showing of quid pro corruption. ..."
"... Her foreign policy experience--it should scare us all. She voted for the Iraq war before politically being required to apologize for it. As Sec. of State, she supported bombing Libya into a stateless terrorist haven, supported rebels, turned terrorists in Syria and she is an Israeli hawk. ..."
"... It is not because she is a woman. That is an excuse. It is because she is an extreme hawk, a Washington Consensus neoliberal of trade deals and Wall Street. It is because she is Hillary, not because Hillary happens to be a woman. ..."
"... No other candidate running for president has given paid speeches to Wall Street and corporate America. Clinton is the ONLY candidate to do so. She accepted speaking fees until early 2015 knowing she was about to announce her candidacy. This is UNPRECEDENTED. ..."
"... This label of dishonesty that trails Clinton is not just about the most recent stuff. There's the story from way back when about how the Clintons took almost $200,000 worth of stuff when they left the White House. They eventually decided to return or pay for $114,000 worth of items. Things they'd claimed to have received before taking up residence were shown to have been received after they arrived; they claimed as personal gifts things donors specified as designated for the White House itself, etc. ..."
"... So, repeat after me--taking hundreds of millions from every special interest group does not in any way influence Hillary's independent judgment. Keep repeating and eventually you will believe it. See how easy that is. ..."
"... Now on to repeating how the neocon foreign policy hawks supporting Hillary as the best commander in chief is good. ..."
"... is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 22 hours ago ..."
"... People have noticed how assiduously both Clintons have courted money over the years, whether it is Whitewater and everything else leading up to the present day fundraising, including the Times' revelatory piece on Ukrainian money in an energy deal, it all reeks, but as is wont with the Clintons, stops just shy of actual misdeed. ..."
"... With the proliferation of small digital sound recording devices, someone out there made a recording. And when it winds up public (probably during the general election campaign when it would do the most damage), it will be Mrs. Clinton's "47% moment". ..."
"... People find her dishonest and untrustworthy because she is. It doesn't take an advanced degree to see that she's a self-interested political animal through and through. She has a long, well-documented history of taking whatever position is most politically expedient and changing it when the polling changes. ..."
"... Furthermore her and her husband's well-documented history of taking money from everybody from Wall St. banksters to foreign autocrats for everything from private speeches the proceeds of which go directly into their pockets to their "foundation" suggests at the minimum a clueless recklessness about the appearance or corruption and at worst outright contempt for the intelligence of American voters. ..."
"... Again, it doesn't take membership in Mensa to apply a little critical thought and personal experience to the issue of her honesty or trustworthiness. Anybody who's ever done anything they felt even the tiniest bit ethically or morally uncomfortable about in order to keep their job or anybody who's observed this behavior in even the smallest or least significant way from colleagues knows Wall St. banksters and the Saudis princes don't give millions of dollars to people who aren't minimally receptive to their interests and people who take those millions don't do so with the intention of turning off that spigot down the line. ..."
"... What if decades of facially shady conduct is true? What if Bill Safire is right that HRC is a congenital liar? Why doesn't HRC give all this the lie by releasing her speech transcripts? Since leaving office the Clintons and the Foundation have amassed millions. Can we not think, as did Honore de Balzac that "behind every great fortune is a great crime"? How Mrs. Clinton must actually hate Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders and those under 40 who have or may yet deny her the crown. ..."
"... Often, the corruption is in the form of compensation after the public official leaves office. I used to work in NJ State Government. I can cite numerous examples of regulators who left public service, and were rewarded with lucrative contracts by the firms they formerly regulated. This would sometimes be laundered. For example, the former public official would join a law firm or consulting firm, and suddenly that firm would get a big contract from the firm they formerly regulated. ..."
"... In the case of Mrs Clinton, she was a "private citizen" only temporarily. She resigned as Secretary of State, but it was public knowledge that she was going to announce a Presidential run. ..."
"... She may not be dishonest, but boy is she greedy. ..."
"... Hillary is less transparent. She hides a lot. Does that make her dishonest? Maybe not. But unlikeable for sure. ..."
"... Sorry--the burden is squarely on Hillary to explain how money corrupts politicians, but she, Bill, the foundation and campaign taking hundreds of millions from special interests does not. Or, is a politician free to take all of the money her heart desires, unless there is iron clad proof of quid pro quo corruption? And if you believe that. you agree with the right wing majority in Citizens United. ..."
"... So the whitewashing of Hillary by the nominal Progressives begins. Whether or not she is "fundamentally" honest, as Jill Abrahamson has written, means what exactly? That she won't rob a bank, or pick your pocket? Yet she will defend bankers who rob their own banks and brokers who pick their investors' pockets every trading day by skimming others' potential profits with their high speed trades. Her husband's candidacy was rescued by winning the New York primary after his loss in New Hampshire and as President he deregulated the banks, and once he was in private life again, he became a centa millionaire by speaking in front of bankers. One would be naive to believe the Clintons did not make a deal the the banks put out the word. Perhaps there was no quid pro quo, but there certainly was some quo pro quid. Ditto for Hillary. ..."
"... Why a "Progressive" would paper over the record of Goldwater girl turned "NeoLiberal," which is pretty much the same thing, who is fundamentally against everything real Progressives stand for boggles the imagination. ..."
AFTER the New York primary, the betting websites are giving Hillary Clinton
about a 94 percent chance of being the Democratic nominee, and Donald Trump
a 66 percent chance of ending up as the Republican nominee.
But Clinton's big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who
have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early 2013 to
56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust her. Only a bit
more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as "honest and trustworthy."
Indeed, when Gallup asks Americans to say the first word that comes to
mind when they hear "Hillary Clinton," the most common response can be summed
up as "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character." Another common category
is "criminal/crooked/thief/belongs in jail."
... My late friend and Times colleague William Safire in 1996
dubbed Clinton "a congenital liar."
... Then there's the question of Clinton raking in hundreds of thousands
of dollars from
speeches to Goldman Sachs and other companies. For a person planning to
run for president, this was nuts. It also created potential conflicts of interest
...
... As for the fundamental question of whether Clinton risked American national
security with her email server, I suspect the problem has been exaggerated
Hillary isn't crooked. She is dishonest in the sense that she gets
to power by any means she can, including doing a complete turn on long-held
opinions or saying she's evolved but not changing the bits and pieces that
go with that evolution. She is dishonest in the sense that she defends taking
money from Wall Street but refuses to show what she took it for, while maintaining
that she has never changed a decision as a result. The thing is, she's never
been faced with having to vote against Wall Street in any significant way
or make a decision that, potentially, Wall Street would view as negative.
She is intellectually dishonest in that she adopts her opponents'
positions in name only but refuses to adopt the planks that go along with
it, all the while calling herself a progressive who gets things done. Hillary
Clinton has always been a neoliberal Democrat. She and Bill Clinton redefined
center right democrat during his tenure. There is nothing wrong with owning
up to that political bent. There is everything wrong with pretending someone
you are not, as evidenced by her favorability numbers.
Hillary is not, nor has she ever been a progressive Democrat. That title
is reserved for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison,
and many other distinguished Democrats who have been in the progressive
trenches for decades.
http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2cQ
You can't pretend to be someone you're not and expect everyone else to
play along. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-27p
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich
23 hours ago
Yes, Hillary is dishonest.
Dishonesty and the paranoid secrecy that goes with it are fundamental
to her personality. That many American are not wrong in their widespread
judgment of her character. That is something that juries and other such
groups judge well.
She has many specific instances of dishonesty. She was not shot at
in Bosnia for example. Her sneaky dishonest attacks on Bernie were accompanied
by sly smiles when she did them, pleased with herself for laying out a considered
and prepared lie.
If she is elected, we will be so sick of this that NYT columnists will
be writing "how could we have not seen this?" Well, it is them leading the
way.
They should expect to be reminded loudly and often.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC
22 hours ago
To support Hillary, you must believe receiving hundreds of millions
from special interests (speaking fees, the foundation & campaign) does not
make you beholden to those special interests. Democrats used to claim money
given to politicians had a corrupting influence, but now with Hillary the
chosen one, Democrats require a showing of quid pro corruption.
Sorry -- either money is corrupting or it is not, and the Clintons have
personally received hundreds of millions from every possible special interest.
By supporting Hillary you are saying special interest money is a good thing.
The Times also ran an interesting profile in the magazine section about
how Hillary became a hawk. She follows the neocons playbook and as stated
in the piece, one of her significant military advisors is a Fox news pundit.
Hillary admits a mutual admiration with Kissinger.
So I don't trust Hillary when she says special interests do not influence
her judgment. If they really don't--which is impossible to believe--they
have wasted millions paying for 40 minute speeches. Lobbyists don't contribute
money to candidates who don't not help their causes.
Her foreign policy experience--it should scare us all. She voted
for the Iraq war before politically being required to apologize for it.
As Sec. of State, she supported bombing Libya into a stateless terrorist
haven, supported rebels, turned terrorists in Syria and she is an Israeli
hawk.
All of this causes grave concerns that go well beyond trust.
It comes down to the fact the HRC is the best Democratic aspirant for
the party's presidential nomination in 2016.
I cast my ballot for her in the Illinois primary and will gladly do so
again in November.
Do I have reservations? Surely.
But think of the reservations about some earlier Democratic as well as
Republican nominees ....
Franklin Delano Roosevelt reneged on his longtime support for the League
of Nations and adamantly refused to cross swords with Southern Democrats.
Would you vote for Hoover, Landon, or Willkie?
Harry Truman had longstanding ties to Kansas City's Pendergast gang.
I would have voted for him.
Eisenhower evaded a golden opportunity to denounce Joseph McCarthy while
campaigning in Wisconsin during 1952. He forfeited the opportunity to call
out McCarthy for his frontal attack on General George C. Marshall.
JFK as a US Senator stepped to the side on the Joseph McCarthy issue
because his father was something of an enthusiast. If I could have voted
in 1960, it would have been easy to vote for JFK rather than RMN.
LBJ was a political animal to his very core, but hands down a better
choice than Senator Goldwater.
Jimmy Carter had made his way to the governorship of Georgia because
of ties to the Talmadge organization that was out-and-out segregationist.
In campaigning for the governorship JEC was something of a muted segregationist.
I gladly voted for him over Gerald Ford.
And so on and so forth.
Saints don't rise to the presidency.
David Underwood,is a trusted commenter Citrus Heights
18 hours ago
Dishonest, you want dishonest, try Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the whole lot
of them. She is evasive, she has made some exaggerations like being shot
at, and yes she voted for W to attack Saddam if he did not stop killing
his own people. She also has supported the Syrian rebels, as many of us
have done, until they got subverted by Daesh.
The email issue is a GOP tail chase which is going nowhere, but keeps
them accusing her, just as they did with Benghazi. She is tough putting
up with all the crap I see from people here. Lies, opinions made of suppositions,
unprovable accusations, a lesser person would have folded by now.
Anetliner Netliner, is a trusted commenter Washington, DC area 20
hours ago
I will vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee, but find her deeply
untrustworthy. Examples, gong back to the early '90s:
-The commodities trading episode. Clinton asserted that she learned to
trade commodities "by reading the Wall Street Journal", which is impossible.
I was a great fan of Clinton's until I heard her utter this falsehood on
national television.
-Travelgate. Career civil service employees improperly fired at Clinton's
behest, so that they could be replaced with the services of a member of
the Clintons' inner circle.
-Poor judgment on foreign policy: Iraq (not bothering to read the National
Intelligence Estimate before voting to go to war.) Libya. No fly zone in
Syria. Failure to close the U.S. mission to Libya in the summer of 2012:
the UK closed its mission in response to growing danger; why did the U.S.
not follow suit?
-Poor judgment in governmental administration: use of a private e-mail server.
Initial explanation: "I didn't want to carry two devices." (Absurd on its
face to anyone who has ever used a smart phone.)
-Shifting positions: Keystone XL, Trans-Pacific Partnership, single-payer
health care.
-Distortion of opponents' positions. From the current campaign: distortion
of Bernie Sanders' positions on the auto bailout and gun control.
I could go on, but the pattern is clear. I respect Clinton's intelligence,
but deplore her duplicity and poor judgment. I'll support her in November
only because the alternatives are worse.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago
It is not because she is a woman. That is an excuse. It is because
she is an extreme hawk, a Washington Consensus neoliberal of trade deals
and Wall Street. It is because she is Hillary, not because Hillary happens
to be a woman.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago
"and yet, she has been highly vetted prior to becoming First Lady,
most certainly so prior to becoming a Senator for NYC"
Nonsense. Nobody vets the President's wife. She is who he married. Nobody
vets a Senator either. We've got some pretty strange Senators, arrested
in bathrooms and stuff. They'd never get past vetting.
RLS, is a trusted commenter Virginia 19 hours ago
Winchestereast,
No other candidate running for president has given paid speeches
to Wall Street and corporate America. Clinton is the ONLY candidate to do
so. She accepted speaking fees until early 2015 knowing she was about to
announce her candidacy. This is UNPRECEDENTED. Of course, congressional
Democrats don't say it publicly but many wish that Clinton had shown better
judgment.
Siobhan, is a trusted commenter New York 21 hours ago
This label of dishonesty that trails Clinton is not just about the
most recent stuff. There's the story from way back when about how the Clintons
took almost $200,000 worth of stuff when they left the White House. They
eventually decided to return or pay for $114,000 worth of items. Things
they'd claimed to have received before taking up residence were shown to
have been received after they arrived; they claimed as personal gifts things
donors specified as designated for the White House itself, etc.
It's this kind of stuff that leaves people feeling that the Clintons
just aren't trustworthy.
1. I did *absolutely nothing wrong*.
2. You can't *prove* I did anything wrong.
3. Technically speaking, no law was actually violated.
4. Well, it's a stupid law anyhow.
5. Everybody does it.
pjd, is a trusted commenter Westford 18 hours ago
"... if that's corrupt then so is our entire campaign finance system."
Yes, it is. It is driven by massive amounts of money. The only "sin"
committed by Ms. Clinton in the case of her speaking fees is to take publicly
traceable money. Meanwhile, the rest of the bunch are taking cash by the
truckload thanks to the Supreme Court-approved Citizens United.
Politics _is_ a dirty business. No one is innocent.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
You and Kristof have joined the growing Democratic chorus that money
is just a fact of politics. It may be true, but wasn't there a time Democrats
advocated for taking money out of politics by overturning Citizens United?
Or is it like Hillary's speaking transcripts, the Dems will agree to getting
money out of politics when the Republicans do.
So, repeat after me--taking hundreds of millions from every special
interest group does not in any way influence Hillary's independent judgment.
Keep repeating and eventually you will believe it. See how easy that is.
Now on to repeating how the neocon foreign policy hawks supporting
Hillary as the best commander in chief is good.
Rima Regas,is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 22 hours
ago
Mark,
I have no disagreements with you. It is my personal code of ethics
that stops me from going there, for as long as she isn't caught red handed.
People have noticed how assiduously both Clintons have courted money
over the years, whether it is Whitewater and everything else leading up
to the present day fundraising, including the Times' revelatory piece on
Ukrainian money in an energy deal, it all reeks, but as is wont with the
Clintons, stops just shy of actual misdeed.
That is what the trust and favorability stats keep telling us, over and
over again, no matter whether it is conservatives or democrats who are polled
and, now, the Bernie Or Bust movement that is being vilified by the neoliberal
punditry. There comes a time when people have had it up to here and it is
my sense that it may finally be here. That is the topic of my Sunday essay.
Krugman just posted a new blog post on a related topic. See my comment there.
Money and greed are the root of all evil.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 21 hours ago
As for the speeches, you do not have to prove an actual "favor" in return
for millions in payments. Any attorney (and Mrs. Clinton is an attorney)
who has had any exposure to the canons of attorney ethics knows that both
actual impropriety, and APPEARANCES of impropriety are to be avoided. "Appearance"
requires no proof of an actual quid pro quo. Besides, the payments can be
interpreted as payments in hope of future considerations. should she be
in a position to provide such considerations.
And if she is elected President and never gives them a break, as she
says she won't, that is maybe even worse. Is there anything as dishonest
as a public official who takes a bribe, and then does not deliver for the
briber?
With the proliferation of small digital sound recording devices,
someone out there made a recording. And when it winds up public (probably
during the general election campaign when it would do the most damage),
it will be Mrs. Clinton's "47% moment".
AC, Astoria, NY 6 hours ago
People find her dishonest and untrustworthy because she is. It doesn't
take an advanced degree to see that she's a self-interested political animal
through and through. She has a long, well-documented history of taking whatever
position is most politically expedient and changing it when the polling
changes.
Furthermore her and her husband's well-documented history of taking
money from everybody from Wall St. banksters to foreign autocrats for everything
from private speeches the proceeds of which go directly into their pockets
to their "foundation" suggests at the minimum a clueless recklessness about
the appearance or corruption and at worst outright contempt for the intelligence
of American voters.
Again, it doesn't take membership in Mensa to apply a little critical
thought and personal experience to the issue of her honesty or trustworthiness.
Anybody who's ever done anything they felt even the tiniest bit ethically
or morally uncomfortable about in order to keep their job or anybody who's
observed this behavior in even the smallest or least significant way from
colleagues knows Wall St. banksters and the Saudis princes don't give millions
of dollars to people who aren't minimally receptive to their interests and
people who take those millions don't do so with the intention of turning
off that spigot down the line.
Ronald Cohen, is a trusted commenter Wilmington, N.C. 19 hours ago
Nicholas Kristoff blames the media for the view that Hillary Clinton
is dishonest and untrustworthy. I agree that the media as a blameworthy
record in this election cycle of pushing Donald J. Trump by trumpeting his
antics until he became a real danger while ignoring Bernard Sanders because
he didn't suit the coronation of HRC in an effort, ongoing, of shoving Clinton
down the National throat.
What if decades of facially shady conduct is true? What if Bill Safire
is right that HRC is a congenital liar? Why doesn't HRC give all this the
lie by releasing her speech transcripts? Since leaving office the Clintons
and the Foundation have amassed millions. Can we not think, as did Honore
de Balzac that "behind every great fortune is a great crime"? How Mrs. Clinton
must actually hate Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders and those under 40 who
have or may yet deny her the crown.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
Even if you support Hillary, it is good to know who is paying her what.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 21 hours ago
Often, the corruption is in the form of compensation after the public
official leaves office. I used to work in NJ State Government. I can cite
numerous examples of regulators who left public service, and were rewarded
with lucrative contracts by the firms they formerly regulated. This would
sometimes be laundered. For example, the former public official would join
a law firm or consulting firm, and suddenly that firm would get a big contract
from the firm they formerly regulated.
In the case of Mrs Clinton, she was a "private citizen" only temporarily.
She resigned as Secretary of State, but it was public knowledge that she
was going to announce a Presidential run. A lot different than, say,
Janet Reno giving a speech.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
@RM--you raise an excellent point. If you outlined a political couple who
did what the Clintons have done making money from special interests, but did
not reveal their identities, everyone would agree they would be unduly influenced
by special interest money. Reveal their identities and suddenly Hillary's supporters
suspend previous beliefs that money corrupts politicians. And that is why nothing
ever changes.
Ronald Cohen, is a trusted commenter Wilmington, N.C. 19 hours ago
"The others are worse" argument should be addressed to the DNC and the
party mandarins who won't field an honest candidate. If we don't vote for
HRC then the party that ran her is to blame. Where are "the best and the
brightest"? Why is our choice always between the dregs?
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
Remember when you could say that money in politics was a corrupting influence
and democrats did not challenge you to show a quid pro quo? Democrats have
suddenly adopted the conservative majority's reasoning in Citizens United
there must be a quid pro quo for money to be bad.
We need to tell all of the lobbyists and special interests funneling
money to the Clintons they are wasting their money because unlike other
politicians, they can never be influenced by that money.
organic farmer, NY 6 hours ago
If 50% of Kristof's statements were true or 'mostly true', would he be
still employed by the NYT? If I told the truth half the time, I doubt my
family and co-workers would be impressed! If 50% of what my employees say
were lies, they would get fired.
As a female middle-aged Democrat, I will vote for Clinton in November
if I have to, but it won't be with any enthusiasm or confidence, and certainly
I will not be voting for a leader I believe in. As a woman, I admire her
intelligence, ambition, and determination, and I'm fairly convinced her
integrity is probably somewhat better than many in politics, but we desperately
need a President with a different vision for our future. We don't need a
divisive leader beholden to Big Banks, Big Ag, Big Business, Big Military
- this will not serve the United States well.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 19 hours ago
It would not be my fault that the Democratic party chose to force upon
the voting public a candidate with high negatives. Such high negatives,
that even Ted Cruz could defeat her.
Janice Badger Nelson, is a trusted commenter Park City, Utah, from
Boston 15 hours ago
She may not be dishonest, but boy is she greedy.
You have got to hand it to her though, she has been through the mill
and still stands there. I cannot imagine the humiliation she must have felt
over the Lewinsky debacle. That alone would have done most of us in. But
she ran for Senate and then President, became the Secretary of State and
now is leading as the democratic candidate for President.
In her 60's. Quite remarkable, if you think about it. I do not know how
she does it other than the fact she has supportive people surrounding her
and that must help. I also think that she feels entitled somehow, and that
is troubling to me. I also think her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, is
a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy. I like that so much. Hillary
is less transparent. She hides a lot. Does that make her dishonest? Maybe
not. But unlikeable for sure.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 20 hours ago
I won't. A decision to support the lesser of two evils is a decision
to support an evil. Maybe if you sat it out, or voted third party, it would
be a message to the major parties to nominate better candidates.
Perhaps, to record that you came to vote, and found both candidates unsupportable,
you could write in "none of the above"
But vote the rest of the ticket.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 18 hours ago
@Christine--you got me. You are right. Those special interests just gave
Hillary and Bill hundreds of millions because they oppose everything the
special interests want. None of the policies Hillary advocates are favored
by any of those special interests. They are wasting their money!
Sorry--the burden is squarely on Hillary to explain how money corrupts
politicians, but she, Bill, the foundation and campaign taking hundreds
of millions from special interests does not. Or, is a politician free to
take all of the money her heart desires, unless there is iron clad proof
of quid pro quo corruption? And if you believe that. you agree with the
right wing majority in Citizens United.
Of course you can believe that, but never again state that money corrupts
politicians, nor ever state lobbyist spending tens of millions to influence
policy is bad.
amboycharlie, Nagoya, Japan 9 hours ago
So the whitewashing of Hillary by the nominal Progressives begins.
Whether or not she is "fundamentally" honest, as Jill Abrahamson has written,
means what exactly? That she won't rob a bank, or pick your pocket? Yet
she will defend bankers who rob their own banks and brokers who pick their
investors' pockets every trading day by skimming others' potential profits
with their high speed trades. Her husband's candidacy was rescued by winning
the New York primary after his loss in New Hampshire and as President he
deregulated the banks, and once he was in private life again, he became
a centa millionaire by speaking in front of bankers. One would be naive
to believe the Clintons did not make a deal the the banks put out the word.
Perhaps there was no quid pro quo, but there certainly was some quo pro
quid. Ditto for Hillary.
The Clinton Foundation took huge donations from dictatorial regimes worldwide
and Hillary as SecState, rewarded them with arms deals they would otherwise
not have gotten, due to their human rights violations. The list of apparent
crimes by the Clintons goes on and on. Why a "Progressive" would paper
over the record of Goldwater girl turned "NeoLiberal," which is pretty much
the same thing, who is fundamentally against everything real Progressives
stand for boggles the imagination.
Thomas Zaslavsky, is a trusted commenter Binghamton, N.Y. 16 hours
ago
Wcdessert Girl, you are straining so hard to smear Bernie Sanders that
you deserve to have a busted gut. (No that I'm wishing it upon you.) He
got the normal Congressional salary (not all that large; barely upper middle
class, these days) and the normal Congressional benefits (sure, we should
all get them), and you question his financial integrity? Be ashamed.
Now, try to defend Hillary without a baseless smear against anyone else.
Liberty Apples, Providence 9 hours ago
``One basic test of a politician's honesty is whether that person
tells the truth when on the campaign trail, and by that standard Clinton
does well.''
Excuse me?
She lied about Sanders support for the auto bailout.
She lied about Sanders support for the Paris climate accord.
She was in knots trying to explain her position on the $15 minimum wage.
You get the idea. The truth has always been an inconvenience for the
Clintons.
Barry, Minneapolis 10 hours ago
She lies about little things. Hot sauce. Medium sized things. Coming
under fire; she only wanted to carry one cell; the papers that turned up
in a parlor. Big things. "If I had known then." That was as bad as Nixon's
"secret plan."
This is Christopher Hitchens biting analysis from previous Presidential elections,
but still relevant
Notable quotes:
"... The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. ..."
"... the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen. ..."
"... If you recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others, you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable Roger Tamraz , for another example. ..."
"... It found that the Clinton administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax (as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with Chinese military-industrial associations). ..."
"... Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations (still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent pros . You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon. ..."
"... Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud, hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary Clinton's other brother, Hugh , and, hey, they , respectively, got a presidential commutation and a presidential pardon, too. ..."
"... Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications, too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic. ..."
"... In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. ..."
"... Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me. ..."
It was apt in a small way that the first
endorser of Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of state should have been
Henry Kissinger. The last time he was nominated for any position of responsibility-the
chairmanship of the 9/11 commission-he accepted with many florid words about
the great honor and responsibility, and then he withdrew when it became clear
that he would have to disclose the client list of Kissinger Associates. (See,
for the article that began this embarrassing process for him, my Slate
column "The
Latest Kissinger Outrage.")
It is possible that the Senate will be as much of a club as the undistinguished
fraternity/sorority of our ex-secretaries of state, but even so, it's difficult
to see Sen. Clinton achieving confirmation unless our elected representatives
are ready to ask a few questions about conflict of interest along similar lines.
And how can they not? The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations
came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk
that still has not been dispelled. Former President Bill Clinton has recently
and rather disingenuously offered to submit his own foundation to scrutiny (see
the
work of my Vanity Fair colleague Todd Purdum on the delightful friends
and associates that Clinton has acquired since he left office), but
the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in
office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were
wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen.
Just to give the most salient examples from the Clinton fundraising scandals
of the late 1990s: The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight published
a list of witnesses called before it who had either "fled
or pled"-in other words, who had left the country to avoid testifying or
invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination. Some Democratic members
of the committee said that this was unfair to, say, the Buddhist nuns who raised
the unlawful California temple dough for then-Vice President
Al Gore, but however fair you want to be, the number of those who found
it highly inconvenient to testify fluctuates between 94 and 120. If you
recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others,
you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance
to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National
Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of
this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the
White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable
Roger Tamraz, for another example.
Related was the result of a House select
committee
on Chinese espionage in the United States and the illegal transfer to China
of advanced military technology. Chaired by Christopher Cox, R-Calif., the committee
issued a
report
in 1999 with no dissenting or "minority" signature. It found that the Clinton
administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax
(as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with
Chinese military-industrial associations).
Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations
(still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent
pros. You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar
bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise
Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill
Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon.
Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud,
hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they
got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary
Clinton's other brother,
Hugh, and, hey, they, respectively, got a presidential commutation
and a presidential pardon, too. In the Hugh case, the money was returned
as being too embarrassing for words (and as though following the hallowed custom,
when busted or flustered, of the Clinton-era DNC). But I would say that it was
more embarrassing to realize that a former first lady, and a candidate for secretary
of state, was a full partner in years of seedy overseas money-grubbing and has
two greedy brothers to whom she cannot say no.
Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications,
too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another
scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of
Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something
simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership
with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably
have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to
look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic.
China, Indonesia, Georgia-these are not exactly negligible countries on our
defense and financial and ideological peripheries. In each country, there are
important special interests that equate the name Clinton with the word pushover.
And did I forget to add what President Clinton pleaded when the revulsion at
the Rich pardons became too acute? He claimed that he had concerted the deal
with the government of Israel in the intervals of the Camp David "agreement"!
So anyone who criticized the pardons had better have been careful if they didn't
want to hear from the Anti-Defamation League. Another splendid way of showing
that all is aboveboard and of convincing the Muslim world of our evenhandedness.
In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the
Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. A president absolutely
has to know of his chief foreign-policy executive that he or she has no other
agenda than the one he has set. Who can say with a straight face that this
is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty
is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is
ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either
of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently
was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of
her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him
for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What
may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness
and masochism to me.
Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a columnist for Vanity Fair and
the author, most recently, of
Arguably, a collection of essays.
This short article contains several very deep observations. Highly
recommended...
Notable quotes:
"... There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. ..."
"... This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over. ..."
"... First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form. ..."
"... So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. ..."
"... I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children. ..."
"... Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile ..."
CHRIS HEDGES : Well, reducing the election to personalities
is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon
Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. It's a system where corporate power has
seized all of the levers of control. There is no way to vote against the interests
of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen,
under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George
W. Bush carried out. We've seen the executive branch misinterpret the 2001 Authorization
to Use Military Force Act as giving itself the right to assassinate American
citizens, including children. I speak of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son.
We have bailed out the banks, pushed through programs of austerity. This
has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate
power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate
coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over.
I just came back from Poland, which is a kind of case study of how
neoliberal poison destroys a society and creates figures like Trump. Poland
has gone, I think we can argue, into a neofascism.
First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country.
Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education,
public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now
watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know,
they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political
system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form.
So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that
in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But
the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they
want us to focus on. We've got to break away from political personalities
and understand and examine and critique the structures of power. And, in fact,
the Democratic Party, especially beginning under Bill Clinton, has carried water
for corporate entities as assiduously as the Republican Party. This is something
that Ralph Nader understood long before the rest of us, and stepped out very
courageously in 2000. And I think we will look back on that period and find
Ralph to be an amazingly prophetic figure. Nobody understands corporate power
better than Ralph. And I think now people have caught up with Ralph.
And this is, of course, why I support Dr. Stein and the Green Party. We have
to remember that 10 years ago, Syriza, which controls the Greek government,
was polling at exactly the same spot that the Green Party is polling now-about
4 percent. We've got to break out of this idea that we can create systematic
change within a particular election cycle. We've got to be willing to step out
into the political wilderness, perhaps, for a decade. But on the issues of climate
change, on the issue of the destruction of civil liberties, including our right
to privacy-and I speak as a former investigative journalist, which doesn't exist
anymore because of wholesale government surveillance-we have no ability, except
for hackers.
I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've
printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never
exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And
the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're
appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes
the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party
-- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus
in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into
the Clinton campaign.
The fact is, Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned
children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70
percent of the original recipients were children.
This debate over -- I don't like Trump, but Trump is not the phenomenon.
Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get
rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile, maybe Ted Cruz.
Pathological Liar – All About PATHOLOGICAL LYING, Lying, Self-Deception, Types,
Classification, from Pseudologia Fantastica to Habitual Lying.
Pathological Liar – Definition
Pathological liar refers to a liar that is compulsive
or impulsive, lies on a regular basis and is unable to control their lying
despite of foreseeing inevitable negative consequences or ultimate disclosure
of the lie. Generally lies told by a pathological liar have self-defeating
quality to them and don't serve the long term material needs of the person.
Therefore pathological lying is lying that is caused by a pathology, occurs
on a regular basis, is compulsive or impulsive & uncontrolled, and has self-defeating,
self-trapping quality to it.
Lying or self-deception is a part of everyday human interactions. In
many cases lying can be beneficial for those who lie and those who are being
lied to. Most of this type of lying with positive consequences occurs in
a controlled way, thoughtfully, with careful weighting of beneficial consequences.
Unlike these, the lies told by a pathological liar are uncontrolled and
are likely to have damaging consequences.
Pathological lying covers a wide range of lying behavior, from pseudologia
fantastica to habitual lying. Lying is a commonly found clinical component
with people who suffer from impulse control disorders such as gambling,
compulsive shopping, substance abuse, kleptomania etc. Pathological lying
is generally caused by a combination of factors, which may include genetic
components, dysfunctional or insecure childhood, dyslexia or other type
of cerebral dysfunction. Such conditions may host environment that is likely
to emerge chronic or pathological lying as an adaptive defense mechanism.
Dysfunctional family, parental overprotection, sibling rivalry, mental retardation
are among many causes of pathological lying.
Low Self-Esteem And Pathological Lying
Low self-esteem is a commonly found feature in pathological liars. The
lie maybe an attempt to feel good about themselves, generally for a short
period of time, similar to the effect of drugs & alcohol. The same lie or
deceit repeated over and over may create a myth of personal well-being or
success or displacement of faults of own failures on others, thus creating
an imaginary fantasy protection bubble, which may reinforce self-esteem.
Pathological liars repeatedly use deceit as an ego defense mechanism, which
is primarily caused by the lack of ability to cope with everyday problems
in more mature ways (Selling 1942).
Pathological Liar – Causes
Causes of development of pathological lying can be, but are not limited
to, one or more of the factors mentioned below:
A dysfunctional family;
Sexual or physical abuse in childhood;
Neuropsychological abnormalities; such as borderline mental retardation,
learning disabilities etc.
Impulse control disorders; such as kleptomania, pathological gambling,
compulsive shopping.
Accommodating or suggestible personality traits;
Personality disorders such as Sociopathic, Narcissistic, Borderline,
Histrionic and more;
Some of the more extreme forms of pathological lying is Pseudologia
Fantastica. This is a matrix of facts & fiction, mixed together in a
way that makes the reality and fantasy almost indistinguishable. The
pseudologue type pathological liar makes up stories that seem possible
on the surface, but over time things start falling apart. Pseudologues
have dynamic approach to their lies, they are likely to change the story
if confronted or faced with disbelief, they have excessive anxiety of
being caught and they desperately try to modify their story to something
that would seem plausible to create or preserve a sense of self that
is something they wish they were or at least something better than they
fear others would find out they are. The excessive anxiety is driven
by unusually low self-esteem, the person tries to hide reality by creating
a fake reality, and once the story has enduring quality to it, he/she
is likely to repeat it and if repeated enough times he/she might start
believing in it as well. This reality escape can be triggered of a past
incident or of an unbearable present for the pseudologue.
About 30% of daydreaming pathological liars have brain dysfunction.
For some it may take the form of learning disabilities, ex. dyslexia.
Often those with cerebral dysfunction have greater verbal production
& lower developed logical, analytical parts of the brain, thus they
often fail to control verbal output.
Habitual Liar
Habitual pathological lying is, as the name suggest, habitual. Habitual
liar lies so frequently, that it becomes a habit, as a result, he/she
puts very little effort in giving a thought about what the output is
going to be, nor does he/she care much to process whether it's a lie
or not, it's simply a reflex & very often can be completely unnecessary
or even opposite to his/her own needs. If he/she stops & thinks about
it, he/she knows clearly it's a lie.
Habitual liars lie for a variety of reasons, which include, but are
not limited to:
Take advantage of the situation or misguide a rival
Avoid confrontation or punishment
Cover up lack of knowledge
Cover up embarrassment
To entertain oneself or others
Reinforce self-esteem, because of failing own expectation
Receive unearned praise or avoid disappointment or disproval
For no reason whatsoever
Habitual liars gives very few if any psychical or vocal signs of
lying, due to the effortless nature of lying. That said, since he/she
gives a very little thought to his/her lies, they are usually inconsistent
& obvious.
Fear is a major contributor in developing habitual lying in a child
& further advancement into adulthood, more so in conditions when the
child finds truth telling results in more frequent or more severe punishment.
Lack of appreciating and likelihood of unwanted consequences of telling
the truth may result in frequent opting out for lying, which often involves
less punishment & therefore becomes more desirable.
Impulsive Pathological Liar – Impulse Control Disorders & Lying
Impulsive pathological liar lies due to impulse control problem,
he/she lies to fulfill his/her present (in the moment) needs, without
thinking of future negative effects that can be caused because of the
lie. Impulsive pathological liar generally suffers from impulse control
disorders, such as kleptomania, pathological gambling, compulsive shopping
etc. Those suffering from impulse control disorders fail to learn from
past negative experiences, frequently suffer from depression, likely
to have history of substance abuse in family or have substance abuse
problems themselves, likely to have deficiency in brain serotonin. Increase
in brain serotonin may have positive effect in decreasing impulsiveness,
such medication may have positive effects, however there hasn't been
clinical research performed to confirm or deny this theory.
Substance Abuse Associated Pathological Liar
Self-Deception is an undeniable part of addictive process. People
abuse alcohol or other drugs constantly lie to themselves & others to
avoid embarrassment, conflict, as well as to obtain the substance. Getting
off substance requires learning to distance oneself from the deceit,
therefore learning to be truthful is generally a part of any Alcoholics
Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous program.
Signs of Lying
Human detection of deceit can be summarized by the following seven signs.
7 Signs of Lying
Disguised smiling
Lack of head movement
Increased rate of self-adapters (eg., movements such playing with
an object in hands, scratching one's head etc.)
Increased/Heightened pitch of voice
Reduced rate of speech
Pause fillers ("uh", "hm", "er")
Less corresponding, matching nonverbal behavior from the other communication
methods (ex. the movement of hands doesn't match the substance of the
lie that is being told orally)
"... The Ambassador's urging to her said: "The actions of June 28 can only be considered a coup d'etat. ... It bears mentioning that, whereas the resolution [by the junta] adopted June 28 refers only to Zelaya, its effect was to remove the entire executive branch. ... His forced removal by the military was clearly illegal, and [puppett-leader Roberto] Micheletti's ascendance as 'interim president' was totally illegitimate." ..."
"... However, instead, she joined with then-Senator Jim DeMint (now head of the Heritage Foundation and the chief sponsor of the political career of Texas U.S. Senator Ted Cruz) in propping up the fascist regime. ..."
When a fascist putsch, a coup d'etat, overthrew at gunpoint the popular progressive
democratic President of Honduras on 28 June 2009, and all countries of the world
except Israel and the United States promptly declared the junta-installed government
illegitimate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to join all other nations
in rejecting the fascist regime. As I previously
reported this matter in detail, the U.S. Ambassador to Honduras told her
in a cable, that President Manuel Zelaya had been illegally replaced by the
junta-appointed stooge Roberto Michelettti, yet she still refused.
The Ambassador's urging to her said: "The actions of June 28 can only
be considered a coup d'etat. ... It bears mentioning that, whereas the resolution
[by the junta] adopted June 28 refers only to Zelaya, its effect was to remove
the entire executive branch. ... His forced removal by the military was clearly
illegal, and [puppett-leader Roberto] Micheletti's ascendance as 'interim president'
was totally illegitimate."
However, instead, she joined with then-Senator Jim DeMint (now head of
the Heritage Foundation and the chief sponsor of the political career of Texas
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz) in propping up the fascist regime.
Promptly Honduras descended into hell, suddenly having the world's highest
murder-rate, and becoming a haven of narco-trafficking. What was Hillary thinking?
She expressed contempt for Zelaya, but what was really happening here was that
American international companies liked paying their Honduran contractors sub-human
wages to workers at their plants in Honduras. The Honduran aristocrats owned
those factories, and the U.S. aristocrats shared with them the profits from
this "free-market" slavery. What did Hillary care about the ongoing terror,
murders, and soaring narco-trafficking?
"... Under longstanding and clear-cut US law, all US aid to Honduras - except democracy assistance - including all military aid, should have been immediately suspended following the coup. ..."
"... Why wasn't US aid to Honduras suspended following the coup? The justification given by Clinton's State Department on August 25 for not suspending US aid to Honduras was that events in Honduras were murky and it was not clear whether a coup had taken place. Clinton's State Department claimed that State Department lawyers were studying the murky question of whether a coup had taken place. ..."
"... This justification was a lie, and Clinton's State Department knew it was a lie. By July 24, 2009, the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, knew clearly that the action of the Honduran military to remove President Zelaya on June 28, 2009, constituted a coup. On July 24, US Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens sent a cable to top US officials, including Secretary of State Clinton, with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," thoroughly documenting the assertion that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup." ..."
On June 28, 2009, when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, democratically
elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was overthrown by a military coup.
The United Nations, the European Union and the Organization of American States
(OAS) condemned the coup, and on July 5, Honduras was suspended from the OAS.
Under longstanding and clear-cut US law, all US aid to Honduras - except
democracy assistance - including all military aid, should have been immediately
suspended following the coup.
On August 7, 15 House
Democrats, led by Rep. Raúl Grijalva, sent a letter to the administration
which began, "As you know, on June 28th, 2009, a military coup took place in
Honduras," and said: "The State Department should fully acknowledge that a military
coup has taken place and follow through with the total suspension of non-humanitarian
aid, as required by law."
Why wasn't US aid to Honduras suspended following the coup? The
justification given
by Clinton's State Department on August 25 for not suspending US aid to Honduras
was that events in Honduras were murky and it was not clear whether a coup had
taken place. Clinton's State Department
claimed that State
Department lawyers were studying the murky question of whether a coup had taken
place.
This justification was a lie, and Clinton's State Department knew it
was a lie. By July 24, 2009, the State Department, including Secretary Clinton,
knew clearly that the action of the Honduran military to remove President Zelaya
on June 28, 2009, constituted a coup. On July 24, US Ambassador to Honduras
Hugo Llorens
sent a cable to top US officials, including Secretary of State Clinton,
with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," thoroughly documenting
the assertion that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted
an illegal and unconstitutional coup."
"... The Democrats' Athena only differs from Bush on the details. ..."
"... Her bellicose interventionism has a history: it was Hillary, you'll recall, who berated her husband for not bombing Belgrade soon enough and hard enough. As Gail Sheehy relates in Hillary's Choice: ..."
"... Hillary would have occupied Iraq a decade earlier, riding into Baghdad at the head of her troops like Pallas Athena descending on the Trojans, striding boldly into what Gen. William E. Odom has described as "the greatest strategic disaster in our history." ..."
"... Hillary, however, didn't let any inconvenient facts get in her way. She boasted that it was under a Democratic administration that the U.S. "changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change" and took credit for the bright idea of putting Ahmad Chalabi, convicted embezzler and known liar, on the U.S. payroll. Her speech reads like a Weekly Standard editorial, reiterating each of the War Party's talking points-the bio-weapons fantasy, the links to al-Qaeda gambit, the phantom nuclear arsenal: "This much," she maintaind, "is undisputed." ..."
"... When it comes to Iran, however, she is just as belligerent as the next neocon: Pelosi co-sponsored legislation imposing draconian economic sanctions on Iran and stops just short of calling another war. ..."
The Democrats' Athena only differs from Bush on the details.
Hillary's newfound centrism isn't completely insincere. Her bellicose
interventionism has a history: it was Hillary, you'll recall, who berated her
husband for not bombing Belgrade soon enough and hard enough. As Gail Sheehy
relates in Hillary's Choice:
Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: 'I urged him to bomb.'
The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The president expressed]
what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the
NATO alliance? Hillary responded, 'You cannot let this go on at the end of a
century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO
for if not to defend our way of life?' The next day the President declared that
force was necessary.
Together with Madeleine Albright-who famously complained to Colin Powell,
"What good is it having this superb military you're always talking about if
we can't use it?"-Hillary constituted the Amazonian wing of the Democratic Party
during the years of her husband's presidency. Her effort to outflank the Republicans
on the right when it comes to the Iran issue is a logical extension of her natural
bellicosity.
Hillary is nothing if not consistent: in her floor speech to the Senate during
the debate over the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, she declared,
"the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt"-a statement
she has never acknowledged regretting. Particularly endearing to the War Party,
she framed her "aye" vote in terms of the classic neoconservative myth of Bush
I's betrayal:
The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab
states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred
hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the
Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to
Saddam's revenge.
Hillary would have occupied Iraq a decade earlier, riding into Baghdad
at the head of her troops like Pallas Athena descending on the Trojans, striding
boldly into what Gen. William E. Odom has described as "the greatest strategic
disaster in our history."
Hillary hails the 1998 bombing of Iraq, ordered by her husband, which killed
thousands of Iraqi civilians, and recounts the official mythology promulgated
by the Bush administration: "[T]he so-called presidential palaces in reality
were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which
Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked
the inspection process, the inspectors left." As we now know, there was nothing
even approaching WMD in those palaces, and Iraq had been effectively disarmed
at that point. In late February or early March, Scott Ritter, then a UN arms
inspector, met with then-U.S. ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson. Ritter was
told to provoke an incident so the U.S. could finish bombing by the start of
the Islamic New Year holiday.
Hillary, however, didn't let any inconvenient facts get in her way. She
boasted that it was under a Democratic administration that the U.S. "changed
its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change" and took
credit for the bright idea of putting Ahmad Chalabi, convicted embezzler and
known liar, on the U.S. payroll. Her speech reads like a Weekly Standard editorial,
reiterating each of the War Party's talking points-the bio-weapons fantasy,
the links to al-Qaeda gambit, the phantom nuclear arsenal: "This much," she
maintaind, "is undisputed."
What is undisputed these days is that the entire rationale for war was based
on trumped-up evidence of Iraq's alleged transgressions, but Hillary is unrepentant:
"No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was
in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States,
and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community
for more than a decade."
But there was no threat to the U.S. and Hillary knows it. What's more, her
hardcore constituency knows it, and they are becoming increasingly alienated
from-even actively hostile to-their putative presidential frontrunner over this
issue. Their anger is stoked by evidence that Hillary has imbibed the same neocon
Kool-Aid that has intoxicated the Bush administration and blinded it to the
failure of its policies in Iraq.
On a trip to Iraq during which 55 people-including one American soldier -were
killed by suicide bombers, Hillary was merrily chirping that the occupation
was "functioning quite well" and that the surge of suicide attacks indicated
that the insurgency was failing. Security was so bad that the road to the airport
was impassable, and the Senate delegation had to be transported to the Green
Zone by military helicopter. They dared not venture out into the streets of
Baghdad.
The disconnect between rhetoric and reality, between the antiwar views of
Hillary's left-wing base and the militant interventionism of Wittmann and the
DLC crowd, finally forced her to come to grips with the contradiction-or at
least to appear to do so. This occurred not in a public speech but in an e-mail
sent to her supporters in which the trouble she is in is acknowledged in the
first sentence: "The war in Iraq is on the minds of many of you who have written
or who have called my office asking questions and expressing frustration." Chances
are, these callers were expressing frustration not only with the policies of
the Bush administration but with her own complicity with Bush's Middle Eastern
agenda of seemingly endless aggression.
She falls back on the old "there are no quick and easy answers" ploy to give
an aura of thoughtfulness to a dishonest and constantly shifting position on
the war. While insisting that we should not "allow this to be an open-ended
commitment without limits or end," she reassures the War Party by distancing
herself from John Murtha and others who want an orderly withdrawal in a relatively
short time: "Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately."
She hails the elections as the signal that we can start the withdrawal process
sometime "in the coming year," but not completely: we must leave behind "a smaller
contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities"-a
tripwire, in short, in the form of permanent bases.
... ... ...
What does Hillary want? A smarter, smoother, better-planned interventionism,
one that our allies find more amenable and yet is, in many ways, more militant
than the Republican version-one that "levels with the American people" about
the costs of empire and yet doesn't dispute the alleged necessity of American
hegemony. As she finds her voice as a would-be commander in chief, it isn't
one the traditional Left in this country will recognize.
... ... ...
If the Democratic establishment's stance on the war is at odds with the party's
antiwar activist base, then their outright warmongering on the Iranian issue
puts the two factions on a collision course. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi-who
effectively quashed fellow California Democrat Lynn Woolsey's resolution calling
for a withdrawal timetable -has followed the Hillary-Emanuel-DLC party line,
while managing somehow to assuage her constituents with plenty of pork and partisan
rhetoric. When it comes to Iran, however, she is just as belligerent as
the next neocon: Pelosi co-sponsored legislation imposing draconian economic
sanctions on Iran and stops just short of calling another war.
"... Kessler points out that Clinton's protestations that the material under investigation was not marked classified is immaterial, writing, "The pertinent laws make no distinction between classified material that is marked as such or not. If material is classified and is handled improperly, that is a violation of criminal laws." ..."
"... The FBI investigation has been galvanized further by recent revelations involving emails sent by Abedin and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, as well as the fact that State Department BlackBerry devices belonging to Abedin and Mills have likely been liquidated or sold. ..."
"... There's not an agent in the service who wants to be in Hillary's detail. If agents get the nod to go to her detail, that's considered a form of punishment among the agents. ..."
"... The most egregious example of Clinton's arrogance was evidenced in one particularly nasty incident when she was First Lady. One former agent related, "The first lady steps out of the limo, and another uniformed officer says to her, 'Good morning, ma'am.' Her response to him was 'F-- off.' I couldn't believe I heard it." ..."
Ronald Kessler, writing for The Daily Mail, testifies that Hillary Clinton and her
long-time aide Huma Abedin were detested by members of the Secret Service because
the two women arrogantly treated the Secret Service agents like dirt.
Kessler, the author of
The Secrets of the FBI and The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal
the Hidden Lives of the Presidents, dismisses claims by members
of the media that the current FBI investigation of Clinton is restricted to
a "security investigation." He attests that the investigation of Clinton means
that she violated criminal laws, as the FBI will not launch an investigation
unless laws have been violated. Kessler points out that Clinton's protestations
that the material under investigation was not marked classified is immaterial,
writing, "The pertinent laws make no distinction between classified material
that is marked as such or not. If material is classified and is handled improperly,
that is a violation of criminal laws."
The FBI investigation has been galvanized further by recent revelations
involving emails sent by
Abedin and Clinton aide
Cheryl Mills, as well as the fact that State Department BlackBerry devices
belonging to Abedin and Mills have likely been
liquidated or sold.
Some of the anecdotes involving the imperiousness and haughtiness of Clinton
and Abedin include:
In 2008, Abedin lost her way driving Chelsea Clinton to the February 2008
Democrat presidential debate in Los Angeles. One agent who tried to help Abedin
recalled, "She was belligerent and angry about being late for the event, no
appreciation for any of it, not a thank-you or anything. That was common for
her people to be rude."
Another Los Angeles imbroglio occurred when Abedin, who was not wearing a
pin certifying her identity, tried to bluster past a female Secret Service agent.
The agent, unaware of Abedin's identity, said, "You don't have the proper identification
to go beyond this point." Another agent told Kessler, "Huma basically tried
to throw her weight around. She tried to just force her way through and said
belligerently, 'Do you know who I am?''"
Kessler noted that Secret Service Agents are not required to carry luggage
for their protectees, but they will if they like them. One agent recollected
that, in Abedin's case, "The agents were just like, 'Hey, you're going to be
like that? Well, you get your own luggage to the car. Oh, and by the way, you
can carry the first lady's luggage to the car, too. She'd have four bags, and
we'd stand there and watch her and say, 'Oh, can we hold the door open for you?'"
The agent added, "When it's convenient for them, they'll utilize the service
for whatever favor they need, but otherwise, they look down upon the agents,
kind of like servants."
An agent who still works for the Secret Service asserted:
There's not an agent in the service who wants to be in Hillary's
detail. If agents get the nod to go to her detail, that's considered a form
of punishment among the agents. She's hard to work around, she's known
to snap at agents and yell at agents and dress them down to their faces,
and they just have to be humble and say, "Yes ma'am," and walk away. Agents
don't deserve that. They're there to do a job, they're there to protect
her, they'll lay their life down for hers, and there's absolutely no respect
for that. And that's why agents do not want to go to her detail.
The most egregious example of Clinton's arrogance was evidenced in one
particularly nasty incident when she was First Lady. One former agent related,
"The first lady steps out of the limo, and another uniformed officer says to
her, 'Good morning, ma'am.' Her response to him was 'F-- off.' I couldn't believe
I heard it."
Hillary was famous for wanting the Secret Service to be invisible; one former
agent said, "We were basically told, the Clintons don't want to see you, they
don't want to hear you, get out of the way. Hillary was walking down a hall,
you were supposed to hide behind drapes used as partitions. Supervisors would
tell us, 'Listen, stand behind this curtain. They're coming,' or 'Just stand
out of the way, don't be seen.'"
Hillary berated a White House electrician changing a light bulb, screaming
that he should have waited until the First Family was gone. Franette McCulloch,
the assistant White House pastry chief at the time, remembered, "He was a basket
case."
FBI agent Coy Copeland told Kessler that Hillary had a "standing rule that
no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another."
One agent was abused by Hillary during the Kenneth Starr investigation of
the Whitewater scandal; he said, "Good morning, Mrs. Clinton," and she ranted,
"How dare you? You people are just destroying my husband… And where do you buy
your suits? Penney's?"
Weeks later, the agent confessed to Copeland, "I was wearing the best suit
I owned."
"... As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction? ..."
"... "We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap. ..."
"... Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale. This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria. And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton. ..."
As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a
bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to
spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction?
"We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap.
Under my definiton of "sociopath", Hillary Clinton qualifies on that one
alone. Of course there are others….
*** My father, too, turned bribes into gifts. ***
I know some saintly people myself, and have no difficulty accepting this
claim at face value. Stretching the analogy to the Clinton Foundation is, in
my opinion, a stretch too far. If Hillary was as pure as the driven snow, why
did she work so hard to ensure her communications were beyond the reach of the
Freedom Of Information Act? Why has the State department refused to release
her meeting schedules until after the election?
Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale.
This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan
of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria.
And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off
Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton.
When Donald Trump, Ben Carson and other political outsiders first denounced
political correctness, they instantly struck a nerve. They were promising to
peel back the mushy language that government and so-called sophisticates use
to conceal simple truths.
That urge came over me as I watched Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, along
with Jeb Bush, argue over each other's immigration flip-flops during last week's
GOP debate. Because Fox moderators used videos to demonstrate the differences
between where the candidates once stood and where they stand, the truth was
obvious, yet none of the three rivals dared say it.
Why couldn't even one acknowledge that he changed his position and explain
why? And if none would, why didn't the others just say, "You're lying"?
These are three men I admire, yet each lacked the courage to be honest on
a crucial point during a televised job interview. When did the truth become
so toxic and untruths so acceptable?
Spin and puffery have a long history in politics, but something has snapped
in our culture that we no longer even expect our leaders to talk straight. We
have become immune to lies and the liars who tell them.
I blame it on the Clintons. Their survival despite a quarter-century of shameful
dishonesty has led the way in lowering the bar for integrity in public life.
Add to this Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Libya sex slaves to get a fuller picture. Looks like she is a
worthy descendant of south slave owners.
Notable quotes:
"... I would say we have a major election campaign going on right now where one candidate's campaign strategy with a mostly in the bag press seem to be all about 'hot button' secondary issues. Not that their opponent is so hot on the primary issues either, although I'd say they find a nut every couple of weeks. ..."
"... I'm encouraging everyone to watch the documentary Restrepo ..."
"... See that woman crying over her dead child, killed by an American bomb, dropped with impunity?…why don't you go tell her how much better off she is, now that she doesn't have to wear a burka….go on, tell her… ..."
Navy analysis found that a Marine's case would draw attention to Afghan 'sex slaves'
WaPo
The Martland case opened a dialogue in which numerous veterans of the war in Afghanistan said
they were told to ignore instances of child sex abuse by their Afghan colleagues. The Defense
Department's inspector general then opened an investigation into the sexual assault reports and
how they were handled by U.S. military officials who knew about them.
==========================================
US values in action – protecting the powerful and screwing the helpless…..
"This is a serious turning point for all the people of Afghanistan, but in particular for
the hard-fought gains women and girls have been able to enjoy." - Hillary Clinton, Nov 15,
2013
Found myself in a discussion with a recent ex-senator about invading Iraq. I had been attacking
the premise that we needed to attack Iraq because terrorism, AND military capabilities and that
it was based on lies and misinformation and doing pretty well, when the Senator said but think
about Afghanistan – women no longer have to wear the Burka, and girls are going to school. This
was after a report in the foreign press about attacks on schools with female students and how
women were choosing to wear the burka because the harassment of women wearing western clothing
being ignored. The utter ignorance of that statement floored me. I fully admit I was so gobsmacked
I was speechless, and he moved on. I ended up sending him the link to a very good series in Newsday
about how badly things were going in Afghanistan less than six months later. Already too late.
Funny how the women get mentioned at the most interesting times.
Your comment illuminates how politics focuses on "hot button" secondary issues to distract
attention from dismal primary issues.
When gross insecurity rules in a war zone, all other aspects of life (including gender equality)
take a back seat to survival. Indeed, war is correlated with social conservatism, so the cultural
climate is not receptive to change, and may even backslide.
Here's a glimpse into the lost world of Kabul University in the 1980s (complete with a dandy
in the left background who resembles an Afghan Tom Wolfe):
I would say we have a major election campaign going on right now where one candidate's campaign
strategy with a mostly in the bag press seem to be all about 'hot button' secondary issues. Not
that their opponent is so hot on the primary issues either, although I'd say they find a nut every
couple of weeks.
So much of the run up to the AUMF vote and the invasion reminds me of the current climate surrounding
the election.
I'm encouraging everyone to watch the documentary Restrepo , which
is available on both Netflix and Youtube (at present). The realities of what we're doing in Afghanistan
are indefensible.
See that woman crying over her dead child, killed by an American bomb, dropped with impunity?…why
don't you go tell her how much better off she is, now that she doesn't have to wear a burka….go
on, tell her…
My spouse, bless his heart, works for a company embedded in the military-industrial complex.
Three years ago, I accompanied him to the company Christmas bash (one of those compromises in
a marriage and besides I am living well on his paycheck) where the new CEO spoke to the 'troops.'
He ended his talk with a paean to the marvelous gains in freedom for Afghan women and girls
that the US's invasion (sorry, liberation) of Afghanistan has produced). The employees cheered
and I refrained from vomiting only by incredible force of will . And, I would have ruined my new
dress specially purchased at GoodWill for the occasion.
"They are dead, but thanks to us, they can be buried in a bikini…….."
The old "we had to destroy the village to save it" plan.
Somehow, I don't think we'd have gone to war in the Middle East, if "Fighting for Women's Rights"
was the justification.
"Personally, I don't think……..they don't really want to be involved in this war…….they took
our freedom away and gave it to the g##kers. But they don't want it. They would rather be alive
than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards."
RE: Marine's case: Be sure to read two of the comments attached to this link - they're both
recent and show on the first page of comments:
From - Buckley Family: "… Bear in mind when Maj. Brezler wrote his report he had no Classified
Networks in his area. He used his personal computer to write that report and other reports many
which were Classified by the Higher Command once they received them. They failed to let Maj. Brezler
know that they had classified his reports. He was trying to do his job with the resources that
he had available to him."
From - tsn100: " … Afghans hide behind Islam, this is not at all what Islam teaches, this is
a cultural thing, Afghan culture allows this, the Taliban movement started when a young boy was
raped and the family came to Mullah Omar who was just an unknown preacher and asked him to help,
this was at the height of the Afghan civil war, Mullah Omar went and caught the culprit and had
him shot, or hanged cant remember, that
Hillary lied again claiming that the existence of her bathroom mail server was a common knoleadge.
Some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were unaware of the server
Notable quotes:
"... some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton
only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email address ..."
"... The F.B.I. said that some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were aware she used a private email
address but did not know she had set up a private server. The aides said they were "unaware of the existence
of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at State or when it became public knowledge." ..."
Mrs. Clinton said in her interview it was "common knowledge" that she had a private email address
because it was "displayed to anyone with whom she exchanged emails." But the F.B.I. said in a summary
of its findings that "some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that
emails by Clinton only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email
address."
The F.B.I. said that some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were aware she used a private email
address but did not know she had set up a private server. The aides said they were "unaware of the
existence of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at State or when it became public knowledge."
"some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton
only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email address." I have
no idea what kind of email client would hide the contents of the from/reply-to field. How does
their spam filter work if it doesn't reveal who sent it? Why do they read stuff when they don't
have any idea who sent it? Did the F.B.I. really simply accept these statements as facts? Maybe
they all just use cell phones and could care less who else is in the loop.
"Three weeks later, a Platte River employee realized he had not deleted the emails as instructed.
The employee said he then used a special program called BleachBit to delete the files." He was
told to delete files that any nitwit knows shouldn't be deleted and delete only means delete if
they can't be found again but now it turns out he was supposed to shred them after removing the
staples.
The clear signal is that if you are going to break laws, hide information from future legal
discovery and generally stonewall investigators with easily disproven statements be very certain
that it at the behest of your liege lord. Laws are for the peasants. Justice is blind for the
elite because no one dares look.
fresno dan
Now we find out a laptop was "lost" in the mail.
Damn, this is gonna be really bad….for the post office.
Of course, it will be hard to spin when it turns out it was addressed to Putin in Hillary's handwriting…
Bunk McNulty, September 3, 2016 at 9:57 am
"The sh!t has hit the fan."
Higgs Boson
What sh!t? What fan? Remember, the FBI gave HRC a pass. Nothing to see. It was all a big "nothingburger".
The only people that keep harping on this are right-wing rubes who get their marching orders from
Putin's army of hackers. It's been assimilated into the Clinton Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy mythos.
Now go vote for Her, because "love [of what, they don't specify] Trumps hate."
"During [Sysadmin's] December 22, 2015 FBI interview, Pagliano recalled a conversation with
[Redacted] at the beginning of Clinton's tenure, in which [Redacted] advised he would not be
surprised if classified information was being transmitted to Clinton's personal server." (Page
28)
Clinton could not give an example of how the classification of a document was determined;
rather she stated there was a process in place at State before her tenure, and she relied on
career foreign service professionals to appropriately mark and handle classified information.
Clinton believed information should be classified when it relates to [Redacted] the use of
sensitive sources, or sensitive deliberations." (Page 26)
She relied on State officials to use their judgment when e-mailing her and could not recall
anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received
at her e-mail address. The FBI provided Clinton with copies of her classified e-mails ranging
from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET/SAP and Clinton said she did not believe the e-mails contained
classified information." (Page 26)
"State employees interviewed by the FBI explained that emails from Clinton only contained
the letter "H" in the sender field and did not display their e-mail address. The majority of
the State employees interviewed by the FBI who were in e-mail contact with Clinton indicated
they had no knowledge of the private server in her Chappaqua residence. Clinton's immediate
aides, to include Mills, Abedin, Jacob Sullivan, and [Redacted] told the FBI they were unaware
of the existence of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at the State or when it
became public knowledge.
Possible Censorship
There were no e-mails provided by Williams & Connolly to State or the FBI dated from January
21, 2009 to March 18, 2009. FBI investigation identified an additional 18 days where Clinton
did not provide State any responsive e-mail. FBI investigation determined 14 of the 18 days
where Clinton did not provide State any responsive e-mail correspond with e-mail outages affecting
Clinton's personal server systems as a result of both Hurricane Irene and Hurricane Sandy.
FBI investigation indicated other explanations for gaps in Clinton's e-mail production could
include user deletion prior to PRN's transfer of Clinton's e-mails for review…" (Page 27)
Security Threats
"Forensic analysis noted that on January 5, 2013, three IP addresses matching known Tor
exit nodes were observed accessing a user e-mail account on the Pagliano Server believe to
belong to President Clinton staffer [Redacted] FBI investigation indicated the Tor user logged
in to [Redacted] email account and browsed e-mail folders and attachments. When asked during
her interview, [Redacted] stated to the FBI she is not familiar with nor has she ever used
Tor Software" (Page 29)
"The FBI does not have in its possession any of Clinton's 13 mobile devices which potentially
were used to send e-mails using Clinton's clintonemail.com e-mail addresses. As a result, the
FBI could not make a determination as to whether any of the devices were subject to compromise.
Similarly, the FBI does not have in its possession two of the five iPad devices which potentially
were used by Clinton to send and receive e-mails during her tenure… (Page 30)
"Investigation identified multiple occurrences of phishing and/or spear-phishing e-mails
sent to Clinton's account during her tenure as Secretary of State. [Paragraph Redacted]…
Clinton received another phishing e-mail, purportedly sent from the personal e-mail account
of State official [Redacted]. The email contained a potentially malicious link. Clinton replied
to the email [Redacted] stating, "Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!"
… Open source information indicated, if opened the targeted user's device may have been infected,
and information would have been sent to at least three computers overseas, including one in
Russia." (page 31)
Pages 33 – 47 are redacted. About one third of the entire review is redacted.
However email tag data works, her name appears as "H" because she isn't using her typical
address. The address I have seen H appear in is [email protected].
Something about the contact data shows her as H.
There is an exchange between her and mega donor Ms. Rothschild that I saw this in. In the
email Clinton apologizes for inconveniencing her and literally says, "Let me know what penance
I owe you."
I have no idea what kind of email client would hide the contents of the from/reply-to
field.
"Friendly" ones, like, say, Outlook. Some people just don't care for all that gobbledygook,
and Microsoft aims to please. Of course, the sender can put whatever they want in the comment
field.
Clinton's 2009 ethics agreement: "I currently hold and will continue
to hold my position with The Clinton Family Foundation, which maintains
all its assets in cash. If confirmed as Secretary of State, I will not participate
personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct
and predictable effect upon this foundation, unless I first obtain a written
waiver or qualify for a regulatory exemption" (pdf) [
Cryptome ]. First, "will not participate" sets a much higher bar than
the ludicrously low "quid pro quo" standard set by Clinton's operatives
and supporters. Second, is it really usual for charitable foundation to
keep "all its assets in cash"? Why would Foundation do that? And why even
say it does? (I'm resisting a joke about "maintains all its assets in Bitcoin"….)
"On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton is a big critic of for-profit
universities, attacking them for charging high prices but offering students
little support and delivering degrees of questionable value. Her administration,
she says, would crack down 'on for-profit colleges and loan servicers who
have too often taken advantage of borrowers'" [
USA Today ]. "What Clinton doesn't mention are her close family connections
to for-profit Laureate Education and the hefty $9.8 billion in loans accumulated
just by students at Laureate's Walden University in Minnesota… If Clinton
wonders why so many voters consider her to be graspy and question her trustworthiness,
she need look no further than the tangled, lucrative ties among Laureate,
its owners, the Clinton family and the Clinton Foundation." Graspy.
Hillary Clinton's favorability among women has suddenly reversed itself.
Last month, women had a largely favorable view of the Democratic presidential candidate, with 54
percent viewing her positively and 43 percent viewing her negatively. But those numbers have flipped
in the last few weeks, according to
a new ABC News/Washington Post poll.
Women now dislike Clinton, with 52 percent holding a negative view and 45 percent holding a positive
view. This is the first time in year that more women have disliked Clinton than liked her.
Women were probably never as pro-Clinton as Democrats and liberal writers had hoped. They certainly
were never as pro-Clinton as most of the African-American community was pro-Obama. Earlier this year,
polls found Clinton's lead among women
collapsing, as
young women in particular favored her then-rival Bernie Sanders.
As Clinton has fallen in popularity among women, her rival, GOP nominee Donald Trump, has gained.
Trump has gained 7 points in favorability among women, from 26 percent in early August to a better-but-still-not-great
33 percent now.
Obviously, that doesn't mean Trump is going to end up winning women in the general election, or
that the gap between him and Clinton among women will be close. But it is interesting to see that
the changes Trump has made in his campaign - most notably his softer rhetoric - might have resulted
in this small boost.
Ashe Schow is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
In the absence of strong Water Cooler leadership, we'll self-organize!!! :)
It's one poll, but ouch…..that's substantial losses among core groups of
support…
"Notably, Clinton's popularity among women has flipped from 54-43 percent
favorable-unfavorable last month to 45-52 percent now; it's the first time in a
year that most women have viewed her unfavorably. Clinton's
favorable-unfavorable rating has also flipped among those with postgraduate
degrees, from 60-39 percent in early August to 47-51 percent now. She's now
back to about where she was among postgrads in July. She has gone from about an
even split among moderates, 50-48 percent favorable-unfavorable, to a more
lopsided 41-56 percent now. Among liberals, she's dropped from 76 favorable to
63 percent favorable. And among nonwhites she's fallen from 73 to 62 percent
favorable, largely due to a 16-point drop, to 55 percent, among Hispanics."
It seems the public views Trump as a screwball and Clinton as some
inevitable vile slagheap that's slowly oozing its way to town. She'll still
probably win but I suspect her poll numbers will continue south.
"... compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury ..."
"... compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders. ..."
"... "This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives." ..."
"... In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling "get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother." ..."
"... "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent." ..."
Hillary Clinton has indeed become well known as a serial liar, as fully two-thirds
of Americans,
68 percent in a recent poll, said she was neither honest nor trustworthy.
Not only does Clinton lie to protect herself, as she has regarding Benghazi
and her private email server, but she lies when there appears to be no benefit
to doing so.
For example, she famously claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary
for his conquering of Mt. Everest, even though that didn't happen until six
years after Clinton was born. She also notoriously claim she landed under sniper
fire in Bosnia in 1996, when newspaper and video accounts revealed exactly the
opposite.
"Robert Reich, M.D., a New York City psychiatrist and expert in psychopathology,
says compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury,"
Dr. Gina Loudon, a political psychology and behavior expert, told WND. "Otherwise,
compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial,
borderline and narcissistic personality disorders.
"This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with
her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing
out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar,
and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing
American lives."
In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been
a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary
of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling
"get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail
for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton
left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained
to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother."
These types of outbursts continued after Hillary left her office as secretary
of state. An aide on her presidential campaign
told the New York Post last October: "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like
tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought
the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been
getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent."
"... Referring to Clinton again, Miller tells The American Mirror, "She is a Gloria Steinem kind of feminist. If you've ever seen picture or heard Gloria Steinem, just a cold, conniving bitch. That's just it. ..."
"... "Hillary could never had made it to Washington, DC without Bill. He was the song and dance routine. He's the one that played the sax and he could laugh and joke and talk and Hillary can't do that. ..."
... "They've gotta see her as a human. They have to see her - I think in society they always say,
'If you were a mother, you can't be half bad. There has to be some love or gentleness or compassion
within in you birth a child,' but that's not true.
"There's some pretty bad mothers. I had one,"
Miller says. She said her mother had abused her for years.
Referring to Clinton again, Miller tells The American Mirror, "She is a Gloria Steinem
kind of feminist. If you've ever seen picture or heard Gloria Steinem, just a cold, conniving bitch.
That's just it.
"And they don't care about anyone but themselves. That's what most feminists are all about. It's
about themselves," according to Miller.
"And most of them don't link men, incidentally. They only use men for income (and) appearance.
"Hillary could never had made it to Washington, DC without Bill. He was the song and dance routine.
He's the one that played the sax and he could laugh and joke and talk and Hillary can't do that.
"She can't put on her black nightie and run around and she can't play the sax," Miller says, referring
to her previous claim that, during their trysts, Bill Clinton would wear Miller's nightie and play
his instrument.
All you women who think you can climb the ladder of success, Hillary did by sleeping with the
Partners of the Rose Law firm. Chelsea is the byproduct of that so called feminist, Hillary Rotten
Clinton....
"... We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes
and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return.
We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests.
..."
"... Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our
condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did
things get better? Are our young people working more? ..."
"... If having the Black working community start totally hammering the Dems becomes "cool" the Dem's
are screwed for a long time. ..."
"... Obama trashed all of America, blacks and whites, while transferring millions of jobs overseas
to Bangladesh, China, Mexico, etc. ..."
... following interview with New Black Panther Quanell X requires no further commentary – he breaks
it down quite succinctly:
Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech… We may not
like the vessel [Donald Trump] that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said.
Because it is a fact that for 54 years we have been voting for the Democratic Party like no
other race in America. And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given
them. We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes
and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in
return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our
best interests.
...
I want to say and encourage the brothers and sisters… Barack Obama, our president, served
two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better? Did financially,
politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young
people working more?
I've said that repeatedly. The question for hillary isn't what does the survey show, but how many
will actually be motivated enough to go vote. They may not show up and pull the lever for trump
this go round, but they may be curious enough to see what happens to just stay home and let things
work themselves out to see what the result will be
The punishment visited on Sen. Hillary Clinton for her flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological
lying about her visit to Bosnia should be much heavier than it has yet been and should be exacted
for much more than just the lying itself. There are two kinds of deliberate and premeditated deceit,
commonly known as suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. (Neither of them is covered by the additionally
lying claim of having "misspoken.") The first involves what seems to be most obvious in the present
case: the putting forward of a bogus or misleading account of events. But the second, and often
the more serious, means that the liar in question has also attempted to bury or to obscure something
that actually is true. Let us examine how Sen. Clinton has managed to commit both of these offenses
to veracity and decency and how in doing so she has rivaled, if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred
and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor.
Hitchens is outraged, and eloquently so as always--it's definitely worth reading through. Still,
I'm surprised that anyone can be surprised by the Clinton's lies anymore. Frankly, I find them rather
comforting in comparison to Obama's new kind of politics, which best I can tell seems to be the same
old politics in a new self-righteous package. All politicians lie, and the Clintons more than most.
I can't imagine that voters haven't already internalized this reality--which is why I tend to think
the explanation for Hillary's plummeting poll numbers must lie elsewhere. Samantha says it's the
whining, which is as good an explanation as any.
These definitions are selected from a longer list of terms (compiled from a feminism news
group) at http://www.landfield.com/faqs/feminism/.
The initials in parenthesis are the people who contributed the definition to the news group.
Liberal Feminism
This is the variety of feminism that works within the structure of mainstream society to integrate
women into that structure. Its roots stretch back to the social contract theory of government
instituted by the American Revolution. Abigail Adams and Mary Wollstonecraft were there from
the start, proposing equality for women. As is often the case with liberals, they slog along
inside the system, getting little done amongst the compromises until some radical movement shows
up and pulls those compromises left of center. This is how it operated in the days of the suffragist
movement and again with the emergence of the radical feminists. [JD]
[See Daring to be Bad, by Alice Echols (1989) for more detail on this contrast.]
Radical Feminism
Provides the bulwark of theoretical thought in feminism. Radical feminism provides an important
foundation for the rest of "feminist flavors". Seen by many as the "undesirable" element of
feminism, Radical feminism is actually the breeding ground for many of the ideas arising from feminism;
ideas which get shaped and pounded out in various ways by other (but not all) branches of feminism.
[CTM]
Radical feminism was the cutting edge of feminist theory from approximately 1967-1975. It
is no longer as universally accepted as it was then, nor does it provide a foundation for, for example,
cultural feminism. [EE]
This term refers to the feminist movement that sprung out of the civil rights and peace movements
in 1967-1968. The reason this group gets the "radical" label is that they view the oppression
of women as the most fundamental form of oppression, one that cuts across boundaries of race, culture,
and economic class. This is a movement intent on social change, change of rather revolutionary
proportions, in fact. [JD]
The best history of this movement is a book called Daring to be Bad, by Alice Echols (1989).
I consider that book a must! [JD] Another excellent book is simply titled Radical Feminism
and is an anthology edited by Anne Koedt, a well-known radical feminist [EE].
Marxist and Socialist Feminism
Marxism recognizes that women are oppressed, and attributes the oppression to the capitalist/private
property system. Thus they insist that the only way to end the oppression of women is to overthrow
the capitalist system. Socialist feminism is the result of Marxism meeting radical feminism.
Jaggar and Rothenberg [Feminist Frameworks: Alternative Theoretical Accounts of the Relations
Between Women and Men by Alison M. Jaggar and Paula S. Rothenberg, 1993] point to
significant differences between socialist feminism and Marxism, but for our purposes I'll present
the two together. Echols offers a description of socialist feminism as a marriage between Marxism
and radical feminism, with Marxism the dominant partner. Marxists and socialists often call
themselves "radical," but they use the term to refer to a completely different "root" of society:
the economic system. [JD]
Cultural Feminism
As radical feminism died out as a movement, cultural feminism got rolling. In fact, many
of the same people moved from the former to the latter. They carried the name "radical feminism"
with them, and some cultural feminists use that name still. (Jaggar and Rothenberg [Feminist
Frameworks] don't even list cultural feminism as a framework separate from radical feminism,
but Echols spells out the distinctions in great detail.) The difference between the two is
quite striking: whereas radical feminism was a movement to transform society, cultural feminism retreated
to vanguardism, working instead to build a women's culture. Some of this effort has had some
social benefit: rape crisis centers, for example; and of course many cultural feminists have been
active in social issues (but as individuals, not as part of a movement). [JD]
As various 1960s movements for social change fell apart or got co-opted, folks got pessimistic
about the very possibility of social change. Many of then turned their attention to building
alternatives, so that if they couldn't change the dominant society, they could avoid it as much as
possible. That, in a nutshell, is what the shift from radical feminism to cultural feminism
was about. These alternative-building efforts were accompanied with reasons explaining (perhaps
justifying) the abandonment of working for social change. Notions that women are "inherently
kinder and gentler" are one of the foundations of cultural feminism, and remain a major part of it.
A similar concept held by some cultural feminists is that while various sex differences might not
be biologically determined, they are still so thoroughly ingrained as to be intractable.
Eco-Feminism
This branch of feminism is much more spiritual than political or theoretical
in nature. It may or may not be wrapped up with Goddess worship and vegetarianism. Its
basic tenet is that a patriarchal society will exploit its resources without regard to long term
consequences as a direct result of the attitudes fostered in a patriarchal/hierarchical society.
Parallels are often drawn between society's treatment of the environment, animals, or resources and
its treatment of women. In resisting patriarchal culture, eco-feminists feel that they are
also resisting plundering and destroying the Earth. And vice-versa. [CTM]
(End of news group quotations.)
1990sDefinitions of Feminism
Barbara Smith, interviewed in off our backs (October 1998, pp. 1 and 16-17) describes her
contribution to a new book called A Reader�s Companion to Women�s History, a new book of which
she was a co-editor, along with Gwendolyn Mink, Gloria Steinem, Marysa Navarro, and Wilma Mankiller
. The liberal feminists among the book�s editors so disagreed with the definition of feminism
that Smith and Mink wrote in an early chapter that they collectively co-authored an essay that responds
to it. Smith says there is nothing in the book to indicate that the essay by Steinem,
Navarro, and Mankiller (which follows Smith and Mink�s chapter) is a response to it.
Steinem et al. clearly take a �liberal feminist� approach. Smith and Mink�s might
best be called �radical feminist,� although Smith says in the interview that she defines herself
as a feminist who is radical rather than a radical feminist, meaning �leftist, socialist . . . someone
who believes in revolution as opposed to reform� (p. 1). Later in the interview, Smith says
she prefers the label �Black feminist,� where �Black� refers to a particular politics rather than
to color (p. 16).
Here are the two definitions of feminism:
Steinem et al.:
"The belief in full economic political and social equality of males and females . . . usually
seen as a modern movement to transform the male-dominant past and create an egalitarian future.
On this and other continents, however, feminism is also history and even memory"
Smith and Mink:
"Feminism articulates political opposition to the subordination of women as women, whether that
subordination is ascribed by law, imposed by social convention, or inflicted by individual men and
women. Feminism also offers alternatives to existing unequal relations of gender power, and
these alternatives have formed the agenda for feminism movements"
Ifeminists, or individualist feminists, say that the feminist slogan "a woman's body, a woman's
right" should extend to every peaceful choice a woman can make. Ifeminists believe that freedom
and diversity benefit women, whether or not the choices that particular women make are politically
correct. They respect all sexual choices, from motherhood to porn. As the cost of freedom,
ifeminists accept personal responsibility for their own lives. They do not look to government for
privileges any more than they would accept government abuse. Ifeminists want legal equality, and
they offer the same respect to men. In short, ifeminism calls for freedom, choice, and personal responsibility.
"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people
call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute."
--
Rebecca West, 1913
The conference spawned books by both Brzezinski and Peccei: Technetronic Era and The Chasm Ahead,
respectively. In calling for the establishment of a post-industrial dictatorship, Brzezinski wrote:
"..new forms of social control may be needed to limit the indiscriminate exercise by individuals
of their new powers." He went on to suggest bio-chemical means to control the populace and stated:
"It will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and to maintain
up-to-date complete files..."
In his later book Between Two Ages, he called for the establishment of a global government,
and, in the manner of a thug working a protection racket, indicated what the global elite would
do to punish the masses if they resisted. ....
Those who already think Clinton is too sleazy won't be voting for her, but those who
think she is too sick, or that she will be impeached, might
Notable quotes:
"... I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street. ..."
"... Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will become America's next President. ..."
"... After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians - no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations. ..."
"... Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying. ..."
"... Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire. ..."
"... Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history. ..."
"... Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... The ethics pledge Hillary violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again... ..."
I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her
mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers
that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how
can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street.
The real problem here is a political vacuum so huge you could fit trump's ego inside it. Just
a guess but from what I've seen this last year about half of trump supporters are wwhat could
be called die-hard racists. The one major failing of the workers movement that Sanders started
in the US was an inability to pull off the 50% of trump supporters who are not fundamentally
racist. T
here was no major appeal to the more rural agricultural communities by Sanders that
I ever heard. They may only represent 20% of the population but they are the backbone of the
US as they are unable to compete with large scale corporate farming they suffer the same ideological
loss that the rest of the working class suffer from. If the progressive movement cannot or
will not appeal to this group through small farming and organic farming subsidies then they
will go with someone like trump even though he promises them nothing. T
hey will, in the absence
of an alternative political path just choose 'f**k you' for their candidate. Probably too late
this time around but in the future the progressive movement needs to include these people or
they will be the 'third rail' the left dies on.
My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning and when I confront
him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows he cheats on me. It's so humiliating.
Also, since he lost his job 14 years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does
all day is smoke cigars, play golf, cruise around and shoot ball with his buddies and has sex
with hookers, while I work so hard to pay our bills.
Since our daughter went away to college and then got married; he doesn't even pretend to like
me, and hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do?
Signed:
Confused
Answer..
Dear Confused:
Grow up and dump him.
You don't need him anymore!
Good grief woman, you're running for President of the United States!
Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics
of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American
people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate
America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will
become America's next President.
Listen to his peaches - that would be time better spent than to spend time of defending
Hillary, who soon be either behind the bars or forgotten.
After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians -
no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show
such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success
of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations.
Nigel is not making any threats to USA as Obama did in UK (you'll be in back of the queue).
It was not Nigel who spoke about obama's ancestry. America has a tough choice Trump/Clinton. My brother
lives in Florida - he says he wouldn't vote for Clinton.
I voted UKIP and for LEAVE and think Nigel
Farage will go down in history as one of the most important men in politics for a very long time.
We supported him because he spoke for us and the other politicians stopped listening to us. These
snidey nasty comments are typical of leftie guardian readers. After all - they're probably going
to vote for Corby who hasn't a cat in hells chance of ever being PM!
Yes, you're right. It's this sentiment that has pushed the proletariat into the arms of Trump and
Farage. Funnily enough, during my time working with the EU there was a very strong push towards less
democracy and more population management. Most of it is being done via education and other soft power
platforms - reforming children's attitudes, self-awareness training, behavioral feedback and gender
confusion. This is being done under the guise of tolerance, diversity and identity politics. It keeps
the masses fighting amongst themselves while those in charge of them steal everything.
Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year
after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty
back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party
that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying.
Now hand me some of that racism juice and point me to the bandwagon!
Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors
and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as
a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset
and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire.
I see the Bremain crowd still out for some revenge. And who would Hillary invite from "Brits?"
Let's face it most Americans have no clue about other foreign leaders unless they are being splashed
across their TV screens as some evil incarnates ready to be bombed by American bombs. Thus Guardian
cheap shot at Farage as unknown is just cheap.
Indeed the whole reporting of that meeting between Farage and Trump is distasteful for a newsmedia
like Guardian. Purely designed to belittle Farage and, of course, portray Trump as a non-starter
in the race for White House.
Btw, i was going through list of media giants that have contributed and donated to the Clinton
Foundation. Let me confirm whether Guardian or its associates/affiliates are on the list!
The MSM is trying to make Hillary look popular at the few rallies she conducts when the reality is
her crowds are tiny.
You then have Trump doing multiple rallies a day where he regularly fills large sports stadiums.
It just goes to show how corrupt the MSM is and how they manipulate footage to create false impressions.
Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority
and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history.
Isn't it strange to see so much bile and bitterness being directed towards Mr Farage? We've had
the referendum and Brexit won. Please can the many complainers here show some respect to the millions
who voted and who did so of the own volition (and without the nonsense of being under some spell
cast by imaginary bogeymen!). Can those complaining not accept that after 40 years of effort to
make the EU work people are entitled to say - sorry, its over - but hopefully we can still be
friends.
Farage was a good choice for a support speaker. He is the one person in Europe who has produced
a stunning electoral upset and then quit the scene. All the pollsters got it wrong.
It's distressing that some members of the audience knew nothing about the Brexit, despite efforts
by The Guardian and many others to relieve their ignorance. However, might not the same criticism
be applied to most American voters, of whatever ilk?
Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate
personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The
William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party,
unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton.
The ethics pledge Hillary
violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again...
'My view is Hillary is far more aligned with the types of issues that are important to the
defense industry than Trump is'
Employees of 25 of the nation's largest defense companies-such as Lockheed
Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon-are choosing to fill the coffers of
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over those of her rival, GOP
nominee Donald Trump.
That's
according to a new analysis by Politico, published Wednesday
and based on federal campaign finance filings.
Indeed, Politico found that Clinton-whose
hawkish tendencies have been
front-and-center during the
2016 campaign-is leading Trump "by a ratio of 2-to-1 in campaign
donations from employees working for defense giants like Lockheed Martin and
General Dynamics. That's a sharp turnaround from 2012, when defense
contractors gave more to then-Republican nominee Mitt Romney than to
President Barack Obama."
Specifically, employees of those 25 firms have donated $93,000 to
Clinton, compared with $46,000 for Trump. "Clinton's donor rolls also
include more than two dozen top defense executives, while Trump's show just
two," Politico adds.
It's no wonder why defense giants prefer Clinton.
"My view is Hillary is
far more aligned with the types of issues that are important to the defense
industry than Trump is," Linda Hudson-who ran the U.S. branch of British
defense firm BAE Systems, the Pentagon's eighth largest contractor, from
2009 to 2014-told Politico.
And an anonymous lobbyist told the publication: "With Hillary Clinton we
have some sense of where she would go, and with Trump we have none."
Signs abound
pointing to "where she would go." As commentator JP Sottile
wrote earlier this month of Clinton, "she's weaponized the
State Department. She really
likes regime change. And her nominating convention not only embraced the
military, but it sanctified the very Gold Star families that neocon-style
interventionism creates."
Or, as investigative journalist Robert Parry
declared in June: "Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no
inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes."
Parry quoted the New York Times as
calling Clinton "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring
their hopes."
And defense contractors, too, it seems.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share
Alike 3.0 License
Needa Shreerangath
3
days ago
i can't believe this crooked woman run for
president!
Bungis Albondigas
2
days ago
When the BBC reporters broke news of Gaddafis
murder, they kind of all did it with a little glee,
and the tone of their voice was one of excitement
and bemusement, more so than one that would be
typically used when reporting on a statesmen's
death. But it was quite obvious to the public that
the whole thing stunk worse than a rotten tomato
covered in ghost queef. Sure, it's not like Gaddafi
was a particularly nice man to those who wanted to
ruin his country. But he didn't kill them because he
wanted to be Evil, he killed them because he was
protecting his country from both the meddling of
money-motivated foreign powers, and filthy terrorist
scum, the kind that has been blowing up the EU and
US recently. He was loved, in a country where on any
hill at any given time, some kid could have shot his
head off with an old gun. But that never happened.
He didn't need no pope mobile. In the end, he was
gutted alive in the sewers. Would the news reporters
sound happy if Hilary or Donald suffered the same
fate? Would you make a home invader who killed a
family member a cup of tea, or lock them in the
basement and kill them?
fire5479
1
day ago
Liar, liar her pantsuits are on fire.
MICKEY MARQUEZ
2
days ago
pinokio seems as a innocent boy comparing with this
demonic creation Hillary
"... According to the AP article, AP reporters had to sue in federal court to get records of who Clinton met with, and ultimately were only allowed to see the schedule of records of the first part of her tenure and even those were redacted and incomplete. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/858997d5d9a540688d316654a5bb0c15/clintons-state-dept-calendar-missing-scores-entries ..."
"... The clintons are a terminally vulgar and unethical couple ..."
"... Mr. Clinton always had an easy, breezy relationship with wrongdoing. But the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul. ..."
So their strategy is to get all ad hominem with Trump. He's a fascist serial liar with narcissistic
character disorder. But they don't actually have much documentation to back up all these claims.
Hill is somehow taking the "moral high ground" by using paid surrogates to sling the mud. But
what's she gonna do at the debates, when he looks right at her and gives her hell?
What pecuniary benefit(s) accrue to the Clinton's through the foundation? Any estimates of
actual dollars and dollar equivalents?
I assume from the interview and Hillary's comments that; Hillary is dedicated to the same operational
methods that President Obama has demonstrated…… say one thing to the public and do the opposite
in policy….like transparency ….most transparent statements with the least transparency in practice.
It still is al about the money and influence pedaling, special interests and legal bribery,
justice for a fist full of dollars and injustice and misery if you don't dish the bucks out. Investment
through scam, as it is just to tough to do real investments in real things because that would
require thinking and employing people to make a difference. IBGYBG.
Politics like Barnum's Circus….a suckered born every minute.
Well…there is my cynicism for the day.
On the other side……there can absolutely be a better and more harmonious future if a bunch of
special interests would realize it is in their best interest to shoot for better days than insist
on standing frozen in fear.
Ugh… Here is Merriam Websters stub definition of a fascism:
a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives
of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.
Everything I have seen for months and months constantly shows me that the Clinton's and this
massive all in push for them is the real fascist presence in this country. Looking at MW above
shows that Trump is the opposite of fascist, he is and wants the government to be criticized.
One cannot sit here an claim he is a fascist (at this time, with the evidence we have). Clinton
is the one saying that we shouldn't have such a "negative" view of things, that criticism is bad.
Everyone and their brother tells you that Trump has to be beaten…because… It smells rancid in
here.
For Curry to sit here and dance around calling Clinton a massive tumor, the highest symbol
of the system's problems brings into question why he is even talking about it at all. He makes
some valid points then "oh god but Trump"s.
The clintons are a terminally vulgar and unethical couple
Out of order quotes:
Mr. Clinton always had an easy, breezy relationship with wrongdoing. But the Democratic
Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent
of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won
the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.
Something is wrong when foreign policy is being outsourced to secret, unaccountable private
interests (i.e., tax-evading oligarchs and brutal foreign dictatorships), but this is the neoliberal
model for all government functions, foreign and domestic (vide - charter schools).
Months ago, Curry was railing against the Democratic Party that had anointed Clinton as inevitable,
and rigged the whole process to ensure Clinton would be the nominee. Now? It's all about the technicalities
of the law and Donald Trump's insanity. How…principled.
What I find tragically amusing is Curry's inability to recognize that the things he finds so
abhorrent about Trump are qualities the Clintons have honed to a razor's edge after years and
years of working the system to benefit themselves. The former president who parsed the word "is"
to within an inch of its life is married to the presidential nominee who proves to us on a daily
basis that she, too, operates on the basis that as long as there's no law that makes what she's
doing illegal, she will do as she pleases.
This is not a good quality for the person upon whom the office of president will confer such
tremendous power.
People think she is "better than" Trump, because she lacks his crude and rude qualities, but
in my opinion, Trump and Clinton are cut from very similar cloth. Hillary Clinton is just as hollow,
just as devoid of principle, and just as greedy.
Here's what really bothers me: Clinton winning validates everything she represents. Winning
encourages her to see every policy and every issue through a lens of "what's in it for ME?" Winning
makes her think that not only is she right about what we've been able to see, but that she's right
about all the things we haven't yet seen.
I'd pretty much like both Trump and Clinton to lose, because we're losing not matter who wins.
And I'd like every person who voted, again and again, for the lesser of two evils (and I did that
more than once, myself) to acknowledge that this is where that metric takes us: choosing between
two damaged, corrupt, conniving candidates who don't give a flying fk about anything but themselves.
'Trump and Clinton are cut from very similar cloth.'
You're right. The technical distinction is that Trump suffers from NPD (Narcissistic Personality
Disorder), whereas Hillary is a straight-up sociopath (no conscience; inability to feel shame).
Imagine, if you will, that you are a career foreign service officer and take your job, especially
as to holding to base foreign policy edicts/policies as well as to the norms of how decisions
are made. It's bad enough that the likes of DEA, CIA, and military intelligence continually make
loose cannon incursions on your turf, but your job is also compromised by the direct interaction/intervention,
on behalf of the very same foreign parties you are supposed to deal with, by a totally unaccountable
"charity" organization with your senior/top management. For this reason alone HRC's tenure at
the State Dept should be viewed with some question as to whether she knows how to properly manage
an organization (not just a small team of ass kissers).
"... She knows a little about a lot and that is very dangerous. Let's see who
her cabinet is. Friends or real players in the office they hold. Oh, she is the
biggest liar I have personally ever seen nominated for President of any party ever.
..."
"... She is more crooked than a dog's hind leg! ..."
"... Clinton, a self-absorbed pathological liar, has an excuse for just about
everything, and if elected president, the only policy to recieve any priority must
come attached with a multi-millon dollar 'donation' to ever see the light of day.
..."
"... She'll promise the world to the world. And deliver nothing, all she cares
about is your vote on her quest for power.. ..."
"... The main problem I have with any Clinton proposal is, "who's going to believe
anything she says". That's the bi-product of getting away with everything, no one
forgets. ..."
She knows a little about a lot and that is very dangerous. Let's see
who her cabinet is. Friends or real players in the office they hold. Oh,
she is the biggest liar I have personally ever seen nominated for President
of any party ever.
So guess what, the BITCHAAA will say anything for your vote. Doesn't
matter if you are a legal resident or a pigmie from Guinea she will blow
smoke up your #$%$ while trying to find a way for you to vote. I think she
should give every burried dead person last rights a minimum of once a week
for their vote too.
She is more crooked than a dog's hind leg!
F 6 hours ago
How can nearly every comment on this, and most other articles as a matter
of fact, be so anti-Hillary, yet the 'polls' have her in the lead? How can
this be?
Tulane 6 hours ago
Not journalism. Propaganda.
David 2 hours ago
Clinton, a self-absorbed pathological liar, has an excuse for just
about everything, and if elected president, the only policy to recieve any
priority must come attached with a multi-millon dollar 'donation' to ever
see the light of day.
Boot 2 hours ago
She'll promise the world to the world. And deliver nothing, all she
cares about is your vote on her quest for power..
Stanley 2 hours ago
The main problem I have with any Clinton proposal is, "who's going to
believe anything she says". That's the bi-product of getting away with everything,
no one forgets. With Obama emptying the prisons onto the streets, fighting
against law enforcement, and giving all our biggest enemies nuclear weapons,
Hillary should offer to drop-out and let someone run with judgment skills.
Even then, they would still have to run on Obama's record.
Psychologist Dr. Kevin Dutton has ranked the psychopathic traits of the Republican candidate
and various historical figures using a standard psychometric tool – the Psychopathic Personality
Inventory. Experts suggested likely scores against a series of questions. Trump scored 171, two points
more than Hitler.
Saddam Hussein topped the list, scoring 189, while Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton
received a score of 152, putting her in the top 20 percent.
Margaret Thatcher scored 136 points, and Elizabeth I was put at 130.
Dutton says the test scores people on eight traits that contribute to a psychopathic character.
They are fearlessness, cold-heartedness, egocentricity, ruthlessness, self-confidence, charisma,
dishonesty and deficits in empathy and conscience.
I find it surprising that Hilary did not peg the needle. Obama who, in candid moments, brags about
being "really good at killing people" should be way up there as well (the article did not mention
him which seems surprising). Or, is being good at killing people more of a sociopath thing? Anyway,
here are what sociopaths do:
Glibness and Superficial Charm.
Manipulative and Conning. They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors
as permissible. …
Grandiose Sense of Self. …
Pathological Lying. …
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt. …
Shallow Emotions. …
Incapacity for Love.
Need for Stimulation
OMG, that describes American leaders and foreign policy to perfection! The only item missing is
exceptionalism
Donald Trump retweeted the video of Hillary Clinton referring to black gang members as
"super-predators" who need to be "brought to heel" in support of criminal sentencing reforms in
1996.
During the heat of the Democratic primary she was interrupted by Black Lives Matter activists
demanding an apology for her use of the term. "Do you want to hear the facts or do you just
want to talk?" she asked the protesters before they were removed from the building.
"... Let's start with the last bit: "the leader of the free world." That's what journalists used to call the U.S. president, and occasionally the country as a whole, during the Cold War. Between the end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the "free world" included all the English-speaking countries outside Africa, along with western Europe, North America, some South American dictatorships, and nations like the Philippines that had a neocolonial relationship with the United States. ..."
"... I have absolutely no doubt that he and his eastern European countrymen were far from free. I do wonder, however, how free his counterparts in the American-backed Brazilian, Argentinian, Chilean, and Philippine dictatorships felt. ..."
"... Some countries in the Third World refused to be pawns in the superpower game, and created a non-aligned movement , which sought to thread a way between the Scylla and Charybdis of the U.S. and the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Among its founders were some of the great Third World nationalists: Sukarno of Indonesia, Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, and Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, along with Yugoslavia's President Josip Broz Tito. ..."
Posted on
August 22, 2016 by
Yves Smith Yves here. This article by Rebecca Gordon does a fine job of calling out the recklessness
and disregard for the law of a group of foreign policy "experts" who signed a letter calling Trump
unfit for office. But it's disconcerting to see Rebecca Gordon document how these individuals have engaged in the same sort of unacceptable behavior that they Trump would undertake, and then argue that Trump is obviously dangerous, and by implication,
Clinton is not. Clinton is fully on board with the policies that these experts represent, so how
exactly is she better? Gordon needs to make a case, not just assert superiority in the face of facts
she presents that indicate otherwise. Gordon tries arguing for Manafort as proof that Trump is tainted.
But Manafort was a recent hire and has just been dispatched, while long-term Clinton key player John
Podesta's firm
also appears to have advised pro-Russia parties in Ukraine .
It's not every day that Republicans publish an
open letter announcing that their presidential candidate is unfit for office. But lately this
sort of thing has been
happening more and more
frequently . The most recent example: we just
heard from 50 representatives of the national security apparatus, men - and a few women - who
served under Republican presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. All of them are very worried
about Donald Trump.
They think we should be alerted to the fact that the Republican standard-bearer "lacks the character,
values, and experience to be president."
That's true of course, but it's also pretty rich, coming from this bunch. The letter's signers
include, among others, the man who was Condoleezza Rice's
legal advisor when
she ran the National Security Council (John Bellinger III); one of George W. Bush's
CIA directors
who also ran the National Security Agency (Michael Hayden); a Bush administration
ambassador to the United
Nations and Iraq (John Negroponte); an
architect of the neoconservative
policy in the Middle East adopted by the Bush administration that led to the invasion of Iraq, who
has since served as president of the World Bank (Robert Zoellick). In short, given the history
of the "global war on terror," this is your basic list of potential American war
criminals.
Their letter continues, "He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world."
There's a sentence that could use some unpacking.
What Is The "Free World"?
Let's start with the last bit: "the leader of the free world." That's what journalists used to
call the U.S. president, and occasionally the country as a whole, during the Cold War. Between the
end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the "free world" included all the English-speaking
countries outside Africa, along with western Europe, North America, some South American dictatorships,
and nations like the Philippines that had a neocolonial relationship with the United States.
The U.S.S.R. led what, by this logic, was the un-free world, including the
Warsaw Pact countries in
eastern Europe, the "captive" Baltic nations of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, the People's Republic
of China (for part of the period), North Korea, and of course Cuba. Americans who grew up in these
years knew that the people living behind the "
Iron Curtain " were not
free. We'd seen the bus ads and public service announcements on television requesting donations for
Radio Free Europe , sometimes illustrated with
footage of a pale adolescent
man, his head crowned with chains.
I have absolutely no doubt that he and his eastern European countrymen were far from free. I do
wonder, however, how free his counterparts in the American-backed Brazilian, Argentinian, Chilean,
and Philippine dictatorships felt.
The two great adversaries, together with the countries in their spheres of influence, were often
called the First and Second Worlds. Their rulers treated the rest of the planet - the Third World
- as a chessboard across which they moved their proxy armies and onto which they sometimes targeted
their missiles. Some countries in the Third World refused to be pawns in the superpower game, and
created a non-aligned
movement , which sought to thread a way between the
Scylla and Charybdis
of the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
Among its founders were some of the great Third World nationalists: Sukarno of Indonesia, Jawaharlal
Nehru of India, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, and Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, along with Yugoslavia's
President Josip Broz Tito.
Other countries weren't so lucky. When the United States took over from France the (unsuccessful)
project of defeating Vietnam's anti-colonial struggle, people in the U.S. were assured that the war
that followed with its massive bombing, napalming, and Agent-Oranging of a peasant society represented
the advance of freedom against the forces of communist enslavement. Central America also served as
a Cold War battlefield, with Washington fighting proxy wars during the 1980s in Guatemala, El Salvador,
and Nicaragua, where poor campesinos had insisted on being treated as human beings and were
often brutally murdered for their trouble. In addition, the U.S. funded, trained, and armed a military
dictatorship in Honduras, where John Negroponte - one of the anti-Trump letter signers - was the
U.S. ambassador from 1981 to 1985.
The Soviet Union is, of course, long gone, but the "free world," it seems, remains, and so American
officials still sometimes refer to us as its leader - an expression that only makes sense, of course,
in the context of dual (and dueling) worlds. On a post-Soviet planet, however, it's hard to know
just what national or geographic configuration constitutes today's "un-free world." Is it (as Donald
Trump might have it) everyone living under Arab or Muslim rule? Or could it be that amorphous phenomenon
we call "terrorism" or "Islamic terrorism" that can sometimes reach into the "free world" and slaughter
innocents as in
San Bernardino
, California,
Orlando
, Florida, or Nice
, France? Or could it be the old Soviet Union reincarnated in Vladimir Putin's Russia or even
a rising capitalist China still controlled by a Communist Party?
Faced with the loss of a primary antagonist and the confusion on our planet, George W. Bush was
forced to downsize the perennial enemy of freedom from Reagan's old "
evil empire " (the Soviet
Union) to three "rogue states," Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, which in an address to Congress he so
memorably labeled the " axis
of evil ." The first of these lies in near ruins; the second we've recently signed a nuclear
treaty with; and the third seems incapable of even feeding its own population. Fortunately for the
free world, the Bush administration also had some second-string enemies to draw on. In 2002, John
Bolton, then an undersecretary of state (and later ambassador to the U.N.), added another group "beyond
the axis of evil" - Libya, Syria, and Cuba. Of the three, only Cuba is still a functioning nation.
And by the way, the 50 Republican national security stars who denounced Donald Trump in Cold War
terms turn out to be in remarkably good company - that of Donald Trump himself (who recently gave
a speech
invoking American Cold War practices as the basis for his future foreign policy).
"He Weakens U.S. Moral Authority "
After its
twenty-first century wars , its "
black sites
," and
Guantánamo
, among other developments of the age, it's hard to imagine a much weaker "moral authority" than
what's presently left to the United States. First, we gave the world eight years of George W. Bush's
illegal invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as CIA torture sites, "enhanced
interrogation techniques," and a program of quite illegal
global kidnappings of terror suspects (
some of whom proved
innocent
of anything). Under President Obama, it seems we've traded enhanced interrogation techniques for
an "enhanced" use of
assassination by drone (again outside any "law" of war, other than the
legal documents that the Justice Department has produced to justify such acts).
When Barack Obama took office in January 2009 his first
executive order outlawed the CIA's torture program and closed those black sites. It then looked
as if the country's moral fiber might be stiffening. But when it came to holding the torturers accountable,
Obama insisted
that the country should "look forward as opposed to looking backwards" and the Justice Department
declined to prosecute any of them. It's hard for a country to maintain its moral authority in
the world when it refuses to exert that authority at home.
Two of the letter signers who are so concerned about Trump's effect on U.S. moral authority themselves
played special roles in "weakening" U.S. moral authority through their involvement with the CIA torture
program: John Bellinger III and Michael Hayden.
June 26th is the U.N.'s International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. To mark that day in
2003, President Bush issued a statement declaring, "Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity
everywhere. The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture, and we are leading
this fight by example."
The Washington Post story on the president's
speech also carried a quote from Deputy White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to the effect
that all prisoners being held by the U.S. government were being treated "humanely." John Rizzo, who
was then the CIA's deputy general counsel, called John Bellinger, Condoleezza Rice's legal counsel
at the National Security Council, to express his concern about what both the president and McClellan
had said.
The problem was that - as Rizzo and his boss, CIA director George Tenet, well knew - many detainees
then held by the CIA were not being treated humanely. They were being tortured or mistreated
in various ways. The CIA wanted to be sure that they still had White House backing and approval for
their "enhanced interrogation" program, because they didn't want to be left holding the bag if the
truth came out. They also wanted the White House to stop talking about the humane treatment of prisoners.
According to an internal CIA
memo , George Tenet convened a July 29, 2003, meeting in Condoleezza Rice's office to get the
necessary reassurance that the CIA would be covered if the truth about torture came out. There, Bellinger
reportedly apologized on behalf of the administration, explaining that the White House press secretary
had "gone off script," mistakenly reverting to "old talking points." He also "undertook to [e]nsure
that the White House press office ceases to make statements on the subject other than [to say] that
the U.S. is complying with its obligations under U.S. law."
At that same meeting, Tenet's chief counsel, Scott Muller, passed out packets of printed PowerPoint
slides detailing those enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, so that Bellinger
and the others present, including Rice, would understand exactly what he was covering up.
So much for the "moral authority" of John Bellinger III.
As for Michael Hayden (who has held several offices in the national security apparatus), one
of his signature acts as CIA Director was to approve in 2005 the destruction of videotapes of the
agency's waterboarding sessions. In a
letter to CIA employees,
he wrote that the tapes were destroyed "only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence
value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries."
Of course destroying those tapes also meant that they'd never be available for any future legislative
or judicial inquiry. The letter continued,
"Beyond their lack of intelligence value the tapes posed a serious security risk. Were they ever
to leak, they would permit identification of your CIA colleagues who had served in the program, exposing
them and their families to retaliation from al-Qaeda and its sympathizers."
One has to wonder whether Hayden was more concerned with his CIA colleagues' "security" from al-Qaeda
or from prosecution. In any case, he deprived the public - and any hypothetical future prosecutor
- of crucial evidence of wrongdoing.
Hayden also perpetuated the
lie that the Agency's first waterboarding victim, Abu Zubaydah - waterboarded a staggering 83
times - was a crucial al-Qaeda operative and had provided a quarter of all the information that the
CIA gathered from human subjects about al-Qaeda. He was, in fact, never a member of al-Qaeda at all.
In the 1980s, he ran a training camp in Afghanistan for the mujahedin , the force the U.S.
supported against the Soviet occupation of that country; he was, that is, one of Ronald Reagan's
"
freedom fighters ."
Bellinger later chimed in, keeping the Abu Zubaydah lie alive by arguing in 2007 on behalf of
his boss Condoleezza Rice that Guantánamo should remain open. That prison, he said, "serves a very
important purpose, to hold and detain individuals who are extremely dangerous [like] Abu Zubaydah,
people who have been planners of 9/11."
"He Appears to Lack Basic Knowledge About and Belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Laws,
and U.S. Institutions "
That's the next line of the open letter, and it's certainly a fair assessment of Donald Trump.
But it's more than a little ironic that it was signed by Michael Hayden who, in addition to supporting
CIA's torture project,
oversaw the
National Security Agency's post-9/11 secret surveillance program. Under that
program
, the government recorded the phone, text, and Internet communications of an unknown number of
people inside and outside of the United States - all without warrants .
Perhaps Hayden believes in the Constitution, but at best it's a selective belief. There's that
pesky 4th Amendment, for example, which guarantees that
"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized."
Nor does Hayden appear to believe in U.S. laws and institutions, at least when it comes to the
1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which established the secret courts that are supposed
to issue exactly the sort of warrant Hayden's program never requested.
John Negroponte is another of the signers who has a history of skirting U.S. laws and the congress
that passes them. While ambassador to Honduras, he helped develop a
murderous
" contra" army, which the United States armed and trained to overthrow the government
of neighboring Nicaragua. During those years, however, aid to the contras was actually illegal
under U.S. law. It was explicitly prohibited under the so-called
Boland Amendments to
various appropriations bills, but no matter. "National security" was at stake.
Speaking of the Constitution, it's instructive to take a look at Article 6, which states in part
that "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme law of the land." Such treaties include, for example, the 1928 Kellogg-Briand non-aggression
pact (whose violation was the first charge brought against the Nazi officials tried at
Nuremberg ) and Article
51 of the U.N. charter, which permits military action only "if an armed attack occurs against a Member
of the United Nations."
In 1998, Robert Zoellick, another of those 50 Republicans openly denouncing Trump, signed a
different letter
, which advocated abrogating those treaties. As an associate of the
Project
for a New American Century , he was among those who urged then-President Bill Clinton to direct
"a full complement of diplomatic, political, and military efforts" to "remove Saddam Hussein from
power." This was to be just the first step in a larger campaign to create a Pax Americana
in the Middle East. The letter specifically urged Clinton not to worry about getting a Security Council
resolution, arguing that "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence
on unanimity in the UN Security Council."
At least give us some lesser evilism, Prof. Gordon. No? But really, Clinton's endorsement
of Kissinger and the lack of political and MSM response to that endorsement is perhaps the most
shocking thing. My introduction to Kissinger's crimes was via Hitchens, who then promptly backed
the Bush regime's interventionism. I shouldn't be surprised anymore at establishment Three-Card
Monte.
Next homework assignment for Gordon: Hillary on Kissinger. What it means, why it matters.
(1) The Republican Party is ALSO the Party of the Great Redeemer, Abraham Lincoln.
(2) Word(s) are not Things, they are change, change, changing signifiers of nothing.
(3) The divide (spectrum) is NOT, left to right! The Neo-Bolsheviks (cons/libs) have used money
and influence to appropriate (own) BOTH the "Left" and the "Right". They own (as in bought and
sold "own") the discussion.
(4) The true spectrum is up and down. The 99% vs the 1%.
(5) 1%ers, aspiring 1%ers, the service staff of the 1% (managers etc) should definitely vote
for Hillary Clinton. She is the candidate (voice for) The Unique.
(6) Donald Trump is seeking to be a voice for the 99%. IMO, this make him The Progressive.(The
Walt Whitman Progressive) People who see themselves as members of the Masses, The People, The
Crowd, The Gaia, The 99%, EveryMan/EveryWoman/EveryGender
(7) Trump does not look or sound the way most of us imagine, The Redeemer
should look. (Obama was a perfectly looking redeemer, IMO, except, he was a false messiah
). IMO, Trump is the Redeemer, the real McCoy .
(8) " Inattentional blindness, also known as perceptual blindness , is a psychological
lack of attention that is not associated with any vision defects or deficits. It may be further
defined as the event in which an individual fails to recognize an unexpected stimulus that is
in plain sight. When it simply becomes impossible for one to attend to all the stimuli in a given
situation, a temporary blindness effect can take place as a result; that is, individuals fail
to see objects or stimuli that are unexpected and quite often salient." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
Trump is right in front of us. Stop listening to all the bullshit and open your eyes and ears
to what is going on. (IMO, of course!)
No matter how bad Trump is, Hillary is worse. Hell I wouldn't be voting for Trump if Hillary
weren't in the race, that's for damn sure.
So just go ahead and keep doing more oppo research on Trump. Please–I beg you. Because no matter
what you manage to pull out of your butt I'm just nodding my head and saying to myself, "yep.
Probably true, but still far better than Hillary."
" But it's disconcerting to see Rebecca Gordon document how these individuals have engaged
in the same sort of unacceptable behavior that they Trump would undertake, and then argue that
Trump is obviously dangerous, and by implication, Clinton is not. Clinton is fully on board with
the policies that these experts represent, so how exactly is she better? Gordon needs to make
a case, not just assert superiority. "
Isn't this just another good example of why we shouldn't be afraid of the truth and
plain talk? When we finally start using words like "liar", "cheater", "thief" "murderer" "assassin"
to describe those (politicians) guilty of such crimes, we might be able to get rid of them. PC
is too often a trap for the one practicing it. It dims the bright lights we want to shine on the
wrong-doer and robs us of our ability to debate . There's a reason why plain-talking demagogues
like Trump are so successful. Instead of wrapping ourselves even more tightly in the saran wrap
of genteel good manners (sometimes just another way of showing superiority?) we should be honing
our language skills and engaging with the enemy.
Here's to using the right words. "War" (or, nowadays, military intervention or (ha!)
humanitarian intervention - what's "humanitarian" about dropping bombs and destroying infrastructure
and causing environmental devastation?) is murder .
Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton - all mass murderers. The latter two
who weep public tears every time there is a mass shooting in the US that kills a dozen or so victims.
Hillary is all about "arms control" in the US and slammed Bernie because he was too "lenient"
on guns, while she razed Libya and caused the spread of masses of weapons from Libya to Syria.
There is mass murder going on in Yemen as I type, aided and abetted by the US military, using
weapons sold by Obama and HRC to the Saudis.
Trump is a bloviating idiot (at best) but a simple question: how many people has he actually
killed compared to Bush, Obama, and the two Clintons? And never forget Albright's "it was worth
it" comment regarding 500,000 Iraqi children killed as a result of Bill Clinton's sanctions.
If Hill actually shows up for the debates, this is one thing Donald can hammer her about without
people screaming at him for being mean to the little lady--which is what they will do if he rips
into her on some of the other stuff he will rip into her on. HRC will hide behind her skirts,
like the phony "feminist" she is.
I just stumbled on a new post at CounterPunch regarding Hillary's fake "feminism", including
the following 'grafs:
During her husband's presidency, Hillary was a vocal advocate for the barbaric sanctions
regime, as well as the No-Fly Zone and other belligerent actions taken by her husband against
the Iraqi Government of Saddam Hussein. In fact, many experts have noted that the Clinton Iraq
policy essentially laid the groundwork for George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq
in 2003. In particular, Hillary was a leading proponent of the sanctions which, according
to the UN, killed roughly 500,000 children.
And, of course, there's Hillary's infamous support for Bush's Iraq War when she was a Senator
from New York. Clinton explained to the Council on Foreign Relations in December 2003, "I was
one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam
Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote .I stand by the vote." Of course this was in
the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Iraq and subsequent capture of Saddam Hussein, a
time when one could still justify support for a war that, just a few years later, proved to
be politically unpalatable, to say nothing of it being an egregious war crime, as we all knew
from the beginning.
And Hillary was not perturbed in the slightest at the hundreds of thousands of women and
children whose lives were irrevocably destroyed by the war and its aftermath, one which is
still being reckoned with today.
Hillary and Bill – the power couple tag team of Washington – also led the charge
to bomb Serbia in 1999. During the 78 days of "Operation Allied Force" more than 2,000 civilians
were killed, including 88 children. Naturally, this was of little consequence to the
great feminist heroine Hillary who, according to biographer Gail Sheehy, proudly proclaimed
"I urged [Bill Clinton] to bomb [Serbia]." The barbarism and sheer viciousness of someone who
gleefully takes credit for the deaths of scores of children and countless thousands of women
should give anyone who believes in the Hillary the feminist mythos serious pause.
Who could forget Libya? In the war championed by Hillary Clinton, who is regarded
by experts as being the loudest voice in favor of regime change against Gaddafi and the destruction
of the country, tens of thousands of women were raped, lynched, and murdered by the glorious
"rebels" (read terrorists) backed by Clinton and her imperial coterie . Perhaps the
great feminist hero could speak to the children of Misrata, Sirte, and Bani Walid who have
now grown up without their mothers and fathers, and explain to them just how "worth it" the
war was. Maybe Clinton could look mothers in the eyes and tell them how the deaths
of their children from war, disease, and terrorism is a small price to pay for the foreign
policy objectives of Washington.
The failure of so many partisans to recognize what is going on is startling. This is really
one of the most remarkable political seasons in my memory, and I go back to Stevenson/Eisenhower
days. (Criminy.)
We're watching what amounts to a reversal of political polarities, with the Democrats led by
Hillary becoming sort of hopped-up post-modern high-end Republicans (what the Republicans would
have become if they hadn't gone insane with power during and following the Reagan regime) and
the Republicans becoming the party of a hopped-up and angry rabble. Their spokesman is Trump,
but he's not their leader by any means. For the moment, there isn't one, but if this reversal/realignment
is sustained - and I think it will be - there will be a Leader of the Rabble. It's too juicy an
opportunity to resist.
Hillary is signaling in every way possible that she will govern as a hot-dog Republican, fully
on board with the War Party which has been the driving force of the Republican and a significant
part of the Democratic establishment since Bush the Old. Hillary is become what Jeb! was supposed
to be.
The Establishment's War Party is fully on board with Herself as well.
This could turn ugly very quickly. They have been telling us very loudly that they want a confrontation
with Russia and then with China to establish once and for all the dominance of the American Empire
over the entire globe. They are prepared - and apparently eager - to crush any resistance with
whatever force they choose, whenever they choose. Moscow and Beijing to be turned to seas of glowing
glass if they do not yield sufficiently and in a timely fashion.
That's the threat this War Party under Mrs. Clinton holds out.
That is the threat the Republicans and their Party would have held out if the War Party had
continued to hold sway within it. Trump has short-circuited that by insisting that glassing the
"terrorists" is the right course of action, leaving the Russians and Chinese pretty much alone.
Except that's not what the War Party wants. The "terrorists" in fact are their allies in the quest
for ultimate power.
Instead, the goal seems to be to dismember/destroy Russia and to contain and control China,
exploiting both for whatever resources can be extracted, ultimately leaving both as empty husks.
Trump says he has other goals, but they amount to a similar program with somewhat different
victims.
Partisans see one as ultimate Evil, the other as Less Evil and therefore Good.
But it's a goon show. The War Party is determined to have its way again. Clinton will follow
their lead; Trump would try to lead it. Neither we nor they can escape it.
When somebody comes up with a way to disable the War Party within the permanent government,
I'll listen. Until then, we are as they say, f**ked.
"... There are a number of problems with this article. 1) it posits Clinton as a center-left liberal. She is a right warhawk fossil fuel conservative. 2) the sexism card is obsolete in this case. Clinton's very real ethical, moral, and legal problems have nothing to do with her gender. It's time to stop trotting that out as if it were relevant, it isn't. 3) you say that Sanders' supporters are on the whole less liberal than Clinton supporters. Clinton supporters are NEOliberal, not Liberal. That is a RIGHT of center position ..."
"... Then she selected Tim Kaine, a very strong promoter of TPP, had her surrogates on the Platform Committee prevent addition of an anti-TPP plank, and generally indicated she's going to do what President Obama wants. ..."
"... Much worse, in my opinion, is her seeking out and then trumpeting the endorsements of people like John Negroponte and Robert Kagan. Kagan is the architect of the policies that have led to the current ongoing disasters in the Middle East and advocates policies that will likely lead to much worse. Hillary apparently approved the conduct of the coup in the Ukraine -- how else to explain why she promoted Victoria Nuland? And she certainly approved the provocation of Russia, which Nuland continues despite Kerry's public claims of wanting cooperation. ..."
"... The Clinton's are the only political family that has created a charitable foundation that employs dozens of friends and family members and receives billions in donations, and speaking fees from foreign and domestic governments seeking access and or favors from a charter board member when she Secretary of State and later when she was a Presidential candidate. There were virtually no boundaries between Clintons State Department and the foundation; Clinton's top aide at State, Human Abedin was simultaneous a State Department employee, a contract employee with the Clinton Foundation and a consultant to the Teneo group, a consulting group deeply interwoven with the Foundation. ..."
"... thats despicable. she's a terrible, corrupt candidate with a dead center platform who preaches left but governs right and is a straight up neocon when it comes to foreign policy. kissinger is her hero? give me a break. ..."
"... Democrats who are not bothered by primary rigging, the obvious collusion between Corporate Democrats and the corporate media, endless war, influence peddling by the Clintons, and the take-over of the Democratic Party by Corporate America are the real problem. ..."
"... That poor dear. It seems she suffers from the same financial burden that Bernie has: too many houses. ..."
"... @DFrancis NO ONE got more free handouts than the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars given away to Wall St kingpins like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Citigroup as well as oil behemoth, ExxonMobil to name a select few of the actual, real life "Welfare Queens" sucking up resources to piss away that could do exponentially more to create jobs and fix crumbling infrastructure problems than this group of jokers have been promising but not delivering for years now. ..."
"Give a man a reputation as an early riser," said Mark Twain, "and he can sleep 'til noon."
Hillary Clinton finds herself in the opposite situation: She has a reputation for venality - the
merits of which we can set aside momentarily - that forces her to a higher ethical standard. Her
inadequate response to the conflicts of interest inherent in the Clinton Foundation show that she
is not meeting that standard, and has not fully grasped the severity of her reputational problem.
The purpose of the Clinton Foundation is to leverage Clinton fame into charitable donations. That
purpose has important positive effects - shaking loose donations for AIDS prevention and training
African farmers and other worthy causes. But it also has the unavoidable side effect of giving
rich people a way to curry favor with a powerful elected official. The Clinton Foundation has
announced that, should Hillary Clinton win, it will stop accepting donations from corporations or
foreign entities, which mitigates the problem without dispelling it altogether. Wealthy
individuals, or corporations passing their money through foundations, can still use Clinton
Foundation grants as chits.
Ultimately, there is no way around this problem without closing down the Clinton Foundation
altogether. Passing off management of the foundation to non-relatives or other third parties
doesn't do the trick, either. If the Clinton Foundation is not leveraging the Clinton name, it
has no purpose.
... ... ...
The Clinton Foundation is a stand-in for the Clintons' sloppy ethics in general. In the eyes
of their enemies, the Clintons are criminals on a world-historic scale;
... ... ...
For Sanders, and his most philosophical adherents, his campaign represented a revolt not only
against Clinton but against the entire center-left orientation of the party, including Barack
Obama and his compromising, neoliberal ways.
... ... ...
The risk that Clinton's tainted image will defeat her is small but real enough to merit
concern. The much larger risk is that her lax approach to rule-following and ethical conflicts
will sink her presidency.
alesh, 6 hours ago
Stop it. Clintonistas were kind enough to carry Vince Foster into a lovely park so that he
might be found in a pretty place immaculate down to his shoes. Very respectful of the dead.
Of course it could have been that 'vast right-wing conspiracy' behind his death, hoping to
frame the Clintons with the obvious, blundering murder of a Clinton liability... but darn!
Everyone important bought into the suicide story.
Thanks to Trump's errancy, Hillary remains the safe pick for the USA regardless of herself
or her foundation... in 2016. To quote Tony Kornheiser, "we'll try to do better the next
time".
baruchzed, 7 hours ago
There are a number of problems with this article. 1) it posits Clinton as a center-left
liberal. She is a right warhawk fossil fuel conservative. 2) the sexism card is obsolete in
this case. Clinton's very real ethical, moral, and legal problems have nothing to do with her
gender. It's time to stop trotting that out as if it were relevant, it isn't. 3) you say that
Sanders' supporters are on the whole less liberal than Clinton supporters. Clinton supporters
are NEOliberal, not Liberal. That is a RIGHT of center position, while Sanders supporters
are actually liberal thinkers, decidedly left of center. The two are very different.
Bottom line, this is a pro Clinton puff piece pretending to be critical but in fact
presenting falsehoods predicated upon falsehoods. Shoddy work, not journalism.
asher2789, 7 hours ago
@baruchzed "Bottom line, this is a pro Clinton puff piece pretending to be critical but in
fact presenting falsehoods predicated upon falsehoods. Shoddy work, not journalism." like
almost every piece about clinton published by the "left wing" media who's actually not left
wing as fox claims, but pro corporate democrat.
Procopius, 20 hours ago
I think you're mistaken when you say, "If anything, Clinton has positioned herself slightly
to the president's left, even opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership he continues to tout."
The problem is that nobody believes she means her words when she (reluctantly) said she would
not vote for a free trade agreement that did not protect jobs and the environment. She already
left herself an out there, because the TPP is not a "free trade agreement." It's an agreement
to increase protectionism on some products and force governments to submit to an arbitration
scheme which is likely to favor private investors. There are other weasel words in there that
allow her multiple outs.
Then she selected Tim Kaine, a very strong promoter of TPP, had her surrogates on the
Platform Committee prevent addition of an anti-TPP plank, and generally indicated she's going
to do what President Obama wants.
Much worse, in my opinion, is her seeking out and then trumpeting the endorsements of
people like John Negroponte and Robert Kagan. Kagan is the architect of the policies that have
led to the current ongoing disasters in the Middle East and advocates policies that will
likely lead to much worse. Hillary apparently approved the conduct of the coup in the Ukraine
-- how else to explain why she promoted Victoria Nuland? And she certainly approved the
provocation of Russia, which Nuland continues despite Kerry's public claims of wanting
cooperation.
I see (and I hope I'm just paranoid) an intention there to provoke a shooting war with
Russia, even though both Russia and Ukraine have stocks of nuclear weapons.
jkk1943, 23 hours ago
Decent article but it fails when it offers the every body does it defense to suggest that
Clinton's venality is no better or worse than most politicians. The Clinton's are the only
political family that has created a charitable foundation that employs dozens of friends and
family members and receives billions in donations, and speaking fees from foreign and domestic
governments seeking access and or favors from a charter board member when she Secretary of
State and later when she was a Presidential candidate. There were virtually no boundaries
between Clintons State Department and the foundation; Clinton's top aide at State, Human
Abedin was simultaneous a State Department employee, a contract employee with the Clinton
Foundation and a consultant to the Teneo group, a consulting group deeply interwoven with the
Foundation.
If a GOP presidential Secretary of State who later became a Presidential candidate had so
many potential conflicts of interest not only would he or she not receive their parties
nomination there would have been incessant and unceasing demands from every media outlet tin
the country for the appointment of a special prosecutor.
asher2789, 8 hours ago
@ConejoBlanco clintons appeal is based on hate against trump and his supporters
(understandable) and the fact that she has a vagina and is married to a man credited with
overseeing one of the biggest economic booms in memory (wrongly credited, bill's timing was
just lucky - he was president when PCs and then the internet became a consumer item).
i can't find a single person to answer me why the support clinton other than 1. she's not
trump / stop trump / trump is scary and 2. they want a woman president and 3. well the economy
was good under bill clinton...
not a SINGLE ANSWER about her foreign or domestic policies. not one. and id say about 90%
of her support is solely from those terrified of trump and are voting for the lesser evil.
thats despicable. she's a terrible, corrupt candidate with a dead center platform who
preaches left but governs right and is a straight up neocon when it comes to foreign policy.
kissinger is her hero? give me a break. i guess hillary forgot to poll test the public
and the democrat base's opinion about foreign policy because kissinger is literally the
antithesis to all of whats good and right in the world of left thought. "liberals" need to
grow a spine and hold this woman accountable for her ethics, her morals, and her actions, not
just give her a pass because they are so scared of trump that they might wet their bed at
night over it.
nikki33161, 1 day ago
Democrats who are not bothered by primary rigging, the obvious collusion between
Corporate Democrats and the corporate media, endless war, influence peddling by the Clintons,
and the take-over of the Democratic Party by Corporate America are the real problem.
Hillary and Trump are just the symptoms of our political malaise.
capitalist.roader, 1 day ago
Last year The Federalist did a nice story on the B, H, & C Clinton Foundation:
In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation's expenditures were for
direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed
by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between
2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on
direct charitable grants.
Sean Davis, 27 Apr '15
It seems as if the Foundation exists solely to allow the Clintons to travel in the
comfort and style to which they became accustomed during Bill's tenure as POTUS. The
Foundation fixed their money problems:
We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt. We had no money when we
got there and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for
houses, for Chelsea's education. You know, it was not easy.
Hillary Clinton, June 2014
That poor dear. It seems she suffers from the same financial burden that Bernie has:
too many houses.
brian.taylor, 11 hours ago
@DFrancis NO ONE got more free handouts than the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars given
away to Wall St kingpins like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Citigroup as well as oil behemoth,
ExxonMobil to name a select few of the actual, real life "Welfare Queens" sucking up resources
to piss away that could do exponentially more to create jobs and fix crumbling infrastructure
problems than this group of jokers have been promising but not delivering for years now.
***News Flash***
When the CIA is responsible for the largest portion of the contraband smuggling and illegal
border crossings, nothing short of their discontinuation of that practice to fund their "off
the books", black ops operations will have any kind of impact on volume of illegal border
crossings. By no means will a wall do any bit of good. The second best plan would be to
heavily punish the people and companies that hire illegal aliens and are the MAIN cause of
encouraging them to come here illegally. Paying cheaper wages with no benefits while having
the leverage of reporting them at any time assures employers that they can treat them as
shabbily as they wish while pocketing the increased profit. THAT is the true cause of the
problem, not so much people doing looking to get a gob wherever they can. No money or job
prospect equals no reason to go anyways.
cleo50, 1 day ago
What Hilary understands about her problems are unclear and moot at best. A sociopath does
not self analyze. The only important thing is how much the electorate understands about her.
"... alternative media source Counter Punch would use a hash tag #NeverHillary, while giving the recent Democrats' champion the following evaluation: "She's sleazy – a cheater and a liar" ..."
"... The Baltimore Sun did not hesitate to accuse Clinton of the deliberate concealment of facts from Congress and the American people either, noting that the State Department's inspector general released a report last week concluding that Hillary Clinton is a breathtakingly brazen and consistent liar. ..."
"... So what behavior one can expect from most American citizens, including these "hero-swimmers", when even at the highest levels, officials are lying blatantly, while displaying no fear whatsoever of any potential consequences? ..."
"... In lies we trust here, it is our symbol and our flag, because we are the Empire of Lies ..."
But honestly, what does one expect from the likes of Hillary Clinton if even the Washington
Post wouldn't hesitate to present a video filled with her lies and "shifting positions?" Her
ideas on Bosnia, healthcare, Wall Street, NAFTA are ever-shifting, since she's convinced that
Americans are unable to memorize basic facts or recall even recent American history.
Accusing Hillary Clinton of blatant hypocrisy, alternative media source Counter Punch
would use a hash tag #NeverHillary, while giving the recent Democrats' champion the following
evaluation: "She's sleazy – a cheater and a liar", noting that she wanted to set the minimum
wage at the level of 12 dollars per hour, but since Bernie's 15 dollars per hour was more
popular, she claimed she wanted to introduce precisely the same wage. When pressed, she conceded
she'd "like" 15 dollars per hour, but would not lift a finger to make it happen federally.
Incredibly, she still conducts herself in this same manner.
The Baltimore Sun did not hesitate to accuse Clinton of the deliberate concealment of facts
from Congress and the American people either, noting that the State Department's inspector
general released a report last week concluding that Hillary Clinton is a breathtakingly brazen
and consistent liar. What's infuriating about all of this is that it is not, in fact, news.
Over a year ago, Hillary Clinton held a press conference at the United Nations with the intent to
put the whole controversy around her released emails to rest, yet, nearly every significant
statement she made was a lie, The Baltimore Sun would note, adding that we have known it for a
year now, that from the earliest days of this scandal, Clinton was lying.
So what behavior one can expect from most American citizens, including these "hero-swimmers",
when even at the highest levels, officials are lying blatantly, while displaying no fear
whatsoever of any potential consequences? What's even more striking is that those liars are
being promoted and encouraged in the US political establishment, and they are being allowed to
occupy the highest political positions in the state, as if we are being told: "In lies we
trust here, it is our symbol and our flag, because we are the Empire of Lies."
Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the
online magazine "New Eastern Outlook."
http://journal-neo.org/2016/08/20/modern-america-the-empire-of-lies-2/
Hillary Clinton's temperament, her "terrified staff," her mental symptom are all cause of concern.
Dangerous, abusive and paranoid
Cocaine addition amplifies in person pre-existing sociopathic traits.
Notable quotes:
"... Byrne talks drug use in the White House: ..."
"... But there was one particular staff member that they had come in in the morning, and they'd be so beat up and exhausted looking, worn out, exhausted to the point where they couldn't be seen saying good morning. And they'd go in their office and go the bathroom and come out of the bathroom completely elevated and happy and smiling. ..."
"... It was obvious you thought coke was being used? ..."
"... I'M a FEMALE and I CAN tell you that a woman, ESPECIALLY Clinton, is not fit to be the leader of the Free World. She's a hysterical and angry woman who's been cheated on her entire life. It's the truism: Hell hath NO fury such as a woman scorned". Be careful what you vote for America! ..."
"... Here in Arkansas it's pretty much common knowledge that she is evil as hell itself. If this woman is elected we're so terribly screwed. ..."
"... I wish people would stop calling it 'crazy'. Let's call it what it is -psychopathy! Look it up - pathological lying, glib charm, lack of empathy, anger if challenged, lack of remorse, blaming others for their own actions, etc. It's a loveless marriage, a sham, and poor Chelsea was probably born for appearances - she didn't have a chance. We need to address psychopathy as a country - these people need to be tested and kept out of important positions and certain vocations like law enforcement, military, doctors, etc. or we are doomed as a society. ..."
Former Secret Service officer Gary Byrne, author of the new book Crisis of Character, which examines
Hillary Clinton's conduct under his watch, appeared on Monday's broadcast of FOX News Channel's Hannity.
Byrne talked Hillary Clinton's temperament, her "terrified staff," Bill Clinton carrying on affairs,
drug use in the White House and more with host Sean Hannity. Byrne said Clinton was feared by her
staff and was notorious for her yelling. Byrne told Hannity that she has "blown up" at him and other
Secret Service agents.
"She gets angry at things that are policy issues that, you know, take time to fix, and she's got
this attitude where she wants things fixed right now, immediately. She screams and yells at people,"
Byrne said in an interview aired on Fox News.
"There's many examples that I site in my book where she blows up at people," Byrne said. "Like
I've said, she has blown up at me before, and agents, and her staff. At one time, I saw her staff
so afraid to tell her about a mistake that was made. They weren't upset about the waste of the mistake,
ordering the wrong invitations, they were terrified that someone was going to have to tell Hillary
Clinton that there was a mistake made."
Byrne says Clinton's behavior during his tenure in the Secret Service proved to him that she does
not have the temperament for the Oval office.
BYRNE: I feel so strongly that people need to know the real Hillary Clinton and how dangerous
she is in her behavior. She is not a leader. She is not a leader.
SEAN: She does not have the temperament?
BYRNE: She doesn't have the temperament. She didn't have the temperament to handle the social
office when she was First Lady, she does not have the temperament.
SEAN: She's dishonest.
BYRNE: She's dishonest, she habitually lies, anybody that can separate themselves from their
politics and review her behavior over the past 15 years…
SEAN: You're going to be accused of being political.
BYRNE: Absolutely I'm sure I will be, I have already and it's not.
SEAN: And what's your answer? Byrne: It's got nothing to do as politics.
Byrne talked wrote about then-President Bill Clinton's behavior, accusing him of carrying on multiple
affairs and gave his perspective on the Monica Lewinsky affair and the scandal as it was happening.
Byrne talked about several different affairs and how the Secret Service was expected to clean up
after him.
HANNITY: How many women do you know, for sure, that he had affairs with in the Oval Office?
BYRNE: In the White House complex? I'd say easily three, maybe four, that I know of.
HANNITY: And you could see Monica Lewinsky from a mile away?
BYRNE: Sure. Sure.
HANNITY: You knew she wanted to be near him.
BYRNE: She was certainly manipulated some of the staff, other officers, myself to find out
where he was-
HANNITY: She wasn't manipulating if you saw through it.
BYRNE: Yeah, I agree. But I saw through it right away, but she was trying to place herself
in his path, as he would move throughout the complex.
Byrne talks drug use in the White House:
HANNITY: Before I get into all the issues involving Bill and Hillary and what she knew and
didn't know and covering up and lying and you being put in the middle of all this. People use
drugs the at the White House?
BYRNE: There were some issues. One of the ones I comment in my book, and I'm very careful not
to tell too much about it because I don't want -- hopefully this person got on with their lives
and lived a healthy life. But there was one particular staff member that they had come in in the
morning, and they'd be so beat up and exhausted looking, worn out, exhausted to the point where
they couldn't be seen saying good morning. And they'd go in their office and go the bathroom and
come out of the bathroom completely elevated and happy and smiling.
HANNITY: It was obvious you thought coke was being used?
BYRNE: I did. And later on, I was
told that this particular person actually, they did something similar to an intervention and got
her help and got her to a clinic, and I never did see her again. But I understand she did all
right.
Kia Sophia
I'M a FEMALE and I CAN tell you that a woman, ESPECIALLY Clinton, is not fit to be the leader
of the Free World. She's a hysterical and angry woman who's been cheated on her entire life. It's
the truism: Hell hath NO fury such as a woman scorned". Be careful what you vote for America!
Trunks800
Where is the video that she is acting like Trump? Show me the proof or else it just all talk.
Too bad Trump is displaying his behavior like a man with dementia on tape and live on TV.
Sunny Skye
Here in Arkansas it's pretty much common knowledge that she is evil as hell itself. If this
woman is elected we're so terribly screwed.
Brian Brachel
She's a bipolar lunatic
Trish Dempsey
psychopaths!!!!
Donna Kurpaska
I wish people would stop calling it 'crazy'. Let's call it what it is -psychopathy! Look
it up - pathological lying, glib charm, lack of empathy, anger if challenged, lack of remorse,
blaming others for their own actions, etc. It's a loveless marriage, a sham, and poor Chelsea
was probably born for appearances - she didn't have a chance. We need to address psychopathy as
a country - these people need to be tested and kept out of important positions and certain vocations
like law enforcement, military, doctors, etc. or we are doomed as a society.
Lu Martinez
Hillary Clinton is definitely bipolar!
Debbie Shenton
I am Australian and I want this woman to disappear...for the safety of the western world ....she
is dangerous and insane and we don't want her leading not only the USA into despair but all off
us in the future ....god help us all !!!!!
"... You know, the light bulb over my head went on when Hillary said she was against the TPP "as currently written." Political speak for: she'll fiddle with some words, pronounce it fixed, and pass it ..."
"... her surrogates extol her penchant for "free trade" and are sure she will support it. ..."
You know, the light bulb over my head went on when Hillary said she was against the TPP
"as currently written." Political speak for: she'll fiddle with some words, pronounce it fixed,
and pass it.
And while she and Kaine claim now to be against the TPP, her surrogates extol her penchant
for "free trade" and are sure she will support it.
Manipulation of definitions is the most insidious type of lying...
Today's democrats are indeed neoliberals and twist the language like all neoliberals do.
George Orwell
probably is spinning in his grave looking to what extent they implemented his 1984 utopia NewSpeak as for
destruction of meaning of words and manipulation of language.
Notable quotes:
"... Hilary likes to redefine terms. 'We are the most progressive platform ever' she likes to say but, in one of her debates with Bernie she redefined "progressive" She said that we are making lots of progress on different issues. Therefore, her logic goes, she is 'progressive' ..."
"... So, instead of universal healthcare being progressive, we are mandated to pay for health insurance (not healthcare) in order to insure corporate healthcare insurance profits (the rentier fire sector) --………..this is Hilary's definition of progressive and, it is how she uses it when speaking and policy making. ..."
Hilary likes to redefine terms. 'We are the most progressive platform ever' she likes to say
but, in one of her debates with Bernie she redefined "progressive"
She said that we are making lots of progress on different issues. Therefore, her logic goes, she
is 'progressive'
So, instead of universal healthcare being progressive, we are mandated to pay for health insurance
(not healthcare) in order to insure corporate healthcare insurance profits (the rentier fire sector)
--………..this is Hilary's definition of progressive and, it is how she uses it when speaking and
policy making.
Beware her definitions… a re-working of the definition of is
"... Clinton publicly promoted the pact 45 separate times - but with her Democratic presidential rivals making opposition to the deal a centerpiece of their campaigns, Clinton now asserts she was never involved in the initiative. ..."
"... "I did not work on TPP," she said after a meeting with leaders of labor unions who oppose the pact. "I advocated for a multinational trade agreement that would 'be the gold standard.' But that was the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative…State Department cables… show that her agency - including her top aides - were deeply involved in the diplomatic deliberations over the trade deal. The cables from 2009 and 2010, which were among a trove of documents disclosed by the website WikiLeaks, also show that the Clinton-run State Department advised the U.S. Trade Representative's office on how to negotiate the deal with foreign government officials." ..."
"... HRC has been trying to convince the gullible (and there are clearly a few here) that the donor class paid her 225K a pop because she's committed to working against the deals favored by globalists. ..."
"... The 'Trump is a racist who will deport 11 million undocumented foreign nationals' fiction must, at the very least, explain why 1/5 Hispanics support the candidate. ..."
"... evidently 1/5 Hispanics separate rhetoric from reality. ..."
"... Sanders offered the prospect of real change to voters sick of the same old. HRC is offering fables ..."
"... Trump will not be able to produce the solutions he's promising, but he's promising solutions that people do want, which is why HRC is suddenly making Trump/Sanders themes a centerpiece of her campaign. There will be no holding HRC to account. We know this. T above is entirely correct. HRC is a known factor. ..."
"... With Trump as president there will be intense scrutiny of his every action and he'll be hammered on all sides daily. This seems to me far, far better than handing a blank check to a highly secretive career client of the donor class who enjoys the full protection of a self-censoring (for the most part) fifth estate and indulged by zombies ready to scream 'racist' or 'atheist' at any candidate who might actually challenge her authority. ..."
Aug 13, 2015 from David Sirota rabid Republican spin-meister
"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Thursday attempted to distance herself
from the controversial 12-nation trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. During her
tenure as U.S. secretary of state, Clinton publicly promoted the pact 45 separate times - but
with her Democratic presidential rivals making opposition to the deal a centerpiece of their campaigns,
Clinton now asserts she was never involved in the initiative.
"I did not work on TPP," she said after a meeting with leaders of labor unions who oppose
the pact. "I advocated for a multinational trade agreement that would 'be the gold standard.'
But that was the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative…State Department cables…
show that her agency - including her top aides - were deeply involved in the diplomatic deliberations
over the trade deal. The cables from 2009 and 2010, which were among a trove of documents disclosed
by the website WikiLeaks, also show that the Clinton-run State Department advised the U.S. Trade
Representative's office on how to negotiate the deal with foreign government officials."
The donor class invest immense sums to write laws and regulations, not just in the US, but
in many nations. The list of examples is endless and includes big pharma and the banks participating
in the crafting of the Affordable Care Act and the bank bailout. Both Sanders and Trump agree
on this point, whatever their other differences may be.
HRC has been trying to convince the gullible (and there are clearly a few here) that the
donor class paid her 225K a pop because she's committed to working against the deals favored by
globalists.
Every moment wasted on 'did I tell you about my racist daddy, racist relatives, racist co-workers?
' is time and energy wasted. That would be bad enough, but the level of discourse is frankly so
base and lacking in nuance as to be both worthless and corrosive.
The 'Trump is a racist who will deport 11 million undocumented foreign nationals' fiction
must, at the very least, explain why 1/5 Hispanics support the candidate. Trump is a race-baiting
vulgarian buffoon who routinely uses offensive slurs to control the news cycle. Some supporters
believe he goes too far, others are delighted to watch liberal heads explode. But evidently 1/5
Hispanics separate rhetoric from reality.
To the outside observer, Detroit and Chicago do not look like success stories. I visited both
cities in the 70's and they weren't exactly shining cities on the hill, then. In the four decades
since, conditions for many have actually declined. Large parts of large cities and states controlled
by Democrats fail entirely to provide basic education and safety to the people who need both most.
Sanders offered the prospect of real change to voters sick of the same old. HRC is offering
fables, in much the same way Trump is. As I've stated repeatedly, Trump will not be able
to produce the solutions he's promising, but he's promising solutions that people do want, which
is why HRC is suddenly making Trump/Sanders themes a centerpiece of her campaign. There will be
no holding HRC to account. We know this. T above is entirely correct. HRC is a known factor.
With Trump as president there will be intense scrutiny of his every action and he'll be
hammered on all sides daily. This seems to me far, far better than handing a blank check to a
highly secretive career client of the donor class who enjoys the full protection of a self-censoring
(for the most part) fifth estate and indulged by zombies ready to scream 'racist' or 'atheist'
at any candidate who might actually challenge her authority.
"... 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, in Web Hubbell's basement before his felony conviction, in the President's secretary's personal files -- before some were forced out last week. ..."
"... Why the White House concealment? For good reason: The records show Hillary Clinton was lying when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S.& L., and indicate she may have conspired with Web Hubbell's father-in-law to make a sham land deal that cost taxpayers $3 million. ..."
"... By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators. ..."
"... Another reason for recent revelations is the imminent turning of former aides and partners of Hillary against her; they were willing to cover her lying when it advanced their careers, but are inclined to listen to their own lawyers when faced with perjury indictments. ..."
"... Therefore, ask not "Why didn't she just come clean at the beginning?" She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends. ..."
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.
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.
The abuse of Presidential power known as Travelgate elicited another series of lies. She induced
a White House lawyer to assert flatly to investigators that Mrs. Clinton did not order the firing
of White House travel aides, who were then harassed by the F.B.I. and Justice Department to justify
patronage replacement by Mrs. Clinton's cronies.
Now we know, from a memo long concealed from investigators, that there would be "hell to pay"
if the furious First Lady's desires were scorned. The career of the lawyer who transmitted Hillary's
lie to authorities is now in jeopardy. Again, she lied with good reason: to avoid being identified
as a vindictive political power player who used the F.B.I. to ruin the lives of people standing
in the way of juicy patronage.
In the aftermath of the apparent suicide of her former partner and closest confidant, White
House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, she ordered the overturn of an agreement to allow the Justice
Department to examine the files in the dead man's office. Her 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, in Web Hubbell's basement before
his felony conviction, in the President's secretary's personal files -- before some were forced out
last week.
Why the White House concealment? For good reason: The records show Hillary Clinton was lying
when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S.& L., and indicate
she may have conspired with Web Hubbell's father-in-law to make a sham land deal that cost taxpayers
$3 million.
Why the belated release of some of the incriminating evidence? Not because it mysteriously turned
up in offices previously searched. Certainly not because Hillary Clinton and her new hang-tough White
House counsel want to respond fully to lawful subpoenas.
One reason for the Friday-night dribble of evidence from the White House is the discovery by the
F.B.I. of copies of some of those records elsewhere. When Clinton witnesses are asked about specific
items in "lost" records -- which investigators have -- the White House "finds" its copy and releases
it. By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary
evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators.
Another reason for recent revelations is the imminent turning of former aides and partners
of Hillary against her; they were willing to cover her lying when it advanced their careers, but
are inclined to listen to their own lawyers when faced with perjury indictments.
Therefore, ask not "Why didn't she just come clean at the beginning?" She had good reasons
to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying
herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.
No wonder the President is fearful of holding a prime-time press conference. Having been separately
deposed by the independent counsel at least twice, the President and First Lady would be well advised
to retain separate defense counsel.
"... You raise the Children's Defense Fund in her defense? HRC betrayed Marian Edelman, the CDF founder by supporting the catastrophic welfare bill. Peter Edelman was so disgusted that he resigned from HHS and the Clinton administration. Between the crime bill and and the welfare bill Clinton did an enormous amount of damage to black families. HRC conservative? Yes. You probably call it the Third Way. Democratic neoliberlism at its finest. ..."
You raise the Children's Defense Fund in her defense? HRC betrayed Marian Edelman, the CDF
founder by supporting the catastrophic welfare bill. Peter Edelman was so disgusted that he resigned
from HHS and the Clinton administration. Between the crime bill and and the welfare bill Clinton
did an enormous amount of damage to black families. HRC conservative? Yes. You probably call it
the Third Way. Democratic neoliberlism at its finest.
"... After Clinton recognized that even her strongest supporters doubted her statement, she attempted to walk it back. In doing so, she repeatedly lied again, but offered as an excuse a bizarre claim that she had "short-circuited" her answer. ..."
"... Who knows what that means? She claimed that she and Wallace were talking over each other and her answer had been misunderstood and misconstrued. Yet, Clinton said that Comey exonerated her as being "truthful" to the public when in fact he stated that she had been truthful during her three-hour, closed-door, unrecorded interview with the FBI. ..."
"... Could Clinton have legally received, opened, stored or sent a secret or top secret email without knowing it, as she has claimed? In a word: NO. ..."
"... That's because, on her first day in office, Clinton swore under oath that she recognized her legal obligation to recognize state secrets and treat them according to law - that is, to keep them in a secure government venue - whether they are marked as secrets or not. ..."
"... Last Sunday, Iran executed a scientist who sold Iranian nuclear secrets to the U.S. The secrets were eventually passed on to Secretary of State John Kerry for his use during the negotiations that led to the recent U.S.-Iran nuclear accord. But the sale of the secrets and the U.S.'s payments for them (several million dollars) were consummated under then-Secretary Clinton's watch. The scientist was lured back to Iran, fearing harm to his family. Upon his return, he was arrested, tried and convicted of treason. ..."
When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked last week if she has misled the American
people on the issue of her failure to safeguard state secrets contained in her emails, she told my
Fox News colleague, Chris Wallace, that the FBI had exonerated her. When pressed by Wallace, she
argued that FBI Director James Comey said that her answers to the American people were truthful.
After Clinton recognized that even her strongest supporters doubted her statement, she attempted
to walk it back. In doing so, she repeatedly lied again, but offered as an excuse a bizarre claim
that she had "short-circuited" her answer.
Who knows what that means? She claimed that she and Wallace were talking over each other and her
answer had been misunderstood and misconstrued. Yet, Clinton said that Comey exonerated her as being
"truthful" to the public when in fact he stated that she had been truthful during her three-hour,
closed-door, unrecorded interview with the FBI.
Clinton told a group of largely pro-Clinton journalists that she had short-circuited her remarks.
Then, she acknowledged that Comey had only referred to whatever she told the FBI as being truthful.
Then, she lied again, by insisting that she told the FBI the same things she has told the press and
the public since this scandal erupted in March 2015.
But that cannot be so, because she has issued a litany of lies to the press and to the public,
which the FBI would have caught. In her so-called clarifying remarks, she again told journalists
her oft-stated lie about returning all work-related emails to the State Department. She could not
have told that to the FBI because Director Comey revealed in July that the FBI found "thousands"
of unreturned work-related emails on her servers, some of which she attempted to destroy.
On the state secrets issue, she has told the public countless times that she never sent or received
anything marked classified. She could not have said that to the FBI, because even a novice FBI agent
would have recognized such a statement as a trick answer. Nothing is marked "classified." The markings
used by the federal government are "confidential" or "secret" or "top secret." When Director Comey
announced last month that the FBI was recommending against indictment, he revealed nevertheless that
his agents found 110 emails in 52 email threads containing materials that were confidential, secret
or top secret.
The agents also found seven email chains on her servers that were select access privilege, or
SAP. SAP emails cannot be received, opened or sent without knowing what they are, as a special alphanumeric
code, one that changes continually, must be requested and employed in order to do so. SAP is so secret
that the FBI agents investigating Clinton lacked access to the code.
Could Clinton have legally received, opened, stored or sent a secret or top secret email without
knowing it, as she has claimed? In a word: NO.
That's because, on her first day in office, Clinton swore under oath that she recognized her
legal obligation to recognize state secrets and treat them according to law - that is, to keep them
in a secure government venue - whether they are marked as secrets or not.
This past weekend, we learned how deadly the consequences of Clinton's failure to secure secrets
can be.
Last Sunday, Iran executed a scientist who sold Iranian nuclear secrets to the U.S. The secrets
were eventually passed on to Secretary of State John Kerry for his use during the negotiations that
led to the recent U.S.-Iran nuclear accord. But the sale of the secrets and the U.S.'s payments for
them (several million dollars) were consummated under then-Secretary Clinton's watch. The scientist
was lured back to Iran, fearing harm to his family. Upon his return, he was arrested, tried and convicted
of treason.
One email sent to Clinton, from Richard Morningstar, a former State Department special envoy for
Eurasian energy, referred to this scientist as "our friend." The fact that Clinton's aides referenced
this spying scientist as "our friend" shows a conscious awareness of their duty to hide and secure
state secrets - his name and what he had done for the U.S. Yet, at the same time, Clinton put these
state secrets at risk by having them sent to her via her nonsecure home servers. This "our friend"
email was a top-secret email, which Clinton failed to keep secure. It was either one of the 110 that
the FBI found on her servers or one of the work-related emails she did surrender.
Could this email have been used as evidence in the treason trial of the now-executed scientist?
That is not an academic question. Most of the intelligence community seriously mistrusts Clinton,
as her recklessness has jeopardized their work. Some feared that many of their undercover colleagues
were compromised or even killed due to Clinton's emails.
Hillary Rodham Clinton has established a clear and unambiguous record of deception. Her deceptions
are not about the time of day or the day of the week; they are about matters material to her former
job as Secretary of State and material to national security.
Do you know any rational person who continues to trust her?
Copyright 2016 Andrew P. Napolitano.
Distributed by Creators.com.
If the lamestream media were not fully in the bag for the harpy,
questions would be being asked about the mysterious death of the man whom
Assange says was the leaker to wikileaks of the Democratic National
Committee emails. Others have noted that several other people have died
mysteriously during the last few weeks including a UN figure who died from a
suspicous home weightlifting accident and an anti-Clinton researcher who
unexpectedly committed "suicide."
The Libya thing is still on record as a war crime and the fact is
indisputable that Clinton was the spearhead who convinced Obama, who has
indicated it was against his better judgment, to carry through on the
overthrow. Meanwhile, we have on record Clinton's barbaric gloat, "we came,
we saw, he died" with a horror movie type cackle. Also on record is the fact
that the jihadi element Clinton sponsored in the overthrow effort committed
a crime against humanity, a mass liquidation of Sub-saharan Africans
Khaddafi had settled in the city of Sirte in the wake of their seizure of
that city. It has been documented again in an article in this week's
blackagendareport by their regular reporter, Danny Haiphong.
Of course Trump is accused based on an ambiguous off-the-cuff comment he
made about 2nd amendment rights that he suggested violence against the
harpy. The media's cashing in on this issues makes relevant the harpy's own
statement in July, 2008 when she had been beaten by Obama but before the
convention which would confirm that defeat, that she was staying in the race
in case a "Robert Kennedy" incident occurs. This is a much more unambiguous
statement which could be construed as hoping for something favorable. Her
status as a major party candidate is a disgrace, particularly now that the
wikileaks disclosures have revealed the fraud engaged in to secure it.
Sanders, meanwhile, appears craven in light of these new disclosures. If she
triumphs, the last shreds of legitimacy will be gone from the yankee
imperium.
state secrets – just the words give me the creeps. reminds of police
states. state secrets keep the people, the employers of the united states
government, in the dark. criminal regimes everywhere flourish without
sunlight. states secrets are used as a cya tactic, as well. if the citizens
don't know what their government does, they can't object. we, the people,
are kept ignorant, which allows corruption to proliferate and produce people
like bill & hillary clinton.
hillary lied to congress, didn't she? why isn't she prosecuted?
donald trump is a braggart who lies so often and so much, the mind reels.
hillary clinton is a serial prevaricator, part-time criminal, thoroughly
corrupt, massively entitled, political hack who should have been yesterday's
news 25 years ago.
trump or clinton.
try not to cry.
This transformation of State Department into the branch of CIA started under
Madeleine Albright and reached crescendo during Hillary Clinton.
Notable quotes:
"... I personally have suggested investigating the person of the US Ambassador in Ankara John Bass, who was Ambassador in Republic of Georgia in 2008 and who was involved in dirty business in Iraq, and also seems to be involved in "Color revolution" in Kiev. There are very few "traditional" diplomats in a state department. ..."
The new evidence of the US participation in the coup attempt in Turkey emerged.
Greek press published a photo made a day before the coup. It shows the US ambassador
in Turkey John Basse together with the Turkish senior officer, who looks like
one of the leaders of the coup Col. Ali Yazıcı (former military adviser to President
Erdogan). They had a private meeting in Cengelkoy café the day before the coup.
F. William Engdahl - historian, economic researcher, writer comments this:
The US right now is on a defensive. Erdogan has openly challenged leading
NATO generals. There is investigation of evidences of the US involvement
in the coup. I personally have suggested investigating the person of
the US Ambassador in Ankara John Bass, who was Ambassador in Republic of
Georgia in 2008 and who was involved in dirty business in Iraq, and also
seems to be involved in "Color revolution" in Kiev. There are very few "traditional"
diplomats in a state department.
"... It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding, and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot get away with. ..."
Sayyyyyy…..didn't someone here theorize, right after the news broke that
the DNC's emails had been hacked, and Hillary blamed the Russians so people
would forget what she and the rest of the coven did to Sanders, that the
actual attacker was more likely someone much closer to home?
Enter the
Disgruntled US Intelligence Worker . According to US government whistleblower
William Binney, somebody in the NSA released Hillary's and the DNC's emails,
infuriated at Teflon Hillary's non-stick escape from any accountability
for her hijinks.
The headline suggests he knows, but the body of the story suggests he
is just speculating, though. But it raises a valid point – the NSA probably
has all those emails, including the 30,000 she deleted on the grounds that
they were 'personal'.
At some point between now and November, is anyone in the media going
to put the questions about the likelihood of NSA possession of, and therefore
ease of FBI access thereto, the "missing" emails to Director Comey? Or will
TPTB just smile grimly and pray no further leaks arrive to shatter the Narnian
alternative reality world they inhabit?
What an excellent article, quite a bit more authoritative than the one I
cited although it helpfully offers the same source, and it shapes some more
pieces of the puzzle which now make more sense. The compromising of intelligence
personnels' identities was something that, to the best of my knowledge,
was never discussed in any stories on her email peccadilloes. Intelligence
agencies quite properly despise anyone who casually blows the cover of its
operatives. It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton
in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump
for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his
character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding,
and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes
or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot
get away with.
Thanks for posting that revealing corroborative piece.
... leak also revealed anti-gay slurs, mocking African
Americans and attempts to con reputable news outlets with fake Trump videos.
The computer network used by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign was
hacked as part of a broad cyber attack on Democratic political organizations, people familiar with
the matter told Reuters. The latest attack, which was disclosed to Reuters on Friday, follows reports
of two other hacks on the Democratic National Committee and the party's fundraising committee for
candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives.
The U.S. Department of Justice national security division is investigating whether cyber hacking
attacks on Democratic political organizations threatened U.S. security, sources familiar with the
matter said on Friday.
"... 0bama v Bush43, who was the More Effective Evil? At least Bush43 didn't have the passion for Crapifying social insurance like 0bama did – IIRC Bush43 meekly tried to privatize SS & then let it go. Bush43 didn't push any Rigged Trade Outsourcing deals the size of TPP, perhaps there was a minor one (DR-CAFTA?). ..."
"... I'd guesstimate 0bama is even worse than Bush43. The sad thing is that I fear the Fockin New Guy will be even worse than 0bama ..."
"... Well, Bush43 has Iraq going for him. And IMNSHO, the only reason Obama didn't seriously put "boots on the ground" is that Iraq and Afghanistan broke the army. But I bet they're recovered enough now, and ready for Hillary! ..."
"... Clearly, from Hickenlooper's speech before Clinton, the brass can't wait! ..."
BTW, do you think we "dodge 2 bullets" & make it to Jan 2017 without 0bama being able to implement
his beloved TPP & Grand Ripoff?
Flying Spaghetti Monster Willing, I hope so!
0bama v Bush43, who was the More Effective Evil? At least Bush43 didn't have the passion for
Crapifying social insurance like 0bama did – IIRC Bush43 meekly tried to privatize SS & then let
it go. Bush43 didn't push any Rigged Trade Outsourcing deals the size of TPP, perhaps there was
a minor one (DR-CAFTA?).
0bama's passion is allowing the 1%ers enrichment by parasitically ripping off 99%ers. In contrast
Bush43's passion was neocon Middle East warmongering regime-change, & Christian Theocratic stances
like banning stem cell research & gay marriage, & fellow theocrat SCOTUS nominations.
I'd guesstimate 0bama is even worse than Bush43. The sad thing is that I fear the Fockin New
Guy will be even worse than 0bama.
Perhaps there is a small chance for HClinton to be less bad
than 0bama if the Sanders-ish social democrats (typically labeled Progressives) can force HClinton
to halfway stick to the 2016 platform. Based on HClinton's behavior during the campaign, I doubt
that is possible – she seems to detest the Progressive faction, based off the Kaine nomination
& authoritarian banning of Sanders delegates from the convention floor, etc, & so far HClinton
seems to get away with this "hippie punching" behavior.
One positive aspect is that I feel like that HClinton will be unable to use the 0bama excuses
to valid Progressives' policy critiques of
You are a sexist for critizing Dear Leader! (racist in 0bama's case)
Those Evil Rs won't let her do that policy
These bogus replies are "dead horses" after continual use by 0bamabots, that IMHO will not
be available for HClinton to use.
Well, Bush43 has Iraq going for him. And IMNSHO, the only reason Obama didn't seriously
put "boots on the ground" is that Iraq and Afghanistan broke the army. But I bet they're
recovered enough now, and ready for Hillary!
Clearly, from Hickenlooper's speech before Clinton, the brass can't wait!
"... How can anyone vote for that corrupt warmonger? Seriously, can someone explain why she has 50% of the votes in the USA. Unbelievable. ..."
"... Killary, like Barry, loves killing people. Psychopaths--both of them. ..."
"... I honestly don't care if Trump wins. I don't think it will be good, but whatever. But I know for a fact that no matter what, Hillary must not win. ..."
"... Oy Vey! It's funny how Liberals, most Muslims etc are offended by Trump but not offended by the direct policies of the same old warmongers resulting in the deaths of millions of people in the Middle East for a decade and on going in the sham war on t3rror. The fuck? ..."
Funny the Dems are so hot for Hillary and don't recognize she's a regime-changing warmonger on
a par with Bush, responsible for millions of dead and displaced in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
Exactly how nuts do you have to be to think you can go to war with Russia? Even if you come out
on top, what's the environment going to be like? Is emerging from your bunker with 70% of the
population dead and no atmosphere left considered a win? FUCK HILLARY RAW.
I honestly don't care if Trump wins. I don't think it will be good, but whatever. But I know
for a fact that no matter what, Hillary must not win. She's bad news.
WE ARE WITNESSING THE MOST CORRUPT, MAFIA-LIKE.. ANTI AMERICAN WOMAN IN HISTORY OF POLITICS. THERE
ARE REASONS WHY SCANDALS AND LIES AND DEATHS HAVE FOLLOWED HER FOR YEARS.
Truth Archives
Oy Vey! It's funny how Liberals, most Muslims etc are offended by Trump but not offended
by the direct policies of the same old warmongers resulting in the deaths of millions of people
in the Middle East for a decade and on going in the sham war on t3rror. The fuck?
2eyesofhorus
Hillary has become in effect, a NeoConservative, not a Democrat-she votes for war continually
Aisha K
Actually a lot of Muslims don't support Hillary or Trump and prefer Bernie because Bernie really
did vote against the war in Iraq, while Trump only claims he was once against it. Regardless of
that fact, Trump makes a powerful argument against voting for Hillary because of her warmonger
record in Iraq, Libya and any other place she gets involved in, and the damage it has caused the
entire world, including USA.
This Trump ad gives us a taste of what the Democrats will be up against if we have to try to mobilize
the voters behind Hillary to stop him. And why so many of us won't be able to put our hearts into
it. Because on this issue he is absolutely right. Hillary's record on foreign policy is reprehensible
- and terrifying. But it's not just on this issue - she has been lying about many things, among
them the state of the economy. With no public voting record to defend, no fundamental commitment
to the truth or reality, with a prostitute press that selectively forgets what he said yesterday,
Trump can be selectively right - and righteous - on any issue he chooses. Until it no longer suits
him.
Do I think Trump would be better than Clinton on issues of war and peace? Not for a minute.
Would he be worse? Maybe - I'm honestly not sure...
Garou
Take it from me .. She's a monster.
gamira007
+PeaceAndJustice Yes absolutely she is propped up by the MSM and the Corporate death machine.
The Majority do know this woman is pure evil but our rulers hand pick who is prez here cause if
voting did really matter then it would be illegal.
PeaceAndJustice
+Philo Beddoe
Her 'support' is driven by the MSM which is completely controlled by the PRC (Predatory Ruling
Class). Basically the people that believe the television think she is just a swell lady.
All speeches at Democratic convention remind me speeches at the USSR Communist Party congresses.
The same level of hypocrisy, the same level of detachment from reality. Obama definitely can server
as General Secretary of CPSU without any moral or presentation problems.
Notable quotes:
"... But back to Clinton's primary mission. The dominance of the FIRE sector at the Democrat National
Convention was overwhelming. If you think they are funding Clinton on behalf of labor, and not on their
own behalf, capital, then I have a headquarters in Brooklyn I would like to sell you; I think maybe
there's a kitchen table in one of the meeting rooms. ..."
"... First, Clinton sees her problem with labor as a public relations problem ("we haven't done
a good enough job showing"). She's airbrushing even worse than Obama, since she draws attention to the
airbrushing explicitly. See the charts; we're look at policy failure (or, depending on your level of
cyncism realism, policy success). Second, "we're going to do something about it." Well, where were you
in the hell of the last eight years? ..."
. (One ubiquitous phrase in press coverage of the convention was that Obama
"passed the baton of hope" to Clinton. Well, if the promised "change" was all that great, why
does the baton of hope need to be passed in the first place? And if we are in some kinda relay race,
then how come the finish line is constantly receding? (See above at "not yet felt.") Here she is:
[CLINTON]: I've gone around our country talking to working families. And I've heard from so
many of you who feel like the economy just isn't working.
Some of you are frustrated - even furious.
And you know what??? You're right.
It's not yet working the way it should.
Americans are willing to work - and work hard.
But right now, an awful lot of people feel there is less and less respect for the work they
do.
And less respect for them, period.
Democrats are the party of working people.
But we haven't done a good enough job showing that we get what you're going through, and that
we're going to do something about it.
So I want to tell you tonight how we will empower Americans to live better lives.
My primary mission as President will be to create more opportunity and more good jobs with
rising wages right here in the United States…
From my first day in office to my last!
I'm not going to look at the
Gish Gallop of minor policy
fixes and shopworn slogans that Clinton emits. I am, however, amazed at the effrontery these claims
by Clinton, later in the speech:
[CLINTON:] That's why we need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics
and expand voting rights, not restrict them. And we'll pass a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United!
First, Obama had the chance to nominate a Supreme Court justice who would do just that; last I
checked, Merrick Garland had not expressed a view on Citizens United. Second, if Democrats were serious
about voting rights, they'd have voter registration as a normal party function, 24/7/365. They would
also be setting up voters with IDs, in states that require them. They have done neither. Finally,
in order to save the Clinton candidacy from fully justified charges of corruption, Democrats have
accepted the doctrine of Citizens United, which is that the only form corruption takes is a quid
pro quo (and not, say, laundering political favors through a Foundation).
But back to Clinton's primary mission. The dominance of the FIRE sector at the Democrat National
Convention was overwhelming. If you think they are funding Clinton on behalf of labor, and not on
their own behalf, capital, then I have a headquarters in Brooklyn I would like to sell you; I think
maybe there's a kitchen table in one of the meeting rooms. But let me pull out one sentence
from Clinton's speech, exactly as I did with Obama:
[CLINTON:] But we haven't done a good enough job showing that we get what you're going through,
and that we're going to do something about it.
First, Clinton sees her problem with labor as a public relations problem ("we haven't done
a good enough job showing"). She's airbrushing even worse than Obama, since she draws attention to
the airbrushing explicitly. See the charts; we're look at policy failure (or, depending on your level
of cyncism realism, policy success). Second, "we're going to do something about it." Well,
where were you in the hell of the last eight years?
A sociopath,
by definition, is a person devoid of positive human emotions. They are incapable of love, empathy,
sympathy, compassion, mercy, and therefore cannot express shame, guilt, remorse or simple regret.
But they do tend to be smart, even brilliant. They quickly understand how they're different from
normal people and learn to mimic emotions in order to pass as normal. Because they have no emotions
to leaven or guide their thoughts they typically see themselves as superior, which often translates
into a megalomanic personality cleverly disguised as charm, wit, warmth and self-confidence.
Power-seeking bullies who want to be as successful, dominating, controlling, wealthy and popular
as sociopaths but are not themselves sociopaths must find a way to keep their emotions from interfering
with their ambitions.
Rationalization is simply a way of neutralizing normal human emotions by explaining away evil
so a person can engage in evil successfully.
The most common examples of sociopath and sociopath-wannabe just may be found in America's best
known power couple: Bill and
Hillary Clinton.
Bill was famously known as a "compartmentalizer,"
a form of rationalizing that one writer called "the neurosis of our time" and another called
The Clinton Syndrome.
Want to evade some moral, ethical or emotional issue? Lock it away in a separate compartment in
your mind.
If Bill is the sociopath wannabe Hillary is likely the real thing.
She gives it away when she laughs. It's almost maniacal, laughing too hard, too long at marginally
humorous comments, as though she taught herself to laugh but without emotional context she doesn't
have the nuance to make it sound believable.
She gives it away when she speaks unscripted, in anger, like when she responded to the Benghazi
deaths with "What difference at this point does it make?" or when
she speaks off-script almost anytime.
Ultimately it's impossible for laymen to distinguish true sociopaths from rationalizers, and it
can be incredibly unfair to label people.
But a libertarian doesn't
have to label people anyway; all that's needed is to judge them on the basis of their publically
stated beliefs and on their actions.
Chances are, if they're power-seekers they're either sociopaths or sociopath wannabes.
Don't miss a NATIONAL LIBERTARIAN NEWS EXAMINER article: subscribe to my email
alerts and then have fun hitting all those other social media buttons too. Libertarians! What's happening in your area? Send me stories, photos, videos to
publish in Libertarian News Examiner. [email protected]. Read more Reed: North Texas news and commentary at
Dallas Libertarian
Examiner.
Also twiddling with Twitter, fiddling
with
Facebook and gabbing on
Google+.
Here's some more confirmation of what a crook Clinton is!
"In 2010/2011 Saudi Arabia was trying to secure the one of largest arms deal ever between a US
company and a ME country. The deal was worth 29.4 BILLION dollars to Boeing and had to be approved
by the State Department – specifically Hillary Clinton.
Regional allies were sceptical; Robert Gates wrote in his book that Israel had to be bribed to
stop them from publicly attacking the deal. They worried the deal would destabilise the region. And
in fact the State Department had released two reports outlining just how atrocious SA was, with it's
endless human rights abuses, and endless subjugation of women Saudi Arabia donated at least 10m (some
sources say as much as 25M) to the Clinton Foundation.
Boeing donated at least 10M to the Clinton Foundation (CF). Boeing also paid Bill 250K for a single
speech.
And Hillary signed off on the deal.
When she did, she and her aides celebrated, and publicly admitted that the weapons deal was a
"top priority". Not helping women in SA, not defending human rights, but signing off on a deal worth
billions between two Foundation donors.
Hillary was confirmed in 2008, with the understanding that the CF would disclose ALL donors, to
avoid even the look of impropriety. In fact Hillary signed an Memorandum of Understanding – a written
promise to the President, that the donor list would be made public annually. Hillary broke that promise
and stopped reporting CF donors. the Foundation also concealed over 1100 foreign donors by siphoning
their money through a Canadian charity owned by yet another big donor.
Hillary's first big hire for her 2016 Presidential run was her Campaign Chairman, John Podesta.
John and his brother Tony own one of DC's biggest lobbying firms. Tony has bundled many hundreds
of thousands for Hillary and the DNC and (DSCC, etc). The Podesta groups, as the lobbying firm is
known, counts among it's clients both Boeing and Saudi Arabia.
Oh and hey, those weapons Clinton signed off on, they're now being used to commit war crimes in
Yemen. Two of the main groups benefiting from those Saudi military strikes in Yemen? ISIS and al
Qaeda."
What an election cycle for feminism! Both Democratic primary candidates are
running as self-declared feminists. One of them, Hillary Clinton, would, if
elected, also 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.
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 is not a stirring feminist parable. It is probably true that
neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton could have come so far without the other. 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?
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 neither interesting nor feminist.
... ... ...
With so many politically active young people fighting racism and the police
state, it's no wonder that so-called "millennial" feminists have been rejecting
Clinton in favor of her opponent. Many have also been troubled by her personal
conduct toward women outside of her elite circles, especially on another issue
of salience to this generation: rape. Hillary Clinton has said, "Every survivor
of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed and supported." But that has
not been her attitude toward women who have accused her husband. Juanita Broaddrick,
a nurse who accused Bill Clinton of raping her in 1978 and is now, at 72, still
telling the same story,
has said Hillary Clinton tried to pressure her to remain silent about the charges.
(Bill Clinton has denied raping Broaddrick, and Clinton supporters point to
a lack of documentation for Broaddrick's charges that Hillary tried to silence
her; anyone who thinks they know for certain what happened should be regarded
skeptically.) Bill Clinton was also accused of rape and harassment by two other
women.
During the Clinton administration, speaking about sexual harassment
accusations against moderate Republican Sen. Bob Packwood, a needed ally on
health care, Hillary Clinton grumbled to a friend, who later described Hillary
as
"tired of all the whiny women."
Hillary Clinton's mudslinging and slut-shaming campaigns against women who
claimed to have had consensual sex with her husband are
well documented. In his memoir, George Stephanopoulos, quotes Hillary Clinton
as saying of one such woman, "We have to destroy her story." Hillary biographer
Carl Bernstein describes Hillary directing an "aggressive, explicit" campaign
to discredit Gennifer Flowers, an actress who said she had a long affair with
Bill Clinton. She referred to Flowers as
"trailer trash." In a tough 2008 essay for Slate, Melinda Henneberger and
Dahlia Lithwick wrote that Clinton "consistently relates to and protects and
stands with the oppressors in the gender wars ... she invariably sees [Bill]
as the victim, preyed upon by a series of female aggressors."
1975 Rape Case in which she representing rapist Haunting Hillary Clinton
Notable quotes:
"... 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 ..."
"... The victim, who remains anonymous, says Hillary's claims about her supposed history of unfounded accusations were flat-out lies ..."
"... 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, ..."
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:
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.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
If the lamestream media were not fully in the bag for the harpy, questions would be being asked about the mysterious death of the man whom Assange says was the leaker to wikileaks of the Democratic National Committee emails. Others have noted that several other people have died mysteriously during the last few weeks including a UN figure who died from a suspicous home weightlifting accident and an anti-Clinton researcher who unexpectedly committed "suicide."
The Libya thing is still on record as a war crime and the fact is indisputable that Clinton was the spearhead who convinced Obama, who has indicated it was against his better judgment, to carry through on the overthrow. Meanwhile, we have on record Clinton's barbaric gloat, "we came, we saw, he died" with a horror movie type cackle. Also on record is the fact that the jihadi element Clinton sponsored in the overthrow effort committed a crime against humanity, a mass liquidation of Sub-saharan Africans Khaddafi had settled in the city of Sirte in the wake of their seizure of that city. It has been documented again in an article in this week's blackagendareport by their regular reporter, Danny Haiphong.
Of course Trump is accused based on an ambiguous off-the-cuff comment he made about 2nd amendment rights that he suggested violence against the harpy. The media's cashing in on this issues makes relevant the harpy's own statement in July, 2008 when she had been beaten by Obama but before the convention which would confirm that defeat, that she was staying in the race in case a "Robert Kennedy" incident occurs. This is a much more unambiguous statement which could be construed as hoping for something favorable. Her status as a major party candidate is a disgrace, particularly now that the wikileaks disclosures have revealed the fraud engaged in to secure it. Sanders, meanwhile, appears craven in light of these new disclosures. If she triumphs, the last shreds of legitimacy will be gone from the yankee imperium.