Category Archives: Tyranny

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.

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.

WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton knew Saudi, Qatar were funding ISIS – but still took their money for Foundation

2-isis_clinton-foundation
21st Century Wire says…

This could be the biggest revelation yet from WikiLeaks already epic email trove. Will the US media cover this story?

Last night, in an RT Exclusive interview conducted by award-winning filmmaker John Pilger, WikiLeaks editor and founder Julian Assange described what he believes is “the most significant email in the whole collection.”

WikiLeaks reveals an early 2014 email where the outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was urging John Podesta, then advisor to President Barack Obama, to “bring pressure” on Gulf states Saudi Arabia and Qatar, “which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL [Islamic State, IS, ISIS] and other radical Sunni groups.”

This constitutes proof that the Clinton Foundation knowingly accepting millions of dollars in ‘charitable’ donations from the same Gulf states which both Secretary Clinton and President Obama knew were funding ISIS, Al Nusra Front (al Qaeda in Syria) and known takfiri terrorist fighting organizations.

In addition, the Clinton’s Foundation took money from a number of other gulf monarchies:

1-hillary-isis-saudi
(Infographic: Conservative Post)

This latest news validates what 21WIRE has been saying since the ‘ISIS crisis’ began in June 2014.

According to FOX News, FBI sources have said that ‘indictments are likely’ for the Clinton Foundation investigation. One only wonders how this latest Assange revelation will factor into the wider investigation – as it goes right to the heart of the national security and foreign policy – two things which Clinton trades heavily on in her campaigning.

Assange went on to explain the deep ramifications of this latest criminal allegation against Clinton and her family foundation:

“All serious analysts know, and even the US government has agreed, that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIS and funding ISIS, but the dodge has always been that it is some “rogue” princes using their oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves. But that email says that it is the government of Saudi Arabia, and the government of Qatar that have been funding ISIS.”

During their 25-minute interview filmed at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Assange and Pilger discussed the obvious conflict of interest between Clinton as Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation and Gulf monarchies who financed them. The following is an excerpt from the interview transcript:

John Pilger: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the first two, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton is secretary of state, and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly Saudi Arabia.

Julian Assange: Under Hillary Clinton – and the Clinton emails reveal a significant discussion of it – the biggest-ever arms deal in the world was made with Saudi Arabia: more than $80 billion. During her tenure, the total arms exports from the US doubled in dollar value.

JP: Of course, the consequence of that is that this notorious jihadist group, called ISIL or ISIS, is created largely with money from people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation?

JA: Yes.

Watch a brief preview of the interview here:

The interview will air in full on RT International this Saturday Nov 5th.

READ MORE CLINTON NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Clinton Files

SUPPORT 21WIRE – SUBSCRIBE & BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV

 

WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton knew Saudi, Qatar were funding ISIS – but still took their money for Foundation.

The Failure of Democracy: How The Oligarchs Plan To “Steal The Election”

The Failure of Democracy: How The Oligarchs Plan To “Steal The Election”

 

 24

 5  3

 37

trump-clinton-1

I am now convinced that the Oligarchy that rules America intends to steal the presidential election. In the past, the oligarchs have not cared which candidate won as the oligarchs owned both. But they do not own Trump.

Most likely you are unaware of what Trump is telling people as the media does not report it.

Video of Trump Statements regarding the Oligarchs

A person who speaks like this is not endeared to the oligarchs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYozWHBIf8g&app=desktop

Who are the oligarchs?

—Wall Street and the mega-banks too big to fail and their agent the Federal Reserve, a federal agency that put 5 banks ahead of millions of troubled American homeowners who the federal reserve allowed to be flushed down the toilet. In order to save the mega-banks’ balance sheets from their irresponsible behavior, the Fed has denied retirees any interest income on their savings for eight years, forcing the elderly to draw down their savings, leaving their heirs, who have been displaced from employment by corporate jobs offshoring, penniless.

—The military/security complex which has spent trillions of our taxpayer dollars on 15 years of gratuitous wars based entirely on lies in order to enrich themselves and their power.

—The neoconservartives whose crazed ideology of US world hegemony thrusts the American people into military conflict with Russia and China.

—The US global corporations that sent American jobs to China and India and elsewhere in order to enrich the One Percent with higher profits from lower labor costs.

—Agribusiness (Monsanto et.al.), corporations that poison the soil, the water, the oceans, and our food with their GMOs, hebicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilizers, while killing the bees that pollinate the crops.

—The extractive industries—energy, mining, fracking, and timber—that maximize their profits by destroying the environment and the water supply.

—The Israel Lobby that controls US Middle East policy and is committing genocide against the Palestinians just as the US committed genocide against native Americans. Israel is using the US to eliminate sovereign countries that stand in Israell’s way.

What convinces me that the Oligarchy intends to steal the election is the vast difference between the presstitutes’ reporting and the facts on the ground.

According to the presstitutes, Hillary is so far ahead that there is no point in Trump supporters bothering to vote. Hillary has won the election before the vote. Hillary has been declared a 93% sure winner.

I am yet to see one Hillary yard sign, but Trump signs are everywhere. Reports I receive are that Hillary’s public appearances are unattended but Trumps are so heavily attended that people have to be turned away. This is a report from a woman in Florida:

“Trump has pulled huge numbers all over FL while campaigning here this week. I only see Trump signs and stickers in my wide travels. I dined at a Mexican restaurant last night. Two women my age sitting behind me were talking about how they had tried to see Trump when he came to Tallahassee. They left work early, arriving at the venue at 4:00 for a 6:00 rally. The place was already over capacity so they were turned away. It turned out that there were so many people there by 2:00 that the doors had to be opened to them. The women said that the crowds present were a mix of races and ages.”

I know the person who gave me this report and have no doubt whatsoever as to its veracity.

I also receive from readers similiar reports from around the country.

This is how the theft of the election is supposed to work:

The media concentrated in a few corporate hands has gone all out to convince not only Americans but also the world, that Donald Trump is such an unacceptable candidate that he has lost the election before the vote.

By controllng the explanation, when the election is stolen those who challenge the stolen election are without a foundation in the media. All media reports will say that it was a run away victory for Hillary over the misogynist immigrant-hating Trump.

And liberal, progressive opinion will be relieved and off guard as Hillary takes us into nuclear war.

That the Oligarchy intends to steal the election from the American people is verified by the officially reported behavior of the voting machines in early voting in Texas. The NPR presstitutes have declared that Hillary is such a favorite that even Republican Texas is up for grabs in the election.

If this is the case, why was it necessary for the voting machines to be programmed to change Trump votes to Hillary votes? Those voters who noted that they voted Trump but were recorded Hillary complained. The election officials, claiming a glitch (which only went one way), changed to paper ballots. But who will count them? No “glitches” caused Hillary votes to go to Trump, only Trump votes to go to Hillary.

The most brilliant movie of our time was The Matrix. This movie captured the life of Americans manipulated by a false reality, only in the real America there is insufficient awareness and no Neo, except possibly Donald Trump, to challenge the system. Americans of all stripes—academics, scholars, journalists, Republicans, Democrats, right-wing, left-wing, US Representatives, US Senators, Presidents, corporate moguls and brainwashed Americans and foreigners—live in a false reality.

In the United States today a critical presidential election is in process in which not a single important issue is addressed by Hillary and the presstitutes. This is total failure. Democracy, once the hope of the world, has totally failed in the United States of America. Trump is correct. The American people must restore the accountability of government to the people.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

The Failure of Democracy: How The Oligarchs Plan To “Steal The Election” | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization.

A Realist’s View Of The US Presidential Contest

Because the viewpoint expressed here will be a controversial one not frequently expressed or encountered, links are provided in order to enable the reader quickly to access the documentation wherever a particular allegation might seem to be dubious on the basis of false assertions that any particular reader might have read elsewhere; but, otherwise, the links that are provided here are intended to be simply ignored, especially because so many of the allegations here are highly contentious and therefore require providing ready access to the documentation (and because no reader should waste his time to read documentation at a linked item that the reader already believes to be true):

The rape-allegations that have been raised recently against Donald Trump, turned the US Presidential contest so drastically, that a Hillary Clinton victory now appears to be all but certain. Morning Consult headlined on October 18th“Donald Trump Has a Growing Problem With Men”, and reported: “Before the first debate, Trump led his Democratic counterpart, Hillary Clinton, by 8 points among men in a Morning Consult survey of likely voters. After the second debate and nine women making sexual assault allegations against Trump, those numbers have nearly flipped: Clinton now leads Trump among men by 6 points.”

That’s a 14% swing away from Trump, among half of the electorate, during a time-interval extending from 24 September to 15 October — 21 days — with only 22 days left until voting ends (hardly enough time to reverse that plunge and then to rise into the lead). Rape allegations couldn’t get Bill Clinton forced out of office, but they likely will force Hillary Clinton into office. Future historians might say that the biggest issue in the 2016 US Presidential contest was rape — more important to voters than the economy, the wars, the income-stagnation of the bottom 99%, trade-policy, criminal-justice reform, or any other public-policy issue. But, if this turns out to be so, then is America at all a functioning democracy? Might it instead be a sick society, whose values are so out-of-kilter, so plainly stupid, that it fits more the stereotype of a backward culture, than of a successful and forward-looking one?

Some of the issues that are actually at stake in this election — especially nuclear war — could quickly end all civilization as we know it; but the voters’ main issue seems instead to be rape. Does this reflect democracy, or rather a lack of democracy, or a manipulation of democracy? Should a personal crime, which isn’t a crime of government, actually be an issue in elective politics? Should it be an issue even if there has been no court-ruling and conviction in the case? And, if it should, then should it dominate an election, such as it is in 2016 America? If it should be an issue at all, then, given the enormous stakes in the current US election, it should be an extremely minor one, notwithstanding how repulsive any rapist is, but especially because there hasn’t even been legal process about any of the allegations, and because even a Presidential candidate who is publicly accused of a personal crime is supposed to be innocent until a court rules “guilty.”

Joachim Hagopian is correct to report, at Global Research, on October 18th, that, “The current threat level to every human life on this planet even surpasses the October Cuban Missile Crisis of 54 years ago as the earth today is in more peril by manmade [nuclear] destruction than any previous time in human history.” However, even if that outcome will fortunately be avoided, the sheer war-stakes in this Presidential election are enormous, and they appear to have little impact upon the voters, other than for them perhaps to fear placing a possible rapist (such as Bill Clinton also was) in charge of US (if not also of other nations’) national security.

Micah Zenko, of the overwhelmingly pro-Hillary-Clinton, neoconservative (pro-invasion)Council on Foreign Relations, headlined, on 29 July 2016, in the neoconservative Foreign Policy magazine (which denies that it’s neoconservative but cannot cite even a single article that it has published attacking neoconservatism), “Hillary the Hawk: A History”, and he documented that, “She has consistently endorsed starting new wars and expanding others.” He closed by saying: “Those who vote for her should know that she will approach such crises with a long track record of being generally supportive of initiating US military interventions and expanding them.”

I have independently reviewed her performance as the US Secretary of State, and have found nothing in her record that would contradict Zenko’s statement (other than his single false word there, ‘generally’), though I wrote clearly as a warning, and not merely (like Zenko did), to describe what her policies have been; I have (on many and diverse occasions) explicitly condemned those invasions as violations not only against the victim-nations but against the American public, whom the US Secretary of State is supposed to represent. International aggression does not represent the interests of the American public. If she becomes America’s President, then clearly there will be war, lots of it.

Hillary Clinton not only ardently championed George W. Bush’s kicking the U.N.’s weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 2003 so that we could invade, but as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration led in every aggressive policy, and her protégés in the State Department after she left, such as Victoria Nuland, oversaw the carrying-out of those acts of aggression, and her former boss President Obama even sometimes overrode his new Secretary of State John Kerry (as Obama never did to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) and approved the aggressive policies of Hillary’s (now Kerry’s) underlings (which humiliated Kerry). Whereas Obama is a quiet neoconservative, Hillary is a loud and proud one. Her support of invading Iraq in 2003 was no ‘mistake’ or ‘aberration’ on her part; it reflected her fundamental orientation toward foreign policy. That’s what her voters will be voting for, if they are intelligent and accurately informed (as opposed to “voting for the first woman President” or other irrelevancies); because that’s what America and the world will importantly get if she becomes the next US President. (After all: Margaret Thatcher was also a woman; gender is irrelevant.) This is clear.

Donald Trump has no record in public office; and, up against Hillary Clinton’s demonstrated catastrophic record in public office, that lack of governmental experience alone constitutes a major reason to prefer him over her in this Presidential election. Whether he would start wars is unknown, but he has spoken forcefully of the need for the US to improve its relations with Russia. Hillary Clinton (like all other neoconservatives) criticizes him for that. (And the US ‘Defense’ industry has poured money into Hillary’s campaign but given almost nothing to Trump’s.)

Perhaps the main reason why the main criticisms of Trump have concerned his private life, not his policy-record in public office, is because he has no policy-making record at all. The issues that have been raised in support of Hillary (since her positive achievements in public office have been virtually nil) have mainly focused on Trump’s personal affairs, and on his alleged acts of bigotry and even rape, because these are matters that distract voters from the real and urgent issues, which weigh so heavily and so substantially against her candidacy.

Rape has become the chief focus during the campaign’s closing days, because polls have indicated clearly that voters are more concerned about whether their President is a rapist than about whether he or she is a warmonger. Though they weren’t so concerned about such allegations when Bill Clinton was President, Trump’s often-crude speech makes such accusations against him far more credible than in Bill Clinton’s case — even though that ought not to be so.

No one except the women who have accused Bill Clinton and Donald Trump of rape can know, or can even think they know, whether a court would have convicted the alleged rapist if a court had been enabled to issue such a decision; but there can be no doubt whatsoever, that Hillary Clinton has been actively supporting the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US invasion of Libya in 2011, and is now supporting a far more aggressive US invasion of Syria (which would mean war against Russia) — supporting it consistently. She also has actively supported the 2009 coup in Honduras (which replaced the progressive democratically elected President there by a string of fascist tyrants and the world’s highest murder-rate), and the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected government in 2014 (which was immediately followed by a break-up of the country and a plunge into depression and soaring debt).

Each one of these invasions and coups produced even worse conditions in the invaded or overthrown country afterward; but, only in the single case, of the invasion of Iraq by George W. Bush, which subsequently became overwhelmingly condemned by the Democratic Party itself, did Hillary Clinton (with whatever sincerity an intelligent person can attribute to her, which is whatever the person thinks it to be) admit that she had made a ‘mistake’ on that one occasion. She doesn’t apologize for any of the other cases, because there is no such political requirement for her to do so.

How many times does a high public official need to repeat essentially the same ‘mistake’ (actively as a public official pushing for horrific invasions), before the voters in that person’s political party (in this case, Democrats) come to recognize that they’ve been consistently lied-to by that person, and that they’ve been that politician’s suckers by voting for that catastrophically war-mongering person? After all, no sane voter wants America to go to war against Russia. But that’s the direction in which we’re currently heading. And Hillary Clinton wants to go farther there.

America’s Presidential choice will be either Hillary Clinton, a proven and repeated warmonger who has left a lengthy trail of death and destruction behind her as her blood-soaked clear and consistent record in public office (and Zenko made special note that “She also has developed close relations with retired military officers like Gen. Jack Keane, who has rarely seen a country that cannot be improved with US ground troops and airstrikes. As Bob Woodward wrote of a 2009 meeting between the two to discuss the Afghan surge: ‘Clinton greeted Keane with a bear hug, astonishing [US envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard] Holbrooke because — and he should know — Hillary rarely bear-hugged anyone.” (Here is Jack Keane being praised by the prominent super-neocon Republican Paul Wolfowitz, who will vote for Hillary Clinton, against Donald Trump.)

Or else it will be a possible rapist, like her husband also was, who served two terms in the White House, but this time it would be a man of the opposite political party: Donald Trump. No matter how gross Mr. Trump is: he, unlike Hillary Clinton, cannot be intelligently evaluated by an abysmal record in public office, because he simply has no record at all in public office, nothing whatsoever; but he has only strings of public statements, most of which contradict each other. (As Zenko said: “Unlike Donald Trump, who has wildly shifting positions and alleged ‘secret’ plans to defeat the Islamic State, Clinton has an extensive track record upon which one can evaluate her likely positions.”) What Hillary Clinton’s public statements contradict is her actual record in public office, which is as far right-wing (pro-international-corporate), especially in foreign affairs and US trade policy (including NAFTA, TTIP, etc.) (and the common term for this in the military sphere is “neoconservative”), as any of her many financial backers on Wall Street could realistically hope for from any potential future US President — which is why she’s backed by almost all of America’s billionaires.

One of those two persons will be the next US President. Anyone else who alleges that he or she wants to be, and whose name will also appear on the Presidential ballot, is just a fake there, because, for example, Ralph Nader never ever won even so much as a single one of the 50 states in the Electoral College in any of his contests for the Presidency (not to mention a majority of all the EC votes, such as each of these spoilers lies, or lied, to claim to be his or her goal, but really just being a bad joke on that person’s voters). Nor will any of the current aspiring Presidential spoilers win even a single state.

It’s going to be either the possible rapist, or else the definite and serial warmonger. The next US President will be one of those two people. On the one side is, maybe, a rapist. On the other side is certainly a warmonger.

Each voter must make his/her own choice: either drink possibly cyanide, or drink definitely arsenic. Those are the only two choices left in America’s ‘democracy’, and neither of them was the top choice of the most Americans during the primaries-season: the top choice was Bernie Sanders, and the second choice was John Kasich. In a truly democratic system, those two would be the final contestants.

Each and every American voter in this existing contest will either select and drink his/her cup, or else simply allow all the other US voters in this contest collectively to select the cup that he/she and all other Americans will then be drinking during the next four years.

That’s a realistic view of this contest. But this is only one person’s analysis. Anyone who finds fault in it, is welcomed to provide and document a counter-argument below, as a reader-comment, or anywhere else this commentary is published.

Meanwhile, here is my answer to a person who, in a prior reader-comment, said that I am trying to ‘herd’ America’s voters into one or the other of America’s rotten political parties: I voted for Bernie Sanders, but I’m no such fool as to think that anyone like that still has a chance to win the US Presidency in 2016. I didn’t do the ‘herd’ing here; the US political system does it, when the political primary season ends and the general-election contest starts. If Jill Stein had wanted to reform the Democratic Party, she missed her chance to do that when she failed even to enter the Democratic primaries.

And, unlike the Whig Party, which had already become so widely rejected by the electorate by the time of 1860, so that a former Whig, Abraham Lincoln, was able virtually to start its successor, the Republican Party in 1860 (which got shot dead and taken over by the aristocracy when he was shot dead, in 1865), America’s voters haven’t yet reached the point where they’re willing to replace the Democratic Party with the Green Party or any other (much less to protect it if yet another assassination kills the progressive replacement-party like Lincoln’s Republican Party was). No matter what any third-party proponent might say, there’s no chance that 2016 is going to be some repeat of 1860. America is, and (like any nation that has a Presidential system) can only be, a two-party political system. The Founders didn’t know that, but we’ve now got hundreds of years all proving it to be so.

I mention that particular objection because it’s the one I most commonly have gotten in the past.

One final observation here: The reality of politics and governmental policymaking is incredibly ugly, and anyone who makes voting decisions on the basis of a politician’s mere private and personal life is a fool, because public policy really is, in the deepest sense, a very different and vastly more consequential and important moral sphere, having shockingly little to do with the person’s private behavior. The only intelligent way to judge any candidate is by that person’s past record of actual policy-decisions in public office, not at all by either the person’s mere words, or his private life (such as described in this example).

Even for Abraham Lincoln, who (along with FDR) is considered by historians to have been the greatest President, only his actions on policy made him that, and even his greatness as a rhetorician possesses relevance for historians only insofar as it was a part of that policy-record. Furthermore: both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned and ordered slaves, but neither man was a lesser President for having done that (even if historians do debate whether such Presidents were lesser persons for having done it).

To evaluate a politician by either his personal life or his mere rhetoric is not only foolish but petty. History proves this on thousands, if not millions, of occasions. Policy-actions are the only factor that’s important when evaluating a politician. It has been true throughout human history. A politician who has no record of policy-actions is thus a zero (like a mere coin-flip: presuming one side to be positive, the other negative); a politician who has a bad policy-record is thus a negative, and a politician who (like Bernie Sanders) has a positive policy-record is thus a positive. No intelligent estimation of America’s immediate political future can be positive; it’s either zero (like Trump) or else negative (like Hillary). That’s where we are (somewhere between zero and negative), and that’s the real choice we’ve been presented: either it’s Trump (zero), or else it’s Hillary (negative). I, a Sanders-voter, am choosing Trump, in preference to Clinton.

*  *  *

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.

 

A Realist’s View Of The US Presidential Contest | Zero Hedge.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »