Category Archives: Activism

Vote as if your life depended upon it, because it does.

Here’s why:

Hillary has repeatedly said: “We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Opposition forces  on the ground, with material support from the coalition, could then help create safe areas where Syrians could remain in the country, rather than fleeing toward Europe.”

This would mean that U.S. fighter-jets and missiles would be shooting down the fighter-jets and missiles of the Syrian government over Syria, and would also be shooting down those of Russia. The Syrian government invited Russia in, as its protector; the U.S. is no protector but an invader against Syria’s legitimate government, the Ba’athist government, led by Bashar al-Assad. The CIA has been trying ever since 1949 to overthrow Syria’s Ba’athist government — the only remaining non-sectarian government in the Middle East other than the current Egyptian government. The U.S. supports Jihadists who demand Sharia law, and they are trying to overthrow and replace Syria’s institutionally secular government. For the U.S. to impose a no-fly zone anywhere in Syria would mean that the U.S. would be at war against Russia over Syria’s skies.

Whichever side loses that conventional air-war would then have to choose whether to surrender, or instead to use nuclear weapons against the other side’s homeland, in order for it to avoid surrendering. That’s nuclear war between Russia and the United States.

 

Would Putin surrender? Would Hillary? Would neither? If neither does, then nuclear war will be the result.

Here are the two most extensive occasions in which Hillary has stated her position on this:

To the Council on Foreign Relations, on 19 November 2015:

      We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Opposition forces on the ground, with material support from the coalition, could then help create safe areas where Syrians could remain in the country, rather than fleeing toward Europe.

      This combined approach would help enable the opposition to retake the remaining stretch of the Turkish border from ISIS, choking off its supply lines. It would also give us new leverage in the diplomatic process that Secretary Kerry is pursuing. …

      QUESTION: When you were secretary of state, you tended to agree a great deal with the then-Secretary of Defense Bob Gates. Gates was opposed to a no-fly zone in Syria; thought it was an act of war that was risky and dangerous. This seems to me the major difference right now between what the president — what Obama’s administration is doing and what you’re proposing.

      Do you not — why do you disagree with Bob Gates on this?

      CLINTON: Well, I — I believe that the no-fly zone is merited and can be implemented, again, in a coalition, not an American-only no-fly zone. I fully respect Bob and his knowledge about the difficulties of implementing a no-fly zone. But if you look at where we are right now, we have to try to clear the air of the bombing attacks that are still being carried out to a limited extent by the Syrian military, now supplemented by the Russian air force.

      And I think we have a chance to do that now. We have a no-fly zone over northern Iraq for years to protect the Kurds. And it proved to be successful, not easy — it never is — but I think now is the time for us to revisit those plans.

      I also believe, as I said in the speech, that if we begin the conversation about a no-fly zone, something that, you know, Turkey discussed with me back when I was secretary of state in 2012, it will confront a lot of our partners in the region and beyond about what they’re going to do. And it can give us leverage in the discussions that Secretary Kerry is carrying on right now.

      So I see it as both a strategic opportunity on the ground, and an opportunity for leverage in the peace negotiations. …

      QUESTION: Jim Ziren (ph), Madam Secretary. Hi. Back to the no- fly zone. are you advocating a no-fly zone over the entire country or a partial no-fly zone over an enclave where refugees might find a safe haven? And in the event of either, do you foresee see you might be potentially provoking the Russians?

      CLINTON: I am advocating the second, a no-fly zone principally over northern Syria close to the Turkish (ph) border, cutting off the supply lines, trying to provide some safe refuges for refugees so they don’t have to leave Syria, creating a safe space away from the barrel bombs and the other bombardments by the Syrians. And I would certainly expect to and hope to work with the Russians to be able to do that. [She expects Putin to join America’s bombing of Syria’s government and troops and shooting-down of Russia’s planes in Syria, but no question was raised about this.] …

      To have a swath of territory that could be a safe zone … for Syrians so they wouldn’t have to leave but also for humanitarian relief, … would give us this extra leverage that I’m looking for in the diplomatic pursuits with Russia with respect to the political outcome in Syria.

During a debate against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries:

      Hillary Clinton, in a debate with Bernie on 19 December 2015, argued for her proposal that the U.S. impose in Syria a “no-fly zone” where Russians were dropping bombs on the imported jihadists who have been trying to overthrow and replace Assad: “I am advocating the no-fly zone both because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians; I’m also advocating it because I think it gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia.” She said there that allowing the jihadists to overthrow Assad “would help us on the ground to protect Syrians,” somehow; and, also, that, somehow, shooting down Russia’s planes in Syria (the “no-fly zone”) “gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia.”

      Bernie Sanders’s response to that was: “I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be.” He didn’t mention nuclear war as one of them.

The “no-fly zone” policy is one of three policies she supports that would likely produce nuclear war; she supports all of them, not merely the “no-fly zone.”

Hillary Clinton has never been asked “What would you do if Russia refuses to stop its flights in Syria?” Donald Trump has said nothing about the proposal for a no-fly zone (other than “I want to sit back and see what happens”), because most Americans support that idea, and he’s not bright enough to take her on about it and ask her that question. Probably, if he were supportive of it, he’d have said so — in which case it wouldn’t still be an issue in this election. Trump muffed his chance — which he has had on several occasions. But clearly he, unlike her, has not committed himself on this matter.

Hillary Clinton is obviously convinced that the U.S. would win a nuclear war against Russia. The question for voters is whether they’re willing to bet their lives that she is correct about that, and that even if the U.S. ‘wins’, only Russia and not also the U.S. (and the world) would be destroyed if the U.S. nuclear-attacks Russia.

Every other issue in this election pales by comparison to the no-fly-zone issue, which is virtually ignored, in favor of issues that are trivial by comparison. But a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for nuclear war against Russia, regardless of whether or not the voters know this. And a vote for Trump is a vote for the unknown. Could the unknown be even worse than Hillary Clinton? If so, would it be so only in relatively trivial ways?

This election should be about Hillary Clinton, not about Donald Trump.

—————

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

 

Vote as if your life depended upon it, because it does..

No One Tried To Assassinate Donald Trump … But Austyn Crites Shows Up In WikiLeaks 7 Times

 

austyn-critesBy Daisy Luther

UPDATED:

Although it doesn’t appear that Austyn Crites was trying to assassinate Donald Trump, it’s very interesting that he does appear in the WikiLeaks dumps…not once but SEVEN TIMES.

Each of those leaks contains and Excel file, and Crites’ name and address in Reno is in each of those Excel files.

However…these aren’t the Podesta Emails. These are the Global Intelligence Files.

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered “global intelligence” company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

Let me repeat that:

The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

And the man who disrupted the Trump rally is in them. To find his name, you have to open the Excel files attached to each leak.

First, it was reported that someone tried to assassinate Trump.

Tonight in Reno, it was reported that Donald Trump was rushed off the stage at his rally.  Since Trump is disliked so vehemently by some, it was immediately assumed that someone tried to assassinate Trump. Initial reports were that someone rushed the stage, someone else yelled “gun,” there was chaos and tackling, and then someone was arrested.Considering the insanity of this election cycle, who would actually be surprised if something like that were to happen? And given that insanity, it’s entirely reasonable that the Secret Service immediately hustled Trump off the stage until they could get to the bottom of what had occurred.

Thankfully, it appears that this was not an assassination attempt.

The person who was detained by authorities was Austyn Crites.

But…

Things aren’t as they first appeared.

First off, no gun was found, even though two eyewitnesses claim to have seen one.

Secondly, Crites didn’t try to kill anyone. He was there, apparently, voicing his dissenting opinion and protesting Trump. He was quickly released by police after being questioned.

Here are the original screenshots I took from Crites’ Facebook account:

crites-collageCrites’ original Facebook cover photo said across the bottom, “Nevada Republicans Proudly Voting for Clinton.” Due to privacy settings, there was nothing visible on the original page previous to Sept. 19 of this year.

When I refreshed the page, it looked like this. Quick change, huh? There’s a reason I always take screen shots.

austyn-crites-newA quick Twitter search showed a reporter from the BBC had spoken to Crites. James Cook posted the following Tweet:

His only public Facebook post said, “Time to get out and vote y’all! I understand that this election has people torn, but we must chose HOPE over HATE!”

His Facebook profile has since been taken down.

When you put this all together, it’s pretty hard not to think about the Project Veritas videos.

The Project Veritas videos put Scott Foval and Doug Creamer in the spotlight, and both had FEC complaints filed against them due to their unscrupulous methods of “helping” the Clinton campaign.

Breitbart.com reported on this particular quote from Scott Foval, where he explains “bird-dogging”:

FOVAL: So one of the things we do is we stage very authentic grassroots protests right in their faces at their own events. Like, we infiltrate. And then we get it on tape. And then, when our guys get beat up —

Project Veritas: You mean authentic-seeming grassroots?

FOVAL: No, authentic.

PV: You mean —

FOVAL: Protesters.

PV: So like — progressive, what we saw in Madison.

FOVAL: We train up our people, wherever they are, to — and I work with a network of groups, we train them up on how to get themselves into a situation on tape, on camera, that we can use later.

PV: So some of this, so I probably know your work.

FOVAL: I know you do. Everybody does. But —

PV: You mean like a situation where it’s sort of like a —

FOVAL: You remember the Iowa State Fair thing where Scott Walker grabbed the sign out of the dude’s hand and then the dude gets kind of roughed up right in front of the stage right there on camera?

PV: Yeah.

FOVAL: That was all us. The guy that got roughed up is my counterpart, who works for Bob [Creamer].

PV: And that was like, storyboarded? Him getting roughed up like that?

FOVAL: We scenarioed it.

PV: And so you, like leant yourselves to that situation and it happened. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

FOVAL: We not only leant ourselves, we planted multiple people in that front area around him and in the back to make sure there wasn’t just a action that happened up front, there was also a reaction that happened out back. So the cameras, when they saw it, saw double angles of stuff like, they saw what happened up front, and they saw the reaction of people out back.

Gosh, is that sort of like an “innocent” guy with a sign getting beaten up because someone yelled “gun”? Because it kinda sounds like that.

Trump continued after the scare.

About 5 minutes after the incident, Trump gamely returned to the stage, where he graciously thanked the Secret Service agents and local police, then proceeded with his speech.

He issued the following statement:

I would like to thank the United States Secret Service and the law enforcement resources in Reno and the state of Nevada for their fast and professional response. I also want to thank the many thousands of people present for their unwavering and unbelievable support. Nothing will stop us – we will make America great again! –Donald J. Trump

Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor. Her website, where this article first appeared, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca

 

No One Tried To Assassinate Donald Trump … But Austyn Crites Shows Up In WikiLeaks 7 Times.

#MillionMaskMarch London Press Release

**

 

Million Mask March

 

Press Release – For immediate distribution

 

**

 

 

 

Another November 5th, another mass mobilisation to the streets by the Anonymous collective.

 

Since one cold night in 2011, Anonymous UK has gathered together in Trafalgar Square, as a centerpiece of a worldwide Anonymous operation of global strength and solidarity, a warning to all governments worldwide that if they keep trying to censor, cut, imprison, or silence the free world or the free internet then we will not stand idly by.

 

 

Anonymous has no leaders, it has no central committee or public relations department, it is a hive-mind of normal people, just like you, who have decided that action is the only answer now.

 

 

In 2012 as Anonymous UK prepared to mobilise for November 5th a press release went out, every line filled with venom against the then Home Secretary Theresa May. In the four years that has passed Mrs May has risen to unelected power, fueled by right-wing rhetoric and striving to push the UK to even new lows. Anonymous UK has never shied from directly standing in opposition to Mrs May; in 2012 we launched a devastating cyber attack that crippled the Home Office’s website in response to her inaction about the threatened extradition of Gary McKinnon, a threat faced today by Lauri Love.

 

In 2016 we’re going to come knocking on Mrs May’s door.

 

 

Austerity measures, once seen as a horrendous option, have now become the political norm. The media gaze has shifted to making scapegoats out of migrants, but we have not forgotten the real cause of the hardship faced by hundreds of thousands of normal people. Cut the causes of the problems, don’t cause more, its time to take an axe to the Tory tree.

 

 

The last few November 5ths have fallen in the week, this year it falls on a Saturday. As we pour through the streets of London we aim to show the tourists and gentrifiers that London is not a city in subdued slumber, but a city full of people angry at their rulers, and passionate about change.

 

 

We look beyond the narrow scope of Brexit to the inherent problems of the system, capitalism is not working, capitalism has not worked, capitalism will not work. Its time to stop being complacent cogs, grinding towards the bosses’ next bonus package, and instead start working towards radical new solutions. We welcome all and anyone who agrees, you need not wear a Guy Fawkes mask to take to the streets on November 5th. We respect diversity of tactics and welcome anyone who takes the path of direct action.

 

 

Last year the biggest gang in London, the Met Police, attended our demonstration in force. Despite reinforcements from across the country they put on a pitiful display of aggression and violence. We call on the Metropolitan Police to restrain from violence and their usual mob mentality. To those attending November 5th with little experience of the Met we have simple advise, the police are not your friends, they do not regard you as such, do not regard them as such either.

 

 

In a society that has abolished all adventure, the only adventure left is to abolish that society.

 

You can’t arrest us all.

 

 

**

 

 

#MillionMaskMarch #MMM #MMM2016 #OpVendetta

 

#MillionMaskMarch London Press Release – Pastebin.com.

24-minute game-changing video: Electronic ‘voting’ machines without physical evidence = OBVIOUS ongoing election fraud; central method to pick a 51% to 49% ‘winner’ with fractionalized ‘counting’ documented

Black Box Voting’s Bev Harris explains the following 24 minute video:

A real-time demo of the most devastating election theft mechanism yet found, with context and explanation. Demonstration uses a real voting system and real vote databases and takes place in seconds across multiple jurisdictions.

Over 5000 subcontractors and middlemen have the access to perform this for any or all clients. It can give contract signing authority to whoever the user chooses. All political power can be converted to the hands of a few anonymous subcontractors.

“It’s a product. It’s scaleable. It learns its environment and can adjust to any political environment, any demographic. It runs silently, invisibly, and can produce plausible results that really pass for the real thing.”

Provides solutions and actions for immediate deterrence.


The Onion’s 2-minute satire of this ongoing condition:

My best frame of this obvious condition:

When Americans are told an election is defined by touching a computer screen without a countable receipt that can be verified, they are being told a criminal lie to allow election fraud. This is self-evident, but PrincetonStanford, and the President of the American Statistical Association are among the leaders pointing to the obvious (and hereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehere). Again, no professional would/can argue an election is legitimate when there is nothing for anyone to count.

Election fraud is one of ~100 Emperor’s New Clothes game-changing and professionally documented facts that reveal ongoing .01% empire with associated crimes.

The Crimes

  • The US is a literal rogue state empire led by neocolonial looting liars. The history is uncontested and taught to anyone taking comprehensive courses. If anyone has any refutations of this professional academic factual claim for any of this easy-to-read and documented content, please provide it.
  • US ongoing lie-started and Orwellian-illegal Wars of Aggression require all US military and government to refuse all war orders because there are no lawful orders for obviously unlawful wars. Officers are required to arrest those who issue obviously unlawful orders. And again, those of us working for this area of justice are aware of zero attempts to refute this with, “War law states (a, b, c), so the wars are legal because (d, e, f).” All we receive is easy-to-reveal bullshit.
  • And, obviously, corporate media are criminally complicit through constant lies of omission and commission to “cover” all these crimes. Historic tragic-comic empire is only possible through such straight-face lying, making our Emperor’s New Clothes analogy perfectly chosen.
  • The top three benefits each of monetary reform and public banking total ~$1,000,000 for the average American household, and would be received nearly instantly. Please read that twice. Now look to verify for yourself.

Demanding arrests as the required and obvious public response rather than ‘voting’ for more disaster:

The categories of crime include:

  1. Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit).
  2. Likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.
  3. Crimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history).
  4. Tens of trillions in looting, including $6.5 trillion just reported by the US Department of “Defense” as “lost.”

US military, law enforcement, and all with Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, face an endgame choice:

In just 90 seconds, former US Marine Ken O’Keefe powerfully states how you may choose to voice “very obvious solutions”: arrest the criminal leaders (video starts at 20:51, then finishes this episode of Cross Talk):

Solutions worth literal tens of trillions to ‘We the People’:

Again:

  • The top three benefits each of monetary reform and public banking total ~$1,000,000 for the average American household, and would be received nearly instantly. Please read that twice. Now look to verify for yourself.
  • We can quantify the end of the lie-started and illegal Wars of Aggression quickly into the trillions, and that said, it’s worth a lot more than what we quantify.
  • Truth: a world in which education is expressed in its full potential to only and always begin with good-faith effort for objective, comprehensive, and verifiable data.

Would an ‘interview’ with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams help?

If so, here are two:

July 4th, 2016 interview with Washington, Jefferson, Adams: America’s REQUIREMENT from our Declaration of Independence & Constitution to arrest .01% criminal ‘Nobility class,’ or suffer as their indentured servants

‘Election’ 2016 interview with Washington, Jefferson, Adams: America’s right and necessity to arrest .01% tyrants engaged in lie-started illegal Wars of Aggression, bankster-looting, and constant lying

**

Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences (and here). I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.

**

Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Note: Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: herehere).

 

24-minute game-changing video: Electronic ‘voting’ machines without physical evidence = OBVIOUS ongoing election fraud; central method to pick a 51% to 49% ‘winner’ with fractionalized ‘counting’ documented.

The FBI Can’t Actually Investigate a Candidate Such as Hillary Clinton

 

The FBI Can’t Actually Investigate a Candidate Such as Hillary Clinton

The power above the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the US Attorney General, and, above that person, the US President.

That’s whom the FBI actually serves — not the US public.

Eric ZUESSE | 05.11.2016 | OPINION

The FBI Can’t Actually Investigate a Candidate Such as Hillary Clinton

The power above the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the US Attorney General, and, above that person, the US President.

That’s whom the FBI actually serves — not the US public.

This is the reason why the FBI is having such internal tensions and dissensions over the investigation of Hillary Clinton: Not only is she the current President’s ardently preferred and designated successor — and overwhelmingly supported also by America’s aristocracy and endorsed by the aristocracy’s press — but the top leadership of the FBI have terms-in-office that (unlike, for example, the term of the US Attorney General) do not end with the installation of the next President; and these people will therefore be serving, quite possibly, the very same person whom they are now ‘investigating’. This is the reason why James Comey, the FBI’s Director, let Clinton totally off the hook on July 5th, when he declined to present the case to a grand jury: he and the rest of the FBI’s top management violated three basic principles of trying white-collar-crime cases when a prosecutor is serious about wanting to prosecute and obtain a conviction against a person — he (and they) wanted to keep their jobs, not be fighting their boss and their likely future boss.

If America were an authentic democracy, there would be a way for the FBI to serve the public even when the US President doesn’t want it to. According to the only scientific study that has ever been done of the matter, the US federal government is a dictatorship not a democracy. This was reluctantly reported by the researchers, whose own careers are dependent upon the aristocracy which they were finding actually controls that government. They found that the US, at the federal level, is not a democracy but an «oligarchy», by which the researchers were referring to an «economic elite», America’s billionaires and centi-millionaires who control America’s international corporations and the ‘charities’ (such as think tanks) that are dependent upon them — including many that directly affect US politics, such as the think tanks or other way-stations for former US government employees to become hired by private firms.

The authors of the only empirical scientific research-study that has been done of whether the United States is a democracy, or instead a dictatorship, excluded the very term «aristocracy» (or «collective dictatorship» such as an «economic elite» is if that «elite» actually is in control of the given nation’s government) from their article. They did this so as for the meaning not to be clear to the US public. In any country in the modern world where an aristocracy exists, aristocrats nowadays try to hide their power, not (like in former eras) display their power by crowns and other public symbols of ‘the nobility’. The closest the study’s authors came to using that term, «aristocracy», was their only sentence that employed the pejorative term for an aristocracy, «oligarchy». That obscure lone sentence was: «Jeffrey Winters has posited a comparative theory of ‘Oligarchy,’ in which the wealthiest citizens — even in a ‘civil oligarchy’ like the United States — dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth and income protection.11″

Their 11th footnote made clear that they were referring here to the book Oligarchy, by Jeffrey A. Winters, which stated the ‘theory’ that this article had actually just confirmed in the American case. Their article mentioned the book — and the «oligarchy» — only in this one footnote, so that the authors of the article (whose own careers are dependent upon America’s ‘oligarchs’) won’t be able to be accused by oligarchs (or in any way thought by their own financial benefactors — America’s aristocrats) to have called the US an «oligarchy» (a collective dictatorship by the few super-rich and their agents). To apply either term — «aristocracy» or «oligarchy» — to one’s own country, is now viewed as negative, an insult to the country’s controlling elite. Neither scholars nor scholarly publishers wish to insult the people who ultimately are their top funders.

This article was written in the standard unnecessarily obscurantist style of social ‘scientists’ who want to be comprehensible only to their peers and not to the general public. Doing it this way is safer for them, because it makes extremely unlikely that their own benefactors would retaliate, against them or else against the institutions that hire them, by withdrawing their continued financial and promotional support (such as by no longer having them invited onto CNN as an «expert»). (This type of fear prevents theory in the social ‘sciences’ from being strictly based upon the given field’s empirical findings: it’s not authentically scientific. The physical sciences are far less corrupt, far more scientific. The biological sciences are in-between.) 

One particular reason why the authors never called the people who control the US government an «aristocracy», is that everyone knows that the Founders of the US were opposed to, and were engaged in overthrowing, the existing aristocracy, which happened to be British, and that they even banned forever in the US the use of aristocratic titles, such as «Lord» or «Sir.» Consequently, within the US, the only term that the aristocrats consider acceptable to refer to aristocrats, is «oligarchs», which always refers only to aristocrats in foreign countries, and so is considered safe by the aristocrats’ writers (including scholars and political pundits) to use.

Everyone knows: in accord with the clear intention of America’s Founders, the US should eliminate from its citizenry any aristocrat (any self-enclosed and legally immune group that holds power over the government), but Americans naturally accept the existence of «oligarchs» in other countries (and «good-riddance to them there»), typically the ones in countries US foreign policy opposes and often overthrows by means of coup or outright military invasion (any form of conquest, such as in 2003 Iraq, or 2011 Libya). It’s fine to refer to other countries’ aristocracies as ‘oligarchies’, because any such foreign aristocracy can therefore be declared to be bad and ‘deserving’ of overthrow.

Thus, any aristocracy that is opposed to America’s aristocracy (especially one that’s opposed to being controlled by the US aristocracy), and which wants to be controlling instead their own independent nation, can acceptably be overthrown by coup (such as Ukraine 2014 was) or invasion (such as Libya 2011 was). Thus, calling a foreign aristocracy an «oligarchy» is supportive of, not opposed to, the US aristocracy — and, so, «oligarchy» is the term the authors used (on that one occasion, and they never used the prohibited term «aristocracy»).

Nonetheless, despite the cultural ban on describing the US as an «aristocracy», the authors were — as obscurely as they were able — proving that the US is an aristocracy, no authentic democracy at all. Or, again, as they said it in their least-obscurantist phrasing of it: 

«Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis, even though our findings probably understate the political influence of elites. Our measure of the preferences of wealthy or elite Americans — though useful, and the best we could generate for a large set of policy cases — is probably less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments of engaged interest groups. Yet we found substantial estimated effects even when using this imperfect measure. The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater».

‘Greater’ than what? They didn’t say. That’s because what they were saying (as obscurely as possible) is that it’s probably ‘greater’ than is shown in the data that was publicly available to them, and upon which data their clear finding is that the US is an aristocracy, no democracy at all. Or, as they also put it: “Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis.» But, actually, «Economic Elite Domination theories» (virtually all of which come down to positing an aristocracy that consists of the billionaires — and centi-millionaires — and their corporations, and their think tanks, and their lobbyists, etc.) did phenomenally well, in their findings, not just ‘rather well’ — they simply can’t safely say this. Saying it is samizdat, in the US dictatorship.

They were allowed to prove it, but not to say it. So, that’s what they did. They didn’t want to «upset the applecart» from which they themselves are feeding.

The simplest (but no less accurate) way of stating their finding is: the US, at least during the period the researchers probed, which was 1981-2002, was an aristocracy, no democracy at all. The US, in other words, was (even prior to the infamous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which is making the aristocracy even more concentrated among even fewer people) a country of men (and women — that’s to say, of individuals) not of laws; it’s a dictatorship, in short; it is not a country «of laws, not of men». America’s Founders have finally lost. The country has been taken over by an aristocracy.

And one of those «men» now, is actually Hillary Clinton, even though she is no longer officially holding governmental power. They know she soon might be. That’s why, the FBI cannot really, and seriously, investigate her.

It’s not for legal reasons at all. It’s because of whom she is. In fact, purely on the basis of US laws, she clearly ought to be in prison. Any honest lawyer, inside or outside the FBI, has long known this, because the actual case against her is ‘slam-dunk’, even though the FBI has refused to investigate it and has limited its ‘investigation’ only to peripheral ‘national security’ issues. (The #2 person at FBI, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, right below Director James Comey, specified this limitation to his ‘investigators’. They simply weren’t allowed to investigate her, except on the hardest-to-prove crimes that she probably but not definitely did also do. The slam-dunks were just off-limits to them. McCabe’s wife’s political campaign had received $675,000 from the PAC of Terry McAuliffe, a close friend of the Clintons, who chaired Hillary’s 2008 Presidential campaign. And, even on the harder-to-prove matters, which FBI Director Comey declined on July 5th to pursue, they stood a strong chance of winning, if only Comey hadn’t prevented their moving forward to try — but those issues are tangential to the basic case against her, anyway.) 

There are at least six federal criminal laws which accurately and unquestionably describe even what Ms. Clinton has now publicly admitted having done by her privatized email system, and intent isn’t even mentioned in most of them nor necessary in order for her to be convicted — the actions themselves convict her, and the only relevance that intent might have, regarding any of these laws, would be in determining how long her prison sentence would be.

I have already presented the texts of these six laws (and you can see the sentences for each one, right there), and any reader can easily recognize that each one of them describes, unambiguously without any doubt, what she now admits having done. Most of these crimes don’t require any intent in order to convict (and the ones that do require intent are only «knowingly … conceals», or else «with the intent to impair the object’s … use in an official proceeding», both of which «intents» would be easy to prove on the basis of what has already been made public — but others of these laws don’t require even that); and none of them requires any classified information to have been involved, at all. It’s just not an issue in these laws. Thus, conviction under them is far easier. If a prosecutor is really seeking to convict someone, he’ll be aiming to get indictments on the easiest-to-prove charges, first. That also presents for the prosecutor the strongest position in the event of an eventual plea-bargain. As Alan Dershowitz said, commenting on one famous prosecution: «They also wanted a slam-dunk case. They wanted the strongest possible case.» Comey simply didn’t; he wanted the hardest-to-convict case. His presentation was a brazen hoax. That’s all.

That’s the real scandal, and nobody (other than I) has been writing about it as what it is — a hoax. But what it shows is that maybe the only way that Clinton will be able to avoid going to prison is by her going to the White House. Either she gets a term in the White House, or else she gets a (much longer) term in prison — or else our government is so thoroughly corrupt that she remains free as a private citizen and still above the law, even though not serving as a federal official.

Even if she is convicted only on these six slam-dunk statutes (and on none other, including not on the ones that Comey was referring to when he said on July 5th that, «Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case»), she could be sentenced to a maximum of 73 years in prison (73 = 5 + 5 + 20 + 20 + 3 + 10 + 10). Adding on others she might also have committed (such as the ones that Comey was referring to, all of which pertain only to the handling of classified information), would mean that her term in prison might be lengthier still, but what’s important in the email case isn’t that; it’s to convict her on, essentially, theft and/or destruction of US government documents by means of transferring them into her private email and/or smashing hard drives. No one, not even a US federal official, can legally do that, and those six laws are specifically against it.

Motive is important in Ms. Clinton’s email case, because motive tells us why she was trying to hide from historians and from the public her operations as the US Secretary of State: was it because she didn’t want them to know that she was selling to the Sauds and her other friends the US State Department’s policies in return for their million-dollar-plus donations to the Clinton Foundation, and maybe even selling to them (and/or their cronies) US government contracts, or why? However, those are questions regarding other crimes that she might have been perpetrating while in public office, not the crimes of her privatized email operation itself; and those other crimes (whatever they might have been) would have been explored only after an indictment on the slam-dunks, and for further possible prosecutions, if President Obama’s people were serious about investigating her. They weren’t. Clearly, this is selective ‘justice’. That’s the type of ‘justice’ an aristocracy imposes.

Why, then, did Comey finally switch to re-open the Clinton case? It wasn’t merely the discovery of some of her previously unknown emails on the computer of Anthony Wiener, husband to Hillary’s closest aide Huma Abedin. As Politico on October 28th reported, «Another former Justice official said Comey’s letter [announcing the re-opening of Hillary’s case] could be part of an effort on his part to quiet internal FBI critics who viewed him as burying the Clinton probe for political reasons. ‘He’s come under a lot of criticism from his own people for how he’s handled this. He’s trying to gain back some of their respect,’ former Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Pierce said. ‘His ability to do what he does largely depends on the respect within his own ranks.’» 

Joachim Hagopian at Global Research headlined on October 30th, «The Real Reasons Why FBI Director James Comey Reopened the Hillary Email Investigation», and reported:

«Former federal attorney for the District of Columbia Joe diGenova spelled it all out in a WMAL radio interview last Friday just hours after the news was released that Comey had sent a letter informing Congress that the case is being reopened. DiGenova said that with an open revolt brewing inside the FBI, Comey was forced to go public on Friday with reopening the investigation. … Finally, diGenova dropped one more bombshell in Friday’s interview. An inside source has revealed to him that the laptops belonging to key Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, both wrongly granted immunity, were not destroyed after all as previously reported, but have been secretly kept intact by investigating FBI agents refusing to destroy incriminating evidence as part of the in-house whitewash».

In other words: Comey was between a rock (the resignation-letters piling up on his desk from subordinates who felt that no person should be above the law) and a hard place (his ability to stay on at the FBI and not have a scandal against himself bleed out to the public from down below). The US wasn’t yet that kind of dictatorship — one which could withstand such a public disclosure. In order for it to become one, the aristocracy’s control would have needed to be even stronger than it yet is.

Also on the 30th, Ed Klein in Britain’s Daily Mail bannered:

EXCLUSIVE: Resignation letters piling up from disaffected FBI agents, his wife urging him to admit he was wrong: Why Director Comey jumped at the chance to reopen Hillary investigation

James Comey revived the investigation of Clinton’s email server as he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents, sources say

The atmosphere at the FBI has been toxic ever since Jim [Comey] announced last July that he wouldn’t recommend an indictment against Hillary

He told his wife that he was depressed by the stack of resignation letters piling up on his desk from disaffected agents.

So, does this now mean that, finally, the FBI will bring before a grand jury the evidence that Hillary Clinton blatantly violated those six federal criminal laws against stealing and/or trying to destroy federal documents?

There has never — at least since 1981 — been so severe a test of the extent to which this nation is (as those researches found it to have unquestionably been between 1981 and 2002) an «oligarchy». However, a serious criminal prosecution of Ms. Clinton would potentially start an unwinding of this dictatorship. 

The present writer will make no prediction. However, obviously, the results of the election on November 8th will certainly have an enormous impact upon the outcome. Since I think that anyone but a complete fool can recognize this much, I’m confident enough to assert it — a conditional about the future.

 

The FBI Can’t Actually Investigate a Candidate Such as Hillary Clinton.

6-minute analysis: Will FBI agents break ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ public confusion to point clearly to .01% crimes centered in money, war, and lies? Private-server e-mails with attempted deletions by top public servant executives are ‘slam dunk’ criminal felonies

hat tip: What Really Happened

Alex Jones’ 6-minute analysis on released e-mails:

In context, please be clear this is not an endorsement of Trump for President. When Americans are told an election is defined by touching a computer screen without a countable receipt that can be verified, they are being told a criminal lie to allow election fraud. This is self-evident, but PrincetonStanford, and the President of the American Statistical Association are among the leaders pointing to the obvious (and hereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehere). Again, no professional would/can argue an election is legitimate when there is nothing for anyone to count.

Private e-mails on private server + $2 billion Clinton Foundation – 10% for “charity” = massive criminal fraud

Since 2001, the Clinton Foundation has raised ~$2 billion for “charity,” but with tax records revealing only 10% of money went for programs, with apparently ~50% going directly to Bill and Hillary Clinton (and herehere).

35-second summary from Judge Jeanine Pirro; full 5-minute interview (disclaimer: this corporate media outlet will never tell the truth of US/Israel connections to create ISIS or lie-started US Wars of Aggression also requiring arrests):

Economic Hitman John Perkins’ 2-minutes of context on this type of neo-colonialism capitalism:

Clinton committed obvious federal felonies from operating a private government through her personal e-mail while Secretary of State. She lies continuously about these facts, including that she received and sent classified and confidential information. The “missing” and deleted e-mails are likely to show her trading State Department favors for Clinton Foundation donations; a primary motivation to have a private e-mail server in order to keep these communications secret. Top 5 criminal lies by Hillary Clinton in two minutes:

A similar playbook is documented in the 1-page article, Rigged, in 2004 with President W. Bush.

USA Watchdog’s 14-minute interview on Clinton Foundation massive fraud with Charles Ortel, which may total $100 billion:

64-minute documentaryClinton Cash (documentationbook):

In addition, the Clintons deducted over a million dollars from their 2015 federal taxes for “charitable donations”: 96% of which went to the Clinton Foundation.

10% for charity, 90% for us scam same as “retirement funds”

Public employee retirement accounts have “investment strategy” that pay Wall Street “advisors” twice as much as the cash paid to retirees. This scam has a net rate of return often costing taxpayers money rather than generating income to pay for retirees. Full explanation and documentation here and here.

My 22-minute interview on this topic:

Big Picture: ongoing US rogue state empire

This article series defines rogue state, along with history demonstrating this has been a dominant US status for over 170 years. Please refresh your understanding to be confident of these obvious facts for your citizen voice.

In contrast, a president and officers including Secretary of State uphold the law rather than ignore and violate it, embracing limited government under a constitution. The illegal and unlimited government crimes centered in war, money, and constant lying refute the presence of an executive branch upholding fair law. Again this is documented here.

Don’t vote for evil; arrest evil

Americans who vote for Hillary or Trump are voting with relative ignorance to continue the following, with 95%+ who would never agree if honestly briefed on the facts. Once informed, unless one wishes to bond with such evil and bullshit, one cannot vote for it. If one wishes to stand as an American under our ideals and Constitution, one must demand arrests for such outrageous crimes.

The categories of crime include:

  1. Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit).
  2. Likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.
  3. Crimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history).

Ordinary Americans, US military, law enforcement, and all with Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, face an endgame choice:

In just 90 seconds, former US Marine Ken O’Keefe powerfully states how you may choose to voice “very obvious solutions”: arrest the criminal leaders (video starts at 20:51, then finishes this episode of Cross Talk):

Corporate media surrender to the facts, or limited hangout?

The American public have an opening: 18 minutes of corporate media disclosure on the e-mail crisis:

**

Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.

**

Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Note: Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: herehere).

**

 

6-minute analysis: Will FBI agents break ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ public confusion to point clearly to .01% crimes centered in money, war, and lies? Private-server e-mails with attempted deletions by top public servant executives are ‘slam dunk’ criminal f.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »