Softpanorama
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)

Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

Hillary as a pathological liar

Or worse -- is she a female sociopath ?

News Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton Recommended Links The psychopath in the corner office Female Sociopaths Is Hillary Clinton a toxic manager? Borderline Psychopaths

Lock her up movement

Hillary Clinton email scandal: Timeline and summary Workplace bullies Incompetent Managers Authoritarians Bullshit as a communication method Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak
The Techniques of a Female Sociopaths Divorcing Borderline Psychopath Negative Politeness Tactful communication Rules of Communication Paranoid Managers Model of Corporate Psychopath Behavior
Understanding Micromanagers Surviving Micromanagers Office Stockholm Syndrome Mayberry Machiavellians in Office Steps for Decreasing Toxic Worry Large organizations Preventing Burnout
Stoicism  Learned helplessness Anger trap The Fiefdom Syndrome Fraud Caused by Social Pressures Workagolism and work overload Obsessive compulsive personality
Insubordination Threat Fake Sexual Harassment Claims Understanding Borderline Rage Analogy between corporate and psychopathic behavior Machiavellians Manipulators Tricks F-scale Avoiding Anger Trap when dealing with corporate psychopaths
High Demand Cults Leaders Practices Sociopath attack methods Gaslighting Classic cycle of sociopathic relations (Evaluate-seduce-devalue-discard) Workplace mobbing Signs that you might be dismissed soon Projection
Groupthink Conformism Lysenkoism Psychopaths in Movies Quotes about Psychopaths Politically Incorrect Humor Etc

The value of pathological lying as a trait is that it often point to a psychopathic personality. People with a psychopathic personality lie as easily as we breeze. Remember “I did not have sex with that woman.” ;-)  

Let's reiterate some key feature of a female sociopathic personality (which is very close to borderline personality as most boderliners are females) and compare it with the known profile of Hillary Clinton. The prevalence of BPD in the general population is  1-2%. Due of "BPD troika" of traits:  “manipulative” +  “demanding” + “attention seeking" this group is seen as among the most challenging groups of psychiatric patients, requiring a high degree of skill and training for both the psychiatrists, and nurses involved.

  Borderline personality disorder is diagnosed in three times as many females as males. It's like a feminine version of sociopathy, and is nearly as dangerous.

  1. Inappropriate anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights) is probably one of the key diagnostic criteria for BPD.
    The features of BPD include emotional instability, "black-and-white" thinking, intense unstable interpersonal relationships, a need for relatedness, a fear of rejection and impulsivity. As a result, people with BPD often evoke intense emotions in those around them. 
  2. Borderline personality disorder (BPD), (according to the ICD-10 World Health Organization disease classification), is a personality disorder marked by extreme "black and white" thinking, instability in relationships,  and impulsivity.

  3. Manipulation and deceit are viewed as common features of BPD by many of those who treat the disorder as well as by the DSM-IV.  Borderlines typically are ruthless, conniving, mean, heartless, two-faced, and worse. They are perfectly able to cause psychical harm.

    Manipulation and deceit are viewed as common features of BPD by many of those who treat the disorder as well as by the DSM-IV.  Borderlines typically are ruthless, conniving, mean, heartless, two-faced, and worse. 
  4. Recklessness in general is a very typical trait of BPD that makes them very common with female sociopaths.  Like sociopaths they are impulsive and easily engage in self-destructive behaviors including alcohol or drug abuse, promiscuous (and intense) sexuality. Many are attracted to gambling.

    Remember BPD "troika" of traits: they are “manipulative” +  “demanding” + “attention seeking" . Recklessness, manipulation and deceit   makes them almost undistinguishable from female sociopaths
  5. Oscillations between idealizing and demonizing others (intense love changes to intense hate with no "grey area") is another typical symptom (kind of bipolar relationships). This, combined with mood swings,  quickly and irrevocably undermines relationships with family, friends, and co-workers.  Threatening suicide often is the only way to keep a partner. Suicidal or self-harming behavior is one of the core diagnostic criteria that help to provide a differential diagnose as most listed traits are common for other types of disorders too and first of all to female psychopaths. Female psychopaths tend not to harm themselves and have a low suicide rate. They are kind of human Terminators.  BPD patients have high suicide rate (approximately 8-10%).

  6. Individuals with BPD are very sensitive to the way others treat them, reacting strongly and disproportionally to perceived criticism or hurtfulness. They tend to view the world as generally dangerous and malevolent.

     Individuals with BPD are very sensitive to the way others treat them. They tend to view the world as generally dangerous and malevolent.

This is from sources on the web, and is based on Robert Hare's psychopathy checklist.

+- Look for glib and superficial charm. A psychopath will also put on what professionals refer to as a 'mask of sanity' that is likable and pleasant. It is a thin veneer. "Mask of sanity" is present. Hillary is really wearing mask in public appearances and is abusive and nasty in private

Unlike Bill, she is completely devoid of  any charm and comes as cold and calculating even in her public appearances

+++++ Look for a grandiose self perception. Psychopaths will often believe they are smarter or more powerful than they actually are. Really grandiose, pathological sense of entitlement is definitely present
? Watch for a constant need for stimulation. Stillness, quiet and reflection are not things embraced by psychopaths. They need constant entertainment and activity. Probably not applicable. There were rumors of cocaine abuse.
+++++ Determine if there is pathological lying. A psychopath will tell all sorts of lies; little white lies as well as huge stories intended to mislead. Psychopaths are gifted or dull, high functioning or low performing like other people. An untalented psychopath may harm a few; a highly talented psychopath may lay waste to nations. The difference between the psychopath and others lies in their organic lack of conscience and empathy for others. The sociopath is trained to lack empathy and conscience. The psychopath is a natural. Yes, this is trait is present to really astonishing degree.
? Evaluate the level of manipulation. All psychopaths are identified as cunning and able to get people to do things they might not normally do. They can use guilt, force and other methods to manipulate. Looks like Bill Clinton is cunning, but Hillary?
+++ Look for any feelings of guilt. An absence of any guilt or remorse is a sign of psychopathy. They will often blame the victim. Definitely present. Emailgate is a good example
+++++ Consider the level of emotional response a person has. Psychopaths demonstrate shallow emotional reactions to deaths, injuries, trauma or other events that would otherwise cause a deeper response. Other people are satisfaction suppliers, nothing more. "We came, we saw, he died"
+++++ Look for a lack of empathy. Psychopaths are callous and have no way of relating to others in non-exploitative ways. They may find a temporary kinship with other psychopaths and sociopaths that is strictly utilitarian and goal-oriented. Hillary Clinton defense of the middle aged rapist of a 12 years old girl
? Psychopaths are often parasitic. They live off other people, emotionally, physically, and financially. Their modus operandi is domination and control. They will claim to be maligned or misunderstood to gain your sympathy.  
?  Look for obsessive risk taking and lack of self-control. The Hare Checklist includes three behavior indicators; poor behavior control, sexual promiscuity, and behavioral problems.  
--- Psychopaths have unrealistic goals or none at all for the long term. Either there are no goals at all, or they are unattainable and based on the exaggerated sense of one's own accomplishments and abilities. Not applicable. The goal to became president was present for all Hillary adult life. She is definitely capable of long-term planning.
+++  A psychopath will not genuinely accept personal responsibility. A psychopath will never admit to being wrong or owning up to mistakes and errors in judgment, except as part of a manipulative ploy. They will despise and denigrate their victims once they are done with them. If they have any regret it is that their source of satisfaction supply has ended and they must seek another. Yes, this is trait is present
+++ Psychopaths will often be shockingly impulsive or irresponsible. Their shamelessness knows no bounds. You will ask, what were they thinking? And the answer was, they weren't because they did not care. See Hillary Clinton email scandal: Timeline and summary

Emailgate is a good example here

+++ Psychopaths lack long term personal relationships. If there have been many short term marriages, broken friendships, purely transactional relationships, the chances the person is a psychopath increase. Watch especially how they treat other people in weaker positions and even animals. Bad treatment of people in lower positions is proven.

Hillary has some long time staff like Huma Abedin. At the same time she has a lot of detractors, people who were close to her but now hate her

 

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


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

Anyone But Clinton! - Taki's Magazine

Hillary Clinton has indeed become well known as a serial liar. no wonder that more then 60% of Americans, 68 percent in a recent poll, consider her neither honest nor trustworthy. Not only does Clinton lie to protect herself, as she has regarding Benghazi and her private email server, but she lies when there appears to be no benefit to doing so. That's what term pathological lying" or "compulsive lying" implies.

For example, in the past she claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary for his conquering of Mt. Everest, even though that didn’t happen until six years after Clinton was born. The second telling case is her claim she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996, when newspaper and video accounts revealed exactly the opposite.

“Robert Reich, M.D., a New York City psychiatrist and expert in psychopathology, says compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury,” Dr. Gina Loudon, a political psychology and behavior expert, told WND. “Otherwise, compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders.

“This might explain Hillary’s consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives.”

In addition to pathological lying, Clinton’s temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. Not only temper but also dulicity, She will smile to people who are above her or equal to her, but treat people who depend on her like dogs, or worse. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling “get that f**king dog away from me.” She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, “Happens every day, brother.

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

This pathological lying extends to political issues. For example, Hillary tries to ride to the White House on staunch feminism (first female president, dream of all girls in the USA and similar nonsense, as if gender matter more that principles). Her feminism is completely fake. She is actually pretty misogynic woman, and a horrible mother who neglected her only child.

Sinclere Lee in Black News has an interesting discussion of this defining trait  of Hillary Clinton character:

Is Hillary Clinton a pathological liar?

By Sinclere Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the diagnosis for Hillary’s lies?

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

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

Here is another episode:

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

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

http://www.wnd.com/2006/10/38409/

Why is this lying sack of shit anywhere near WDC?

And yet another one (Hillary Clinton lied about not receiving email subpoena, Benghazi chair claims US news):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Lester Smithson 9 Jul 2015 16:00

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi

The Republicans chant while Rome burns.

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


kattw 9 Jul 2015 12:41

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

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

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

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

ExcaliburDefender -> Dan Wipper 8 Jul 2015 23:47

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

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

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

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

Herr_Settembrini 8 Jul 2015 23:25

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

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

TET68HUE -> StevePrimus 8 Jul 2015 23:08

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

JEB BUSH V. HILLARY CLINTON: THE PERFECTLY ILLUSTRATIVE ELECTION
BY GLENN GREENWALD

@ggreenwald
12/17/2014

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

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

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

RossBest 8 Jul 2015 20:24

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

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

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

zchabj6 8 Jul 2015 20:10

The state of US politics...

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

CitizenCarrier -> Carambaman 8 Jul 2015 17:54

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

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

BorninUkraine -> duncandunnit 8 Jul 2015 17:44

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

BorninUkraine -> Barry_Seal 8 Jul 2015 17:40

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

Dennis Myers 8 Jul 2015 16:30

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

And yet another one (Hillary is a Pathological Liar Says Reporter of WaterGate Fame):

Carl Bernstein.  That would be the Bernstein of “Woodward and…”  He wrote a book about Hillary in 2008 called A Woman in Charge.  In the book Bernstein noted that Hillary has always had a “difficult relationship with the truth.” In plain English that means Hillary is a pathological liar. Hillary is a Pathological Liar Says Reporter of WaterGate Fame Is this worse that that?

Bernstein goes on ad nauseam about how her messy childhood and early years set her up to be a phony. And a liar.

Apparently she did have a messy, if moneyed, childhood. She’s also led a very privileged and VERY moneyed adulthood. She’s also spent her adult life surrounded by enablers and enabling her husband.

Bottom line, Hillary’s enablers – Bernstein at the head of the list – may be willing to admit Hillary has “some problems” but they’ll brush them off. In fact, Hillary Clinton has serious character flaws. She’s fundamentally dishonest to her very core, and she’s obviously paranoid, we would say to the point of advanced mental illness.

All we have to do is look at the latest chapter in ClintonLies. Hillary, as Secretary of State, set up her own personal email server. She says it was so she didn’t have to carry two phones around. A couple of weeks after that story was floated we found out she carried two phones routinely.

The real story, which she will never admit, was that the private email server served one purpose, and one purpose only. It gave Hillary the ability to avoid complying with FOIA laws. And not just for her, but for her closest advisers as well. They all had email addresses on the Clinton server.

The reason for the private server is simple. Hillary is paranoid about the public – and especially the Republican version of the public – looking over her shoulder.

This woman is sick. And the Democrats want her to be President. That’s the only part of the story that actually makes sense.

Can it be worse then that?

< Hillary Clinton has been a notoriously vicious bitch to her Secret Service and State Trooper protectors.
SOURCE: http://bloodonherhands.com/quotes-by-hillary-clinton/

It is well known that Hillary Clinton has been a notoriously vicious  to her Secret Service and State Trooper protectors as well as White house staff, who was simply live in terror of becoming the target of  her wrath.

Like most sociopath she view other people as stupid, a mere tools in the game played by her and other "Masters of the Universe": http://bloodonherhands.com/quotes-by-hillary-clinton/

hillary clinton hillary quotes shocking hillary clinton quotes hillary hillary bitch

Hillary Clinton tells close former aide Dick Morris what she REALLY thinks of her supporters.SOURCE:...

Hillary Clinton tells close former aide Dick Morris what she REALLY thinks of her supporters.

SOURCE: http://www.amazon.com/Rewriting-History-Dick-Morris/dp/B000ECXDLC/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1445767167&sr=8-3&keywords=dick+morris
 

http://hillaryclintonquotes.tumblr.com/


Top updates

Softpanorama Switchboard
Softpanorama Search


NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Nov 21, 2016] Belgiums Dutroux Pedophile, Child Rape Affair A Road Map for Deep-State Criminality

Nov 20, 2016 | www.newnationalist.net
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, controlled press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up . If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant . This is also known as the "how dare you" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."

4. Knock down straw men . Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot" and, of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned.

6. Impugn motives . Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money.

7. Invoke authority . Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean . This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward , using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report it.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.

13. Change the subject . This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.

[Nov 16, 2016] Black Lives Matter actually means Black Lives Matter First

Notable quotes:
"... "Class first" amongst men of the left has always signaled "ME first." What else could it mean? ..."
"... So "Black Lives Matter" actually means "Black Lives Matter First". Got it. So damn tired of identity politics. ..."
"... Meanwhile, in the usual way of such things, #BlackLivesMatter hashtag activism became fashionable, as the usual suspects were elevated to celebrity status by elites. Nothing, of course, was changed in policy, and so in a year or so, matters began to bubble on the ground again. ..."
"... I'm not tired of identity politics. I'm just tired of some identity-groups accusing other identity-groups of "identity-politics". I speak in particular of the Identity Left. ..."
"... Identity politics, any identity, is going to automatically split voters into camps and force people to 'pick' a side. ..."
"... The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I and many other writers argued that the bourgeois feminism Clinton represents works against the interests of the vast majority of women. This has turned out to be even more true than we anticipated. That branding of feminism has delivered to us the most sexist and racist president in recent history: Donald Trump. ..."
"... Hillary spoke to the million-dollar feminists-of-privilege who identified with her multi-million dollar self and her efforts to break her own Tiffany Glass ceiling. And she worked to get many other women with nothing to gain to identify with Hillary's own breaking of Hillary's own Tiffany Glass ceiling. ..."
"... For me (at least) the essence of the "Left" is justice. When we speak of Class we are putting focus on issues of economic justice. Class is the material expression of economic (and therefore political) stratification. Class is the template for analysing the power dynamics at play in such stratification. ..."
"... in the absence of economic justice, it's very difficult to obtain ANY kind of justice - whether such justice be of race, gender, legal, religious or sexual orientation. ..."
"... I find it indicative that the 1% (now) simply don't care one way or another about race or gender etc, PROVIDED it benefits or, has no negative effects on their economic/political interests. ..."
"... "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." ..."
"... In ship sinking incidents, where a lot of people are dumped in the water, many adopt the strategy of trying to use others as flotation devices, pushing them under while the "rich class" tootle off in the lifeboats. Sounds like a winner, all right. ..."
"... The rich class has enlisted the white indentured servants as their Praetorian Guard. The same play as after Bacon's Rebellion. ..."
"... Is what is actually occurring another Kristallnacht, or the irreducible susurrus of meanness and idiocy that is part of every collection of humans? It would be nice not to get suckered into elevating the painful minima over the importance of getting ordinary people to agree on a real common enemy, and organizing to claim and protect. ..."
"... If even one single banker had gone to jail for the mess (fed by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) that blew up in 2008, we would be having a different conversation. We are in a huge legitimacy crisis, in part because justice was never served on those who made tens of millions via fraud. ..."
"... The Malignant Overlords - the King or Queen, the Financial Masters of the Universe,, the tribal witch doctor- live by grazing on the wealth of the natural world and the productivity of their underlings. There are only a few thousand of them but they control finance and the Money system, propaganda organizations (in the USA called the Media) land and agriculture, "educational" institutions and entire armies of Homeland Insecurity police. ..."
"... Under them there are the sycophants– generals and officers, war profiteers and corporate CEO's, the intelligentsia, journalists, fake economists, and entertainment and sports heroes who grow fat feasting on the morsels left over after the .0001% have fed. And far below the Overlords are the millions of professional Bureaucrats whose job security requires unquestioning servitude. ..."
"... Race, gender identity, religion, etc. are the false dichotomies by which the oligarchs divide us. Saudi princes, African American millionaires, gay millionaires etc. are generally treated the same by the oligarchs as wasp millionaires. The true dichotomy is class, that is the dichotomy which dare not speak its name. ..."
"... For Trump it was so easy. He just says something that could be thought of as racist and then his supporters watch as the media morphs his words, removes context, or just ignores any possible non-racist motivations for his words. ..."
"... Just read the actual Mexican- rapists quote. Completely different then reported by the media. Fifteen years ago my native born Mexican friend said almost exactlly the same thing. ..."
"... whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades – since the days of Nixon in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn. ..."
"... Yes, class identity can be a bond that unites. However, in the US the sense of class identity remains underdeveloped. In fact, it is only with the Sanders campaign that large swaths of the American public have had practical and sustained exposure to the concept of class as a political force. For most of the electorate, the language of class is still rather alien, particularly since the "equality of opportunity" narrative even now is not completely overthrown. ..."
"... It seems inevitable that populist sentiment, which both Sanders and Trump have used to electoral advantage, will spill over into a variety of economic nationalism. ..."
"... Obama was a perfect identity candidate, i.e., not only capable of getting the dem nomination, but the presidency and than not jailing banksters NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID, OR WILL DO… ..."
"... One truism about immigration, to pick a topical item, is that uncontrolled immigration leads to overwhelming an area whether city, state or country. Regardless of how one feels about the other aspects of immigration, there are some real, unacknowledged limits to the viability of the various systems that must accommodate arrivals, particularly in the short term. Too much of a perceived ..."
"... There is an entrenched royal court, not unlike Versailles in some respects, where the sinecures, access to the White House tennis court (remember Jimmy Carter and his forest for the trees issues) or to paid "lunches in Georgetown" or similar trappings. Inflow of populist or other foreign ideas behind the veil of media and class secrecy represents a threat to overwhelm, downgrade (Sayeth Yogi Berra: It is so popular that nobody goes there anymore) or remove those perks, and to cause some financial, psychic or other pain to the hangers-on. ..."
"... Pretty soon, word filters out through WikiLeaks, or just on the front page of a newspaper in the case of the real and present corruption (What do you mean nobody went to jail for the frauds?). In those instances, the tendency of a populace to remain aloof with their bread and circuses and reality shows and such gets strained. ..."
"... Some people began noticing and the cognitive dissonance became to great to ignore no matter how many times the messages were delivered from on high. That led to many apparent outbursts of rational behavior ..."
Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
pretzelattack November 15, 2016 at 6:03 pm

if poor whites were being shot by cops at the rate urban blacks are, they would be screaming too. blm is not a corporate front to divide us, any more than acorn was a scam to help election fraud.

Kukulkan November 15, 2016 at 9:37 pm

They are. Why #BlackLivesMatter should be #PoorLivesMatter.

Also available as a video .

Jay Mani November 15, 2016 at 9:41 am

It's lazy analysis to suggest Race was a contributing factor. On the fringes, Trump supporters may have racial overtones, but this election was all about class. I applaud sites like NC in continually educating me. What you do is a valuable service.

JTFaraday November 15, 2016 at 1:02 pm

"We won't need a majority of the dying "white working class" in our present and future feminine, multiracial American working class. Just a minority."

Indeed, this site has featured links to articles elaborating the demographic composition of today's "working class". And yet we still have people insisting that appeals to the working class, and policies directed thereof, must "transcend" race and gender.

JTFaraday November 15, 2016 at 1:11 pm

And, of course this "class first" orientation became a bone of contention between some loud mouthed "men of the left" during the D-Party primary and "everyone else" and that's why the "Bernie Bro" label stuck. It didn't help the Sanders campaign either.

"Class first" amongst men of the left has always signaled "ME first." What else could it mean?

Fieryhunt November 15, 2016 at 6:22 pm

So "Black Lives Matter" actually means "Black Lives Matter First". Got it. So damn tired of identity politics.

Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 11:16 pm

This is, actually, complicated. It's a reasonable position that black lives don't matter because they keep getting whacked by cops and the cops are never held accountable. Nobody else did anything, so people on the ground stood up, asserted themselves, and as part of that created #BlackLivesMatter as an online gathering point; all entirely reasonable. #AllLivesMatter was created, mostly as deflection/distraction, by people who either didn't like the movement, or supported cops, and of course if all lives did matter to this crowd, they would have done something about all the police killings in the first place.

Meanwhile, in the usual way of such things, #BlackLivesMatter hashtag activism became fashionable, as the usual suspects were elevated to celebrity status by elites. Nothing, of course, was changed in policy, and so in a year or so, matters began to bubble on the ground again.

Activist time (we might say) is often slower than electoral time. But sometimes it's faster; see today's Water Cooler on the #AllOfUs people who occupied Schumer's office (and high time, too). To me, that's a very hopefully sign. Hopefully, not a bundle of groups still siloed by identity (and if that's to happen, I bet that will happen by working together. Nothing abstract).

different clue November 16, 2016 at 3:18 am

I'm not tired of identity politics. I'm just tired of some identity-groups accusing other identity-groups of "identity-politics". I speak in particular of the Identity Left.

pretzelattack November 15, 2016 at 10:04 pm

what "men of the left"? the "bernie bro" label only stuck for Clinton supporters who had already had the kool aid. Much like the "putin stooge" label.

Knot Galt November 15, 2016 at 1:52 pm

"We won't need a majority of the dying "white working class" in our present and future feminine, multiracial American working class. Just a minority."

That statement is as myopic a vision as the current political class is today. The statement offends another minority, or even a possible majority. Identity politics, any identity, is going to automatically split voters into camps and force people to 'pick' a side.

Focus! The larger battle is is about Class.

Knot Galt November 15, 2016 at 2:06 pm

To clarify, from Links:

In False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I and many other writers argued that the bourgeois feminism Clinton represents works against the interests of the vast majority of women. This has turned out to be even more true than we anticipated. That branding of feminism has delivered to us the most sexist and racist president in recent history: Donald Trump.

different clue November 16, 2016 at 3:21 am

I wonder if there is an even simpler more colorful way to say that. Hillary spoke to the million-dollar feminists-of-privilege who identified with her multi-million dollar self and her efforts to break her own Tiffany Glass ceiling. And she worked to get many other women with nothing to gain to identify with Hillary's own breaking of Hillary's own Tiffany Glass ceiling.

If the phrase "Tiffany Glass ceiling" seems good enough to re-use, feel free to re-use it one and all.

animalogic November 15, 2016 at 8:58 pm

For me (at least) the essence of the "Left" is justice. When we speak of Class we are putting focus on issues of economic justice. Class is the material expression of economic (and therefore political) stratification. Class is the template for analysing the power dynamics at play in such stratification.

Class is the primary political issue because it not only affects everyone, but in the absence of economic justice, it's very difficult to obtain ANY kind of justice - whether such justice be of race, gender, legal, religious or sexual orientation.

I find it indicative that the 1% (now) simply don't care one way or another about race or gender etc, PROVIDED it benefits or, has no negative effects on their economic/political interests.

JTMcPhee November 15, 2016 at 12:01 pm

"Just how large a spike in hate crime there has been remains uncertain, however. Several reports have been proven false, and Potok cautioned that most incidents reported to the Southern Poverty Law Center did not amount to hate crime.

Levin of California State University added that there was no "independent evidence to sustain the contention that there were more [hate crimes] in the days after the Trump election than after 9/11."" http://www.voanews.com/a/hate-crimes-surge-after-donald-trump-victory/3596298.html

All us ordinary people are insecure. Planet is becoming less habitable, war everywhere, ISDS whether we want it or not, group sentiments driving mass behaviors with extra weapons from our masters, soil depletion, water becoming a Nestle subsidiary, all that. But let us focus on maintaining our favored position as more insecure than others, with a "Yes, but" response to what seems to me the fundamental strategic scene:

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

Those mostly white guys, but a lot of women too, the "rich classs," are ORGANIZED, they have a pretty simple organizing principle ("Everything belong us") that leads to straightforward strategies and tactics to control all the levers and fulcrums of power. The senators in Oregon are "on the right side" of a couple of social issues, but they both are all in for "trade deals" and other big pieces of the "rich class's" ground game. In ship sinking incidents, where a lot of people are dumped in the water, many adopt the strategy of trying to use others as flotation devices, pushing them under while the "rich class" tootle off in the lifeboats. Sounds like a winner, all right.

TarheelDem November 15, 2016 at 12:43 pm

The comparison with 9/11 is instructive. That is not minimizing hate crimes. Within days after 9/11, my Sikh neighbor was assaulted and called a "terrorist". He finally decided to stop wearing a turban, cut his hair, and dress "American". My neighborhood was not ethnically tense, but it is ethnically diverse, and my neighbor had never seen his assailant before.

Yes, the rich classes are organized…organized to fleece us with unending wars. But don't minimize other people's experience of what constitutes a hate crime.

In 1875, the first step toward the assassination of a black, "scalawag", or "carpetbagger" public official in the South was a friendly visit from prominent people asking him to resign, the second was night riders with torches, the third was night riders who killed the public official. Jury nullification (surprise, surprise) made sure that no one was punished at the time. In 1876, the restoration of "home rule' in Southern states elected in a bargain Rutherford B. Hayes, who ended Reconstruction and the South entered a period that cleansed "Negroes, carpetbaggers, and scalawags" from their state governments and put the Confederate generals and former plantation owners back in charge. That was then called The Restoration. Coincidence that that is the name of David Horowitz's conference where Donna Brazile was hobnobbing with James O'Keefe?

The rich class has enlisted the white indentured servants as their Praetorian Guard. The same play as after Bacon's Rebellion.

JTMcPhee November 15, 2016 at 5:02 pm

Not minimizing - my very peaches-and-cream Scots-English daughter is married to a gentleman from Ghana whose skin tones are about as dark as possible.
the have three beautiful children, and are fortunate to live in an area that is a hotbed of "tolerance." I have many anecdotes too.

Do anecdotes = reality in all its complexity? Do anecdotes = policy? Is what is actually occurring another Kristallnacht, or the irreducible susurrus of meanness and idiocy that is part of every collection of humans? It would be nice not to get suckered into elevating the painful minima over the importance of getting ordinary people to agree on a real common enemy, and organizing to claim and protect.

readerOfTeaLeaves November 15, 2016 at 12:13 pm

If even one single banker had gone to jail for the mess (fed by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) that blew up in 2008, we would be having a different conversation. We are in a huge legitimacy crisis, in part because justice was never served on those who made tens of millions via fraud.

When there's no justice, its as if the society's immune system is not functioning.

Expect more strange things to appear, almost all of them aimed at sucking the remaining resources out of the system with the knowledge that they'll never face consequences for looting. The fact that they're killing the host does not bother them.

animalogic November 15, 2016 at 9:09 pm

Corruption is both cause & effect of gross wealth inequities. Of course to the 1% it's not corruption so much as merely what is owed as of a right to the privileged. (Thus, the most fundamental basis of liberal democracy turns malignant: that ALL, even rulers & law makers are EQUALLY bound by the Law).

Crazy Horse November 15, 2016 at 12:14 pm

Here is the way it works:

The Malignant Overlords - the King or Queen, the Financial Masters of the Universe,, the tribal witch doctor- live by grazing on the wealth of the natural world and the productivity of their underlings. There are only a few thousand of them but they control finance and the Money system, propaganda organizations (in the USA called the Media) land and agriculture, "educational" institutions and entire armies of Homeland Insecurity police.

Under them there are the sycophants– generals and officers, war profiteers and corporate CEO's, the intelligentsia, journalists, fake economists, and entertainment and sports heroes who grow fat feasting on the morsels left over after the .0001% have fed. And far below the Overlords are the millions of professional Bureaucrats whose job security requires unquestioning servitude.

Once upon a time there was what was known as the Middle Class who taught school or built things in factories, made mortgage payments on a home, and bought a new Ford every other year. But they now are renters, moving from one insecure job in one state to an insecure one across the country. How else are they to maintain their sense of self-worth except by identifying a tribe that is under them? If the members of the inferior tribe look just like you they might actually be more successful and not a proper object of scorn. But if they have a black or brown skin and speak differently they are the perfect target to make you feel that your life is not a total failure.

It's either that or go home and kick the dog or beat the wife. Or join the Army where you can go kill a few foreigners and will always know your place in the hierarchy.

Class "trumps" race, but racial prejudice has its roots far back in human social history as a tribal species where the "other" was always a threat to the tribe's existence.

Elizabeth Burton November 15, 2016 at 12:46 pm

Anyone who thinks it is only class and not also race is wearing some very strange blinders

No one with any sense is saying that, Katharine, and constantly bringing it up as some kind of necessary argument (which, you may recall, was done as a way of trying to persuade people of color Sanders wasn't working for them in the face of his entire history) perpetuates the falsehood dichotomy that it has to be one or the other.

I can understand the desire to reduce the problems to a single issue that can then be subjected to our total focus, but that's what's been done for the last fifty years; it doesn't work. Life is too complex and messy to be fixed using magic pills, and Trump's success because those who've given up hope of a cure are still enormously vulnerable to snake oil.

mark ó dochartaigh November 15, 2016 at 11:04 pm

Race, gender identity, religion, etc. are the false dichotomies by which the oligarchs divide us. Saudi princes, African American millionaires, gay millionaires etc. are generally treated the same by the oligarchs as wasp millionaires. The true dichotomy is class, that is the dichotomy which dare not speak its name.

kramer November 15, 2016 at 1:34 pm

yes, racism still exist, but the Democrats want to make it the primary issue of every election because it is costs them nothing. I've never liked the idea of race based reparations because they seem like another form of racism.

However, if the neolibs really believe racial disparity and gender issues are the primary problems, why don't they ever support reparations or a large tax on rich white people to pay the victims of racism and sexism and all the other isms?

Perhaps its because that would actually cost them something. I think what bothers most of the Trumpets out here in rural America is not race but the elevation of race to the top of the political todo list.

For Trump it was so easy. He just says something that could be thought of as racist and then his supporters watch as the media morphs his words, removes context, or just ignores any possible non-racist motivations for his words.

Just read the actual Mexican- rapists quote. Completely different then reported by the media. Fifteen years ago my native born Mexican friend said almost exactlly the same thing. Its a trap the media walks right into. I think most poor people of whiteness do see racism as a sin, just not the only or most awful sin. As for Trump being a racist, I think he would have to be human first.

sinbad66 November 15, 2016 at 9:43 am

whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades – since the days of Nixon in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn.

Spot-on statement. Was watching Fareed Zakaria (yeah, I know, but he makes legit points from time to time) and was pleasantly surprised that he called Bret Stephens, who was strongly opposed to Trump, out on this. To see Stephens squirm like a worm on a hook was priceless.

JW November 15, 2016 at 9:46 am

"…what divides people rather than what unites people…"

Yes, class identity can be a bond that unites. However, in the US the sense of class identity remains underdeveloped. In fact, it is only with the Sanders campaign that large swaths of the American public have had practical and sustained exposure to the concept of class as a political force. For most of the electorate, the language of class is still rather alien, particularly since the "equality of opportunity" narrative even now is not completely overthrown.

Sanders and others on an ascendant left in the Democratic Party - and outside the Party - will continue to do the important work of building a sense of class consciousness. But more is needed, if the left wants to transform education into political power. Of course, organizing and electing candidates at the local and state level is enormously important both to leverage control of local institutions and - even more important - train and create leaders who can effectively use the tools of political power. But besides this practical requirement, the left also needs to address - or co-opt, if you will - the language of economic populism, which sounds a lot like economic nationalism.

It seems inevitable that populist sentiment, which both Sanders and Trump have used to electoral advantage, will spill over into a variety of economic nationalism. Nationalist sentiment is the single most powerful unifying principle available, certainly more so than the concept of class, at least in America. I don't see that changing anytime soon, and I do see the Alt-Right using nationalism as a lever to try to coax the white working class into their brand of identity politics. But America's assimilationist, "melting pot" narrative continues to be attractive to most people, even if it is under assault in some quarters. So I think moving from nationalism to white identity politics will not so easy for the Alt-Right. On the other hand, picking up the thread of economic nationalism can provide the left with a powerful tool for bringing together women, minorities and all who are struggling in this economy. This becomes particularly important if it is the case that technology already makes the ideal of full (or nearly full) employment nothing more than a chimera, thus forcing the question of a guaranteed annual income. Establishing that kind of permanent safety net will only be possible in a polity where there are firm bonds between citizens and a marked sense of responsibility for the welfare of all.

fresno dan November 15, 2016 at 10:05 am

And if the Democratic Party is honest, it will have to concede that even the popular incumbent President has played a huge role in contributing to the overall sense of despair that drove people to seek a radical outlet such as Trump. The Obama Administration rapidly broke with its Hope and "Change you can believe in" the minute he appointed some of the architects of the 2008 crisis as his main economic advisors, who in turn and gave us a Wall Street friendly bank bailout that effectively restored the status quo ante (and refused to jail one single banker, even though many were engaged in explicitly criminal activity).

====================================================================
For those who think its just Hillary, its not. There is no way there will ever be any acknowledgement of Obama;s real failures – he will no more be viewed honestly by dems than he could be viewed honestly by repubs. Obama was a perfect identity candidate, i.e., not only capable of getting the dem nomination, but the presidency and than not jailing banksters NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID, OR WILL DO…
I imagine Trump will be one term, and I imagine we return in short order to our nominally different parties squabbling but in lock step with regard to their wall street masters…

Altandmain November 15, 2016 at 10:09 am

That's the problem though – the Democrats are not honest and have not been for a very long time.

Enquiring Mind November 15, 2016 at 12:30 pm

Democrats seem to be the more visible or clumsy in their attempts to govern themselves and the populace, let alone understand their world. By way of illustration, consider the following.

One truism about immigration, to pick a topical item, is that uncontrolled immigration leads to overwhelming an area whether city, state or country. Regardless of how one feels about the other aspects of immigration, there are some real, unacknowledged limits to the viability of the various systems that must accommodate arrivals, particularly in the short term. Too much of a perceived good thing may be hazardous to one's health. Too much free stuff exhausts the producers, infrastructure and support networks.

To extend and torture that concept further, just because, consider the immigration of populist ideas to Washington. There is an entrenched royal court, not unlike Versailles in some respects, where the sinecures, access to the White House tennis court (remember Jimmy Carter and his forest for the trees issues) or to paid "lunches in Georgetown" or similar trappings. Inflow of populist or other foreign ideas behind the veil of media and class secrecy represents a threat to overwhelm, downgrade (Sayeth Yogi Berra: It is so popular that nobody goes there anymore) or remove those perks, and to cause some financial, psychic or other pain to the hangers-on.

Pretty soon, word filters out through WikiLeaks, or just on the front page of a newspaper in the case of the real and present corruption (What do you mean nobody went to jail for the frauds?). In those instances, the tendency of a populace to remain aloof with their bread and circuses and reality shows and such gets strained.

Some people began noticing and the cognitive dissonance became to great to ignore no matter how many times the messages were delivered from on high. That led to many apparent outbursts of rational behavior (What, you sold my family and me out and reduced our prospects, so why should we vote for a party that takes us for granted, at best), which would be counter-intuitive by some in our media.

[Nov 08, 2016] What sort of president then will Hillary Clinton be?

www.moonofalabama.org

mauisurfer | Nov 8, 2016 12:02:23 AM | 60

Michael Hudson says

> Ashcroft: What sort of president then will Hillary Clinton be?

> Hudson: A dictator. She… a vindictive dictator, punishing her enemies, appointing neocons in the secretary of state, in the defense department, appointing Wall Street people in the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, and the class war will really break out very explicitly. And she'll-as Warren Buffet said, there is a class war and we're winning it.

> Ashcroft: As in the one percent are winning it.

> Hudson: The one percent are winning it. And she will try to use the rhetoric to tell people: "Nothing to see here folks. Keep on moving," while the economy goes down and down and she cashes in as she's been doing all along, richer and richer, and if she's president, there will not be an investigator of the criminal conflict of interest of the Bill Clinton Foundation, of pay-to-play. You'll have a presidency in which corporations who pay the Clintons will be able to set policy. Whoever has the money to buy the politicians will buy control of policy because elections have been privatized and made part of the market economy in the United States. That's what the Citizens United Supreme Court case was all about.

[Nov 06, 2016] Bernie Sanders Supporter Bashes Hillary Clinton from Her Own Stage 'Trapped in World of Elite,' 'Lost Grip of Average Person'

Notable quotes:
"... He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors, the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary." ..."
"... "She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another lesser of two evils, there's no point." ..."
www.breitbart.com

Just a few days before the general election, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton and her running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) still can't unite her party. Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her Democratic primary rival, are disrupting her campaign's efforts to take on GOP nominee Donald J. Trump, and in Iowa on Saturday one prominent Sanders backer was actually escorted out of a Clinton campaign event for urging those present not to vote for Clinton-for which he was cheered by the crowd.

Kaleb Vanfosson, the president of Iowa State University's Students for Bernie chapter, bashed Hillary Clinton and told rally-goers at her own campaign event not to vote for her. He was cheered.

He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors, the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary."

The crowd at the Clinton-Kaine event erupted in applause.

"She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another lesser of two evils, there's no point."

At that point, a Clinton staffer rushed on stage and grabbed the young man by the arm to escort him off the stage and out of the event.

[Nov 03, 2016] Obama channels inner Pinocchio: "I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity."

He completely forgot what he said about her in 2008. At that time he was much closer to truth.
www.nakedcapitalism.com

Fiver

Further to throwing Comey under the bus yesterday, Obama had this to say:

"I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity."

No amount of Bleach-bit can remove that yellow streak running down his back and straight through the entirety of his 'legacy'. Not once did he come down on the side opposite entrenched power – in fact, we can now add major 'obstruction of justice' to his prior litany of failures to prosecute white collar criminals as the basis for its own section, splitting criminal activity into two parts, one domestic, the other for a raft of war crimes.

[Nov 03, 2016] If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff.

Notable quotes:
"... If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff. ..."
"... In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this". ..."
"... Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". ..."
www.moonofalabama.org

harrylaw | Nov 3, 2016 5:09:39 PM | 22

If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff.

In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this".

Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NfFAaPZqs8

[Nov 03, 2016] Family Disputes and a Nasty Can of Beans Hillary Clinton as Litigator

Notable quotes:
"... he was then the state attorney general ..."
www.nytimes.com

The New York Times

Mrs. Clinton's legal work included unsavory criminal cases. When a 41-year-old factory worker was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, and requested a female lawyer, a Fayetteville judge appointed Mrs. Clinton, over her objections. The crime lab mistakenly discarded crucial evidence, and she reached a plea bargain, reducing the charge to unlawful fondling; her client served less than a year in jail.

The victim in that case, Kathy Shelton, who supports Donald J. Trump, has accused Mrs. Clinton of attacking her character and putting her through "something you would never put a 12-year-old through."

Mrs. Clinton's first jury trial was distasteful in an entirely different way.

She had married Mr. Clinton, moved with him to Little Rock - he was then the state attorney general - and joined Rose, the state's most prestigious law firm and the oldest one west of the Mississippi, as it calls itself. Her clients were mainly businesses

[Nov 02, 2016] Hillary loses her cool after heckler calls Bill a rapist

Notable quotes:
"... About three minutes into her 20-minute stump speech, a heckler shouted, "Bill Clinton is a rapist!" as he waved a neon green sign declaring the same statement. ..."
nypost.com

Hillary Clinton raged Tuesday night against a protester at her rally who denounced her husband as a sexual predator.

About three minutes into her 20-minute stump speech, a heckler shouted, "Bill Clinton is a rapist!" as he waved a neon green sign declaring the same statement.

Clinton pointed a finger at the protester.

"I am sick and tired of the negative, dark, divisive, dangerous vision and behavior of people who support Donald Trump," Clinton shouted at her Fort Lauderdale, Fla., rally.

It's not uncommon for "rapist" protesters to show up at Clinton rallies, but the Democratic nominee offered a rare reaction.

[Nov 02, 2016] Ex-Secret Service officer behind Clinton tell-all planning defamation suit

Notable quotes:
"... It also demands Brock "immediately and publicly retract any statement or inference by yourself and/or Media Matters to the effect that Officer Byrne was not fully truthful in recounting within 'Crisis of Character' details from any previous testimony." ..."
"... His lawyer states that "some of our best witnesses to such immediacy are George Stephanopoulos, John Podesta, Leon Panetta, Bruce Lindsey, Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Clinton himself - who appear to have already confirmed … under oath … the regular proximity of Officer Byrne to the President for many years." ..."
"... Byrne claims the liberal advocacy group tried to hurt his credibility to defend the Clintons. ..."
Oct 26, 2016 | nypost.com

A former Secret Service officer who published an explosive tell-all from his days guarding the Bill and Hillary Clinton White House is planning to file a defamation lawsuit against his detractors, The Post has learned.

A lawyer for Gary Byrne, whose book " Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate ," has sent notices to Media Matters for America and David Brock informing them that he intends to file suit.

"Officer Byrne will bring legal action against you, in your personal capacity, and against Media Matters," a lawyer for the former Secret Service officer wrote to Brock, a loyal Clinton ally and the founder of the liberal advocacy group Media Matters.

The letter requests Brock and Media Matters to "hold" all records and communications associated with their communications regarding Byrne - including "Any communication(s) between David Brock and The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton" regarding the former Secret Service officer, suggesting there might be collusion between the campaign and her defenders.

It also demands Brock "immediately and publicly retract any statement or inference by yourself and/or Media Matters to the effect that Officer Byrne was not fully truthful in recounting within 'Crisis of Character' details from any previous testimony."

Additionally, Byrne's attorney demanded a retraction for "the utterly false statement(s) that Officer Byrne was not in close proximity to President William Jefferson Clinton."

His lawyer states that "some of our best witnesses to such immediacy are George Stephanopoulos, John Podesta, Leon Panetta, Bruce Lindsey, Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Clinton himself - who appear to have already confirmed … under oath … the regular proximity of Officer Byrne to the President for many years."

Byrne claims the liberal advocacy group tried to hurt his credibility to defend the Clintons.

[Oct 30, 2016] Former FBI Official Calls Bill, Hillary Clinton a Crime Family

Notable quotes:
"... "The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that." ..."
"... Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau. ..."
"... "The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said. ..."
Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
A former FBI official said Sunday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a "crime family" and added that top officials impeded the investigation into Clinton's email server while she was secretary of state.

Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom praised Donald Trump before he offered a take down of the Clintons in a radio interview with John Catsimatidis, The Hill reported.

"The Clintons, that's a crime family, basically," Kallstrom said. "It's like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool."

Kallstrom, best known for spearheading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late '90s, called Clinton a "pathological liar" and blamed Attorney General Loretta Lynch for botching the Clinton email server investigation.

"The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that."

"God forbid we put someone like that in the White House," he added of Clinton.

Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau.

"The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said.

[Oct 29, 2016] Bill and Hillary Clinton failed to get required permits for a rushed renovation of the house and grounds they recently bought next to their original Westchester home, it was reported Friday

Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Something about Hillary and Bill management skiils...

Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 5:12 pm

Penny ante but completely typical:

Bill and Hillary Clinton failed to get required permits for a rushed renovation of the house and grounds they recently bought next to their original Westchester home, it was reported Friday.

Records show that the Clintons' contractors filled in an in-ground pool, covering it with gravel, and extensively remodeled the interior of the property - all without applying for permits and paying the required fees to the town of New Castle.

Building Inspector William Maskiell inspected the Chappaqua property after getting the tip about the pool work and then discovered the other renovations that were underway.

Attached to the building inspector's letter was a document titled Clinton Violation Inspection Report in which Maskiell said the contractor told him the Clintons "were quite adamant about [the Thanksgiving deadline] and what had started as a paint job turned into this," meaning the major renovation.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/28/clintons-failed-to-get-permits-for-rushed-home-renovation/

When Hillary becomes "adamant," nobody dares to confront her, even if her demands are illegal.

Building permits are for little people. Hillary can grant herself a retroactive permit with an executive order.

Tom October 28, 2016 at 6:34 pm

Crazy - there are more problems than just the lack of building permits:

The Clintons also have outstanding zoning and Building Department problems at their residence next door at 15 Old House Lane,

They obtained variances in 2000 for a guard house on the property, for a higher fence and for "lot coverage," or the amount of space buildings take up on the property.

The variances must be renewed every five years - but the Clintons never showed up before the Zoning Board of Appeals.

"Consequently, they are null and void. They should have come back in 2005, 2010 and 2015. So the variances have expired and they have to start from scratch" and reapply, said the inspector.

The original home and a combination library and gym in an outbuilding still have outstanding building permit issues as well, including a sprinkler "sign off" by the town engineer and an electrical inspection in the library/gym

I'm not seeing much basic competency here in executing home ownership responsibilities. Next I'll hear Bill steals the neigbor's Sunday newspaper off their porch.

Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 7:26 pm

More likely he steals the neighbor's teenage daughter for a midnight ride.

[Oct 29, 2016] The Nuclear Option - Wikileaks Reveals Even Hillarys Own Staff Knows Truth Shes Psychotic

Notable quotes:
"... Remember back when President Bill Clinton got into all that trouble molesting the young intern in his Oral Office? Remember the first thing the lying, conniving, dissembling commander-in-cheek did? ..."
"... In the latest batch of leaked emails, one top Democratic operative is still grappling with "WJC Issues." "How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?" Ron Klain asks in a list of questions worth posing to Mrs. Clinton. "You said every woman should be believed. Why not the women who accused him?" And, perhaps the best: "Will you apologize to the women who were wrongly smeared by your husband and his allies?" ..."
"... Never apologize. Never admit. And always keep lying. ..."
"... That is the very heart of the ethos of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Lie about everything. Lie all the time. ..."
"... Lie about emails. Lie about servers. Lie about national security. Lie about who knew what when. Lie about spilling classified secrets. Lie about dead soldiers. ..."
Oct 29, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
...l each batch of stolen emails is worse than the last.

Hillary Clinton is a liar. She has terrible instincts. She doesn't believe in anything. Her head is broken. She doesn't know why she should be president. She is pathological. And she is psychotic.

Just ask everybody who works for her. Just ask campaign chairman John Podesta. Just ask the people working the hardest to get her elected president.

I mean, in her most rabid streak of attacks on Donald Trump's alleged unfitness for office, Mrs. Clinton doesn't call him "psychotic."

Psychotic! That is what her campaign chairman called her.

Remember back when President Bill Clinton got into all that trouble molesting the young intern in his Oral Office? Remember the first thing the lying, conniving, dissembling commander-in-cheek did?

Take a poll. And he found out that he could skate by on even this - even this! But first - the poll told him - he had to stall for time. He had to lie about it for as long as he possibly could before coming clean.

And that was exactly what he did. And he survived.

And good thing he survived so he could go on to haunt America another 15 years later.

In the latest batch of leaked emails, one top Democratic operative is still grappling with "WJC Issues." "How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?" Ron Klain asks in a list of questions worth posing to Mrs. Clinton. "You said every woman should be believed. Why not the women who accused him?" And, perhaps the best: "Will you apologize to the women who were wrongly smeared by your husband and his allies?"

Answer: Not likely.

Never apologize. Never admit. And always keep lying.

That is the very heart of the ethos of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Lie about everything. Lie all the time.

Lie about emails. Lie about servers. Lie about national security. Lie about who knew what when. Lie about spilling classified secrets. Lie about dead soldiers.

Exhaust the people with lies. And then, very flippantly, after months or years of lying, say whatever you have to say to make the press go away.

"I am sorry you were confused."

"I have already said I wish I had done it differently."

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

It is all so shameless and dirty and befuddling that it would make Niccolo Machiavelli blush.

Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com; follow him on Twitter via @charleshurt .

[Oct 29, 2016] Top donors to Hillary campaign

Oct 29, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
Killary PAC | Oct 28, 2016 1:31:52 PM | 20

The Top 10

Rank Name Donations
1 Tom Steyer $38 million
2 Donald Sussman $23.4 million
3 Miriam &
Sheldon Adelson $21.5 million
4 Robert Mercer $20.2 million
5 Michael
Bloomberg $20.1 million
6 Fred Eychaner $20 million
7 Paul Singer $17.3 million
8 George Soros $16.5 million
9 Maurice "Hank"
Greenberg $15.1 million
10 Elizabeth &
Richard Uihlein $14 million

[Oct 28, 2016] Team Clinton Headspace Emails Published by WikiLeaks Are About Her Mood

Notable quotes:
"... Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems.... ..."
"... She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President ..."
"... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women. ..."
"... The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors! ..."
"... Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA. ..."
"... So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA. Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
"... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
"... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
Oct 28, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems....

She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President because she also is a Criminal and belongs in Federal Prison.

RobL_v2 2 hours ago Her mood??

This is coded speech microaggression. They are discriminating against her because she is a woman, implying she is 'moody' you know 'hysterical'... hysterectomy... its sexist, its misogynist its harassment, its abuse, its hate speech.

Come on Liberal media, where are you ... call it out... this is your bread and butter... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women.

They did it to Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachman... You know they'd do it if Trump said Hillary was 'moody'.

The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors!

Lion 3 WhiteSplainItToYou 42 minutes ago

Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA.

DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ an hour ago

Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):

So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA. Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.

Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.

So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.

Suelark DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ 42 minutes ago

Please repost this here and elsewhere. If true it would make sense of much of what has happened.

Regular Guy an hour ago
Tim Kaine: "I don't think we can dignify documents dumped by WikiLeaks and just assume that they're all accurate and true,"

They were confirmed true when John Podesta's Twitter password was distributed in one of the WikiLeaks email releases and his Twitter account was hijacked the same day by a troll saying, "Trump 2016! Hi pol". Checkmate b!tch. see more DNC Russian Hacker Pepe Regular Guy 12 minutes ago The way they parse words, the Kaine statement still doesn't state the documents are not accurate. He makes an editorial statement to mislead the listener into thinking there is some reason to question the facts.

DeplorableCarlo an hour ago
Sounds pretty much like poor temperament to me when you have mood problems. Can we please put national security on hold for now, we have to check her mood ring. It is imperative for the best outcome that we check her head space. WOW! That's a real dumb explanation. Maybe if we use the word mood instead of temperament that will be better than telling people she has health problems in her head.

[Oct 24, 2016] Qatar, like most Muslim countries, treats women as second-class citizens, but champion-of-women Hillary never lets a little thing like that stop her from doing business

nypost.com

Qatar, like most Muslim countries, treats women as second-class citizens, but champion-of-women Hillary never lets a little thing like that stop her from doing business. (See: "On favors.") And a far greater threat than murderous Muslims adhering to a fanatical 7th-century religious ideology lurks right here at home - those pesky Roman Catholics and their silly 2,000-year-old faith. (See: "On Catholics.")

[Oct 23, 2016] Clintonism is wedge politics directed against any class or populist upheaval that might threaten neoliberalism

That's explains vicious campaign by neoliberal MSM against Trump and swiping under the carpet all criminal deeds of Clinton family. They feel the threat...
Notable quotes:
"... It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism. ..."
"... That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness. That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. ..."
Oct 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

An excellent article

It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism.

That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness. That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. The North's abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War had more to do a desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from the competition of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.[…]

There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to screw Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism.

In other words it's all part of a grand plan when the Clintonoids aren't busy debating the finer points of her marketing and "mark"–a term normally applied to the graphic logo on a commercial product.

http://www.unz.com/plee/trump-we-wish-the-problem-was-fascism/

[Oct 15, 2016] Hillarys Public Vs. Private Positions - Deceit

Strausian neocon deception promoted by Hillary...
Oct 15, 2016 | www.ronpaulforums.com
In a recently-leaked speech from 2013, Hillary Clinton said that it is important to take both public and private positions on each issue. Is this the language of the typical politician, or something even more deceptive? How does that explain her positions on Syria and Saudi Arabia?

watch-v=-U9IrnpmeAA

[Oct 14, 2016] This Many Deaths Are Way More Than Happenstance

Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

DuneCreature Oct 14, 2016 9:15 AM

We could always have a few murders and suspecious deaths looked into again. .... A few to chose from:

- Kevin Ives and Don Henry , both 17, crushed by a train, August 23, 1987. Their deaths were ruled accidental, with the medical examiner saying they had fallen asleep on a railroad line after smoking marijuana, but a grand jury found they had been murdered before being placed on the tracks. They had allegedly stumbled on a plot to smuggle drugs and guns from an airport in Mena, Arkansas, that Bill Clinton was said to be involved in as state governor.

- Victor Raiser , 53, small plane crash, July 30, 1992. The second finance co-chair of Bill Clinton's presidential campaign was killed along with his son during a fishing vacation in Alaska. Campaign press secretary Dee Dee Myers called Raiser a major player in the organization.

- Paul Tully , 48, heart attack, September 25, 1992. A chain-smoking, heavy drinking political consultant who weighed more than 320lb. Tully died seven weeks before Clinton's first presidential election win. He had been political director of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during Clinton's rise. Tully was on the left of the Democratic Party and usually worked for those who shared his views, however he agreed to work for Clinton because he thought he was the only Democrat who could beat President George Bush.

- Paula Gober , 36, single car accident, December 7, 1992. She was Clinton's interpreter for the deaf for several years and traveled with him while he was governor of Arkansas. Her vehicle overturned on a bend, throwing her 30 feet. There were no witnesses.

- Vince Foster , 48, suicide, July 20, 1993. A long-time friend of the Clintons in Arkansas, new president Bill Clinton appointed him Deputy White House Counsel. Foster soon realized he hated the job and fell into a deep depression. He was found shot to death in Fort Marcy Park in Washington.

- Stanley Heard , 47, small plane crash, September 3, 1993. An Arkansas chiropractor who, according to the book, A Profession of One's Own, treated the Clinton family, Heard was asked by Bill Clinton to represent the practice as plans for 'Hillarycare' were being finalized. His attorney Steve Dickson, was flying him home from a healthcare meeting in Washington, DC. On the way to the capital from his home in Kansas, Dickson's small plane developed problems so he landed in St Louis and rented another plane. That rented plane was the one that crashed in rural Virginia, killing both men.

- Jerry Parks , 47, shot to death, September 23, 1993. The head of security for Bill Clinton's headquarters in Arkansas was driving home in West Little Rock when two men pulled alongside his car and sprayed it with semi-automatic gunfire. As Parks's car stopped a man stepped out of the Chevy and shot him twice with a 9mm pistol and sped off. Despite several witnesses, no-one was ever arrested. The killing came two months after Parks had watched news of Foster's death and allegedly told his son Gary 'I'm a dead man'. His wife Lois remarried, and her second husband, Dr David Millstein was stabbed to death in 2006.

- Ed Willey , 60, suicide, November 29, 1993. Husband of Bill Clinton accuser Kathleen Willey, he was deeply in debt and shot himself to death on the day that his wife alleges she was groped by Bill Clinton in the Oval Office.

- Herschel Friday , 70, small plane crash, March 1, 1994. Friday was an Arkansas lawyer who Richard Nixon had once considered for the Supreme Court. Friday was known as a benefactor of Bill Clinton, serving on his campaign finance committee.

- Kathy Ferguson , 37, gun suicide, May 11, 1994. She was the ex-wife of Arkansas State Trooper Danny Ferguson, who was named in a sexual harassment suit brought by Paula Jones against Bill Clinton. Ferguson left a note blaming problems with her fiancé, Bill Shelton. A month later Shelton, upset about the suicide verdict, killed himself.

- Ron Brown , 54, plane crash, April 3, 1996. Brown was chair of the Democratic National Committee during Bill Clinton's rise to the presidential nomination and was rewarded with the cabinet position. He was under a corruption investigation when his plane slammed into a mountainside in Croatia. Doctors who examined his body found a circular wound on the top of his head which led to suspicions that he had died before the plane crashed, but that theory was later discounted. The crash was attributed to pilot error.

- Charles Meissner , 56, same plane crash as Brown. Meissner was assistant secretary for international trade and had been criticized for allegedly giving special security clearance to John Huang, who later pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges for violating campaign finance laws, in a case that enmeshed the Clinton administration.

- Barbara Wise , 48, natural causes, November 29, 1996. Wise, who worked alongside Brown, Meissner and Huang in the Commerce Department was found dead at her desk on the day after Thanksgiving 1996. Her death was originally classified as a homicide but police later said Wise, 48, who had a history of severe ill health, had died from natural causes. A local TV station initially quoted an unidentified police source as saying her body was partially nude and her office was locked, but those reports were later denied.

- Mary Mahoney , 25, armed robbery, July 7, 1997. Mahoney was a White House intern during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. A lesbian gay rights activist, she never found herself troubled by Clinton, but she did take to counseling those who did. She was shot dead during a robbery at a Washington Starbucks where she worked.

- Jim McDougal , 57, heart attack, March 8, 1998. McDougal and his wife Susan were involved in the Whitewater real estate scandal that rocked the Clinton administration. They and the Clintons had invested $203,000 to buy land in the Ozarks but the venture failed and McDougal was convicted of corruption for borrowing money from his Savings and Loan to cover the cost. He died in federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas.

- John Ashe , 61, weightlifting accident, June 22, 2016. The Antiguan diplomat dropped a dumbbell on his neck and asphyxiated himself at his home in Dobbs Ferry, New York. He was due to stand trial for allegedly receiving $500,000 from billionaire real estate developer Ng Lap Seng who was involved in a scandal involving illegally funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic National Committee during Bill Clinton's presidency.

- Seth Rich , 27, armed robbery, July 26, 2016. A rising star in the DNC, Rich was robbed at gunpoint after a night of drinking in Washington, DC. The robbers took nothing, leaving his watch and wallet after shooting him several times in the back. Rich had allegedly been involved in the leak of documents that brought down Hillary Clinton ally Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

- Mark Weiner , 62, leukemia, July 26, 2016. Despite his condition, Weiner, a prodigious Clinton fundraiser, was due to attend the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia and was dressing on the day he was due to travel from his home in Rhode Island. But he suddenly felt ill and went to bed and never got up again.

- Victor Thorn , 54, suicide, August 1, 2016. Thorn shot himself in the head at the top of Nittany Mountain, Pennsylvania, on his birthday. He had written four books highly critical of the Clintons. He was also a Holocaust denier.

- Shawn Lucas , 38, unexplained, August 2, 2016. Just days before his death, Lucas, a process server had delivered papers to the Democratic National Committee's headquarters in Washington, DC, filming himself as he did so. He was found dead in his apartment in the city.

There are more but these are a good start.

Live Hard, This Many Deaths Are Way More Than Happenstance, Die Free

~ DC v2.0

rmopf2010 VinceFostersGhost Oct 14, 2016 9:45 AM Another one to be Clintonized

[Oct 13, 2016] Anonymous - Hillary Clinton A Career Criminal

Oct 13, 2016 | www.youtube.com

YouTube

Trench Coat 3 months ago HILLARY "There should be no individual too powerful to jail."

kevin b 1 day ago +Eric Shutter tell that to the investigation committee..the FBI and the congress investigation who all covered her with "gross misconduct" instead of guilty by hacked emails to known hacking and homeland security of confidential documents! another clinton victory by paying off or threatening these guys if she gets into office. what an ugly person she is..she does think the law is beneath her to follow...typical elitist narcissistic profile!
Hank Chinaski 1 day ago This psycho bitch will start WWIII... elect her at your own risk.
Tam 1 day ago 0:17 Travelgate 1:03 Vince Foster's Death 1:29 Hillary Care 2:56 Whitewater Investigation 4:44 Cattlegate 5:48 Filegate 6:22 The Clinton Legal defense fund 6:33 Chinagate 7:18 IRS Abuses 7:52 Pardongate 9:41 FALN Terrorists 10:58 New York Senate Campaign Finance 12:15 New York Senate performance 12:50 Senate Rules Violations 13:11 2008 Presidential Canidate 13:45 Madam Secretary 15:08 State Department Scandals and Cover-ups 15:59 Benghazi Terrorist Attack Cover-up 17:12 Clinton Secrets (FoI) 17:37 Clinton Foundation Conflicts of Interest 20:37 Various snippets
hellopuppy00 2 days ago The fact that so many corrupts scandals of one person can be listed for 25 minutes straight like this is bad enough. The horrific part is that American is about to make her President.
Eric Barth 1 day ago (edited) we have no control over who we get to choose and even then electoral votes control th powers above popular votes. Citizens do not matter in this regard whatsoever. This game is controlled from the top while feigning that it is controlled by the people. Raymond Cestaro 1 day ago and this video is just scratching the surface
Erkuht Ateue 5 months ago HOLY SHIT, How can american people be so fucking blind? This is outrageous! View all 55 replies Kevin S 3 days ago Two ways. 1. Dumbing Down of the population. 2. Entertainment. It is sickening!
Tom F 48 minutes ago Past Mobsters never come close to besting this bitch and her Billy.
Took the Red Pill 1 day ago Holy shit this is amazing. The work here is fantastic. FBI really outdid themselves here. Still gonna vote for Clinton, we cannot allow a man who likes Pussy into office. I'm with HER :D
jefftc14 4 months ago anyone else notice or remember how the Clinton's were heavily involved in massive amounts of cocaine smuggling into the U.S. and then hmm look at all their friends they bail out.. all cocaine kingpins..

[Oct 12, 2016] The Case for a Two-Faced Hillary Clinton

Notable quotes:
"... I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent." ..."
"... Even the liberal Harvard Law School … ..."
Oct 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

The New Republic

"In an election in which one of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll deliver everything under the sun, without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically possible-there's something bold, even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political deal-making.

Maybe it's not a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being honest."

timbers October 11, 2016 at 2:27 pm

The Trail

"The Case for a 'Two-Faced' Hillary Clinton" [The New Republic]. "In an election in which one of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll deliver everything under the sun, without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically possible-there's something bold, even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political deal-making. Maybe it's not a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being honest."

I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent."

Yikes:

"We therefore hold that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured,' the court said" … PHH said the law creating the CFPB gave an unaccountable director too much authority."

Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any case brought regarding NSA spyiny?

allan October 11, 2016 at 2:38 pm

"Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any case brought regarding NSA spyiny?"

Unfortunately, this very same judge has a long history on those issues,
including time in the Bush Cheney White House before getting a lifetime appointment on the bench,
and for the most part it's not pretty. Emptywheel has an entire archive devoted to him.

Vatch October 11, 2016 at 2:59 pm

This segues into an argument in favor of voting for Hillary Clinton that I can't rebut: Republicans appoint bad people to both the Executive branch and to the Judiciary, but Democrats only appoint bad people to the Executive branch. Therefore, one should vote for Hillary Clinton, Democrat. I've oversimplified the argument, but in general, that's what some people have told me, and I don't have a good counter argument.

That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Clinton. She's a crook. I'll either leave the Presidential part of the ballot blank, or vote for Stein, despite my great annoyance over some of the things that Ajamu Baraka has said.

nippersmom October 11, 2016 at 3:28 pm

Merrick Garland, Obama's latest nominee, is pro-Ciizen's United, so not sure how "good" he is. Conventional wisdom about Democratic vs. Republican appointees to the bench would seem suspect to me in a day when the Overton window has shifted so far to the right that the Democratic candidate for President is more conservative, more pro-business, more hawkish, and less environmentally responsible than Richard Nixon,

Vatch October 11, 2016 at 4:56 pm

I challenge you to find any Democratic judicial appointments of the past 3 decades that are as bad as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, or Samuel Alito.

As for Garland, he's not good, but he's certainly not as bad as any Republican nominee would be. And he hasn't even been confirmed.

nippersmom October 11, 2016 at 5:01 pm

Hillary is surrounding herself with exactly the same cast of characters as those who appointed the judges you name. Why do you think her taste in justices will be any different than her taste in policy advisors or potential cabinet members?

After Clinton signs the TPP, the Supreme Court will be moot anyway.

Vatch October 11, 2016 at 5:10 pm

Obama's Executive branch appointments have been dismal, but his judicial appointments seem to be better - Sotomayor and Kagan. Bill Clinton appointed Breyer and Ginsburg. None of these 4 judges is remotely like Scalia.

I strongly suspect that Hillary Clinton would nominate similar judges.

We definitely don't want the TPP to pass. We need to keep the pressure on Congress, so we don't have to worry about what a President might do.

I reiterate: there are many things wrong with Clinton, and I will not vote for her.

I appreciate the feedback.

allan October 11, 2016 at 5:17 pm

Sotomayor has been great, but Kagan has been a mixed bag. She voted (in a losing dissent, along with Scalia, Kennedy and Silent Clarence) , to allow Sarbanes-Oxley to be used against a fisherman for throwing his catch overboard. She was to the right of Roberts on this one.
Even the liberal Harvard Law School …

marym October 11, 2016 at 3:44 pm

Clinton's first "appointment," first in the line of succession, Tim Kaine, is pro-TPP, pro-Hyde Amendment, anti-labor (pro-right-to-work-for-nothing), and pro-intervention in Syria.

Vatch October 11, 2016 at 4:51 pm

Tim Kaine would be in the Executive branch, not the Judiciary.

timbers October 11, 2016 at 3:52 pm

Know what you mean but try asking people who bring up judges as the reason to vote blue, why should we believe that when Dems can't even deliver on judges when their nominee is a REPUBLICAN for goodness sakes? Then take exaggerated offense at being expected to settle for so LITTLE .

Just a suggestion.

Vatch October 11, 2016 at 5:18 pm

I appreciate the feedback. However, I don't think it's clear that Garland is a Republican. Prior to nominating him, there were trial balloons from the White House suggesting that Republican Brian Sandoval of Nevada would be chosen.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 11, 2016 at 5:37 pm

A good counter argument is this: Hillary is a Republican.

WJ October 11, 2016 at 3:34 pm

The New Republic piece is a festering pile of shit, and I intend that phrase as purely descriptive account of the object.

This is a woman who with her husband earned over $139 MILLION DOLLARS in paid speeches to the .1%–the OLIGARCHY–between 2007-2014 ALONE!

And yet the cretin of a human being calling himself the author of this "piece" [of shit] chooses to insult my intelligence–yea, even perpetrate fraud upon the species!–by pretending as if this UNQUESTIONABLE FACT is simply IRRELEVANT to Clinton's "nuanced"–[insert sounds of my heaving vomit]–distinction between her public and private position. A DISTINCTION THAT WOULD ITSELF HAVE BEEN WITHHELD FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD IF IT HAD NOT BEEN LEAKED BY WIKILEAKS, THE FOUNDER OF WHOM SHE HAS PROPOSED BE MURDERED BY DRONE STRIKE!!

No, MY PROBLEM, YOUR PROBLEM, ANYBODY'S PROBLEM with this avaricious sociopathic warmongering ulcerous wretch is–MUST BE–that she is a WOMAN?!

"As substantively defensible-even virtuous-as dealmaking can be, taking this tack runs the risk of confirming the public's worst fears about Clinton: that she's dishonest and lacking in core conviction. That notion, which has a gendered element to it…." [but might also perhaps not be unrelated to her long history of manipulation, lying, stealing, backstabbing, fraud, embezzlement, fraud, more lying, murder, more murder, more fraud]…

Fuck it. The oligarchy doesn't even have to be good at "public relations" anymore. Might as well get ahead of the curve and move to Brazil.

Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 4:06 pm

The "gendered element" canard hyperlinks to a WaPo article containing this statement from one of the interviewees:

"Research on gender stereotypes has shown that women are often perceived as more honest than their male counterparts."

Meaning that even with a head start thanks to favorable bias, Hillary is still perceived as deceitful.

Heckuva job, Hillary.

Prufrock October 11, 2016 at 4:48 pm

PHH is horrible. They purchased my mortgage last year, and started forclosure proceedings within the 60 day grace period while my autopayment was still going to the previous servicer (as allowed by law). Their customer support in Asia lied repeatedly, and when I starting informing them that I would record the calls, they would hang up or refuse to talk to me.

They finally acknowledged their error after 3-4 calls (particularly once I found out I had to keep asking for a supervisor until I was connected to the US), but it was a huge waste of my time.

john k October 11, 2016 at 5:02 pm

It was actually a great investment of your time.

Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 2:41 pm

Four legs good, two legs bad - photo of a fetching young centaur from Comic Con in NYC:

http://tinyurl.com/zyujq3q

Not to be confused with COMECON, the trade pact among the eastern bloc during Soviet days.

allan October 11, 2016 at 2:53 pm

Nor to be confused with ECOMCON .

ambrit October 11, 2016 at 4:55 pm

Nor the 'Necrotelecomnicon.' The handy guide to contacting H Clinton's core advisor circle. As for which precise 'circle' (of H-,) H Clintons advisors come from; opinions are divided.

[Oct 11, 2016] It is unclear when Hillary states her public or private position Shes very nuanced, you know.

Oct 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Anne October 11, 2016 at 3:27 pm

I did not take that to mean she hated actual, everyday Americans – I took it that she hates that phrase.

I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I'm running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion. I think if she doesn't say it once, people will notice and say we false started in Iowa.

And no, I don't know why the phrase wasn't put into quotes, but I note that there aren't any quotes around the part that begins "she says I'm running for president because…" either. As I read the e-mail, it sure seems to me like it's about the phrase, not about people.

WJ October 11, 2016 at 3:40 pm

Well, is that her public or private position she's stating? She's very nuanced, you know.

pretzelattack October 11, 2016 at 3:58 pm

it's just, if she did mean that she hated "everyday americans", it would be plausible. it would be irresponsible not to speculate.

[Oct 09, 2016] The asterisked material is how the Clinton campaign staffer "flagged" the quotes they considered dangerous

Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:41 am

(The email is a compilation of quotes from Clinton's paid speeches, not otherwise available. It begins: "Attached are the flags from HRC's paid speeches we have from HWA." The asterisked material is how the Clinton campaign staffer "flagged" the quotes they considered dangerous.) Since these quotes are from paid speeches, we can expect Clinton's private position - expect, that is, if we assume that Clinton isn't cheating her clients by failing to deliver value for money in terms of services to be rendered - to be a more accurate representation of her views than her public one. In other words, we're looking at a pitch to the donor class, when Clinton was laying the groundwork for her campaign. In an oligarchy, this would be natural.

===============================================
Sorry, but as I have said before, I don't believe Clinton's speeches are important – they are just a McGuffin to deflect from the real travesty occurring in plain site – what Lloyd Blankfein tells Clinton at the gladhanding after the speech….
As someone once told me in Washington, nothing TRULY important is ever committed to paper.

none October 9, 2016 at 10:48 am

I posted this yesterday but reposting since it's brutal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPrt9GkaQNQ

parody of Clinton ad… I won't post a spoiler.

Jim Haygood October 9, 2016 at 11:12 am

Wish they could've worked in a few seconds from this old chestnut, featuring 0bama saying the p-word:

http://tinyurl.com/gpljv92

[Oct 09, 2016] Disgusting as Trump is, I am sure not looking forward to the howls of misogyny that will be coming from the Clinton camp

Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Kokuanani October 7, 2016 at 6:26 pm

I'm surprised not to see anything here about the "political bombshell" of Trump's latest sexist remarks.

As I listen to the talking heads bloviate about what a "death blow" this is to the Trump campaign, it occurs to me that if the Repubs could engineer Trump's withdrawal from the top of the ticket, they could probably beat Hillary with Pence. They would have to arrange it so that Trump goes agreeably - should not be too hard to do, since many doubt if he WANTS to be president - and Pence could pledge that he would carry forward all of Trump's wonderful Screw the Establishment policies. Trump without the messy Trumpisms.

Disgusting as Trump is, I'm sure not looking forward to the howls of misogyny that will be coming from the Clinton camp. And, just another distraction from talking about policy.

Waldenpond October 7, 2016 at 6:41 pm

1. Clinton is corrupt (again), liar (still), dishonest (again), warmonger (still) etc. Trump is racist(still), bigot (again), misogynist (still), Hitler (Putin, Ahmedinejad)…. gets tedious after the 20th time.

2. I think Trump does it on purpose as a response to a Clinton dump. It looks like her GS speeches are out today so the networks can cover Trump's latest bigoted statement and ignore Clinton insulting the voters and sucking up to the oligarchs.

[Oct 09, 2016] Hillary Camp Worked With Reporter On Anti-Sanders Story

Notable quotes:
"... Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff for underhanded tactics. ..."
"... "We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks, which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us, lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email. ..."
Oct 09, 2016 | dailycaller.com
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign collaborated with Bloomberg reporter Jennifer Epstein to create an anti-Bernie Sanders story prior to the Nevada caucus.

In the vast trove of Clinton emails leaked Thursday by the organization DCLeaks, there is an email exchange between Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and Emily Ruiz, head of the campaign's Nevada operation. In the exchange, Ruiz and Mook discuss rumors that Sanders volunteers were posing as Clinton operatives and engaging in irritating behavior like knocking on voters' doors at 11 pm.

Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff for underhanded tactics.

"We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks, which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us, lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email.

[Oct 09, 2016] Some of Clintons pledges sound great. Until you remember whos president

Notable quotes:
"... Hillary Clinton and husband Bill will turn the White House and the U.S. Government into their personal bank. ..."
"... If the American electorate selects Hillary as their commander and chief she will immediately demand a No-Fly Zone over Syria. She will impose more economic sanctions on Russia, including an increase in NATO strength on Russia's western borders, just to show she is the Queen bitch. She will give israHell carte blanche to increase and expand further abuse in the Gaza strip. She is a woman scorned. And a very dangerous one. ..."
"... [neo]Liberalism is in terminal decline, and not a moment too soon. ..."
"... Hillary does not have any creative spark at all. She, like Obama is a dud, but one thing is for sure, she is not Donald. ..."
"... These same americans should go back, for once, to his 2008 campaign to defeat first Hillary in the primaries and then the republican McCain. ..."
"... The climate was dominated by the financial meltdown, which really started in the summer of 2007 and was evident by early spring of 2008. Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street, according to Obama, the republicans were one and the same with Wall Street and all the big corporate world, he was Hope and Change. ..."
"... Hope? What hope? And even more: change, what change? There has been little change, if almost half of the nation is now ready to accept Trump as a promise of change. Obama's main financial support came in 2008 from Wall Street, hedge funds in particular, and they were right because nobody like the first Afro-American president, himself inevitably the incarnation of progressivism, could save their ass after all the criminal finance they indulged in. ..."
"... So, Obama's inheritance is a problem, and Hillary is running on Obama's inheritance. ..."
"... Robert Kagan, ringleader of the cabal of neo-cons has endorsed Hillary, who is Roberts wife? why bless me if it isn't Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland, ..."
"... Samantha Powers is a neo-con acolyte, Ashton Carter is too, the State Dept. and the council of foreign relations is riddled with their people, all the horror figures of Dubya's days are lurking there and pulling strings, ..."
"... Kerry isn't really a neo-con, but the Pentagon and CIA sabotage anything half decent he tries to do, ..."
"... Basically Hillary is as genuine, left leaning and honest as Tony Blair.... ..."
"... Also remember the lack of believability of Hillary. She is a politician that has been caught in lies so often that people just don't believe her. She pushed the soda tax in Philly until Coca-Cola complained that they gave too much money to the Foundation to be treated that way. Hillary backed off. She made millions from speaking to Big Banks. So we really believe she will go after Wells Fargo? She is beholden to them (unless Goldman Sachs gets to choose). She says raise taxes to pay fair share, but her biggest supporters are Apple, Google, and their executives that keep billions of income overseas to avoid the highest corporate income tax in the world. Do we really think she will hurt the contributors to the Foundation? And the more the email saga plays out, the longer the untrustworthy issue remains in everyone's mind. MonotonousLanguor , 2016-10-07 20:58:06 Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton will hold anyone on Wall Street accountable??? She is bought and paid for by Wall Street, starting with all the green backs Hillary and Bill stuffed in their pockets from the those speaking fees. Obama's Justice Department motto was, Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail. The Democrats are not going to bite their masters on Wall Street, and of course neither will the Republicans. IanB52 -> NoctilucentGinswig , 2016-10-07 20:41:06 Prosecuting bankers, prosecuting torturers, stopping white collar crime, wars, assassinations, warrantless spying and even scheduling of Marijuana are all under the control of the Executive Branch. Find even one of these where the President did the right thing. Uncle Putin , 2016-10-07 20:26:49 This is exactly what I was thinking during the first presidential debate. Hillary is an old pro at saying all the right things, pushing all the right buttons to get the votes she needs, but can you believe much of what she says? ..."
"... This is why, despite a poor debate performance overall, I thought Trump was spot on when he simply said she was a typical politician--all talk, no action, sounds great, none of it will ever happen. He's correct. ..."
"... What Frank seldom writes of but remains extremely important to many people on the left in the US is that Obama has governed as the effective prisoner of the Pentagon and security establishment. His wars (including on whistleblowers), nuclear build-up, and confrontation with Russia have given added momentum to growing neoconservative bipartisan consensus that will likely see a new President Clinton start a war with Russia in Syria and/or Ukraine. ..."
"... The Democrats are now both so neoliberal and so neoconservative that the only thing that differentiates them from Republicans is social progressivism. Given a choice between the latter and greatly increased likelihood of nuclear war, I have to confess to preferring that Trump win. Trump has been consistent in wanting to lessen tensions with Russia. ..."
"... Not even social progressivism, so much as a set of captive client constituencies whom they name-drop and weaponize. ..."
Oct 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
Thomas Frank

The Guardian

The puzzle that is currently frustrating the pundit minds of America is this: why is Hillary Clinton not simply clobbering Donald Trump? How is this ranting, seething buffoon still competitive with her? Trump has now stumbled through a series of the kind of blunders that break ordinary political campaigns – the sort of deadly hypocrisies that always kill the demagogue in old movies – and yet this particular demagogue keeps on trucking. Why?

Let us answer that burning pundit question of today by jumping to what will undoubtedly be the next great object of pundit ardor: the legacy of President Barack Obama. Two months from now, when all the TV wise men are playing historian and giving their estimation on where Obama ranks in the pantheon of the greats, they will probably neglect to mention that his legacy helped to determine Hillary's fortunes in this election cycle.

"As a beloved figure among Democrats, for example, Obama was instrumental in securing the nomination for her. As a president who has accomplished little since 2011, however, Obama has pretty much undermined Clinton's ability to sell us on another centrist Democratic presidency. His legacy has diluted her promise

…. Or take this headline from just a few days ago: "Clinton promises to hold Wells Fargo accountable". Go get 'em, Hillary! To see a president get tough with elite bankers and with CEOs in general – that's something we can all cheer for. But then that nagging voice piped up again: if Democrats think it is so critical to get tough with crooked banksters, why oh why didn't Barack Obama take the many, many opportunities he had to do so back in the days when it would have really mattered?"

Senator Elizabeth Warren pronounced on the current state of middle America as follows:

Look around. Americans bust their tails, some working two or three jobs, but wages stay flat. Meanwhile, the basic costs of making it from month to month keep going up. Housing, healthcare, child care – costs are out of sight. Young people are getting crushed by student loans. Working people are in debt. Seniors can't stretch a social security check to cover the basics.

It was a powerful indictment of what Warren called a "rigged" system – except for one thing: that system is presided over by Barack Obama, a man that same Democratic convention was determined to apotheosize as one of the greatest politicians of all times.

The larger problem facing them is the terminal irrelevance of their great, overarching campaign theme. Remember the "man from Hope"? "Hope is on the way"? "Keep hope alive"? Well, this year "hope" is most assuredly dead. Thanks to Obama's flagrant hope-dealing in the dark days of 2008 – followed up by his failure to reverse the disintegration of the middle class – this favorite Democratic cliché has finally become just that: an empty phrase.

dalepues , 2016-10-08 03:43:57
Hillary Clinton and husband Bill will turn the White House and the U.S. Government into their personal bank.
ID8737013 , 2016-10-08 03:12:16
If the American electorate selects Hillary as their commander and chief she will immediately demand a No-Fly Zone over Syria. She will impose more economic sanctions on Russia, including an increase in NATO strength on Russia's western borders, just to show she is the Queen bitch. She will give israHell carte blanche to increase and expand further abuse in the Gaza strip. She is a woman scorned. And a very dangerous one.
marxmarv , 2016-10-08 01:14:18
[neo]Liberalism is in terminal decline, and not a moment too soon. It's far past time we redeveloped a politics of interests rather than this Christianised values sham.
bobkolker , 2016-10-08 00:16:15
Hillary will win because she is not Trump. If she wins it is another 4 Obama like years and it is Bill's Third Term in Office. Hillary does not have any creative spark at all. She, like Obama is a dud, but one thing is for sure, she is not Donald.
cilina2011 , 2016-10-07 22:16:45
I find Thomas Frank's piece very good.

Too many americans are mesmerized by the fact that Obama is young and articulate, plays well the presidential role, is generally speaking what is called a nice person or at least behaves formally as if he were one, has but only of late (thanks to Hillary and Trump perhaps, by contrast) a fairly high popularity score.

These same americans should go back, for once, to his 2008 campaign to defeat first Hillary in the primaries and then the republican McCain.

The climate was dominated by the financial meltdown, which really started in the summer of 2007 and was evident by early spring of 2008. Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street, according to Obama, the republicans were one and the same with Wall Street and all the big corporate world, he was Hope and Change.

Hope? What hope? And even more: change, what change? There has been little change, if almost half of the nation is now ready to accept Trump as a promise of change. Obama's main financial support came in 2008 from Wall Street, hedge funds in particular, and they were right because nobody like the first Afro-American president, himself inevitably the incarnation of progressivism, could save their ass after all the criminal finance they indulged in.

And Obama did save their skin, as everybody knows. Obama took on board plenty of Clinton (and Wall Street) people, starting in June 2008, when Hillary was finished. You cannot change that much after the financial crisis if you take Lawrence Summers as economic top advisor and you install young Geithner at the Treasury. Paul Volcker, who inspired so many good and useful judgements for candidate Obama, was put in the closet.

Obama is a lawyer by education and he knows who is the best customer. That's not the man or the woman of Main Street. To them, some of them, he gave Obamacare, which is not all bad and something of it will remain, I think, but it's not at all that major reform he has been boasting about. By november 8 everybody will know that Obamacare has serious problems.

So, Obama's inheritance is a problem, and Hillary is running on Obama's inheritance.

And Thomas Frank is right.

MattThePleb , 2016-10-07 22:05:27
nice to see the Guardian have a moment of clarity!

I do feel sympathy for Obama, he, and his family, have effectively spent 8 years held hostage in the White House by those perfidious neo-conservatives,

they existed in Ronnie Raygun's day but he laughed at them, G H Bush referred to them as 'the crazies in the basement' and kept close tabs on them,

they were happily meddling away during Bill Clintons era helping destroy Yugoslavia and furiously planning their 'Project for a New American Century' PNAC basically a blueprint and justification for every shitty thing done since,

G W Bush let loose the neo-cons of war and we know what they've done,

Barack Obama's greatest folly was to not round them up on the first day of his presidency, put them in a sack with a brick and throw them in the river,

they have infested his government and followed their own agenda whilst laughing at him, so the story goes, at a private dinner party Barack was asked why he wasn't doing anything to thwart these shits and his reply was 'you saw what they did to MLK'

now at the transition to Clinton these neo-cons are actively endorsing her, they consider her 'their girl' Clinton may well turn out to be George 'Dubya' with tits,

Robert Kagan, ringleader of the cabal of neo-cons has endorsed Hillary, who is Roberts wife? why bless me if it isn't Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland,

Samantha Powers is a neo-con acolyte, Ashton Carter is too, the State Dept. and the council of foreign relations is riddled with their people, all the horror figures of Dubya's days are lurking there and pulling strings,

Kerry isn't really a neo-con, but the Pentagon and CIA sabotage anything half decent he tries to do,

Elizabeth Warren as VP would have given Hillary great credibility but she is explicitly not a neo-conservative,

Basically Hillary is as genuine, left leaning and honest as Tony Blair....

and people wonder why they pin their last tatter of hope Donald 'Mr Bombastic' Trump?

much as I find Trump and his hardcore supporters loathsome I have to point out that he has:

expressed interest in talking with and working with Putin as opposed to starting WW3

accepted the concept of climate change (massive move for a Republican) but pointed out nuclear war is an even greater and more immediate threat,

pointed out the expenditure of 5-6 Trillion dollars on pointless wars whilst the country crumbles to ruins, basically a third of the US national debt run up in 15 years,

the fact he wants to make America great again is because he acknowledges that it isn't great atm,

he's pointed out that Hillary makes all these pledges but has been in a position of power for decades and has done sod all about it,

and the establishment , especially the neo-cons absolutely hate him...

if you're going to hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil maybe chauvinism and casual racism are those lesser evils,

LGBT rights will not defend you from nuclear bombs, the heat flash that vaporises you is fairly indifferent to skin colour or religion,

lvtaxman , 2016-10-07 22:01:35
Also remember the lack of believability of Hillary. She is a politician that has been caught in lies so often that people just don't believe her. She pushed the soda tax in Philly until Coca-Cola complained that they gave too much money to the Foundation to be treated that way. Hillary backed off.

She made millions from speaking to Big Banks. So we really believe she will go after Wells Fargo? She is beholden to them (unless Goldman Sachs gets to choose).

She says raise taxes to pay fair share, but her biggest supporters are Apple, Google, and their executives that keep billions of income overseas to avoid the highest corporate income tax in the world. Do we really think she will hurt the contributors to the Foundation?

And the more the email saga plays out, the longer the untrustworthy issue remains in everyone's mind.

MonotonousLanguor , 2016-10-07 20:58:06
Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton will hold anyone on Wall Street accountable??? She is bought and paid for by Wall Street, starting with all the green backs Hillary and Bill stuffed in their pockets from the those speaking fees.

Obama's Justice Department motto was, Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail. The Democrats are not going to bite their masters on Wall Street, and of course neither will the Republicans.

IanB52 -> NoctilucentGinswig , 2016-10-07 20:41:06
Prosecuting bankers, prosecuting torturers, stopping white collar crime, wars, assassinations, warrantless spying and even scheduling of Marijuana are all under the control of the Executive Branch. Find even one of these where the President did the right thing.
Uncle Putin , 2016-10-07 20:26:49
This is exactly what I was thinking during the first presidential debate. Hillary is an old pro at saying all the right things, pushing all the right buttons to get the votes she needs, but can you believe much of what she says?

This is why, despite a poor debate performance overall, I thought Trump was spot on when he simply said she was a typical politician--all talk, no action, sounds great, none of it will ever happen. He's correct.

Hillary is promising all sorts of things that she knows will never come to fruition. I voted for Obama twice, but I'm chomping at the bit to vote for Trump, for no other reason then the fact that he is the true outsider here. It's a gamble for sure, but with the right advisors he could potentially institute some major changes that will never happen under a cautious Hillary who will be obsessed with re-election the minute she starts her first term.

Wayne Waxman , 2016-10-07 20:02:39
What Frank seldom writes of but remains extremely important to many people on the left in the US is that Obama has governed as the effective prisoner of the Pentagon and security establishment. His wars (including on whistleblowers), nuclear build-up, and confrontation with Russia have given added momentum to growing neoconservative bipartisan consensus that will likely see a new President Clinton start a war with Russia in Syria and/or Ukraine.

The Democrats are now both so neoliberal and so neoconservative that the only thing that differentiates them from Republicans is social progressivism. Given a choice between the latter and greatly increased likelihood of nuclear war, I have to confess to preferring that Trump win. Trump has been consistent in wanting to lessen tensions with Russia.

As a voter, of course, I could vote for neither, and so am voting for Jill Stein.

marxmarv Wayne Waxman , 2016-10-08 01:26:45
Not even social progressivism, so much as a set of captive client constituencies whom they name-drop and weaponize.

[Oct 09, 2016] Litany of lies, corruption, deceit and infamy

Oct 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

Kathleen Lake 9m ago 1 2 Hillary, we believe Assange not you and you have earned out contempt. It's sickening to know isn't it, that almost ANY anonymous hacker has more credibility than she who pretends to the throne (and in Clinton's case it is a monarchy not a democracy as thev"line of succession" was determined long before even one vote was cast). Thanks for allowing your (lack of) character to give us one more entry into you litany of lies, corruption, deceit and infamy.", hillary. I will not vote for corruption, lies and oil wars, so I will not vote you... ever. David Stalker 11m ago 0 1 Well what with Bill Clinton gaining the presidency and Hillary the secretary of state position along with the wealth they have generated how could they be none other than establishment for those not familiar with that phrase. and i quote from wikipedia. The Establishment generally denotes a dominant group or elite that holds power or authority in a nation or organization. The Establishment may be a closed social group which selects its own members or specific entrenched elite structures, either in government or in specific institutions. And as such my view is she will get the job as President. eldudeabides 14m ago 1 2 In public we hear her yarn about being against TTIP.....in private, the opposite.

She is not to be believed on any issue.

she is the puppet of her neoliberalist masters. centerline 16m ago 1 2 The wikileaks release here
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release
The Podesta Emails; Part One

....In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.

As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.

sblejo 1h ago 3 4 How can anyone trust Clinton and CO. when they undermined Bernie Sanders, of their own party, because he was winning??? Despicable, disreputable, dishonest, power hungry, corrupt. What else can be said about her and her ilk. And then they blame Russia for exposing the treachery, Americans, so easily led, ignored the truth of the situation. Americans, still do not admit the ugly truth, voting for power rather than ethics. Incredible, she is the other side of the Trump coin. Confucion 2h ago 3 4

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally here.

No difference between Trump and Hillary. They are pathological liars, sociopath and extremely sick minds.

They can be caught constantly in their bad deeds but yet they still US presidential candidates.

Time ago people will reject slavery, injustice and abuse. Today it is laissez faire, laissez passer because US people became zombies. Hopeless of hopeless. europeangrayling 2h ago 8 9 It does not matter, people who support Hillary they support Hillary. Does not matter, either they don't believe it, it's right wing conspiracy, or it's OK, nothing wrong with it.

She has a 'private and public position', that's Hillary, she is so smart and experienced. She is for TPP, then against TPP in the primary, now we see 'her private position' is as many 'free trade' deals as we can, they are fine with it. There was survey that says over 70% of Americans don't know what the TPP is, so that makes sense. She even said she supports cutting SS and raising retirement age in a speech, called it 'sensible'.

Hillary's support for the Iraq war, Libya, supporting the Saudis in Yemen and Syria, LIkud in Israel, the Honduras coup of a democratic government helped greatly by the US, that she admitted and advocated for in her book, but then took it out in the new paper back version.

Where now environmental Native American activists and regime critics are being killed by the new regime, and there's a lot more violence in general, but the new regime is friendly' to western corporate interests and Hillary donors, so Hillary loves it, still says there was no coup at all. Even as the EU and our ambassador to Honduras said it was a coup.

I don't know why, but that Honduras thing really hit me, and Berta Cáceres's murder. I mean Hillary is ruthless, or is so detached from reality of life and what these policies and politics do to regular people, I don't know. Just like Cheney, so it makes sense that Wolfowitz and the neocons support her too. But the Honduras things alone, I can't vote for all that. !-- DogsLivesMatter europeangrayling 1h ago 0 1 This documentary is about Berta Caceres if you are interested:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/faultlines/2016/09/honduras-blood-water-160920064355648.html Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Chillskier 3h ago 4 5 Hillary Clinton on Assange "Can't we just drone this guy:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562?ref_src=twsrc !-- dynamic22 3h ago 5 6 "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders"

This is not going to go over well with what she has been campaigning recently. Trade is the one area Trump has the advantage currentl Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report dynamic22 dynamic22 3h ago 1 2 *currently, and this quote how it relates to "open borders" provides him a good pivot tp also attack her on immigration !-- dynamic22 3h ago 3 4 having "both a public and a private positions" is damaging to Clinton, as well as the "bucket of losers" comments. Some of her tepid support for the finance industry to regulate itself is also bad for her.

The comments on bonding with Putin over Tiger preservation are hilarious.

"Hillary Clinton Said One Time She Visited Putin And Bonded With Him Over Protecting The Habitat Of Tigers. "One time, I was visiting with him in his dacha outside of Moscow, and he was going on and on, you know, just listing all of the problems that he thinks are caused by the United States. And I said, 'Well, you know, Mr.'-at that time, he was still prime minister. I said, 'You know, Mr. Prime Minister, we actually have some things in common. We both want to protect wildlife, and I know how committed you are to protecting the tiger.' I mean, all of a sudden, he sat up straight and his eyes got big and he goes, 'You care about the tiger? I said, 'I care about the tiger, I care about the elephant, I care about the rhinoceros, I care about the whale. I mean, yeah, I think we have a duty. You know, it's an obligation that we as human beings have to protect God's creation.' He goes, 'Come with me.' So we go down the stairs, we go down this long hall, we go into this private inner sanctum. All of his, you know, very beefy security guys are there, they all jump up at attention, you know, they punch a code, he goes through a heavily-armed door. And then we're in an inner, inner sanctum with, you know, just this long, wooden table, and then further back, there's a desk and the biggest map of Russia I ever saw. And he starts talking to me about, you know, the habitat of the tigers and the habitat of the seals and the whales. And it was quite something." [Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon, 10/28/13]"

So much to go through already. !-- PottyPants 3h ago 7 8 Trump may be the scum of the earth, but he's not a career politician.

Ask any American on the street what the biggest problem with our government is and they'll tell you...

Big Business and the Career Politicians who serve it. Trump is not that. Which is why he was nominated, against all odds, by an increasingly disgruntled voter base.

Read your history books... look at the events leading up to Hitler coming to power... see the similarities with America.

The BLS reports a 5% unemployment rate... that's what all the govt. releases and media outlets use. But if we look at "U-6" unemployment, which counts those only employed part time and "marginally attached" (I.E. TEMPS) that number grows to 10%. Moreover the labor participation rate is at a 30 year low. 50% of American households receive some form of government aid... 43.5 million Americans receive Food Stamps, down from 46.5 because of a forced change in qualification due to that lovely 5% unemployment rate.

The government, and the big businesses that run it, are trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and have you believe that things are just hunky dory... in truth we're doing pretty poorly. This "recovery" has been staged on the back of nine TRILLION dollars in TARP and QE, printed out of thin air and loaned at effectively 0%... and the Fed has as much as admitted they can't raise rates or the whole house of cards will come tumbling down yet again. !-- PerspectivesPlease 3h ago 8 9 An article published on TruePundit.com and tweeted by WikiLeaks claims that in 2010, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton broached the idea of launching a drone strike to take out Julian Assange.

Clinton and the state department held numerous meetings to discuss what could be done about Assange and his site which had already exposed damning military secrets about the war in Afghanistan and Iraq before the promised document dump was to come. The department was under pressure from both the White House and foreign governments to silence Wikileaks.

Everyone in the room had laughed and became silent when they realized that Clinton was serious.

http://theantimedia.org/report-clinton-drone-strike-assange /
https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assange / !-- DeConstruct 3h ago 4 5

"I mean, in my campaign – I lose track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all of this other money just rushing in, and it's so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that's basically what we're in for.

Yeah ! If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Right.

[Oct 09, 2016] Some of Clinton's pledges sound great. Until you remember her husband and the current president

Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
geoff October 7, 2016 at 3:11 pm

"Some of Clinton's pledges sound great. Until you remember who's president" (Thomas Frank)

Yes, and I don't recall (hey, that's her line!) the exact phraseology, but something Mrs. Clinton said during the first debate reminded me strongly of Bill in '92. And we all know how that worked out.

No one believes the Dems' talking points any more because they have largely been unfulfilled during the last two Democratic presidencies.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 7, 2016 at 3:34 pm

The quality of Hillary's pledges depends on the teleprompter.

She merely reads from it.

[Oct 08, 2016] Hillary is a very warm and nurturing person. When an 8-ball can't make you feel good about your master of the universe self, you hire madame secretary to fluff your fragile feelings a bit.

Oct 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Reply
Waldenpond October 7, 2016 at 5:49 pm

Clinton agrees with you. She's tired of the bias also.

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/784507647395495937

"But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes so very onerous and unnecessary."

Back aching scrubbing and knee straining cleaning to maintain a decent and safe environment is exhausting. Accumulating wealth and being criticized for accumulating it at the expense of others is equally exhausting. She is the personification of empathy.

Waldenpond October 7, 2016 at 6:28 pm

Hmmm. … I thought this e-mail was a copy of the Wash Exam article, is it really leaks of portions of Clinton's speeches? It's text book Clinton. I couldn't find the WE article and now Buzzfeed writes it appears to be paid speeches.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/wikileaks-appears-to-release-hillary-clintons-paid-speech-tr?utm_term=.vjaomX3oG#.boZ2ZG520

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

Waldenpond October 7, 2016 at 6:49 pm

Buzzfeed has it. Now Intercept. Anyone else see it? OK, now CBS.

cnchal October 7, 2016 at 7:12 pm

The more interesting part is this.

"SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said, you know, when he came to Washington he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he had a small – – MR. BLANKFEIN: That's how you have a small fortune , is you go to Washington. . .

The sacrifices they make for us.

Reminds me of a saying in racing. How do you get a million bucks? Start with two.

OIFVet October 7, 2016 at 7:19 pm

The way I read Lord Blankfein is that in a way he was being condescending to the help madame secretary and her Bubba.

Waldenpond October 7, 2016 at 7:25 pm

*Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

What? Open borders with Europe? She can't mean Russia. To be clear, she's also declaring support for that greenest of projects, the Keystone pipeline in another speech.

OIFVet October 7, 2016 at 7:02 pm

Hillary is a very warm and nurturing person. When an 8-ball can't make you feel good about your master of the universe self, you hire madame secretary to fluff your fragile feelings a bit. Or you pay mr. president to put on a comfortable pair of shoes and stand guard between you and the peasants with the pitchforks.

[Oct 05, 2016] It reminds me of a string of wet sponges.

Oct 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
DJG October 5, 2016 at 9:39 am

Thanks just for this:
Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on.

And when a person keeps pointing out the importance of keeping one's word, it almost always means that he or she is lying.

John Wright October 5, 2016 at 10:30 am

If only Clinton could be like Warren G. Harding.

At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! "

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did not like.

Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in the financial corruption of his administration.

The Presidency was pushed on him, and he admitted felt he was not qualified.

I believe Harding gets a bad rap because he was not the leader of bold actions (wars) and the corruption of people in his administration was well-documented.

His death was widely mourned in the USA.

As far as long term harm to the country, the do-nothing Harding was not bad for the country.

If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding who now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement, perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sycopathic friends to give her good advice, and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation)

Clinton is probably well coached by well paid advisors in her oratory.

Probably Harding wrote his own..

I would prefer Clinton to be like the old Harding, and the country would muddle through.

[Oct 04, 2016] One interpretation of Hillary actions in Libya and Syria is that she is stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Other is that she was caught up in the amoral bubble of neoliberal empire building that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment views more strongly then any personal psychopathy.

Notable quotes:
"... The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. ..."
"... One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. ..."
crookedtimber.org

bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 7:49 pm 332

Anarcissie @ 239: We basically have a whole class of people, at the top of the social order, who seem devoid of a moral sense - a problem which the upcoming election isn't going to touch, much less solve. I don't blame Clinton for this . . .

JimV @ 317: I am sorry if I mischaracterized BW as implying that HRC is evil, . . .

Peter T @ 320: Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess [the multi-sided regional civil war engulfing Syria and northern Iraq]

stevenjohnson @ 324: The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war.

LFC @ 330: I disagree w the notion that the pt of nuclear 'modernization' is to make plausible the threat of "imminent general nuclear war." If U.S. military planners took hallucinogenic drugs and went nuts, they could "plausibly" threaten "imminent general nuclear war" right now with the US nuclear arsenal as currently configured. They don't need to upgrade the weapons to do that. The program is prob more the result of rigid, unimaginative thinking at top levels of Pentagon and influence of outside companies (e.g. Boeing etc) that work on the upgrades.

I don't know if that seems like a somewhat random collection of precursors to assemble as preface to a comment. I was thinking of picking out a few upthread references to climate change and the response to it (or inadequacy thereof) as well.

I am a little disturbed by the idea of leaving the impression that I think Hillary Clinton is "evil". What I think is that American politics in general is not generating realistic, adaptive governance.

I am using that bloodless phrase, "realistic, adaptive governance", deliberately, to emphasize wanting to step outside the passions of the Presidential election. I think the Manichean narrative where Trump is The Most Horrible Candidate Evah and Everyone Must Line Up Behind Clinton as an Ethical Imperative of a High Order is part of the process of propaganda and manipulation that distorts popular discussion and understanding and helps to create a politics that cannot govern realistically and adaptively. This is not about me thinking Trump is anything but a horrible mess of a candidate who ought to be kept far from power.

I see Clinton as someone who is trapped inside the dynamics of this seriously deranged politics qua political process. I don't see her as entirely blameless. Politicians like Obama and either Clinton, at the top of the political order, are masters (keeping in mind that there are many masters working to some extent in opposition to one another as rivals, allies, enemies and so on) of the process and create the process by the exercise of their mastery, as much as they are mastered by it. I see them as trapped by the process they have helped (more than a little opportunistically) to create, but trapped as Dr Frankenstein is by his Creature.

Clinton must struggle with the ethical contradictions of governance at the highest levels of leadership: she must, in the exercise of power in office and out, practice the political art of the possible in relation to crafting policy that will be "good" in the sense of passably effective and efficient - this may involve a high degree of foresightful wonkery or a lethally ruthless statesmanship, depending upon circumstances. Beside this business of making the great machinery of the state lumber forward, she must strive to appear "good", like Machiavelli's Prince, even while playing an amoral game of real politick, gathering and shepherding a complex coalition of allies, supporters, donors and cooperative enemies.

Machiavelli, when he was considering the Princely business of appearing "good", was contending with the hypocrisies and impossible idealism of authoritarian Catholic morality. He barely connected with anything that we would recognize as democratic Public Opinion and could scarcely conceive of what Ivy Lee or Edward Bernays, let alone Fox News, Vox and the world wide web might do to politics.

We are trapped, just as Clinton is trapped, in the vast communication nightmare of surrealistic news and opinion washing in upon us in a tide that never ebbs. We are trapped by the politics of media "gotchas" and Kinsley Gaffes (A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some truth that a politician did not intend to admit.)

I don't think Clinton lacks a moral sense. What I think is that Clinton's moral sense is exhausted calculating what to say or do within the parameters of media-synthesized conventional wisdom policed by people who are themselves exhausted trying to manage it. Matt Lauer's interview with Clinton was notorious for the relentless and clueless questioning about the email server, although I, personally, was shocked when he asked her a question that seemed premised on the idea that veterans should be offended by admitting the Iraq War was a mistake.

I would think it is easy to see that the media circus is out of control, especially when a clown like Trump graduates from The Apprentice to the Republican nomination. YMMV, but I think this is a serious problem that goes beyond vividly imagined sepia-toned parodies of Trump's candidacy as the second coming of Mussolini.

While we're getting ourselves agitated over Trump's racism or threats to bar Muslims from entry, apparently the Military-Industrial Complex, left on autopilot, is re-designing the nation's nuclear arsenal to make the outbreak of nuclear war far more likely. And, the closest Clinton gets to a comment, campaign commitment or public discussion, let alone an exercise of power, is a PR "leak"!!!

The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. Clinton offered up a sound-bite last year, saying that she favored imposing a "no-fly" zone, which was exposed as kind of crazy idea, given that the Russians as well as Assad's government are the ones flying, not to mention the recent experience with a no-fly zone in Libya. One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. What's most alarming to me is that we cannot count on personal character to put the brakes on that process, which is now the process of governance. I am writing now of the process of governance by public relations that was has been exposed a bit in profiles of the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes.

In Syria, it has become almost comical, if you can overlook the bodies piling up, as the U.S. has sought a the mythical unicorn of Syrian Moderate Democrats whom the Pentagon or the CIA can advise, train and arm. This is foreign policy by PR narrative and it is insanely unrealistic. But, our politics is trapped in it, and, worse, policy is trapped in it. Layer after layer of b.s. have piled up obscuring U.S. interests and practical options. Recently, U.S. forces supporting the Turks have come dangerously close to blowing up U.S. forces supporting the Kurds. When you find yourself on opposing sides of a civil war like Charles I you may be in the process of losing your head. Some of the worst elements opposing Assad have been engaged in a transparent re-branding exercise aimed at garnering U.S. aid. And, U.S. diplomats and media face the high challenge of explaining why the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

But, hey, Clinton will get Robert Kagan's vote and a better tomorrow is only a Friedman unit away, so it is all good.

[Oct 02, 2016] Hillary had called for a physical barrier to keep out immigrants

Notable quotes:
"... Wow, that 5 minute video is well worth watching. HRC calls multiple times for walls and "barriers" to be constructed along the Mexican border. ..."
"... trump campaign should distribute that to every spanish speaking organization that's out there. ..."
"... Understandably, Hillary was filled with enthusiasm after visiting Israel's security wall and seeing how well it keeps out unwanted brown people. /sarc ..."
Oct 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Edna M. October 2, 2016 at 8:05 am

An important find from the Jimmy Dore show: Hillary had called for a physical barrier to keep out immigrants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jCG566TFZI&index=8&list=LLZJl7owO_xSf0NPr6iXK_0w

Pavel October 2, 2016 at 9:10 am

Wow, that 5 minute video is well worth watching. HRC calls multiple times for walls and "barriers" to be constructed along the Mexican border.

pretzelattack October 2, 2016 at 9:21 am

trump campaign should distribute that to every spanish speaking organization that's out there.

Jim Haygood October 2, 2016 at 10:07 am

Understandably, Hillary was filled with enthusiasm after visiting Israel's security wall and seeing how well it keeps out unwanted brown people. /sarc

[Sep 28, 2016] Goldwater wasn't a liar

Notable quotes:
"... I'd actually say that endorsing Hillary very much reflects conservative ideals and Republican (party) principles. Kudos to them on maintaining their streak. ..."
Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Alex morfesis September 28, 2016 at 3:17 pm

The arizona republic has Never endorsed a democrat…$hillary is just a goldwater girl wearing democratic spanx(tm)….

Reply
Benedict@Large September 28, 2016 at 5:11 pm

Goldwater wasn't a liar.

Daryl September 28, 2016 at 4:09 pm

> "Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles"

I'd actually say that endorsing Hillary very much reflects conservative ideals and Republican (party) principles. Kudos to them on maintaining their streak.

[Sep 26, 2016] Hillarys lies are always are well crafted, well designed, kind of lawyerly dissertations on misdirection and obfuscation.

Notable quotes:
"... First, I would certainly agree that Trump lies. Which is not to be confused with his inchoate policy prescriptions and vast ignorance. But as I have noted, Trump lies are – to use an overused phrase – "transparent". ..."
"... Compare to Hillary's lies – which are well crafted, well designed, and are lawyerly dissertations on misdirection and obfuscation. As well as being made to advance policy goals that are for the benefit of the 1%. Is Hillary against TPP in ANY sense of the meaning of the word "against" ? ..."
"... And with regard to media "fact checkers" – their "fact" checks take political statements at face value, and strike me as hopelessly unsophisticated and naive, and additionally hopelessly uninformed. As well as the "frame" of the question. Do a search regarding whether Clinton started birtherism. And than do a search whether Clinton used racist dog whistles to advance her 2008 campaign. Quite a difference. Which is effectively worse (hmmm – thats a twofer: is Clinton using dog whistles or is the media not asking relevant questions worse)??? ..."
"... People understand that it is all hype, all spin, and usually worse all the time. Is that too cynical? Well, when money and power are involved, it probably isn't…. ..."
"... An interesting take in that article, essentially arguing that the public has been gaslighted for so long by PR and image scrubbing that they crave Trump because his egotism is at least real ..."
"... So classic! The example Loofbourow gives to show how people are sick of gaslighting is… a classic case of gaslighting itself, as Trump never said he "loves" Putin, and Putin never called him a "genius". Rather these are the memes that our Acela Bubble gaslighters have been flooding into our brains. ..."
"... brangelina article . ..."
"... There is no perfect explanation that will account for Trump supporters' anger. They seem to share with Bernie Sanders supporters a deep sense of betrayal, of fundamental and unsolvable mistrust. ..."
"... One major problem with clinton's campaign message of portraying trump as nuts and 'unfit' is that 1) trump has no history of mental illness or known medical issues. I've read he doesn't drink and hasn't had any incidents where he's lost his temper and done something crazy that she can point to. 2) the whole 'unfit' thing presumes that people have confidence in the current political class and will reject someone who isn't up to that standard. ..."
Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

fresno dan September 25, 2016 at 7:33 am

"One visible frustration shared by Team Clinton and its many allies in the punditocracy is that many voters are ignoring what they think the rules should be, particularly that Trump routinely says things that are false, yet poll responses suggest that respondents don't care all that much about how often Trump lies or wings it and gets it wrong."

First, I would certainly agree that Trump lies. Which is not to be confused with his inchoate policy prescriptions and vast ignorance. But as I have noted, Trump lies are – to use an overused phrase – "transparent".

Compare to Hillary's lies – which are well crafted, well designed, and are lawyerly dissertations on misdirection and obfuscation. As well as being made to advance policy goals that are for the benefit of the 1%. Is Hillary against TPP in ANY sense of the meaning of the word "against" ?

And with regard to media "fact checkers" – their "fact" checks take political statements at face value, and strike me as hopelessly unsophisticated and naive, and additionally hopelessly uninformed. As well as the "frame" of the question. Do a search regarding whether Clinton started birtherism. And than do a search whether Clinton used racist dog whistles to advance her 2008 campaign. Quite a difference. Which is effectively worse (hmmm – thats a twofer: is Clinton using dog whistles or is the media not asking relevant questions worse)???

Now, for me, its hard to believe that media people, whose ONLY job is to write about politics, are so uninformed as to not understand the term "dog whistle" or to not understand that an awful lot of politics is trying to smear your opposition without leaving fingerprints. How many stories have you read in the MSM about the Clinton foundation that gave a detailed analysis of what they spend money on by someone that you trust really understands and can explain how a charity should operate???

Now, this link to "Brangelina" I think actually is pertinent to why media "fact checkers" are so scorned – the second half of the article offers insight how the modern press relations business runs circles around the media and how people who want to portray a "message" can easily do so.

http://theweek.com/articles/650080/brangelina-matters

People understand that it is all hype, all spin, and usually worse all the time. Is that too cynical? Well, when money and power are involved, it probably isn't….

RabidGandhi September 25, 2016 at 9:55 am

An interesting take in that article, essentially arguing that the public has been gaslighted for so long by PR and image scrubbing that they crave Trump because his egotism is at least real:

You know who does seem authentic? Someone who does everything out of nothing but naked self-interest, and admits it frankly. Someone who makes no pretense that he's trying to live up to some notion of decency. Someone whose only metric - whose admitted basis of action on any topic - is how it will affect him. Donald Trump loves Vladimir Putin. Why? Because Putin called him a genius. What else could possibly matter? To pretend one cares about anything else would be just that: a pretense. His rationale may not be good, but it is at least pure, uncontaminated by considerations of how things will look.

So classic! The example Loofbourow gives to show how people are sick of gaslighting is… a classic case of gaslighting itself, as Trump never said he "loves" Putin, and Putin never called him a "genius". Rather these are the memes that our Acela Bubble gaslighters have been flooding into our brains.

Embrace the meta.

John Rose September 25, 2016 at 10:22 am

And another quote that ends the brangelina article .

There is no perfect explanation that will account for Trump supporters' anger. They seem to share with Bernie Sanders supporters a deep sense of betrayal, of fundamental and unsolvable mistrust. And of course a great deal of that sense of grievance has to do with class, and race, and gender - and the economy and our justice system and racism and education and income inequality and foreign wars and xenophobia.

But we're in danger of missing a huge chunk of what drives the American psyche if we forget just how frivolous we are, if we forget to look at what Americans actually think about and watch in their spare time. And that isn't politics. It's The Bachelorette. It's Instagram. It's the Kardashians. This week, it's Brangelina and the peculiar wave of nostalgia their breakup inspired as we remember a time when we weren't quite this jaded.

The Jolie-Pitt divorce has been hailed as the end of an era. So it is: The end of their union marks the end of a style of celebrity fluent in rewriting the narrative, of spinning scandal into decency and a happy ending so convincing that people threw away their #TeamJen shirts. Sure, sure, this is a "real family." Yes, these are "real people." This story is no doubt "complicated." But secretly, we believe complexity is a con. Really, the end of Brangelina just confirms our suspicions: It's lies all the way down, just as we always feared.

johnnygl September 25, 2016 at 9:07 am

One major problem with clinton's campaign message of portraying trump as nuts and 'unfit' is that 1) trump has no history of mental illness or known medical issues. I've read he doesn't drink and hasn't had any incidents where he's lost his temper and done something crazy that she can point to. 2) the whole 'unfit' thing presumes that people have confidence in the current political class and will reject someone who isn't up to that standard.

Trump just needs to seems reasonable and not like the whacko seen in the constant barrage of clinton ads.

[Sep 14, 2016] Hillary Clinton views almost everytbody outside of the top one percent as Basket of deplorables

Notable quotes:
"... True. I attribute it all to deep-seated self loathing. Somewhere deep down the vestigal organ known as the "conscience" is paying attention. ..."
"... was taken as evidence in his own mind ..."
"... Liberals believe in addressing every issue within a socio-economic context (Crime, Terrorism, …) Except racism. That issue is context free ..."
"... Kids just feel and act, unconditioned. ..."
"... They are pure and genuine. They are not cheaters. Kids are our masters, we must learn from them. We should be more like kids. ..."
"... Today we can learn from them, just watch these kids in action. ..."
"... I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes ..."
"... "I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari ..."
"... "In the minds of many, soil is simply dirt, but without it we would all cease to exist. Unlike the water we drink and the air we breathe, soil is not protected in the EU and its quality is getting worse" ..."
Sep 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
skeeter , September 13, 2016 at 4:54 pm

"Basket of deplorables," how pithy a metaphor for placing your detractors in a container from which their voices and needs can be discounted. Clinton gives us a great turn of phrase with which we can contemplate her inclination to strip the prerogatives of citizenship – such as the inclination not to select her at the ballot – from her detractors.

Agamben's thesis is that western constitutional democracies inevitably turn to the state of exception and strip citizenship from their peoples on the way.

We have been at it a long time in America. The delightful new twist is contemplating the election of a candidate who tells us that not being a card carrying identity politics connected elitist, or sycophant of, will get you relegated to the ranks of homo sacer – the bare human. And oh yes, the Secretary is inclined to be the decider. There is no functional distinction between the nightmares these candidates represent.

JohnnyGL , September 13, 2016 at 6:30 pm

Check this out….NPR quotes CNBC to smear Trump's day-care tax deduction plan with the old, "how you gonna pay for that?" line.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/13/493755181/trump-campaign-sketches-out-family-care-plans-questions-linger-over-funding

Interesting to see that this is Ivanka's pet issue. Maybe Trump really intends on pushing for this?

It's nice to be pandered to!

RabidGandhi , September 13, 2016 at 2:56 pm

Re: Charles Blow, "if the basket fits…"
_____________

Blow makes it official: this is the Best Election Ever for Team Blue. First they get to bring their "kick-the-left" game up to the next level with the mugging of the Sanders campaign. Then they (finally!) get to copulate in public with their neo-con friends-with-benefits. And now, as Blow demonstrates, they are at last free to spew their hate against the ignorant chumps in flyover: all the bile they have piled up but just couldn't articulate because you gotta be PC ("impolitic" dixit Blow).

Read the comments on the NYT articles or in other liberal goodthink rags: HRC was just articulating what the entire Acela bubble wanted to say but was too tactful. Listen to HRC making the actual comments: there were no boos or gasps, just laughter (sadly showing how part of the LGBT movement has become appallingly intolerant: a vast cry from the movement's origins).

Blow is just one voice in a blue chorus singing battlesongs against the poor and the left. A very clarifying election indeed.

HopeLB , September 13, 2016 at 7:16 pm

Love your analysis!

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 13, 2016 at 7:52 pm

True. I attribute it all to deep-seated self loathing. Somewhere deep down the vestigal organ known as the "conscience" is paying attention.

Anonymous , September 13, 2016 at 3:00 pm

> "Wells Fargo Exec Who Headed Phony Accounts Unit Collected $125 Million" [Fortune]. I think it's very important that a woman –Carrie Tolstedt - shattered the glass ceiling for accounting control fraud.

When the story first broke a few days ago, I knew right away (as in, before even finishing reading the headline) that this was another accounting control fraud. It's really sad that NC is the only place where the term "control fraud" is used in connection with this scandal.

HopeLB , September 13, 2016 at 7:25 pm

I was entertaining a variation of that very idea. Some honest to God disgruntled and disappointed Justice Fighter from the FBI goes rogue, righting Comey's wrong, with the Russian Conspiracy twist(polonium) thrown in for ironic flair.

Jake Mudrosti , September 13, 2016 at 3:13 pm

The only positive thing to happen during this election season is the death of mainstream media. With their insufferable propaganda fully exposed, there is no coming back.

I have a bleaker view of human cognition, and so disagree. It must be noted that in the past couple weeks, an NC commenter honestly felt he needed to inform me of my own country of origin, because in his mind this was something that I clearly needed to be schooled about. Yes, the fact that I disagreed with his narrative was taken as evidence in his own mind that he needed to school me - to teach me where I'm from, and teach me how my friends and family died. A clearer example of basic cognitive failure would be hard to come by.

Yet, as 20th century world history shows very clearly, when a culture shifts in that direction, such self-certain lunacy just becomes the new order of the day. It becomes the style.

It seems that many of my previous NC comments mention Robert Jay Lifton's books, and, well, can't avoid doing it again. Critics of his analyses fault them for being "unfalsifiable," etc, but I counter by saying that they were offered in a totally different spirit as a summary of his painstaking observations rather than a cognitive theory.

If there's any hope of digging out of the cultural hole in the near term, I'd say that'd be the place to start.

Robert Hahl , September 13, 2016 at 5:04 pm

Thanks, I will look at Lifton.

Speaking of books that offer deep insights into human behavior without citing any evidence, I really loved Crowds and Power by Elias Canetti.

Kim Kaufman , September 13, 2016 at 3:24 pm

""Wells Fargo Exec Who Headed Phony Accounts Unit Collected $125 Million" [Fortune]. I think it's very important that a woman –Carrie Tolstedt - shattered the glass ceiling for accounting control fraud."

See? We're living in a post racist, sexist world. Now it's not only white men who can eff over everyone else, African-Americans and women can join that elite club of amoral people. And get rich doing it!

Arizona Slim , September 13, 2016 at 6:44 pm

And if you say anything mean about Carrie, you are being sexist!

DWD , September 13, 2016 at 3:39 pm

Liberals believe in addressing every issue within a socio-economic context (Crime, Terrorism, …)
Except racism. That issue is context free

Maybe it is just me but I disagree vehemently with this sentiment.

The reasoning is fairly simple: these issues that are used to divide us (racism, sexism, religion, economics) are made much stronger when the economy is the weakest.

If you need proof look to the great industrial states of the Midwest with their racist (now, never before) governments: Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and even Rauner in Illinois. These political beliefs would never gain traction when the economies were going great. Working people have taken the brunt of the globalization bullshit and the endless contempt of "Clinton Liberals" everywhere (apparently)

Gareth , September 13, 2016 at 5:23 pm

Economic hardship is an amplifier of racism. This is what the limousine liberals never seem to understand. For them is it much more satisfying to demonstrate their moral superiority through contempt for the deplorables.

hunkerdown , September 13, 2016 at 8:16 pm

The socio-economic context they're talking about is whether they can afford the deserving poor and the opera.

Also, what Gareth says.

abynormal , September 13, 2016 at 3:43 pm

Kids just feel and act, unconditioned.

They are pure and genuine.
They are not cheaters.
Kids are our masters, we must learn from them.
We should be more like kids.

Today we can learn from them, just watch these kids in action.
http://www.lifehack.org/428542/these-kids-really-show-the-bright-side-human-nature

2 days ago i went to a local park just to swing and to be honest, cry… where no one would be put out. took about a minute for a toddler to bring me a tiny flower…i didn't even know she was near. at first i was embarrassed but then realized her heart will grow thru endearing gestures. i smiled and asked her if she could show me how to swing as high as she does. hope yall get a rise out of kids. they can be near at the strangest moment…when we let them.

Janie , September 13, 2016 at 6:40 pm

Been thinking about you with tears in my eyes but unable to find the right words. You have more friends than you know.

Jim Haygood , September 13, 2016 at 7:17 pm

Good on you, aby.

The universe reached out to you.

Romancing The Loan , September 13, 2016 at 3:46 pm

Given that we're all becoming resigned to having a horrible president yet again I'm taking a surprising delight in the proliferating Clinton conspiracy theories after her collapse Sunday (the body double, the catheter, etc.). I hadn't seen this one before and thought I would share with the group – that Chelsea's 10M condo (where Hillary was taken), at The Whitman at 21 E. 26th St. in the NY – is supposedly (I have no idea) the same building as has listed " Metrocare Home Services "

The conspiracy theory is that Hillary has her own private hospital in the same building, which going to "Chelsea's apartment" is cover for.

I'm sure it's not true but, like all the others, it'd be pretty funny if it was and I'm sure the Clinton team would have zero compunction about the deception involved.

Jess , September 13, 2016 at 4:15 pm

That's so sweet and beautiful. I can imagine the scene in my mind, as I'm sure many other readers can.

Mark John , September 13, 2016 at 4:29 pm

It is amazing what one can come up with when one absolutely does not trust another. Let me say, first of all, that Hillary allowing herself to go out on a hot day in the middle of a large crowd after working like a "demon" (!!!) is not the best political move. It is like sticking one's head into the jaws of the conspiracy theorists and saying bite down hard.

But, if, perhaps Clinton is not soooo politically inept, which, Lord knows, she gives every evidence of being, here is an alternative perspective I cooked up with a little appetizer. . .

First item..The Clintons tell Loretta Lynch they want to keep her on at DOJ. But that will be hard to do if she is the face of not filing charges against Hillary. Let's do an impromptu meeting (Bill and Loretta Lynch) on airplane, then put it out in marquis letters so the conspiracy theorists run with it. Loretta Lynch honorably steps down, gets to keep her job if Hillary is elected.

From this line of thinking, conspiratorial as it also well is, Hillary is expected to clobber Donald Trump in the debates. Politically speaking, she has set for herself a very high bar, being so qualified and all. Let's use this illness thing, cook up a minor illness and Hillary faints at the 9/11 memorial. The conspiracy theorists run away with it, she is on death's door, yadayada. Some upside is that she will engender some sympathy.

Two weeks later at Hofstra, bar much lower, she comes back as robust as can be, bar set much , much lower. Headlines read "Clinton Comes Back Swinging" and "Clinton Alive and Well at Hofstra".

Roger Smith , September 13, 2016 at 4:52 pm

Absolutely incredible! Thanks for sharing!

Vatch , September 13, 2016 at 5:11 pm

In the movie "Being There", the super rich guy played by Melvyn Douglas has a mini hospital in his home. Maybe that's standard operating procedure for the oligarchs!

nowhere , September 13, 2016 at 5:56 pm

Two doors down from the panic room (the private server being behind the other door, of course).

Tom , September 13, 2016 at 7:16 pm

And one door away from the emergency chute that empties in the sub basement, where a disused subway tunnel has been refurbished to whisk away any particularly privacy-oriented presidential candidate, safe from prying eyes.

grayslady , September 13, 2016 at 7:18 pm

The whole building seems to have been the admin. headquarters for an outfit called Metrocare Home Services before it was refitted as a swanky, 4-unit residential building. Amusing, but no "there" there.

hunkerdown , September 13, 2016 at 8:26 pm

Red herring. "This facility is closed or merged with another facility. " (NYSDH)

Besides, she or anyone else with dough can have an ostentatiously well-appointed sickroom within the apartment, regardless of previous or present tenants of the building. And a home health care business wouldn't make a particularly useful front to stockpile advanced treatments etc. for what ails her. They tend not to keep much inventory, in my limited experience.

McWatt , September 13, 2016 at 3:47 pm

Had my catalytic converter stolen by thieves with battery operated sawsall's. They are under the car
and out in two minutes. Locally they get $40.00-50.00 for them. Cost to replace…Dealer $2,200.00,
local guy you know $1200.00 .

Police report in my area from two weeks ago said 12 were stolen in one night's rampage.

Paid Minion , September 13, 2016 at 4:12 pm

I got that beat……..

Car broken into, rummaged thru, change stolen from center console.

Money stolen = About four bucks

Damage to car = Shattered window, prybar damage to "A" pillar and window seals, when they tried to pry the window open = $1500.

Damage/theft ratio = 375 to 1

But according to this morning's post, they were probably tearing up my s##t because they were hungry, so I guess I should blame myself for only paying half my income in various taxes.

Robert Hahl , September 13, 2016 at 5:17 pm

You don't pay taxes, your employer does. If taxes dropped your income would adjust down by the same amount.

Sammy Maudlin , September 13, 2016 at 6:42 pm

That statement is wrong on numerous levels, number one of which is that while an employer may withhold earnings of a W-2 employee for the purpose of paying income taxes, it is the employee that pays those taxes. Until a return is filed and processed, the withheld amount is a deposit made on the employee's behalf. The amount of the deposit is based on the gross wages of the employee. If the tax rate drops, also would the deposit, and ultimately the tax. But the amount of gross wages are unaffected.

Also, last I checked, employers generally don't pay sales or property taxes for employees on non-employment related purchases.

cwaltz , September 13, 2016 at 7:46 pm

Oh good God, over 40% of the population gets their payroll taxes back.

Yes, it sucks that they are taken out to begin with, particularly when there are definitely pay periods when the 50 bucks could be utilized to pay a co pay or buy things that one needs.

Additionally, if you are paying property taxes to begin with you're one up on much of the population, it means you have a house or a car. You've made a conscious choice to own things. The streets your car and house are located on aren't free. The schools in your communities aren't no cost. I'm so over people whining about paying taxes.

Sammy Maudlin , September 13, 2016 at 8:03 pm

My comment strictly relates to the erroneous characterizations of the responsibility for paying taxes and the effect of a tax reduction on gross wages asserted by Robert Hahl.

I did not intend to address the amount thereof, justification for, nor the proper amount of self-righteousness a taxpayer may exude for paying said taxes.

Jay M , September 13, 2016 at 8:40 pm

getting some of the broken windows policing types on NC?

cwaltz , September 13, 2016 at 9:16 pm

I probably should have just called BS on his claim that he pays 50% in taxes or called him on his lack of empathy for those that actually go hungry(many of which are CHILDREN.)

My first instinct to tell those fortunate enough to have to pay is to tell them to go ahead and "spite" the system by getting that job at BK so they can live the "good life" on minimum wage and then they too can not pay taxes….of course, they'll also forgo retirement accounts, vacation days, owning a home, struggle with owning a car and the costs associated with it, etc, etc but hey, they won't be paying 50% in taxes.

Personally, I am profoundly grateful that our family pays a percentage in taxes(not 50% but above Mitt Romney.) It means we can afford a car, a house and we have a decent income. It means I can afford that DVD that I pay sales tax on. All in all it means our family is accumulating wealth.

Anyway, I should have directed this at the OP, not you.

Bubba_Gump , September 13, 2016 at 11:49 pm

Pretty sure my federal taxes go to defense contractors to make war. My state and local taxes cover what doesn't come from the feds anymore cause they're too busy spending on war. That's why I complain.

cwaltz , September 14, 2016 at 12:21 am

They go organizations that work on roads, they go to organizations that make sure you have clean water, organizations that make sure your kids don't eat lead, organizations that make sure you aren't eating food filled with e coli- Don't go to the states to help pay for schools or other local programs not covered by your local or state taxes.

Don't get me wrong, way too much money goes to war. On that we are in absolute agreement however, be angry instead that our government has so much potential to do so much more than destroy with that money. Our government could be doing more for things like schooling or health care and it would be a way better use of the monies we pay.

I think the right and left agree that the government is failing us. Where we disagree is on what to do about it. The right thinks that things will be better if the government gets smaller and gets out of the way. I tend to disagree. It needs good leaders that believe in accountability and have vision. It needs people to right size it, not downsize it and people that negotiate in good faith with the private sector, not roll over for it.

A government is only as good as it's leadership and right now we've got some pretty questionable leadership.

inode_buddha , September 13, 2016 at 10:10 pm

I would dearly love to know how to get it all back every year, having spent my entire life under 30k and paying (aggregate) about 20% per anum. What really gets me is listening to co-workers go on about how people go on welfare because the gov't gives them so much money.

cwaltz , September 14, 2016 at 12:40 am

All my experiences with those on welfare is it's a pretty miserable experience. After my stepfather died, my mom had to get help financially for her 3 minor children. They means tested everything, she couldn't even own a car for more than something ridiculous like $3000.

I also know someone who turned down work because actually working hours she did not know would be guaranteed the next month would have cut her food stamps the following month.

It seems positively contradictory to me to set up a system that encourages reliance forever because you are continually threatening the safety net of a person the minute they get a tiny bit ahead.

Personally, I'd love to see the government start doing what it does for the very rich and allowing or helping people to put assets away in an "emergency account(up to $5,000)." Instead it's only the really rich and middle class who get to put money away tax free for retirement(401ks, hsas, IRAs) schools for their kids, health care, etc, etc. All of this money is meant for long term savings which for someone on the bottom of the income ladder is something they can't do because they're too worried about having access to money when that crappy $3000 car breaks down.

It's a stupid, crazy system and I know we could be doing better.

Robert Hahl , September 14, 2016 at 1:45 am

Again, if all of your taxes were lowered, your employer would be able to pay you less, and that is what would happen.

Left in Wisconsin , September 13, 2016 at 6:04 pm

My guess would be $$ for heroin.

Paid Minion , September 13, 2016 at 6:16 pm

Oxycodone, or something like that. The "Drug du Jour" according to my kids.

It's hard for us old folk to keep track of all of the different ways people are effing themselves up anymore.

An interesting study could be made on how many people have made themselves essentially unemployable due to drugs/alcohol/excessive marijuana usage.

Better yet, align that study with the people essentially unemployable due to giant, unsightly tattoos.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 13, 2016 at 7:18 pm

I am told that the tattoo approval test is a generational thing…if you're old, you are not likely to have one or know a friend who has one (most of time…many wonderful older people – in this country or many other countries – have them).

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 13, 2016 at 7:23 pm

Property is theft.

Then you have theft of theft, that is, theft of property.

Property theft is under reported, it feels to me (based on my personal experience and talking with neighbors around here…do i live in a bad neighborhood?).

cwaltz , September 13, 2016 at 7:40 pm

You must have a fairly high income if your tax rate cumulatively is 50%.

Is that you Phil Mickelson whining that you only get to keep a portion of your 61 million that you got paid to play golf?

Jim Haygood , September 13, 2016 at 7:29 pm

Going from memory here, but I seem to recall reading in a car magazine - late 60s, early 70s - that master thieves in NYC could drop a 4-speed transmission from a curb-parked Corvette in 8 minutes flat.

Dropping a trans is not a trivial task.

Now butchers with sawzalls can swipe a cat converter in 2 minutes, with two quick, crude cuts through a thinwall exhaust pipe.

Just goes to show how skills have declined. :-(

I was a butcher cutting up meat
My hands were bloody, I'm dying on my feet
I was a surgeon 'till I start to shake
I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes

- Rolling Stones, You Got Me Rocking

Jay M , September 13, 2016 at 8:42 pm

I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes

hope you can believe in

steelhead23 , September 13, 2016 at 3:49 pm

"I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari

I am surprised you didn't comment on this, Lambert. The federal deficit is just a number. Kashkari's argument that increasing the deficit implies future higher taxes is bunk – displaying a lack in understanding monetary theory. I admit to only a cursory understanding, but the real purpose of income taxes is to slow the flow of money through the economy to reduce inflationary pressures. Federal infrastructure spending would boost the lagging economy, with virtually no downside. There is absolutely no need to pay-down the debt. I would be more comfortable with Kashkari as the treasurer of my local PTA than a regional Federal Reserve Bank president. Can't we do better?

Yves Smith , September 13, 2016 at 3:59 pm

Kashkari is a diehard libertarian. And he's upfront about it if you read up on his failed bid to be CA governor.

hunkerdown , September 13, 2016 at 4:51 pm

Kashkari's argument that increasing the deficit implies future higher taxes is bunk – displaying a lack in understanding monetary theory.

Kashkari, as a big banker, would presumably be the recipient of those higher taxes, since he would presumably be part of those financing said deficit. He's talking business, not monetary theory. It's the flexian way to presume that managers are there to be served.

John k , September 13, 2016 at 4:57 pm

Can either cut taxes, boost spending, or raise interest rates to suppress inflation.

Taxing citizens give value to the currency and thereby makes them willing to sell their goods and services to gov to obtain sufficient taxes to pay tax.
So gov levies a tax to obtain goods and services, not dollars that have no value to the entity that creates them.

Left in Wisconsin , September 13, 2016 at 6:09 pm

OTOH, here is Kocherlakota on Janet Yellen:

She argued in part that, thanks to its new tools of forward guidance and long-term asset purchases, the Fed would be able to offset the next recession, even if interest rates eventually stabilized at historically low levels.

Yet] two years into this hypothetical recession, the Fed would be refusing to provide more accommodation, even though the unemployment rate would be above 9 percent and it would be expecting the inflation rate to be falling further below its target for another three years.

But I wonder why the good econo-doctor has only got religion now that he is off the Fed.

allan , September 13, 2016 at 4:25 pm

Wake up and smell the methane impunity:

SoCal Gas to pay $4-million settlement over massive Porter Ranch gas leak
[LA Times]

Southern California Gas Co. agreed to a $4-million settlement Tuesday to end a criminal case filed by Los Angeles County prosecutors over the utility's handling of the massive gas leak near Porter Ranch last year.

The gas company pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor count of failing to immediately notify the California Office of Emergency Services and Los Angeles County Fire Department of the leak that began on or around Oct. 23, 2015, in the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage field. The utility will pay the maximum fine of $75,000 for that three-day delay, according to the L.A. County district attorney's office.

The gas company will pay $232,500 in state penalties on top of that fine and $246,672 for the fire department's response to the leak.

Three other misdemeanor counts will be dismissed when the utility is sentenced on Nov. 29.

End of story. Literally.

This is believed to be one of the largest releases in human history of the most powerful green house gas.

nowhere , September 13, 2016 at 5:59 pm

Definitely makes a strong case for companies to continue to defer maintenance. Seems there is no downside.

Synoia , September 13, 2016 at 7:01 pm

It is nothing compared with the GHGs exhaled by the US DOD.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 13, 2016 at 7:14 pm

Who gets the puny $4 million money?

The state government?

The people who are victims directly or (in greater S. Cal areas or even neighboring states) indirectly?

The animals and plants that suffered through the release of more green house gas?

I really hope it's not more money to the state so they can hire more traffic cops to get those who do not stop completely at stop signs.

craazyman , September 13, 2016 at 4:40 pm

another confusing plantidote. Is the plantidoe the yellow flower or is it the green thingies by the rocks?

I suppose it's up to the viewer to decide. Which seems like a lot of work. Some crackpot might choose the rocks themselves and then argue that there's microscopic plants on the rocks and that's what they mean. if you can't see them, that's your problem. The world is like that, crackpots pointing at things only they can see and blaming you for not seeing them. Then kicking your ass if they can.

Things should be obvous. And they are obvious, if you know what's what. Then you don't need to kick people's ass unless they really deserve it. mostly you just lay around waiting for people to see the things you see, knowing that they would if they could. That's a lot different than blaming them and kicking their ass. That's a lot of work - to kick someone's ass. What a pain. Work is to be avoided if at all possible. That should be obvious to everybody

Chauncey Gardiner , September 13, 2016 at 5:31 pm

Thank you for keeping the spotlight focused on efforts of the TBTF banks and transnational corporations to gain passage of the TPP, TTIP and TiSA, Lambert. Appears their lobbyists and the Obama administration have a full-court press underway on members of Congress now. One can only guess at what is being offered our congressional representatives for their vote during the lame duck session after the November election in exchange for trading away our national sovereignty.

clarky90 , September 13, 2016 at 5:34 pm

A behind-the-scenes look at medical education

by Dr Jason Fung (one of my heroes!)

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/big-pharma-behind-scenes/

"……..Doctors get continuing medical education (CME) through events like lectures and conferences. CME is necessary because many physicians practise for 30 or 40 years, and medicine is changing continuously, so they cannot rely on their medical school training, which might have happened in the 1960s. Doctors are required to get a certain number of hours of CME every year. You might imagine that doctors learn from unbiased experts dedicated to learning. Actually, nothing is further from the truth. The dirty little secret is that virtually all CME is sponsored heavily by Big Pharma giving them huge influence over what information is presented to doctors.

Every single level of CME has been corrupted by $$$. Let's start at the bottom.

In virtually every hospital in North America, there are lectures called 'rounds'. They happen in every specialty and almost every single day, mostly at lunchtime. What a great idea. Doctors would spend lunchtime teaching each other the intricacies of their specialty. Sorry, no. Most doctors don't prepare a full hours worth of lecture topic. Most are too busy to spend an hour listening a the lecture anyway. So, the friendly drug rep from Big Pharma helpfully gets lunch for everybody. Free lunch! That helps bring in the audience, but it doesn't help the fact that they still need a speaker………"

This probably explains, IMO, the pickle that HRC finds herself in

cwaltz , September 13, 2016 at 8:25 pm

I'm pretty sure the fluid and rest that she was prescribed by the MD, but she chose to ignore ,wasn't brought to you by pharmaceutical America.

The pickle Hillary finds herself in is a pickle of her own making.

Anne , September 13, 2016 at 8:47 pm

It isn't about her health, it's about her judgment. It's about the apparent decision not to disclose the pneumonia diagnosis until they were forced to – and even then, they tried three other "explanations" before – hours later – they announced that fully 48 hours earlier, she had been diagnosed with pneumonia. First, she wasn't feeling well. Then she became overheated. Then she was dehydrated. It wasn't until some time after her reappearance on the street looking fine and dandy that they disclosed the pneumonia.

Do you see the pattern? It's the same one we saw with the e-mails. We're seeing it with the Clinton Foundation. This is a woman who doesn't seem to feel any obligation or accept any responsibility for playing by the rules, for following the protocols.

And she has the nerve to blame the right-wing conspiracy that's out to get her when in reality she creates much of the controversy all by herself.

I don't frankly care if she has or had pneumonia or her toenail fungus was acting up, but what she has once again managed to do is make it impossible for people to believe whichever story qualifies as the latest, and if anything she said before then has even a shred of truth in it.

What I fear, and what I do think would be a concern, is if the pneumonia diagnosis is a giant head-fake designed to cover up that she may be experiencing some neurological problems, perhaps related to the 2012 concussion (and Lord only knows if that story was factual) that even her husband says took her every bit of 6 months to recover from.

I get why she would want to hide anything even remotely like that, but what she doesn't seem to understand is that she really has no right, as a candidate for the highest office in the land, to hide it. Again, and again, she allows her personal ambition to cloud her judgment; years and years of important and wealthy people telling her she's one of the smartest people in the room, paying to be in her presence, have convinced her she just knows better than anyone. That she doesn't have to listen, that she has nothing to learn.

And sometimes, she probably does, but she doesn't ever seem to be able to know when she doesn't. That – the judgment problem – that's what she has, and that's what matters here.

cwaltz , September 13, 2016 at 9:24 pm

Oh, I absolutely agree with you she has a judgment problem, straight down to ignoring good advice.

I just think it is interesting that the post I was commenting on seems to be a jab at doctors and continuing education and

Pharma may be responsible for many things, Hillary Clinton's decision not to follow her doctor's instructions on rest and fluid aren't one of them though. They are in no way responsible for "the pickle that HRC finds herself in." Hillary owns that.

Roger Smith , September 13, 2016 at 9:33 pm

+++ great post

Bubba_Gump , September 13, 2016 at 11:52 pm

Agree.

John k , September 13, 2016 at 6:16 pm

Can anybody point me to links to critical reviews of the Clinton foundation?
Thanks

nycTerrierist , September 13, 2016 at 7:34 pm

Charles Ortel is a good source, lots of links here:

https://twitter.com/charlesortel

sd , September 14, 2016 at 1:37 am

Kristi Culpepper
https://medium.com/@munilass

Amy Sterling Casil
https://medium.com/@ASterling

PlutoniumKun , September 13, 2016 at 6:27 pm

Re: EurActive article on soils.

The EU did have a Soil Framework Directive in the works for years but it was eventually stymied by the UK, as George Monbiot has pointed out . One of the good things about Brexit is that it will undoubtedly improve the EU's capacity to bring forward more environmental protect directives – the UK has always been one of the main obstacles in this.

ekstase , September 13, 2016 at 8:00 pm

"As part of the lockout, LIU cut off professors' email accounts and health insurance,"

If, God forbid, someone gets very ill or worse, because they have had their health insurance cut off, will that be bad for p.r.?

Jay M , September 13, 2016 at 8:13 pm

"I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari

what a commedian

Jay M , September 13, 2016 at 8:16 pm

"In the minds of many, soil is simply dirt, but without it we would all cease to exist. Unlike the water we drink and the air we breathe, soil is not protected in the EU and its quality is getting worse"

and the air and water, better?

(not opposed to regulation)

petal , September 13, 2016 at 8:49 pm

Primary Day in NH. I went about 6:45p, 15 minutes before the polls closed. On my way out, I asked the nice ladies staffing the place if turnout had been light. They said "Very" and made disappointed faces.

NotTimothyGeithner , September 13, 2016 at 10:19 pm

Aren't you out by Keene? Southwest NH isn't exactly a Republican hotbed.

NotTimothyGeithner , September 13, 2016 at 10:26 pm

There were Democratic primaries today for various state offices, but the GOP had the Senate primary and statewide races.

[Sep 13, 2016] Is Hillary Clinton Dishonest

Neocons like Nicholas Kristof support Hillar y, no question about it. But that does not make her less disonest. Actually that makes her more "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character."
Notable quotes:
"... But Clinton's big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early 2013 to 56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust her. Only a bit more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as "honest and trustworthy." ..."
"... Indeed, when Gallup asks Americans to say the first word that comes to mind when they hear "Hillary Clinton," the most common response can be summed up as "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character." Another common category is "criminal/crooked/thief/belongs in jail." ..."
"... Hillary isn't crooked. She is dishonest in the sense that she gets to power by any means she can, including doing a complete turn on long-held opinions or saying she's evolved but not changing the bits and pieces that go with that evolution. She is dishonest in the sense that she defends taking money from Wall Street but refuses to show what she took it for, while maintaining that she has never changed a decision as a result. The thing is, she's never been faced with having to vote against Wall Street in any significant way or make a decision that, potentially, Wall Street would view as negative. ..."
"... She is intellectually dishonest in that she adopts her opponents' positions in name only but refuses to adopt the planks that go along with it, all the while calling herself a progressive who gets things done. Hillary Clinton has always been a neoliberal Democrat. She and Bill Clinton redefined center right democrat during his tenure. There is nothing wrong with owning up to that political bent. There is everything wrong with pretending someone you are not, as evidenced by her favorability numbers. ..."
"... Dishonesty and the paranoid secrecy that goes with it are fundamental to her personality. That many American are not wrong in their widespread judgment of her character. That is something that juries and other such groups judge well. ..."
"... She has many specific instances of dishonesty. She was not shot at in Bosnia for example. Her sneaky dishonest attacks on Bernie were accompanied by sly smiles when she did them, pleased with herself for laying out a considered and prepared lie. ..."
"... To support Hillary, you must believe receiving hundreds of millions from special interests (speaking fees, the foundation & campaign) does not make you beholden to those special interests. Democrats used to claim money given to politicians had a corrupting influence, but now with Hillary the chosen one, Democrats require a showing of quid pro corruption. ..."
"... Her foreign policy experience--it should scare us all. She voted for the Iraq war before politically being required to apologize for it. As Sec. of State, she supported bombing Libya into a stateless terrorist haven, supported rebels, turned terrorists in Syria and she is an Israeli hawk. ..."
"... It is not because she is a woman. That is an excuse. It is because she is an extreme hawk, a Washington Consensus neoliberal of trade deals and Wall Street. It is because she is Hillary, not because Hillary happens to be a woman. ..."
"... No other candidate running for president has given paid speeches to Wall Street and corporate America. Clinton is the ONLY candidate to do so. She accepted speaking fees until early 2015 knowing she was about to announce her candidacy. This is UNPRECEDENTED. ..."
"... This label of dishonesty that trails Clinton is not just about the most recent stuff. There's the story from way back when about how the Clintons took almost $200,000 worth of stuff when they left the White House. They eventually decided to return or pay for $114,000 worth of items. Things they'd claimed to have received before taking up residence were shown to have been received after they arrived; they claimed as personal gifts things donors specified as designated for the White House itself, etc. ..."
"... So, repeat after me--taking hundreds of millions from every special interest group does not in any way influence Hillary's independent judgment. Keep repeating and eventually you will believe it. See how easy that is. ..."
"... Now on to repeating how the neocon foreign policy hawks supporting Hillary as the best commander in chief is good. ..."
"... is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 22 hours ago ..."
"... People have noticed how assiduously both Clintons have courted money over the years, whether it is Whitewater and everything else leading up to the present day fundraising, including the Times' revelatory piece on Ukrainian money in an energy deal, it all reeks, but as is wont with the Clintons, stops just shy of actual misdeed. ..."
"... With the proliferation of small digital sound recording devices, someone out there made a recording. And when it winds up public (probably during the general election campaign when it would do the most damage), it will be Mrs. Clinton's "47% moment". ..."
"... People find her dishonest and untrustworthy because she is. It doesn't take an advanced degree to see that she's a self-interested political animal through and through. She has a long, well-documented history of taking whatever position is most politically expedient and changing it when the polling changes. ..."
"... Furthermore her and her husband's well-documented history of taking money from everybody from Wall St. banksters to foreign autocrats for everything from private speeches the proceeds of which go directly into their pockets to their "foundation" suggests at the minimum a clueless recklessness about the appearance or corruption and at worst outright contempt for the intelligence of American voters. ..."
"... Again, it doesn't take membership in Mensa to apply a little critical thought and personal experience to the issue of her honesty or trustworthiness. Anybody who's ever done anything they felt even the tiniest bit ethically or morally uncomfortable about in order to keep their job or anybody who's observed this behavior in even the smallest or least significant way from colleagues knows Wall St. banksters and the Saudis princes don't give millions of dollars to people who aren't minimally receptive to their interests and people who take those millions don't do so with the intention of turning off that spigot down the line. ..."
"... What if decades of facially shady conduct is true? What if Bill Safire is right that HRC is a congenital liar? Why doesn't HRC give all this the lie by releasing her speech transcripts? Since leaving office the Clintons and the Foundation have amassed millions. Can we not think, as did Honore de Balzac that "behind every great fortune is a great crime"? How Mrs. Clinton must actually hate Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders and those under 40 who have or may yet deny her the crown. ..."
"... Often, the corruption is in the form of compensation after the public official leaves office. I used to work in NJ State Government. I can cite numerous examples of regulators who left public service, and were rewarded with lucrative contracts by the firms they formerly regulated. This would sometimes be laundered. For example, the former public official would join a law firm or consulting firm, and suddenly that firm would get a big contract from the firm they formerly regulated. ..."
"... In the case of Mrs Clinton, she was a "private citizen" only temporarily. She resigned as Secretary of State, but it was public knowledge that she was going to announce a Presidential run. ..."
"... She may not be dishonest, but boy is she greedy. ..."
"... Hillary is less transparent. She hides a lot. Does that make her dishonest? Maybe not. But unlikeable for sure. ..."
"... Sorry--the burden is squarely on Hillary to explain how money corrupts politicians, but she, Bill, the foundation and campaign taking hundreds of millions from special interests does not. Or, is a politician free to take all of the money her heart desires, unless there is iron clad proof of quid pro quo corruption? And if you believe that. you agree with the right wing majority in Citizens United. ..."
"... So the whitewashing of Hillary by the nominal Progressives begins. Whether or not she is "fundamentally" honest, as Jill Abrahamson has written, means what exactly? That she won't rob a bank, or pick your pocket? Yet she will defend bankers who rob their own banks and brokers who pick their investors' pockets every trading day by skimming others' potential profits with their high speed trades. Her husband's candidacy was rescued by winning the New York primary after his loss in New Hampshire and as President he deregulated the banks, and once he was in private life again, he became a centa millionaire by speaking in front of bankers. One would be naive to believe the Clintons did not make a deal the the banks put out the word. Perhaps there was no quid pro quo, but there certainly was some quo pro quid. Ditto for Hillary. ..."
"... Why a "Progressive" would paper over the record of Goldwater girl turned "NeoLiberal," which is pretty much the same thing, who is fundamentally against everything real Progressives stand for boggles the imagination. ..."
Apr 23, 2016 | New York Times

AFTER the New York primary, the betting websites are giving Hillary Clinton about a 94 percent chance of being the Democratic nominee, and Donald Trump a 66 percent chance of ending up as the Republican nominee.

But Clinton's big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early 2013 to 56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust her. Only a bit more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as "honest and trustworthy."

Indeed, when Gallup asks Americans to say the first word that comes to mind when they hear "Hillary Clinton," the most common response can be summed up as "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character." Another common category is "criminal/crooked/thief/belongs in jail."

... My late friend and Times colleague William Safire in 1996 dubbed Clinton "a congenital liar."

... Then there's the question of Clinton raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from speeches to Goldman Sachs and other companies. For a person planning to run for president, this was nuts. It also created potential conflicts of interest ...

... As for the fundamental question of whether Clinton risked American national security with her email server, I suspect the problem has been exaggerated

Rima Regas

is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 23 hours ago

Hillary isn't crooked. She is dishonest in the sense that she gets to power by any means she can, including doing a complete turn on long-held opinions or saying she's evolved but not changing the bits and pieces that go with that evolution. She is dishonest in the sense that she defends taking money from Wall Street but refuses to show what she took it for, while maintaining that she has never changed a decision as a result. The thing is, she's never been faced with having to vote against Wall Street in any significant way or make a decision that, potentially, Wall Street would view as negative.

She is intellectually dishonest in that she adopts her opponents' positions in name only but refuses to adopt the planks that go along with it, all the while calling herself a progressive who gets things done. Hillary Clinton has always been a neoliberal Democrat. She and Bill Clinton redefined center right democrat during his tenure. There is nothing wrong with owning up to that political bent. There is everything wrong with pretending someone you are not, as evidenced by her favorability numbers.

Hillary is not, nor has she ever been a progressive Democrat. That title is reserved for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison, and many other distinguished Democrats who have been in the progressive trenches for decades. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2cQ

You can't pretend to be someone you're not and expect everyone else to play along. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-27p

Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 23 hours ago

Yes, Hillary is dishonest.

Dishonesty and the paranoid secrecy that goes with it are fundamental to her personality. That many American are not wrong in their widespread judgment of her character. That is something that juries and other such groups judge well.

She has many specific instances of dishonesty. She was not shot at in Bosnia for example. Her sneaky dishonest attacks on Bernie were accompanied by sly smiles when she did them, pleased with herself for laying out a considered and prepared lie.

If she is elected, we will be so sick of this that NYT columnists will be writing "how could we have not seen this?" Well, it is them leading the way.

They should expect to be reminded loudly and often.

ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 22 hours ago

To support Hillary, you must believe receiving hundreds of millions from special interests (speaking fees, the foundation & campaign) does not make you beholden to those special interests. Democrats used to claim money given to politicians had a corrupting influence, but now with Hillary the chosen one, Democrats require a showing of quid pro corruption.

Sorry -- either money is corrupting or it is not, and the Clintons have personally received hundreds of millions from every possible special interest. By supporting Hillary you are saying special interest money is a good thing.

The Times also ran an interesting profile in the magazine section about how Hillary became a hawk. She follows the neocons playbook and as stated in the piece, one of her significant military advisors is a Fox news pundit. Hillary admits a mutual admiration with Kissinger.

So I don't trust Hillary when she says special interests do not influence her judgment. If they really don't--which is impossible to believe--they have wasted millions paying for 40 minute speeches. Lobbyists don't contribute money to candidates who don't not help their causes.

Her foreign policy experience--it should scare us all. She voted for the Iraq war before politically being required to apologize for it. As Sec. of State, she supported bombing Libya into a stateless terrorist haven, supported rebels, turned terrorists in Syria and she is an Israeli hawk.

All of this causes grave concerns that go well beyond trust.

Michael Ebner, Lake Forest, IL 7 hours ago

It comes down to the fact the HRC is the best Democratic aspirant for the party's presidential nomination in 2016.

I cast my ballot for her in the Illinois primary and will gladly do so again in November.

Do I have reservations? Surely.

But think of the reservations about some earlier Democratic as well as Republican nominees ....

Franklin Delano Roosevelt reneged on his longtime support for the League of Nations and adamantly refused to cross swords with Southern Democrats. Would you vote for Hoover, Landon, or Willkie?

Harry Truman had longstanding ties to Kansas City's Pendergast gang. I would have voted for him.

Eisenhower evaded a golden opportunity to denounce Joseph McCarthy while campaigning in Wisconsin during 1952. He forfeited the opportunity to call out McCarthy for his frontal attack on General George C. Marshall.

JFK as a US Senator stepped to the side on the Joseph McCarthy issue because his father was something of an enthusiast. If I could have voted in 1960, it would have been easy to vote for JFK rather than RMN.

LBJ was a political animal to his very core, but hands down a better choice than Senator Goldwater.

Jimmy Carter had made his way to the governorship of Georgia because of ties to the Talmadge organization that was out-and-out segregationist. In campaigning for the governorship JEC was something of a muted segregationist. I gladly voted for him over Gerald Ford.

And so on and so forth.

Saints don't rise to the presidency.

David Underwood, is a trusted commenter Citrus Heights 18 hours ago

Dishonest, you want dishonest, try Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the whole lot of them. She is evasive, she has made some exaggerations like being shot at, and yes she voted for W to attack Saddam if he did not stop killing his own people. She also has supported the Syrian rebels, as many of us have done, until they got subverted by Daesh.

The email issue is a GOP tail chase which is going nowhere, but keeps them accusing her, just as they did with Benghazi. She is tough putting up with all the crap I see from people here. Lies, opinions made of suppositions, unprovable accusations, a lesser person would have folded by now.

Anetliner Netliner, is a trusted commenter Washington, DC area 20 hours ago


I will vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee, but find her deeply untrustworthy. Examples, gong back to the early '90s:

-The commodities trading episode. Clinton asserted that she learned to trade commodities "by reading the Wall Street Journal", which is impossible. I was a great fan of Clinton's until I heard her utter this falsehood on national television.
-Travelgate. Career civil service employees improperly fired at Clinton's behest, so that they could be replaced with the services of a member of the Clintons' inner circle.
-Poor judgment on foreign policy: Iraq (not bothering to read the National Intelligence Estimate before voting to go to war.) Libya. No fly zone in Syria. Failure to close the U.S. mission to Libya in the summer of 2012: the UK closed its mission in response to growing danger; why did the U.S. not follow suit?
-Poor judgment in governmental administration: use of a private e-mail server. Initial explanation: "I didn't want to carry two devices." (Absurd on its face to anyone who has ever used a smart phone.)
-Shifting positions: Keystone XL, Trans-Pacific Partnership, single-payer health care.
-Distortion of opponents' positions. From the current campaign: distortion of Bernie Sanders' positions on the auto bailout and gun control.

I could go on, but the pattern is clear. I respect Clinton's intelligence, but deplore her duplicity and poor judgment. I'll support her in November only because the alternatives are worse.

Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago

It is not because she is a woman. That is an excuse. It is because she is an extreme hawk, a Washington Consensus neoliberal of trade deals and Wall Street. It is because she is Hillary, not because Hillary happens to be a woman.


Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago

"and yet, she has been highly vetted prior to becoming First Lady, most certainly so prior to becoming a Senator for NYC"

Nonsense. Nobody vets the President's wife. She is who he married. Nobody vets a Senator either. We've got some pretty strange Senators, arrested in bathrooms and stuff. They'd never get past vetting.

RLS, is a trusted commenter Virginia 19 hours ago

Winchestereast,

No other candidate running for president has given paid speeches to Wall Street and corporate America. Clinton is the ONLY candidate to do so. She accepted speaking fees until early 2015 knowing she was about to announce her candidacy. This is UNPRECEDENTED. Of course, congressional Democrats don't say it publicly but many wish that Clinton had shown better judgment.


Siobhan, is a trusted commenter New York 21 hours ago

This label of dishonesty that trails Clinton is not just about the most recent stuff. There's the story from way back when about how the Clintons took almost $200,000 worth of stuff when they left the White House. They eventually decided to return or pay for $114,000 worth of items. Things they'd claimed to have received before taking up residence were shown to have been received after they arrived; they claimed as personal gifts things donors specified as designated for the White House itself, etc.

It's this kind of stuff that leaves people feeling that the Clintons just aren't trustworthy.

Link to above story:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&amp;page=1


Scott Stafford, North America 7 hours ago

Ah. The Five Stages Of Every Clinton Scandal:

1. I did *absolutely nothing wrong*.
2. You can't *prove* I did anything wrong.
3. Technically speaking, no law was actually violated.
4. Well, it's a stupid law anyhow.
5. Everybody does it.

pjd, is a trusted commenter Westford 18 hours ago

"... if that's corrupt then so is our entire campaign finance system."

Yes, it is. It is driven by massive amounts of money. The only "sin" committed by Ms. Clinton in the case of her speaking fees is to take publicly traceable money. Meanwhile, the rest of the bunch are taking cash by the truckload thanks to the Supreme Court-approved Citizens United.

Politics _is_ a dirty business. No one is innocent.

ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago

You and Kristof have joined the growing Democratic chorus that money is just a fact of politics. It may be true, but wasn't there a time Democrats advocated for taking money out of politics by overturning Citizens United? Or is it like Hillary's speaking transcripts, the Dems will agree to getting money out of politics when the Republicans do.

So, repeat after me--taking hundreds of millions from every special interest group does not in any way influence Hillary's independent judgment. Keep repeating and eventually you will believe it. See how easy that is.

Now on to repeating how the neocon foreign policy hawks supporting Hillary as the best commander in chief is good.

Rima Regas, is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 22 hours ago

Mark,

I have no disagreements with you. It is my personal code of ethics that stops me from going there, for as long as she isn't caught red handed. People have noticed how assiduously both Clintons have courted money over the years, whether it is Whitewater and everything else leading up to the present day fundraising, including the Times' revelatory piece on Ukrainian money in an energy deal, it all reeks, but as is wont with the Clintons, stops just shy of actual misdeed.

That is what the trust and favorability stats keep telling us, over and over again, no matter whether it is conservatives or democrats who are polled and, now, the Bernie Or Bust movement that is being vilified by the neoliberal punditry. There comes a time when people have had it up to here and it is my sense that it may finally be here. That is the topic of my Sunday essay. Krugman just posted a new blog post on a related topic. See my comment there.

Money and greed are the root of all evil.

RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 21 hours ago

As for the speeches, you do not have to prove an actual "favor" in return for millions in payments. Any attorney (and Mrs. Clinton is an attorney) who has had any exposure to the canons of attorney ethics knows that both actual impropriety, and APPEARANCES of impropriety are to be avoided. "Appearance" requires no proof of an actual quid pro quo. Besides, the payments can be interpreted as payments in hope of future considerations. should she be in a position to provide such considerations.

And if she is elected President and never gives them a break, as she says she won't, that is maybe even worse. Is there anything as dishonest as a public official who takes a bribe, and then does not deliver for the briber?

With the proliferation of small digital sound recording devices, someone out there made a recording. And when it winds up public (probably during the general election campaign when it would do the most damage), it will be Mrs. Clinton's "47% moment".

AC, Astoria, NY 6 hours ago

People find her dishonest and untrustworthy because she is. It doesn't take an advanced degree to see that she's a self-interested political animal through and through. She has a long, well-documented history of taking whatever position is most politically expedient and changing it when the polling changes.

Furthermore her and her husband's well-documented history of taking money from everybody from Wall St. banksters to foreign autocrats for everything from private speeches the proceeds of which go directly into their pockets to their "foundation" suggests at the minimum a clueless recklessness about the appearance or corruption and at worst outright contempt for the intelligence of American voters.

Again, it doesn't take membership in Mensa to apply a little critical thought and personal experience to the issue of her honesty or trustworthiness. Anybody who's ever done anything they felt even the tiniest bit ethically or morally uncomfortable about in order to keep their job or anybody who's observed this behavior in even the smallest or least significant way from colleagues knows Wall St. banksters and the Saudis princes don't give millions of dollars to people who aren't minimally receptive to their interests and people who take those millions don't do so with the intention of turning off that spigot down the line.

Ronald Cohen, is a trusted commenter Wilmington, N.C. 19 hours ago

Nicholas Kristoff blames the media for the view that Hillary Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy. I agree that the media as a blameworthy record in this election cycle of pushing Donald J. Trump by trumpeting his antics until he became a real danger while ignoring Bernard Sanders because he didn't suit the coronation of HRC in an effort, ongoing, of shoving Clinton down the National throat.

What if decades of facially shady conduct is true? What if Bill Safire is right that HRC is a congenital liar? Why doesn't HRC give all this the lie by releasing her speech transcripts? Since leaving office the Clintons and the Foundation have amassed millions. Can we not think, as did Honore de Balzac that "behind every great fortune is a great crime"? How Mrs. Clinton must actually hate Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders and those under 40 who have or may yet deny her the crown.


ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago

If you are interested in a factually based article outlining the $21.6 million Hillary took in from special interests between 2013-2015, read the AP story. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/21/the-associated-press-firms-that-paid-for-...

Even if you support Hillary, it is good to know who is paying her what.

RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 21 hours ago

Often, the corruption is in the form of compensation after the public official leaves office. I used to work in NJ State Government. I can cite numerous examples of regulators who left public service, and were rewarded with lucrative contracts by the firms they formerly regulated. This would sometimes be laundered. For example, the former public official would join a law firm or consulting firm, and suddenly that firm would get a big contract from the firm they formerly regulated.

In the case of Mrs Clinton, she was a "private citizen" only temporarily. She resigned as Secretary of State, but it was public knowledge that she was going to announce a Presidential run. A lot different than, say, Janet Reno giving a speech.

ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago

@RM--you raise an excellent point. If you outlined a political couple who did what the Clintons have done making money from special interests, but did not reveal their identities, everyone would agree they would be unduly influenced by special interest money. Reveal their identities and suddenly Hillary's supporters suspend previous beliefs that money corrupts politicians. And that is why nothing ever changes.

Ronald Cohen, is a trusted commenter Wilmington, N.C. 19 hours ago

"The others are worse" argument should be addressed to the DNC and the party mandarins who won't field an honest candidate. If we don't vote for HRC then the party that ran her is to blame. Where are "the best and the brightest"? Why is our choice always between the dregs?

ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago

Remember when you could say that money in politics was a corrupting influence and democrats did not challenge you to show a quid pro quo? Democrats have suddenly adopted the conservative majority's reasoning in Citizens United there must be a quid pro quo for money to be bad.

We need to tell all of the lobbyists and special interests funneling money to the Clintons they are wasting their money because unlike other politicians, they can never be influenced by that money.

organic farmer, NY 6 hours ago

If 50% of Kristof's statements were true or 'mostly true', would he be still employed by the NYT? If I told the truth half the time, I doubt my family and co-workers would be impressed! If 50% of what my employees say were lies, they would get fired.

As a female middle-aged Democrat, I will vote for Clinton in November if I have to, but it won't be with any enthusiasm or confidence, and certainly I will not be voting for a leader I believe in. As a woman, I admire her intelligence, ambition, and determination, and I'm fairly convinced her integrity is probably somewhat better than many in politics, but we desperately need a President with a different vision for our future. We don't need a divisive leader beholden to Big Banks, Big Ag, Big Business, Big Military - this will not serve the United States well.

RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 19 hours ago

It would not be my fault that the Democratic party chose to force upon the voting public a candidate with high negatives. Such high negatives, that even Ted Cruz could defeat her.

Janice Badger Nelson, is a trusted commenter Park City, Utah, from Boston 15 hours ago

She may not be dishonest, but boy is she greedy.

You have got to hand it to her though, she has been through the mill and still stands there. I cannot imagine the humiliation she must have felt over the Lewinsky debacle. That alone would have done most of us in. But she ran for Senate and then President, became the Secretary of State and now is leading as the democratic candidate for President.

In her 60's. Quite remarkable, if you think about it. I do not know how she does it other than the fact she has supportive people surrounding her and that must help. I also think that she feels entitled somehow, and that is troubling to me. I also think her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, is a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy. I like that so much. Hillary is less transparent. She hides a lot. Does that make her dishonest? Maybe not. But unlikeable for sure.

RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 20 hours ago

I won't. A decision to support the lesser of two evils is a decision to support an evil. Maybe if you sat it out, or voted third party, it would be a message to the major parties to nominate better candidates.

Perhaps, to record that you came to vote, and found both candidates unsupportable, you could write in "none of the above"

But vote the rest of the ticket.

ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 18 hours ago

@Christine--you got me. You are right. Those special interests just gave Hillary and Bill hundreds of millions because they oppose everything the special interests want. None of the policies Hillary advocates are favored by any of those special interests. They are wasting their money!

Sorry--the burden is squarely on Hillary to explain how money corrupts politicians, but she, Bill, the foundation and campaign taking hundreds of millions from special interests does not. Or, is a politician free to take all of the money her heart desires, unless there is iron clad proof of quid pro quo corruption? And if you believe that. you agree with the right wing majority in Citizens United.

Of course you can believe that, but never again state that money corrupts politicians, nor ever state lobbyist spending tens of millions to influence policy is bad.

amboycharlie, Nagoya, Japan 9 hours ago

So the whitewashing of Hillary by the nominal Progressives begins. Whether or not she is "fundamentally" honest, as Jill Abrahamson has written, means what exactly? That she won't rob a bank, or pick your pocket? Yet she will defend bankers who rob their own banks and brokers who pick their investors' pockets every trading day by skimming others' potential profits with their high speed trades. Her husband's candidacy was rescued by winning the New York primary after his loss in New Hampshire and as President he deregulated the banks, and once he was in private life again, he became a centa millionaire by speaking in front of bankers. One would be naive to believe the Clintons did not make a deal the the banks put out the word. Perhaps there was no quid pro quo, but there certainly was some quo pro quid. Ditto for Hillary.

The Clinton Foundation took huge donations from dictatorial regimes worldwide and Hillary as SecState, rewarded them with arms deals they would otherwise not have gotten, due to their human rights violations. The list of apparent crimes by the Clintons goes on and on. Why a "Progressive" would paper over the record of Goldwater girl turned "NeoLiberal," which is pretty much the same thing, who is fundamentally against everything real Progressives stand for boggles the imagination.

Thomas Zaslavsky, is a trusted commenter Binghamton, N.Y. 16 hours ago

Wcdessert Girl, you are straining so hard to smear Bernie Sanders that you deserve to have a busted gut. (No that I'm wishing it upon you.) He got the normal Congressional salary (not all that large; barely upper middle class, these days) and the normal Congressional benefits (sure, we should all get them), and you question his financial integrity? Be ashamed.

Now, try to defend Hillary without a baseless smear against anyone else.

Liberty Apples, Providence 9 hours ago

``One basic test of a politician's honesty is whether that person tells the truth when on the campaign trail, and by that standard Clinton does well.''

Excuse me?

She lied about Sanders support for the auto bailout.
She lied about Sanders support for the Paris climate accord.
She was in knots trying to explain her position on the $15 minimum wage.

You get the idea. The truth has always been an inconvenience for the Clintons.

Barry, Minneapolis 10 hours ago

She lies about little things. Hot sauce. Medium sized things. Coming under fire; she only wanted to carry one cell; the papers that turned up in a parlor. Big things. "If I had known then." That was as bad as Nixon's "secret plan."

Nixon wasn't the New Nixon, but she is.

[Sep 12, 2016] Serving the Clintonian Interest: The last thing we need is a Clinton in charge of foreign policy by Christopher Hitchens

This is Christopher Hitchens biting analysis from previous Presidential elections, but still relevant
Notable quotes:
"... The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. ..."
"... the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen. ..."
"... If you recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others, you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable Roger Tamraz , for another example. ..."
"... It found that the Clinton administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax (as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with Chinese military-industrial associations). ..."
"... Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations (still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent pros . You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon. ..."
"... Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud, hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary Clinton's other brother, Hugh , and, hey, they , respectively, got a presidential commutation and a presidential pardon, too. ..."
"... Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications, too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic. ..."
"... In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. ..."
"... Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me. ..."
Nov 01, 2008 | www.slate.com

It was apt in a small way that the first endorser of Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of state should have been Henry Kissinger. The last time he was nominated for any position of responsibility-the chairmanship of the 9/11 commission-he accepted with many florid words about the great honor and responsibility, and then he withdrew when it became clear that he would have to disclose the client list of Kissinger Associates. (See, for the article that began this embarrassing process for him, my Slate column "The Latest Kissinger Outrage.")

It is possible that the Senate will be as much of a club as the undistinguished fraternity/sorority of our ex-secretaries of state, but even so, it's difficult to see Sen. Clinton achieving confirmation unless our elected representatives are ready to ask a few questions about conflict of interest along similar lines. And how can they not? The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. Former President Bill Clinton has recently and rather disingenuously offered to submit his own foundation to scrutiny (see the work of my Vanity Fair colleague Todd Purdum on the delightful friends and associates that Clinton has acquired since he left office), but the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen.

Just to give the most salient examples from the Clinton fundraising scandals of the late 1990s: The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight published a list of witnesses called before it who had either "fled or pled"-in other words, who had left the country to avoid testifying or invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination. Some Democratic members of the committee said that this was unfair to, say, the Buddhist nuns who raised the unlawful California temple dough for then-Vice President Al Gore, but however fair you want to be, the number of those who found it highly inconvenient to testify fluctuates between 94 and 120. If you recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others, you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable Roger Tamraz, for another example.

Related was the result of a House select committee on Chinese espionage in the United States and the illegal transfer to China of advanced military technology. Chaired by Christopher Cox, R-Calif., the committee issued a report in 1999 with no dissenting or "minority" signature. It found that the Clinton administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax (as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with Chinese military-industrial associations).

Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations (still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent pros. You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon.

Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud, hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary Clinton's other brother, Hugh, and, hey, they, respectively, got a presidential commutation and a presidential pardon, too. In the Hugh case, the money was returned as being too embarrassing for words (and as though following the hallowed custom, when busted or flustered, of the Clinton-era DNC). But I would say that it was more embarrassing to realize that a former first lady, and a candidate for secretary of state, was a full partner in years of seedy overseas money-grubbing and has two greedy brothers to whom she cannot say no.

Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications, too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic.

China, Indonesia, Georgia-these are not exactly negligible countries on our defense and financial and ideological peripheries. In each country, there are important special interests that equate the name Clinton with the word pushover. And did I forget to add what President Clinton pleaded when the revulsion at the Rich pardons became too acute? He claimed that he had concerted the deal with the government of Israel in the intervals of the Camp David "agreement"! So anyone who criticized the pardons had better have been careful if they didn't want to hear from the Anti-Defamation League. Another splendid way of showing that all is aboveboard and of convincing the Muslim world of our evenhandedness.

In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. A president absolutely has to know of his chief foreign-policy executive that he or she has no other agenda than the one he has set. Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me.

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author, most recently, of Arguably, a collection of essays.

[Sep 12, 2016] Reducing the election to personalities is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism in which corporatations seized all of the political levers

This short article contains several very deep observations. Highly recommended...
Notable quotes:
"... There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. ..."
"... This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over. ..."
"... First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form. ..."
"... So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. ..."
"... I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children. ..."
"... Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile ..."
Aug 06, 2016 | www.democracynow.org

CHRIS HEDGES : Well, reducing the election to personalities is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. It's a system where corporate power has seized all of the levers of control. There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. We've seen the executive branch misinterpret the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving itself the right to assassinate American citizens, including children. I speak of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son. We have bailed out the banks, pushed through programs of austerity. This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over.

I just came back from Poland, which is a kind of case study of how neoliberal poison destroys a society and creates figures like Trump. Poland has gone, I think we can argue, into a neofascism.

First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form.

So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. We've got to break away from political personalities and understand and examine and critique the structures of power. And, in fact, the Democratic Party, especially beginning under Bill Clinton, has carried water for corporate entities as assiduously as the Republican Party. This is something that Ralph Nader understood long before the rest of us, and stepped out very courageously in 2000. And I think we will look back on that period and find Ralph to be an amazingly prophetic figure. Nobody understands corporate power better than Ralph. And I think now people have caught up with Ralph.

And this is, of course, why I support Dr. Stein and the Green Party. We have to remember that 10 years ago, Syriza, which controls the Greek government, was polling at exactly the same spot that the Green Party is polling now-about 4 percent. We've got to break out of this idea that we can create systematic change within a particular election cycle. We've got to be willing to step out into the political wilderness, perhaps, for a decade. But on the issues of climate change, on the issue of the destruction of civil liberties, including our right to privacy-and I speak as a former investigative journalist, which doesn't exist anymore because of wholesale government surveillance-we have no ability, except for hackers.

I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign.

The fact is, Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children.

This debate over -- I don't like Trump, but Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile, maybe Ted Cruz.

[Sep 10, 2016] Pathological Liar – Impulsive, Compulsive Lying, Self-Deception

Feb 05, 2016 | depressiond.com
Pathological Liar – All About PATHOLOGICAL LYING, Lying, Self-Deception, Types, Classification, from Pseudologia Fantastica to Habitual Lying.
  1. Pathological Liar – Definition

    Pathological liar refers to a liar that is compulsive or impulsive, lies on a regular basis and is unable to control their lying despite of foreseeing inevitable negative consequences or ultimate disclosure of the lie. Generally lies told by a pathological liar have self-defeating quality to them and don't serve the long term material needs of the person. Therefore pathological lying is lying that is caused by a pathology, occurs on a regular basis, is compulsive or impulsive & uncontrolled, and has self-defeating, self-trapping quality to it.

    Lying or self-deception is a part of everyday human interactions. In many cases lying can be beneficial for those who lie and those who are being lied to. Most of this type of lying with positive consequences occurs in a controlled way, thoughtfully, with careful weighting of beneficial consequences. Unlike these, the lies told by a pathological liar are uncontrolled and are likely to have damaging consequences.

    Pathological lying covers a wide range of lying behavior, from pseudologia fantastica to habitual lying. Lying is a commonly found clinical component with people who suffer from impulse control disorders such as gambling, compulsive shopping, substance abuse, kleptomania etc. Pathological lying is generally caused by a combination of factors, which may include genetic components, dysfunctional or insecure childhood, dyslexia or other type of cerebral dysfunction. Such conditions may host environment that is likely to emerge chronic or pathological lying as an adaptive defense mechanism. Dysfunctional family, parental overprotection, sibling rivalry, mental retardation are among many causes of pathological lying.

  2. Low Self-Esteem And Pathological Lying

    Low self-esteem is a commonly found feature in pathological liars. The lie maybe an attempt to feel good about themselves, generally for a short period of time, similar to the effect of drugs & alcohol. The same lie or deceit repeated over and over may create a myth of personal well-being or success or displacement of faults of own failures on others, thus creating an imaginary fantasy protection bubble, which may reinforce self-esteem. Pathological liars repeatedly use deceit as an ego defense mechanism, which is primarily caused by the lack of ability to cope with everyday problems in more mature ways (Selling 1942).

  3. Pathological Liar – Causes

    Causes of development of pathological lying can be, but are not limited to, one or more of the factors mentioned below:

    • A dysfunctional family;
    • Sexual or physical abuse in childhood;
    • Neuropsychological abnormalities; such as borderline mental retardation, learning disabilities etc.
    • Impulse control disorders; such as kleptomania, pathological gambling, compulsive shopping.
    • Accommodating or suggestible personality traits;
    • Personality disorders such as Sociopathic, Narcissistic, Borderline, Histrionic and more;
    • Substance abuse or substance abuse in family;
  4. Pathological Liar – Types
    • Daydreaming Pathological Liar – Pseudologia Fantastica

      Some of the more extreme forms of pathological lying is Pseudologia Fantastica. This is a matrix of facts & fiction, mixed together in a way that makes the reality and fantasy almost indistinguishable. The pseudologue type pathological liar makes up stories that seem possible on the surface, but over time things start falling apart. Pseudologues have dynamic approach to their lies, they are likely to change the story if confronted or faced with disbelief, they have excessive anxiety of being caught and they desperately try to modify their story to something that would seem plausible to create or preserve a sense of self that is something they wish they were or at least something better than they fear others would find out they are. The excessive anxiety is driven by unusually low self-esteem, the person tries to hide reality by creating a fake reality, and once the story has enduring quality to it, he/she is likely to repeat it and if repeated enough times he/she might start believing in it as well. This reality escape can be triggered of a past incident or of an unbearable present for the pseudologue.

      About 30% of daydreaming pathological liars have brain dysfunction. For some it may take the form of learning disabilities, ex. dyslexia. Often those with cerebral dysfunction have greater verbal production & lower developed logical, analytical parts of the brain, thus they often fail to control verbal output.

    • Habitual Liar

      Habitual pathological lying is, as the name suggest, habitual. Habitual liar lies so frequently, that it becomes a habit, as a result, he/she puts very little effort in giving a thought about what the output is going to be, nor does he/she care much to process whether it's a lie or not, it's simply a reflex & very often can be completely unnecessary or even opposite to his/her own needs. If he/she stops & thinks about it, he/she knows clearly it's a lie.

      Habitual liars lie for a variety of reasons, which include, but are not limited to:

      • Take advantage of the situation or misguide a rival
      • Avoid confrontation or punishment
      • Cover up lack of knowledge
      • Cover up embarrassment
      • To entertain oneself or others
      • Reinforce self-esteem, because of failing own expectation
      • Receive unearned praise or avoid disappointment or disproval
      • For no reason whatsoever

      Habitual liars gives very few if any psychical or vocal signs of lying, due to the effortless nature of lying. That said, since he/she gives a very little thought to his/her lies, they are usually inconsistent & obvious.

      Fear is a major contributor in developing habitual lying in a child & further advancement into adulthood, more so in conditions when the child finds truth telling results in more frequent or more severe punishment. Lack of appreciating and likelihood of unwanted consequences of telling the truth may result in frequent opting out for lying, which often involves less punishment & therefore becomes more desirable.

    • Impulsive Pathological Liar – Impulse Control Disorders & Lying

      Impulsive pathological liar lies due to impulse control problem, he/she lies to fulfill his/her present (in the moment) needs, without thinking of future negative effects that can be caused because of the lie. Impulsive pathological liar generally suffers from impulse control disorders, such as kleptomania, pathological gambling, compulsive shopping etc. Those suffering from impulse control disorders fail to learn from past negative experiences, frequently suffer from depression, likely to have history of substance abuse in family or have substance abuse problems themselves, likely to have deficiency in brain serotonin. Increase in brain serotonin may have positive effect in decreasing impulsiveness, such medication may have positive effects, however there hasn't been clinical research performed to confirm or deny this theory.

    • Substance Abuse Associated Pathological Liar

      Self-Deception is an undeniable part of addictive process. People abuse alcohol or other drugs constantly lie to themselves & others to avoid embarrassment, conflict, as well as to obtain the substance. Getting off substance requires learning to distance oneself from the deceit, therefore learning to be truthful is generally a part of any Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous program.

  5. Signs of Lying

    Human detection of deceit can be summarized by the following seven signs.

    7 Signs of Lying

    • Disguised smiling
    • Lack of head movement
    • Increased rate of self-adapters (eg., movements such playing with an object in hands, scratching one's head etc.)
    • Increased/Heightened pitch of voice
    • Reduced rate of speech
    • Pause fillers ("uh", "hm", "er")
    • Less corresponding, matching nonverbal behavior from the other communication methods (ex. the movement of hands doesn't match the substance of the lie that is being told orally)

Reference: (Fiedler, Walka, Zuckerman, Driver, Ford)

Pathological lying - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Sep 09, 2016] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Enabled the Coup in Honduras

Notable quotes:
"... Under longstanding and clear-cut US law, all US aid to Honduras - except democracy assistance - including all military aid, should have been immediately suspended following the coup. ..."
"... Why wasn't US aid to Honduras suspended following the coup? The justification given by Clinton's State Department on August 25 for not suspending US aid to Honduras was that events in Honduras were murky and it was not clear whether a coup had taken place. Clinton's State Department claimed that State Department lawyers were studying the murky question of whether a coup had taken place. ..."
"... This justification was a lie, and Clinton's State Department knew it was a lie. By July 24, 2009, the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, knew clearly that the action of the Honduran military to remove President Zelaya on June 28, 2009, constituted a coup. On July 24, US Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens sent a cable to top US officials, including Secretary of State Clinton, with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," thoroughly documenting the assertion that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup." ..."
Feb 23, 2016 | www.truth-out.org

On June 28, 2009, when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, democratically elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was overthrown by a military coup. The United Nations, the European Union and the Organization of American States (OAS) condemned the coup, and on July 5, Honduras was suspended from the OAS.

Under longstanding and clear-cut US law, all US aid to Honduras - except democracy assistance - including all military aid, should have been immediately suspended following the coup.

On August 7, 15 House Democrats, led by Rep. Raúl Grijalva, sent a letter to the administration which began, "As you know, on June 28th, 2009, a military coup took place in Honduras," and said: "The State Department should fully acknowledge that a military coup has taken place and follow through with the total suspension of non-humanitarian aid, as required by law."

Why wasn't US aid to Honduras suspended following the coup? The justification given by Clinton's State Department on August 25 for not suspending US aid to Honduras was that events in Honduras were murky and it was not clear whether a coup had taken place. Clinton's State Department claimed that State Department lawyers were studying the murky question of whether a coup had taken place.

This justification was a lie, and Clinton's State Department knew it was a lie. By July 24, 2009, the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, knew clearly that the action of the Honduran military to remove President Zelaya on June 28, 2009, constituted a coup. On July 24, US Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens sent a cable to top US officials, including Secretary of State Clinton, with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," thoroughly documenting the assertion that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup."

... ... ...

[Sep 09, 2016] Why Hillary Clinton Should Not Be The Democratic Presidential Nominee

Notable quotes:
"... The Ambassador's urging to her said: "The actions of June 28 can only be considered a coup d'etat. ... It bears mentioning that, whereas the resolution [by the junta] adopted June 28 refers only to Zelaya, its effect was to remove the entire executive branch. ... His forced removal by the military was clearly illegal, and [puppett-leader Roberto] Micheletti's ascendance as 'interim president' was totally illegitimate." ..."
"... However, instead, she joined with then-Senator Jim DeMint (now head of the Heritage Foundation and the chief sponsor of the political career of Texas U.S. Senator Ted Cruz) in propping up the fascist regime. ..."
www.huffingtonpost.com

Hillary's corruption goes beyond that, however.

When a fascist putsch, a coup d'etat, overthrew at gunpoint the popular progressive democratic President of Honduras on 28 June 2009, and all countries of the world except Israel and the United States promptly declared the junta-installed government illegitimate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to join all other nations in rejecting the fascist regime. As I previously reported this matter in detail, the U.S. Ambassador to Honduras told her in a cable, that President Manuel Zelaya had been illegally replaced by the junta-appointed stooge Roberto Michelettti, yet she still refused.

The Ambassador's urging to her said: "The actions of June 28 can only be considered a coup d'etat. ... It bears mentioning that, whereas the resolution [by the junta] adopted June 28 refers only to Zelaya, its effect was to remove the entire executive branch. ... His forced removal by the military was clearly illegal, and [puppett-leader Roberto] Micheletti's ascendance as 'interim president' was totally illegitimate."

However, instead, she joined with then-Senator Jim DeMint (now head of the Heritage Foundation and the chief sponsor of the political career of Texas U.S. Senator Ted Cruz) in propping up the fascist regime.

Promptly Honduras descended into hell, suddenly having the world's highest murder-rate, and becoming a haven of narco-trafficking. What was Hillary thinking? She expressed contempt for Zelaya, but what was really happening here was that American international companies liked paying their Honduran contractors sub-human wages to workers at their plants in Honduras. The Honduran aristocrats owned those factories, and the U.S. aristocrats shared with them the profits from this "free-market" slavery. What did Hillary care about the ongoing terror, murders, and soaring narco-trafficking?

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.

[Sep 09, 2016] Hillary clinton and huma abedin abuse secret service agents

Notable quotes:
"... Kessler points out that Clinton's protestations that the material under investigation was not marked classified is immaterial, writing, "The pertinent laws make no distinction between classified material that is marked as such or not. If material is classified and is handled improperly, that is a violation of criminal laws." ..."
"... The FBI investigation has been galvanized further by recent revelations involving emails sent by Abedin and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, as well as the fact that State Department BlackBerry devices belonging to Abedin and Mills have likely been liquidated or sold. ..."
"... There's not an agent in the service who wants to be in Hillary's detail. If agents get the nod to go to her detail, that's considered a form of punishment among the agents. ..."
"... The most egregious example of Clinton's arrogance was evidenced in one particularly nasty incident when she was First Lady. One former agent related, "The first lady steps out of the limo, and another uniformed officer says to her, 'Good morning, ma'am.' Her response to him was 'F-- off.' I couldn't believe I heard it." ..."
Jun 25, 2016 | breitbart.com

Ronald Kessler, writing for The Daily Mail, testifies that Hillary Clinton and her long-time aide Huma Abedin were detested by members of the Secret Service because the two women arrogantly treated the Secret Service agents like dirt.

Kessler, the author of The Secrets of the FBI and The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents, dismisses claims by members of the media that the current FBI investigation of Clinton is restricted to a "security investigation." He attests that the investigation of Clinton means that she violated criminal laws, as the FBI will not launch an investigation unless laws have been violated. Kessler points out that Clinton's protestations that the material under investigation was not marked classified is immaterial, writing, "The pertinent laws make no distinction between classified material that is marked as such or not. If material is classified and is handled improperly, that is a violation of criminal laws."

The FBI investigation has been galvanized further by recent revelations involving emails sent by Abedin and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, as well as the fact that State Department BlackBerry devices belonging to Abedin and Mills have likely been liquidated or sold.

Some of the anecdotes involving the imperiousness and haughtiness of Clinton and Abedin include:

In 2008, Abedin lost her way driving Chelsea Clinton to the February 2008 Democrat presidential debate in Los Angeles. One agent who tried to help Abedin recalled, "She was belligerent and angry about being late for the event, no appreciation for any of it, not a thank-you or anything. That was common for her people to be rude."

Another Los Angeles imbroglio occurred when Abedin, who was not wearing a pin certifying her identity, tried to bluster past a female Secret Service agent. The agent, unaware of Abedin's identity, said, "You don't have the proper identification to go beyond this point." Another agent told Kessler, "Huma basically tried to throw her weight around. She tried to just force her way through and said belligerently, 'Do you know who I am?''"

Kessler noted that Secret Service Agents are not required to carry luggage for their protectees, but they will if they like them. One agent recollected that, in Abedin's case, "The agents were just like, 'Hey, you're going to be like that? Well, you get your own luggage to the car. Oh, and by the way, you can carry the first lady's luggage to the car, too. She'd have four bags, and we'd stand there and watch her and say, 'Oh, can we hold the door open for you?'" The agent added, "When it's convenient for them, they'll utilize the service for whatever favor they need, but otherwise, they look down upon the agents, kind of like servants."

An agent who still works for the Secret Service asserted:

There's not an agent in the service who wants to be in Hillary's detail. If agents get the nod to go to her detail, that's considered a form of punishment among the agents. She's hard to work around, she's known to snap at agents and yell at agents and dress them down to their faces, and they just have to be humble and say, "Yes ma'am," and walk away. Agents don't deserve that. They're there to do a job, they're there to protect her, they'll lay their life down for hers, and there's absolutely no respect for that. And that's why agents do not want to go to her detail.

The most egregious example of Clinton's arrogance was evidenced in one particularly nasty incident when she was First Lady. One former agent related, "The first lady steps out of the limo, and another uniformed officer says to her, 'Good morning, ma'am.' Her response to him was 'F-- off.' I couldn't believe I heard it."

Hillary was famous for wanting the Secret Service to be invisible; one former agent said, "We were basically told, the Clintons don't want to see you, they don't want to hear you, get out of the way. Hillary was walking down a hall, you were supposed to hide behind drapes used as partitions. Supervisors would tell us, 'Listen, stand behind this curtain. They're coming,' or 'Just stand out of the way, don't be seen.'"

Hillary berated a White House electrician changing a light bulb, screaming that he should have waited until the First Family was gone. Franette McCulloch, the assistant White House pastry chief at the time, remembered, "He was a basket case."

FBI agent Coy Copeland told Kessler that Hillary had a "standing rule that no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another."

One agent was abused by Hillary during the Kenneth Starr investigation of the Whitewater scandal; he said, "Good morning, Mrs. Clinton," and she ranted, "How dare you? You people are just destroying my husband… And where do you buy your suits? Penney's?"

Weeks later, the agent confessed to Copeland, "I was wearing the best suit I owned."

[Sep 09, 2016] Hillary the Hawk

Notable quotes:
"... The Democrats' Athena only differs from Bush on the details. ..."
"... Her bellicose interventionism has a history: it was Hillary, you'll recall, who berated her husband for not bombing Belgrade soon enough and hard enough. As Gail Sheehy relates in Hillary's Choice: ..."
"... Hillary would have occupied Iraq a decade earlier, riding into Baghdad at the head of her troops like Pallas Athena descending on the Trojans, striding boldly into what Gen. William E. Odom has described as "the greatest strategic disaster in our history." ..."
"... Hillary, however, didn't let any inconvenient facts get in her way. She boasted that it was under a Democratic administration that the U.S. "changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change" and took credit for the bright idea of putting Ahmad Chalabi, convicted embezzler and known liar, on the U.S. payroll. Her speech reads like a Weekly Standard editorial, reiterating each of the War Party's talking points-the bio-weapons fantasy, the links to al-Qaeda gambit, the phantom nuclear arsenal: "This much," she maintaind, "is undisputed." ..."
"... When it comes to Iran, however, she is just as belligerent as the next neocon: Pelosi co-sponsored legislation imposing draconian economic sanctions on Iran and stops just short of calling another war. ..."
www.theamericanconservative.com

The Democrats' Athena only differs from Bush on the details.

Hillary's newfound centrism isn't completely insincere. Her bellicose interventionism has a history: it was Hillary, you'll recall, who berated her husband for not bombing Belgrade soon enough and hard enough. As Gail Sheehy relates in Hillary's Choice:

Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: 'I urged him to bomb.' The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The president expressed] what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the NATO alliance? Hillary responded, 'You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?' The next day the President declared that force was necessary.

Together with Madeleine Albright-who famously complained to Colin Powell, "What good is it having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"-Hillary constituted the Amazonian wing of the Democratic Party during the years of her husband's presidency. Her effort to outflank the Republicans on the right when it comes to the Iran issue is a logical extension of her natural bellicosity.

Hillary is nothing if not consistent: in her floor speech to the Senate during the debate over the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, she declared, "the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt"-a statement she has never acknowledged regretting. Particularly endearing to the War Party, she framed her "aye" vote in terms of the classic neoconservative myth of Bush I's betrayal:

The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

Hillary would have occupied Iraq a decade earlier, riding into Baghdad at the head of her troops like Pallas Athena descending on the Trojans, striding boldly into what Gen. William E. Odom has described as "the greatest strategic disaster in our history."

Hillary hails the 1998 bombing of Iraq, ordered by her husband, which killed thousands of Iraqi civilians, and recounts the official mythology promulgated by the Bush administration: "[T]he so-called presidential palaces … in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left." As we now know, there was nothing even approaching WMD in those palaces, and Iraq had been effectively disarmed at that point. In late February or early March, Scott Ritter, then a UN arms inspector, met with then-U.S. ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson. Ritter was told to provoke an incident so the U.S. could finish bombing by the start of the Islamic New Year holiday.

Hillary, however, didn't let any inconvenient facts get in her way. She boasted that it was under a Democratic administration that the U.S. "changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change" and took credit for the bright idea of putting Ahmad Chalabi, convicted embezzler and known liar, on the U.S. payroll. Her speech reads like a Weekly Standard editorial, reiterating each of the War Party's talking points-the bio-weapons fantasy, the links to al-Qaeda gambit, the phantom nuclear arsenal: "This much," she maintaind, "is undisputed."

What is undisputed these days is that the entire rationale for war was based on trumped-up evidence of Iraq's alleged transgressions, but Hillary is unrepentant: "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

But there was no threat to the U.S. and Hillary knows it. What's more, her hardcore constituency knows it, and they are becoming increasingly alienated from-even actively hostile to-their putative presidential frontrunner over this issue. Their anger is stoked by evidence that Hillary has imbibed the same neocon Kool-Aid that has intoxicated the Bush administration and blinded it to the failure of its policies in Iraq.

On a trip to Iraq during which 55 people-including one American soldier -were killed by suicide bombers, Hillary was merrily chirping that the occupation was "functioning quite well" and that the surge of suicide attacks indicated that the insurgency was failing. Security was so bad that the road to the airport was impassable, and the Senate delegation had to be transported to the Green Zone by military helicopter. They dared not venture out into the streets of Baghdad.

The disconnect between rhetoric and reality, between the antiwar views of Hillary's left-wing base and the militant interventionism of Wittmann and the DLC crowd, finally forced her to come to grips with the contradiction-or at least to appear to do so. This occurred not in a public speech but in an e-mail sent to her supporters in which the trouble she is in is acknowledged in the first sentence: "The war in Iraq is on the minds of many of you who have written or who have called my office asking questions and expressing frustration." Chances are, these callers were expressing frustration not only with the policies of the Bush administration but with her own complicity with Bush's Middle Eastern agenda of seemingly endless aggression.

She falls back on the old "there are no quick and easy answers" ploy to give an aura of thoughtfulness to a dishonest and constantly shifting position on the war. While insisting that we should not "allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end," she reassures the War Party by distancing herself from John Murtha and others who want an orderly withdrawal in a relatively short time: "Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately." She hails the elections as the signal that we can start the withdrawal process sometime "in the coming year," but not completely: we must leave behind "a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities"-a tripwire, in short, in the form of permanent bases.

... ... ...

What does Hillary want? A smarter, smoother, better-planned interventionism, one that our allies find more amenable and yet is, in many ways, more militant than the Republican version-one that "levels with the American people" about the costs of empire and yet doesn't dispute the alleged necessity of American hegemony. As she finds her voice as a would-be commander in chief, it isn't one the traditional Left in this country will recognize.

... ... ...

If the Democratic establishment's stance on the war is at odds with the party's antiwar activist base, then their outright warmongering on the Iranian issue puts the two factions on a collision course. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi-who effectively quashed fellow California Democrat Lynn Woolsey's resolution calling for a withdrawal timetable -has followed the Hillary-Emanuel-DLC party line, while managing somehow to assuage her constituents with plenty of pork and partisan rhetoric. When it comes to Iran, however, she is just as belligerent as the next neocon: Pelosi co-sponsored legislation imposing draconian economic sanctions on Iran and stops just short of calling another war.

[Sep 04, 2016] Under my definiton of sociopath , Hillary Clinton qualifies on just her laugh about death Muammar Gaddafi, who was sodomized with a bayonet

Notable quotes:
"... As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction? ..."
"... "We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap. ..."
"... Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale. This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria. And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton. ..."
Sep 04, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

Zachary Smith / August 30, 2016 2:24 p.m.

As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction?

"We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

Under my definiton of "sociopath", Hillary Clinton qualifies on that one alone. Of course there are others….

*** My father, too, turned bribes into gifts. ***

I know some saintly people myself, and have no difficulty accepting this claim at face value. Stretching the analogy to the Clinton Foundation is, in my opinion, a stretch too far. If Hillary was as pure as the driven snow, why did she work so hard to ensure her communications were beyond the reach of the Freedom Of Information Act? Why has the State department refused to release her meeting schedules until after the election?

Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale. This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria. And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton.

[Sep 03, 2016] The Clintons' political legacy of dishonesty

nypost.com

When Donald Trump, Ben Carson and other political outsiders first denounced political correctness, they instantly struck a nerve. They were promising to peel back the mushy language that government and so-called sophisticates use to conceal simple truths.

That urge came over me as I watched Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, along with Jeb Bush, ­argue over each other's immigration flip-flops during last week's GOP debate. Because Fox moderators used videos to demonstrate the differences between where the candidates once stood and where they stand, the truth was obvious, yet none of the three ­rivals dared say it.

Why couldn't even one acknowledge that he changed his position and explain why? And if none would, why didn't the others just say, "You're lying"?

These are three men I admire, yet each lacked the courage to be honest on a crucial point during a televised job interview. When did the truth become so toxic and ­untruths so acceptable?

Spin and puffery have a long history in politics, but something has snapped in our culture that we no longer even expect our leaders to talk straight. We have become immune to lies and the ­liars who tell them.

I blame it on the Clintons. Their survival despite a quarter-century of shameful dishonesty has led the way in lowering the bar for ­integrity in public life.

[Sep 03, 2016] Hillary and Afgan sex slaves

Add to this Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Libya sex slaves to get a fuller picture. Looks like she is a worthy descendant of south slave owners.
Notable quotes:
"... I would say we have a major election campaign going on right now where one candidate's campaign strategy with a mostly in the bag press seem to be all about 'hot button' secondary issues. Not that their opponent is so hot on the primary issues either, although I'd say they find a nut every couple of weeks. ..."
"... I'm encouraging everyone to watch the documentary Restrepo ..."
"... See that woman crying over her dead child, killed by an American bomb, dropped with impunity?…why don't you go tell her how much better off she is, now that she doesn't have to wear a burka….go on, tell her… ..."
"... Private Eightball, "Full Metal Jacket" ..."
Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

fresno dan , September 3, 2016 at 8:02 am

Navy analysis found that a Marine's case would draw attention to Afghan 'sex slaves' WaPo

The Martland case opened a dialogue in which numerous veterans of the war in Afghanistan said they were told to ignore instances of child sex abuse by their Afghan colleagues. The Defense Department's inspector general then opened an investigation into the sexual assault reports and how they were handled by U.S. military officials who knew about them.

==========================================
US values in action – protecting the powerful and screwing the helpless…..

Jim Haygood , September 3, 2016 at 8:36 am

"This is a serious turning point for all the people of Afghanistan, but in particular for the hard-fought gains women and girls have been able to enjoy." - Hillary Clinton, Nov 15, 2013

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/hillary-clinton-afghan-women-099920#ixzz4JCC4xBkh

Lie back and think of Kabul …

Pat , September 3, 2016 at 9:19 am

Found myself in a discussion with a recent ex-senator about invading Iraq. I had been attacking the premise that we needed to attack Iraq because terrorism, AND military capabilities and that it was based on lies and misinformation and doing pretty well, when the Senator said but think about Afghanistan – women no longer have to wear the Burka, and girls are going to school. This was after a report in the foreign press about attacks on schools with female students and how women were choosing to wear the burka because the harassment of women wearing western clothing being ignored. The utter ignorance of that statement floored me. I fully admit I was so gobsmacked I was speechless, and he moved on. I ended up sending him the link to a very good series in Newsday about how badly things were going in Afghanistan less than six months later. Already too late. Funny how the women get mentioned at the most interesting times.

Jim Haygood , September 3, 2016 at 9:32 am

Your comment illuminates how politics focuses on "hot button" secondary issues to distract attention from dismal primary issues.

When gross insecurity rules in a war zone, all other aspects of life (including gender equality) take a back seat to survival. Indeed, war is correlated with social conservatism, so the cultural climate is not receptive to change, and may even backslide.

Here's a glimpse into the lost world of Kabul University in the 1980s (complete with a dandy in the left background who resembles an Afghan Tom Wolfe):

http://www.internationalist.org/afghanstudentswww.jpg

Pat , September 3, 2016 at 9:43 am

I would say we have a major election campaign going on right now where one candidate's campaign strategy with a mostly in the bag press seem to be all about 'hot button' secondary issues. Not that their opponent is so hot on the primary issues either, although I'd say they find a nut every couple of weeks.

So much of the run up to the AUMF vote and the invasion reminds me of the current climate surrounding the election.

Paid Minion , September 3, 2016 at 10:20 am

It's "Talking points/The Script"/"Staying on Message. It keeps being repeated, because the warm and fuzzy story is what most people want to hear.

diptherio , September 3, 2016 at 11:14 am

I'm encouraging everyone to watch the documentary Restrepo , which is available on both Netflix and Youtube (at present). The realities of what we're doing in Afghanistan are indefensible.

See that woman crying over her dead child, killed by an American bomb, dropped with impunity?…why don't you go tell her how much better off she is, now that she doesn't have to wear a burka….go on, tell her…

Eclair , September 3, 2016 at 10:59 am

My spouse, bless his heart, works for a company embedded in the military-industrial complex. Three years ago, I accompanied him to the company Christmas bash (one of those compromises in a marriage and besides I am living well on his paycheck) where the new CEO spoke to the 'troops.'

He ended his talk with a paean to the marvelous gains in freedom for Afghan women and girls that the US's invasion (sorry, liberation) of Afghanistan has produced). The employees cheered and I refrained from vomiting only by incredible force of will . And, I would have ruined my new dress specially purchased at GoodWill for the occasion.

Paid Minion , September 3, 2016 at 11:45 am

"They are dead, but thanks to us, they can be buried in a bikini…….."

The old "we had to destroy the village to save it" plan.

Somehow, I don't think we'd have gone to war in the Middle East, if "Fighting for Women's Rights" was the justification.

"Personally, I don't think……..they don't really want to be involved in this war…….they took our freedom away and gave it to the g##kers. But they don't want it. They would rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards."

Private Eightball, "Full Metal Jacket"

Jeremy Grimm , September 3, 2016 at 12:24 pm

RE: Marine's case: Be sure to read two of the comments attached to this link - they're both recent and show on the first page of comments:
From - Buckley Family: "… Bear in mind when Maj. Brezler wrote his report he had no Classified Networks in his area. He used his personal computer to write that report and other reports many which were Classified by the Higher Command once they received them. They failed to let Maj. Brezler know that they had classified his reports. He was trying to do his job with the resources that he had available to him."

From - tsn100: " … Afghans hide behind Islam, this is not at all what Islam teaches, this is a cultural thing, Afghan culture allows this, the Taliban movement started when a young boy was raped and the family came to Mullah Omar who was just an unknown preacher and asked him to help, this was at the height of the Afghan civil war, Mullah Omar went and caught the culprit and had him shot, or hanged cant remember, that

[Sep 03, 2016] Were headers of Hillary emails from her private server manipulated to hide her address?

Hillary lied again claiming that the existence of her bathroom mail server was a common knoleadge. Some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were unaware of the server
Notable quotes:
"... some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email address ..."
"... The F.B.I. said that some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were aware she used a private email address but did not know she had set up a private server. The aides said they were "unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at State or when it became public knowledge." ..."
nytimes.com

From: 6 Things We Learned in the F.B.I. Clinton Email Investigation

Mrs. Clinton said in her interview it was "common knowledge" that she had a private email address because it was "displayed to anyone with whom she exchanged emails." But the F.B.I. said in a summary of its findings that "some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email address."

The F.B.I. said that some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were aware she used a private email address but did not know she had set up a private server. The aides said they were "unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at State or when it became public knowledge."

From: Links-9-3-2016 naked capitalism
temporal

re: 6 Things We Learned

“some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton only contained the letter ‘H’ in the sender field and did not display her email address.” I have no idea what kind of email client would hide the contents of the from/reply-to field. How does their spam filter work if it doesn’t reveal who sent it? Why do they read stuff when they don’t have any idea who sent it? Did the F.B.I. really simply accept these statements as facts? Maybe they all just use cell phones and could care less who else is in the loop.

“Three weeks later, a Platte River employee realized he had not deleted the emails as instructed. The employee said he then used a special program called BleachBit to delete the files.” He was told to delete files that any nitwit knows shouldn’t be deleted and delete only means delete if they can’t be found again but now it turns out he was supposed to shred them after removing the staples.

The clear signal is that if you are going to break laws, hide information from future legal discovery and generally stonewall investigators with easily disproven statements be very certain that it at the behest of your liege lord. Laws are for the peasants. Justice is blind for the elite because no one dares look.

fresno dan

Now we find out a laptop was “lost” in the mail.
Damn, this is gonna be really bad….for the post office.
Of course, it will be hard to spin when it turns out it was addressed to Putin in Hillary’s handwriting…

Bunk McNulty, September 3, 2016 at 9:57 am
“The sh!t has hit the fan.”
Higgs Boson

What sh!t? What fan? Remember, the FBI gave HRC a pass. Nothing to see. It was all a big “nothingburger”. The only people that keep harping on this are right-wing rubes who get their marching orders from Putin’s army of hackers. It’s been assimilated into the Clinton Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy mythos.

Now go vote for Her, because “love [of what, they don’t specify] Trumps hate.”

That is all.

winstonsmith

Here are the FBI summary file and interview notes in a single searchable PDF and some highlights from a reddit thread:

Handling of Confidential Information

“During [Sysadmin’s] December 22, 2015 FBI interview, Pagliano recalled a conversation with [Redacted] at the beginning of Clinton’s tenure, in which [Redacted] advised he would not be surprised if classified information was being transmitted to Clinton’s personal server.” (Page 28)

Clinton could not give an example of how the classification of a document was determined; rather she stated there was a process in place at State before her tenure, and she relied on career foreign service professionals to appropriately mark and handle classified information. Clinton believed information should be classified when it relates to [Redacted] the use of sensitive sources, or sensitive deliberations.” (Page 26)

She relied on State officials to use their judgment when e-mailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her e-mail address. The FBI provided Clinton with copies of her classified e-mails ranging from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET/SAP and Clinton said she did not believe the e-mails contained classified information.” (Page 26)

“State employees interviewed by the FBI explained that emails from Clinton only contained the letter “H” in the sender field and did not display their e-mail address. The majority of the State employees interviewed by the FBI who were in e-mail contact with Clinton indicated they had no knowledge of the private server in her Chappaqua residence. Clinton’s immediate aides, to include Mills, Abedin, Jacob Sullivan, and [Redacted] told the FBI they were unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton’s tenure at the State or when it became public knowledge.

Possible Censorship

There were no e-mails provided by Williams & Connolly to State or the FBI dated from January 21, 2009 to March 18, 2009. FBI investigation identified an additional 18 days where Clinton did not provide State any responsive e-mail. FBI investigation determined 14 of the 18 days where Clinton did not provide State any responsive e-mail correspond with e-mail outages affecting Clinton’s personal server systems as a result of both Hurricane Irene and Hurricane Sandy. FBI investigation indicated other explanations for gaps in Clinton’s e-mail production could include user deletion prior to PRN’s transfer of Clinton’s e-mails for review…” (Page 27)

Security Threats

“Forensic analysis noted that on January 5, 2013, three IP addresses matching known Tor exit nodes were observed accessing a user e-mail account on the Pagliano Server believe to belong to President Clinton staffer [Redacted] FBI investigation indicated the Tor user logged in to [Redacted] email account and browsed e-mail folders and attachments. When asked during her interview, [Redacted] stated to the FBI she is not familiar with nor has she ever used Tor Software” (Page 29)

“The FBI does not have in its possession any of Clinton’s 13 mobile devices which potentially were used to send e-mails using Clinton’s clintonemail.com e-mail addresses. As a result, the FBI could not make a determination as to whether any of the devices were subject to compromise. Similarly, the FBI does not have in its possession two of the five iPad devices which potentially were used by Clinton to send and receive e-mails during her tenure… (Page 30)

“Investigation identified multiple occurrences of phishing and/or spear-phishing e-mails sent to Clinton’s account during her tenure as Secretary of State. [Paragraph Redacted]…

Clinton received another phishing e-mail, purportedly sent from the personal e-mail account of State official [Redacted]. The email contained a potentially malicious link. Clinton replied to the email [Redacted] stating, “Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!” … Open source information indicated, if opened the targeted user’s device may have been infected, and information would have been sent to at least three computers overseas, including one in Russia.” (page 31)

Pages 33 – 47 are redacted. About one third of the entire review is redacted.

Lambert Strether

Thanks very much for this handy compendium!

Roger Smith

However email tag data works, her name appears as “H” because she isn’t using her typical address. The address I have seen H appear in is HDR22@clintononemail.com. Something about the contact data shows her as H.

There is an exchange between her and mega donor Ms. Rothschild that I saw this in. In the email Clinton apologizes for inconveniencing her and literally says, “Let me know what penance I owe you.”

https://twitter.com/d_seaman/status/771569083695239168

hunkerdown, September 3, 2016 at 1:54 pm
I have no idea what kind of email client would hide the contents of the from/reply-to field.
“Friendly” ones, like, say, Outlook. Some people just don’t care for all that gobbledygook, and Microsoft aims to please. Of course, the sender can put whatever they want in the comment field.
From: “H”
is a perfectly valid email From: line.
>

[Sep 02, 2016] Corruption and pathological lies

Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Clinton's 2009 ethics agreement: "I currently hold and will continue to hold my position with The Clinton Family Foundation, which maintains all its assets in cash. If confirmed as Secretary of State, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect upon this foundation, unless I first obtain a written waiver or qualify for a regulatory exemption" (pdf) [ Cryptome ]. First, "will not participate" sets a much higher bar than the ludicrously low "quid pro quo" standard set by Clinton's operatives and supporters. Second, is it really usual for charitable foundation to keep "all its assets in cash"? Why would Foundation do that? And why even say it does? (I'm resisting a joke about "maintains all its assets in Bitcoin"….)

"On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton is a big critic of for-profit universities, attacking them for charging high prices but offering students little support and delivering degrees of questionable value. Her administration, she says, would crack down 'on for-profit colleges and loan servicers who have too often taken advantage of borrowers'" [ USA Today ]. "What Clinton doesn't mention are her close family connections to for-profit Laureate Education and the hefty $9.8 billion in loans accumulated just by students at Laureate's Walden University in Minnesota… If Clinton wonders why so many voters consider her to be graspy and question her trustworthiness, she need look no further than the tangled, lucrative ties among Laureate, its owners, the Clinton family and the Clinton Foundation." Graspy.

[Sep 01, 2016] Women dont really like Hillary Clinton that much

Aug 31, 2016 | Washington Examiner
Hillary Clinton's favorability among women has suddenly reversed itself.

Last month, women had a largely favorable view of the Democratic presidential candidate, with 54 percent viewing her positively and 43 percent viewing her negatively. But those numbers have flipped in the last few weeks, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Women now dislike Clinton, with 52 percent holding a negative view and 45 percent holding a positive view. This is the first time in year that more women have disliked Clinton than liked her.

Women were probably never as pro-Clinton as Democrats and liberal writers had hoped. They certainly were never as pro-Clinton as most of the African-American community was pro-Obama. Earlier this year, polls found Clinton's lead among women collapsing, as young women in particular favored her then-rival Bernie Sanders.

As Clinton has fallen in popularity among women, her rival, GOP nominee Donald Trump, has gained. Trump has gained 7 points in favorability among women, from 26 percent in early August to a better-but-still-not-great 33 percent now.

Obviously, that doesn't mean Trump is going to end up winning women in the general election, or that the gap between him and Clinton among women will be close. But it is interesting to see that the changes Trump has made in his campaign - most notably his softer rhetoric - might have resulted in this small boost.

Ashe Schow is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

[Sep 01, 2016] Hillary Clinton popularity among women has flipped from between 54 and 43 percent favorable-unfavorable last month to between 45 and 52 percent now

Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
JohnnyGL , August 31, 2016 at 2:11 pm

In the absence of strong Water Cooler leadership, we'll self-organize!!! :)

It's one poll, but ouch…..that's substantial losses among core groups of support…

"Notably, Clinton's popularity among women has flipped from 54-43 percent favorable-unfavorable last month to 45-52 percent now; it's the first time in a year that most women have viewed her unfavorably. Clinton's favorable-unfavorable rating has also flipped among those with postgraduate degrees, from 60-39 percent in early August to 47-51 percent now. She's now back to about where she was among postgrads in July. She has gone from about an even split among moderates, 50-48 percent favorable-unfavorable, to a more lopsided 41-56 percent now. Among liberals, she's dropped from 76 favorable to 63 percent favorable. And among nonwhites she's fallen from 73 to 62 percent favorable, largely due to a 16-point drop, to 55 percent, among Hispanics."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-clinton-unpopularity-high-par-trump/story?id=41752050

sleepy , August 31, 2016 at 3:54 pm

It seems the public views Trump as a screwball and Clinton as some inevitable vile slagheap that's slowly oozing its way to town. She'll still probably win but I suspect her poll numbers will continue south.

Higgs Boson , August 31, 2016 at 4:28 pm

HRC and her worshippers don't care, as long as she wins in November. "Let them hate, so long as they fear"

Arizona Slim , August 31, 2016 at 5:10 pm

She'll win and misinterpret the victory. She will think that it's a mandate and it will be anything but.

I still predict that she'll serve less than a full term before a combination of legal and health problems and substance abuse force her to resign.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 31, 2016 at 4:06 pm

Many people (women, Hispanics, etc) are asking, more and more often, "What do I have to lose?"

So it seems.

cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 5:59 pm

Most of them were going to lose this cycle no matter what.

It's not like Hillary really cares about most women, latinos, etc, etc.

We really should do something about the corrupt duopoly or hey we could just keep doing the same thing over and over.

[Aug 30, 2016] So, Trumps crazy What about Hillary

Notable quotes:
"... compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury ..."
"... compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders. ..."
"... "This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives." ..."
"... In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling "get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother." ..."
"... "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent." ..."
Aug 07, 2016 | www.wnd.com

Hillary Clinton has indeed become well known as a serial liar, as fully two-thirds of Americans, 68 percent in a recent poll, said she was neither honest nor trustworthy. Not only does Clinton lie to protect herself, as she has regarding Benghazi and her private email server, but she lies when there appears to be no benefit to doing so.

For example, she famously claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary for his conquering of Mt. Everest, even though that didn't happen until six years after Clinton was born. She also notoriously claim she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996, when newspaper and video accounts revealed exactly the opposite.

"Robert Reich, M.D., a New York City psychiatrist and expert in psychopathology, says compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury," Dr. Gina Loudon, a political psychology and behavior expert, told WND. "Otherwise, compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders.

"This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives."

In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling "get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother."

These types of outbursts continued after Hillary left her office as secretary of state. An aide on her presidential campaign told the New York Post last October: "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent."

[Aug 29, 2016] Hillary could never had made it to Washington without Bill.

Notable quotes:
"... Referring to Clinton again, Miller tells The American Mirror, "She is a Gloria Steinem kind of feminist. If you've ever seen picture or heard Gloria Steinem, just a cold, conniving bitch. That's just it. ..."
"... "Hillary could never had made it to Washington, DC without Bill. He was the song and dance routine. He's the one that played the sax and he could laugh and joke and talk and Hillary can't do that. ..."
www.theamericanmirror.com

The American Mirror

... "They've gotta see her as a human. They have to see her - I think in society they always say, 'If you were a mother, you can't be half bad. There has to be some love or gentleness or compassion within in you birth a child,' but that's not true.

"There's some pretty bad mothers. I had one," Miller says. She said her mother had abused her for years.

Referring to Clinton again, Miller tells The American Mirror, "She is a Gloria Steinem kind of feminist. If you've ever seen picture or heard Gloria Steinem, just a cold, conniving bitch. That's just it.

"And they don't care about anyone but themselves. That's what most feminists are all about. It's about themselves," according to Miller.

"And most of them don't link men, incidentally. They only use men for income (and) appearance.

"Hillary could never had made it to Washington, DC without Bill. He was the song and dance routine. He's the one that played the sax and he could laugh and joke and talk and Hillary can't do that.

"She can't put on her black nightie and run around and she can't play the sax," Miller says, referring to her previous claim that, during their trysts, Bill Clinton would wear Miller's nightie and play his instrument.

... ... ...

stonehillady > Johnny Wendigo

All you women who think you can climb the ladder of success, Hillary did by sleeping with the Partners of the Rose Law firm. Chelsea is the byproduct of that so called feminist, Hillary Rotten Clinton....

[Aug 29, 2016] Black Panther Party Leader said that Hillary Democrats are promising everything, giving nothing

Notable quotes:
"... We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests. ..."
"... Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young people working more? ..."
"... If having the Black working community start totally hammering the Dems becomes "cool" the Dem's are screwed for a long time. ..."
"... Obama trashed all of America, blacks and whites, while transferring millions of jobs overseas to Bangladesh, China, Mexico, etc. ..."
www.zerohedge.com
... following interview with New Black Panther Quanell X requires no further commentary – he breaks it down quite succinctly:

Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech… We may not like the vessel [Donald Trump] that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said.

Because it is a fact that for 54 years we have been voting for the Democratic Party like no other race in America. And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given them. We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests.

...

I want to say and encourage the brothers and sisters… Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young people working more?

The condition got worse.

froze25 -> jcaz, Aug 29, 2016 10:30 AM
If having the Black working community start totally hammering the Dems becomes "cool" the Dem's are screwed for a long time.
847328_3527 -> MANvsMACHINE, Aug 29, 2016 10:36 AM
Obama trashed all of America, blacks and whites, while transferring millions of jobs overseas to Bangladesh, China, Mexico, etc.
CJgipper -> FireBrander, Aug 29, 2016 12:28 PM
I've said that repeatedly. The question for hillary isn't what does the survey show, but how many will actually be motivated enough to go vote. They may not show up and pull the lever for trump this go round, but they may be curious enough to see what happens to just stay home and let things work themselves out to see what the result will be

[Aug 28, 2016] Hitchens on Hillarys Lies

Mar 31, 2008 | The Weekly Standard
A must-read from Christopher Hitchens:
The punishment visited on Sen. Hillary Clinton for her flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying about her visit to Bosnia should be much heavier than it has yet been and should be exacted for much more than just the lying itself. There are two kinds of deliberate and premeditated deceit, commonly known as suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. (Neither of them is covered by the additionally lying claim of having "misspoken.") The first involves what seems to be most obvious in the present case: the putting forward of a bogus or misleading account of events. But the second, and often the more serious, means that the liar in question has also attempted to bury or to obscure something that actually is true. Let us examine how Sen. Clinton has managed to commit both of these offenses to veracity and decency and how in doing so she has rivaled, if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor.
Hitchens is outraged, and eloquently so as always--it's definitely worth reading through. Still, I'm surprised that anyone can be surprised by the Clinton's lies anymore. Frankly, I find them rather comforting in comparison to Obama's new kind of politics, which best I can tell seems to be the same old politics in a new self-righteous package. All politicians lie, and the Clintons more than most. I can't imagine that voters haven't already internalized this reality--which is why I tend to think the explanation for Hillary's plummeting poll numbers must lie elsewhere. Samantha says it's the whining, which is as good an explanation as any.

[Aug 28, 2016] Kinds of Feminism

www.uah.edu

Kinds of Feminism

These definitions are selected from a longer list of terms (compiled from a feminism news group) at http://www.landfield.com/faqs/feminism/. The initials in parenthesis are the people who contributed the definition to the news group.

Liberal Feminism

This is the variety of feminism that works within the structure of mainstream society to integrate women into that structure. Its roots stretch back to the social contract theory of government instituted by the American Revolution. Abigail Adams and Mary Wollstonecraft were there from the start, proposing equality for women. As is often the case with liberals, they slog along inside the system, getting little done amongst the compromises until some radical movement shows up and pulls those compromises left of center. This is how it operated in the days of the suffragist movement and again with the emergence of the radical feminists. [JD]

[See Daring to be Bad, by Alice Echols (1989) for more detail on this contrast.]

Radical Feminism

Provides the bulwark of theoretical thought in feminism. Radical feminism provides an important foundation for the rest of "feminist flavors". Seen by many as the "undesirable" element of feminism, Radical feminism is actually the breeding ground for many of the ideas arising from feminism; ideas which get shaped and pounded out in various ways by other (but not all) branches of feminism. [CTM]

Radical feminism was the cutting edge of feminist theory from approximately 1967-1975. It is no longer as universally accepted as it was then, nor does it provide a foundation for, for example, cultural feminism. [EE]

This term refers to the feminist movement that sprung out of the civil rights and peace movements in 1967-1968. The reason this group gets the "radical" label is that they view the oppression of women as the most fundamental form of oppression, one that cuts across boundaries of race, culture, and economic class. This is a movement intent on social change, change of rather revolutionary proportions, in fact. [JD]

The best history of this movement is a book called Daring to be Bad, by Alice Echols (1989). I consider that book a must! [JD] Another excellent book is simply titled Radical Feminism and is an anthology edited by Anne Koedt, a well-known radical feminist [EE].

Marxist and Socialist Feminism

Marxism recognizes that women are oppressed, and attributes the oppression to the capitalist/private property system. Thus they insist that the only way to end the oppression of women is to overthrow the capitalist system. Socialist feminism is the result of Marxism meeting radical feminism. Jaggar and Rothenberg [Feminist Frameworks: Alternative Theoretical Accounts of the Relations Between Women and Men by Alison M. Jaggar and Paula S. Rothenberg, 1993] point to significant differences between socialist feminism and Marxism, but for our purposes I'll present the two together. Echols offers a description of socialist feminism as a marriage between Marxism and radical feminism, with Marxism the dominant partner. Marxists and socialists often call themselves "radical," but they use the term to refer to a completely different "root" of society: the economic system. [JD]

Cultural Feminism

As radical feminism died out as a movement, cultural feminism got rolling. In fact, many of the same people moved from the former to the latter. They carried the name "radical feminism" with them, and some cultural feminists use that name still. (Jaggar and Rothenberg [Feminist Frameworks] don't even list cultural feminism as a framework separate from radical feminism, but Echols spells out the distinctions in great detail.) The difference between the two is quite striking: whereas radical feminism was a movement to transform society, cultural feminism retreated to vanguardism, working instead to build a women's culture. Some of this effort has had some social benefit: rape crisis centers, for example; and of course many cultural feminists have been active in social issues (but as individuals, not as part of a movement). [JD]

As various 1960s movements for social change fell apart or got co-opted, folks got pessimistic about the very possibility of social change. Many of then turned their attention to building alternatives, so that if they couldn't change the dominant society, they could avoid it as much as possible. That, in a nutshell, is what the shift from radical feminism to cultural feminism was about. These alternative-building efforts were accompanied with reasons explaining (perhaps justifying) the abandonment of working for social change. Notions that women are "inherently kinder and gentler" are one of the foundations of cultural feminism, and remain a major part of it. A similar concept held by some cultural feminists is that while various sex differences might not be biologically determined, they are still so thoroughly ingrained as to be intractable.

Eco-Feminism

This branch of feminism is much more spiritual than political or theoretical in nature. It may or may not be wrapped up with Goddess worship and vegetarianism. Its basic tenet is that a patriarchal society will exploit its resources without regard to long term consequences as a direct result of the attitudes fostered in a patriarchal/hierarchical society. Parallels are often drawn between society's treatment of the environment, animals, or resources and its treatment of women. In resisting patriarchal culture, eco-feminists feel that they are also resisting plundering and destroying the Earth. And vice-versa. [CTM]


(End of news group quotations.)

1990s Definitions of Feminism

Barbara Smith, interviewed in off our backs (October 1998, pp. 1 and 16-17) describes her contribution to a new book called A Reader�s Companion to Women�s History, a new book of which she was a co-editor, along with Gwendolyn Mink, Gloria Steinem, Marysa Navarro, and Wilma Mankiller . The liberal feminists among the book�s editors so disagreed with the definition of feminism that Smith and Mink wrote in an early chapter that they collectively co-authored an essay that responds to it. Smith says there is nothing in the book to indicate that the essay by Steinem, Navarro, and Mankiller (which follows Smith and Mink�s chapter) is a response to it.

Steinem et al. clearly take a �liberal feminist� approach. Smith and Mink�s might best be called �radical feminist,� although Smith says in the interview that she defines herself as a feminist who is radical rather than a radical feminist, meaning �leftist, socialist . . . someone who believes in revolution as opposed to reform� (p. 1). Later in the interview, Smith says she prefers the label �Black feminist,� where �Black� refers to a particular politics rather than to color (p. 16).

Here are the two definitions of feminism:

Steinem et al.:

"The belief in full economic political and social equality of males and females . . . usually seen as a modern movement to transform the male-dominant past and create an egalitarian future. On this and other continents, however, feminism is also history and even memory"

Smith and Mink:

"Feminism articulates political opposition to the subordination of women as women, whether that subordination is ascribed by law, imposed by social convention, or inflicted by individual men and women. Feminism also offers alternatives to existing unequal relations of gender power, and these alternatives have formed the agenda for feminism movements"

I-Feminism � new wave? http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/

Ifeminists, or individualist feminists, say that the feminist slogan "a woman's body, a woman's right" should extend to every peaceful choice a woman can make. Ifeminists believe that freedom and diversity benefit women, whether or not the choices that particular women make are politically correct. They respect all sexual choices, from motherhood to porn. As the cost of freedom, ifeminists accept personal responsibility for their own lives. They do not look to government for privileges any more than they would accept government abuse. Ifeminists want legal equality, and they offer the same respect to men. In short, ifeminism calls for freedom, choice, and personal responsibility.

The website also includes an essay tracing their roots in 19th century feminism: http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/essays/introduction.html

"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute." -- Rebecca West, 1913

[Aug 27, 2016] Hillary Clinton Exposed, Movie She Banned From Theaters Full Movie

This is hour and a half movie with some interesting momemtn. Pretty educational
May 21, 2014 | YouTube
Kevin Canada (CIA NWO MIND CONTROL) 2 years ago
The conference spawned books by both Brzezinski and Peccei: Technetronic Era and The Chasm Ahead, respectively. In calling for the establishment of a post-industrial dictatorship, Brzezinski wrote: "..new forms of social control may be needed to limit the indiscriminate exercise by individuals of their new powers." He went on to suggest bio-chemical means to control the populace and stated: "It will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date complete files..."

In his later book Between Two Ages, he called for the establishment of a global government, and, in the manner of a thug working a protection racket, indicated what the global elite would do to punish the masses if they resisted. ....

[Aug 26, 2016] Rep. Gowdy Hillary Clinton is a 'habitual, serial liar'

Fox News Video

- 2:08 - Republican lawmaker questions absence of emails sent by secretary of state on foundation

[Aug 26, 2016] How Think Tanks Generate Endless War by Todd E. Pierce

Hillary election means new wars and death of the US servicemen/servicewomen. So Khan gambit is much more dangerous that it looks as it implicitly promoted militarism and endless "permanent war for permanent peace".
Notable quotes:
"... Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks. ..."
"... There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover. ..."
"... Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well. ..."
"... Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically. ..."
"... The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: " Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better. " ..."
"... So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations. ..."
"... Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States. ..."
"... As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. ..."
Aug 21, 2016 | Defend Democracy Press

U.S. "think tanks" rile up the American public against an ever-shifting roster of foreign "enemies" to justify wars which line the pockets of military contractors who kick back some profits to the "think tanks," explains retired JAG Major Todd E. Pierce.

The New York Times took notice recently of the role that so-called "think tanks" play in corrupting U.S. government policy. Their review of think tanks "identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy."

Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, while the Times investigation demonstrates well that the U.S. is even more corrupt – albeit the corruption is better disguised – than the many foreign countries which we routinely accuse of corruption, the Times failed to identify the most egregious form of corruption in our system. That is, those think tanks are constantly engaged in the sort of activities which the Defense Department identifies as "Information War" when conducted by foreign countries that are designated by the U.S. as an enemy at any given moment.

Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks.

There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover.

Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well.

The measure of success from such a disinformation and propaganda effort can be seen when the narrative is adopted by secondary communicators who are perhaps the most important target audience. That is because they are "key communicators" in PsyOp terms, who in turn become provocateurs in propagating the false narrative even more broadly and to its own audiences, and becoming "combat multipliers" in military terms.

It is readily apparent now that Russia has taken its place as the primary target within U.S. sights. One doesn't have to see the U.S. military buildup on Russia's borders to understand that but only see the propaganda themes of our "think tanks."

The Role of Rand

A prime example of an act of waging information war to incite actual military attack is the Rand Corporation, which, incidentally, published a guide to information war and the need to condition the U.S. population for war back in the 1990s.

A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union. A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

Rand was founded by, among others, the war enthusiast, Air Force General Curtis LeMay, who was the model for the character of Gen. Buck Turgidson in the movie "Dr. Strangelove." LeMay once stated that he would not be afraid to start a nuclear war with Russia and that spirit would seem to be alive and well at Rand today as they project on to Vladimir Putin our own eagerness for inciting a war.

The particular act of information warfare by Rand is shown in a recent Rand article: "How to Counter Putin's Subversive War on the West." The title suggests by its presupposition that Putin is acting in the offensive form of war rather than the defensive form of war. But it is plain to see he is in the defensive form of war when one looks at the numerous provocations and acts of aggression carried out by American officials, such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and General Philip Breedlove, and the U.S. and NATO military buildup on Russia's borders.

Within this Rand article however can be found no better example of psychological projection than this propagandistic pablum that too many commentators, some witless, some not, will predictably repeat:

"Moscow's provocative active measures cause foreign investors and international lenders to see higher risks in doing business with Russia. Iran is learning a similar, painful lesson as it persists with harsh anti-Western policies even as nuclear-related sanctions fade. Russia will decide its own priorities. But it should not be surprised if disregard for others' interests diminishes the international regard it seeks as an influential great power."

In fact, an objective, dispassionate observation of U.S./Russian policies would show it has been the U.S. carrying out these "provocative active measures" as the instigator, not Russia.

Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically.

The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: "Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better."

It begins: "The risk of outright conflict in Europe is higher than it has been for years and the confrontation between Russia and the West shows no sign of ending. To prevent misunderstandings and dangerous incidents, the two sides must improve their methods of communication."

Unfortunately, that is now true. But the article's author suggests throughout that each party, Russia and the U.S./NATO, had an equal hand in the deterioration of relations. He wrote: "The West needs to acknowledge that the standoff with Russia is not merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," as if Western officials don't already know that that accusation was only a propaganda theme for their own populations to cover up the West's aggressiveness.

Blaming Russia

So Americans, such as myself, must acknowledge and confront that the standoff with Russia is not only not "merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," but it is rather, that the U.S. is "turning authoritarian, nationalistic," and even more "assertive," i.e., aggressive, toward the world.

Suz Tzu wrote that a "sovereign" must know oneself and the enemy. In the case of the U.S. sovereign, the people and their elected, so-called representatives, there is probably no "sovereign" in human history more lacking in self-awareness of their own nation's behavior toward other nations.

So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations.

When that then generates a response from some nation with a tin-pot military relative to our own, with ours paid for by the privileged financial position we've put ourselves into post-WWII, our politicians urgently call for even more military spending from the American people to support even more aggression, all in the guise of "national defense."

Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States.

The Presidential Policy Guidance "establishes the standard operating procedures for when the United States takes direct action, which refers to lethal and non-lethal uses of force, including capture operations against terrorist targets outside the United States and areas of active hostilities."

What other nation, besides Israel probably, has a governmental "Regulation" providing for assassinations outside "areas of active hostilities?"

It should readily be evident that it is the U.S. now carrying out the vast majority of provocative active measures and has the disregard for others complained of here. At least for the moment, however, the U.S. can still hide much of its aggression using the vast financial resources provided by the American people to the Defense Department to produce sophisticated propaganda and to bribe foreign officials with foreign aid to look the other way from U.S. provocations.

It is ironic that today, one can learn more about the U.S. military and foreign policy from the Rand Corporation only by reading at least one of its historical documents, "The Operational Code of the Politburo." This is described as "part of a major effort at RAND to provide insight into the political leadership and foreign policy in the Soviet Union and other communist states; the development of Soviet military strategy and doctrine."

As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy.

That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. That this U.S. MIC would turn against its own people, the American public, by waging perpetual information war against this domestic target just to enrich their investors, might have been even more than Eisenhower could imagine however.

Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. [This article first appeared at http://original.antiwar.com/Todd_Pierce/2016/08/14/inciting-wars-american-way/]

See also

[Aug 25, 2016] Farage at Trump rally: I wouldnt vote for Clinton if you paid me

Those who already think Clinton is too sleazy won't be voting for her, but those who think she is too sick, or that she will be impeached, might
Notable quotes:
"... I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street. ..."
"... Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will become America's next President. ..."
"... After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians - no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations. ..."
"... Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying. ..."
"... Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire. ..."
"... Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history. ..."
"... Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... The ethics pledge Hillary violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again... ..."
Aug 25, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
philipsiron 46m ago
I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street.
shockrah 54m ago
The real problem here is a political vacuum so huge you could fit trump's ego inside it. Just a guess but from what I've seen this last year about half of trump supporters are wwhat could be called die-hard racists. The one major failing of the workers movement that Sanders started in the US was an inability to pull off the 50% of trump supporters who are not fundamentally racist. T

here was no major appeal to the more rural agricultural communities by Sanders that I ever heard. They may only represent 20% of the population but they are the backbone of the US as they are unable to compete with large scale corporate farming they suffer the same ideological loss that the rest of the working class suffer from. If the progressive movement cannot or will not appeal to this group through small farming and organic farming subsidies then they will go with someone like trump even though he promises them nothing. T

hey will, in the absence of an alternative political path just choose 'f**k you' for their candidate. Probably too late this time around but in the future the progressive movement needs to include these people or they will be the 'third rail' the left dies on.

Wynberg 1h ago
Dear Dorothy,

My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning and when I confront him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows he cheats on me. It's so humiliating.
Also, since he lost his job 14 years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does all day is smoke cigars, play golf, cruise around and shoot ball with his buddies and has sex with hookers, while I work so hard to pay our bills.
Since our daughter went away to college and then got married; he doesn't even pretend to like me, and hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do?
Signed:
Confused

Answer..
Dear Confused:
Grow up and dump him.
You don't need him anymore!
Good grief woman, you're running for President of the United States!

stoneshepherd 44m ago
People here seem to be posting without thinking things through. Do they really want another Clinton in the White House? Especially this warmonger?

Maybe they should try a dose of reality and read John Pilger's op ed over here https://www.rt.com/op-edge/356846-provoking-nuclear-war-media /

We shouldn't be sleepwalking into another disastrous war just to please the shareholders and CEOs of the major armament manufacturing companies.

[PS Please read Pilger's op ed before trolling this post]

SerbCanada Ulmus Glabra 1h ago
Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will become America's next President.

Listen to his peaches - that would be time better spent than to spend time of defending Hillary, who soon be either behind the bars or forgotten.

unlywnted kieran2698 1h ago

After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians - no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations.

thinlizzie mkevinf 1h ago
Nigel is not making any threats to USA as Obama did in UK (you'll be in back of the queue). It was not Nigel who spoke about obama's ancestry. America has a tough choice Trump/Clinton. My brother lives in Florida - he says he wouldn't vote for Clinton.

I voted UKIP and for LEAVE and think Nigel Farage will go down in history as one of the most important men in politics for a very long time. We supported him because he spoke for us and the other politicians stopped listening to us. These snidey nasty comments are typical of leftie guardian readers. After all - they're probably going to vote for Corby who hasn't a cat in hells chance of ever being PM!

Maitreya2016 MrIncredlous 1h ago
Yes, you're right. It's this sentiment that has pushed the proletariat into the arms of Trump and Farage. Funnily enough, during my time working with the EU there was a very strong push towards less democracy and more population management. Most of it is being done via education and other soft power platforms - reforming children's attitudes, self-awareness training, behavioral feedback and gender confusion. This is being done under the guise of tolerance, diversity and identity politics. It keeps the masses fighting amongst themselves while those in charge of them steal everything.
DanBlues 3h ago
Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying.

Now hand me some of that racism juice and point me to the bandwagon!

musolen 3h ago

... ... ...

Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire.

... ... ...

Karega 3h ago
I see the Bremain crowd still out for some revenge. And who would Hillary invite from "Brits?" Let's face it most Americans have no clue about other foreign leaders unless they are being splashed across their TV screens as some evil incarnates ready to be bombed by American bombs. Thus Guardian cheap shot at Farage as unknown is just cheap.
Indeed the whole reporting of that meeting between Farage and Trump is distasteful for a newsmedia like Guardian. Purely designed to belittle Farage and, of course, portray Trump as a non-starter in the race for White House.

Btw, i was going through list of media giants that have contributed and donated to the Clinton Foundation. Let me confirm whether Guardian or its associates/affiliates are on the list!

MelindaHaye 3h ago

Alternative media is so valuable.

The MSM is trying to make Hillary look popular at the few rallies she conducts when the reality is her crowds are tiny. You then have Trump doing multiple rallies a day where he regularly fills large sports stadiums.

It just goes to show how corrupt the MSM is and how they manipulate footage to create false impressions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-VzSG-2oYI

Lots of people are releasing stuff on this topic.

Wobbly 4h ago
Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history.
camcitizen 4h ago
Isn't it strange to see so much bile and bitterness being directed towards Mr Farage? We've had the referendum and Brexit won. Please can the many complainers here show some respect to the millions who voted and who did so of the own volition (and without the nonsense of being under some spell cast by imaginary bogeymen!). Can those complaining not accept that after 40 years of effort to make the EU work people are entitled to say - sorry, its over - but hopefully we can still be friends.
inquisitor16 4h ago

Farage was a good choice for a support speaker. He is the one person in Europe who has produced a stunning electoral upset and then quit the scene. All the pollsters got it wrong.

It's distressing that some members of the audience knew nothing about the Brexit, despite efforts by The Guardian and many others to relieve their ignorance. However, might not the same criticism be applied to most American voters, of whatever ilk?

Sailinghomeo 4h ago
Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton.

The ethics pledge Hillary violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again...

[Aug 25, 2016] Economists Whove Advised Presidents Are No Fans of Donald Trump

Notable quotes:
"... And Mankiw was the economic adviser to Mitt Romney, the elitist Nazi who said 47% of the American people were his enemies and who was in favour of economic policies that would stripmine the country to put all its wealth in the offshore bank accounts of the kleptocrats. ..."
"... Which btw makes you wonder how anyone can call Mankiw an "economist". The guy's a Republican buttboy and that's all he is. ..."
"... Mankiw didn't enable the Republicans alone. Every two-bit intro macro prof who teaches from Mankiw has aided him. ..."
"... Real Time whatever at wsj are looking for reasons to keep the GOPster/free trade type progress going! A reason to oppose Trump and vote for Hillary? ..."
"... Trump is a very controversial figure, but he can be viewed as a disruptive politician and might put some pressure on neoliberal, and especially neocons, before they coopt him. Think of him as a proponent of Brexit II. Making the elections essentially a referendum on neoliberal globalization. ..."
Aug 25, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

Comments from the discussion in Economist's View

Sandwichman :
"who has broken with many of the GOP's traditional positions on economic policy"

Not seeing much to like in "the GOP's traditional positions" where does this leave me? The truth is all 45 surviving former members of the CEA can be wrong without making Trump right.

pgl -> Sandwichman, Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM
Tax cuts for rich people as their "solution" to poverty. And balancing the budget with magic asterisks.
ilsm -> Sandwichman
Indeed, see how far the US has "progressed" with these guys' advising since Nixon!
Decision Overload
When the deeply established insider "advisers" are against him, you can bet that he is an angry outsider same as the rest of us. Look!

The most inefficient thing in our taxation system is the taxing of poor folks. Do you recognize what that accomplishes? Poor folk taxation takes money away from the poor person's landlord, his power company, his telephone company and more much more -- just slows down the economy plus administrative overhead that is the cost of slamming on the brakes.

The Donald has proposed a $25,000 standard deduction which will protect the low-rollers who have no deductions from tax-shelters. $50,000 for married couples! What a savings! What a relief from the churning that has evolved from smoke and mirror politics.

Get
it
!

Peter K., Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 09:29 AM
"Harvard University economist Gregory Mankiw, who chaired the council under George W. Bush and has been mentioned as a possible future Fed chairman, said recently on his blog that he would not support Mr. Trump.

"I have Republican friends who think that things couldn't be worse than doubling down on Obama policies under Hillary Clinton. And, like them, I am no fan of the left's agenda of large government and high taxes," Mr. Mankiw wrote. "But they are wrong: Things could be worse. And I fear they would be under Mr. Trump.""

Mankiw and Krugman mini-me Pro Growth Liberal agree on something.

Vic Twente -> Peter K
And Mankiw was the economic adviser to Mitt Romney, the elitist Nazi who said 47% of the American people were his enemies and who was in favour of economic policies that would stripmine the country to put all its wealth in the offshore bank accounts of the kleptocrats.

Which btw makes you wonder how anyone can call Mankiw an "economist". The guy's a Republican buttboy and that's all he is.

Vic Twente -> Peter K
Mankiw didn't enable the Republicans alone. Every two-bit intro macro prof who teaches from Mankiw has aided him.

I laugh when I imagine undergrad econ ten years from now: the textbooks will be full of Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand, and undergrad sessional lecturers will be drowning in cognitive dissonance as they try to remain straight-faced while lecturing on the benefits of the gold standard and eliminating the Federal Reserve.

pgl :
Stiglitz supports Clinton over Trump. No surprise but this is:

"I have known personally every Republican president since Richard Nixon," said Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein, who chaired the council under President Ronald Reagan. "They all showed a real understanding of economics and international affairs".

OK - Reagan did get a degree in economics but Krugman - who worked for Feldstein a the CEA - tells a different story about this White House when it comes to macroeconomics, the role of monetary policy, and in particular what was happening with the international aspects of our economy during Reagan's first term. Volcker - once he was done with his damaging tight monetary policy - tried to make a deal where he would lower interest rates in exchange for a reversal of that 1981 tax cut. The Reagan White House had no clue what the FED chair was even proposing even though it would have been a very good idea.

ilsm :
Real Time whatever at wsj are looking for reasons to keep the GOPster/free trade type progress going! A reason to oppose Trump and vote for Hillary?

Dowd is right! The best thuglican is a democrat.

likbez :
Hillary Clinton is dyed-in-wool neoliberal. So all she can do is to kick the can down the road. All her elections promises are not worth the cost of the electrical energy that is used to depict them on our screens.

Trump is a very controversial figure, but he can be viewed as a disruptive politician and might put some pressure on neoliberal, and especially neocons, before they coopt him. Think of him as a proponent of Brexit II. Making the elections essentially a referendum on neoliberal globalization.

If he wins, a lot of Washington neocon parasites might lose jobs (the cash for the neocons comes mostly from defense contractors), that's why they crossed the party lines and that's why neoliberal propaganda campaign against him is so vicious. Khan gambit was a nasty attempt to speedboat him. It failed.

While Hillary gets a free pass from neoliberal press (ABC, CBS and NBC). Neoliberal presstitutes (like George Stephanopoulos ) are especially vicious, behave like rabid dogs. Just listen to his interview of Trump about Khan gambit at Democratic convention.

http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/US_presidential_elections/Candidates/Trump/khan_gambit_at_democratic_convention.shtml

There is another view on Trump that deserves attention:

=== quote ===
Lupita 08.04.16 at 4:23 am 167

I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs .

Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still organizing political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen like Blair, Bush, Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing miserably, to the point of being counterproductive.

I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information and communication than in 2008, even 2012.

=== end of quote ===

But it is the deep state that dictates the course of the US, both in foreign policy and domestically, probably from 1963, so the president now is more of a ceremonial figure that adds legitimacy to the actual rule of deep state.

In any case discussion Hillary vs. Trump and questions of economics (neoliberalism vs. some retrenchment in the direction of the New Deal) we should not miss the key, defining this election fact that Hillary is a war criminal (crimes against peace are war crimes). See http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/nuremberg-trials

From this point of view voting for Hillary is highly undesirable as this is an implicit cooperation with the war criminal. That does not mean that people should vote for Trump. Who has his own set of warts.

ilsm -> likbez... , Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 01:03 PM
It has been suggested the appropriators owned by the war profiteers won't allocate money to fuel the transports that take America's Soldiers and Marines home.

The lesser evil killed no one with a vote believing in fake WMD's. The lesser evil is not experienced in keeping the neocons happy.

The lesser evil may decide body bags forever is not strategy.

Trump is the lesser evil.

Imagine what happens if the commander in chief says: stand down and steam for Pearl Harbor, San Diego and Alameda.

What would all those US retirees do if the commander in chief shuttered those brigades in Germany?

ilsm -> likbez... , Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 01:08 PM
If the crooked DNC cared about families of US' slain.....

The Khan con angered 5990 Gold Star families who are not Muslim and whose star are the result of Hillary voting for AUMF righteously and acting out since 2003.

As well as veterans!

Gold star families why not pick 1/5999 rather than 1/14 Muslims?

[Aug 25, 2016] Hillary Clinton will lose the election if this video goes viral!

Aug 25, 2016 | www.youtube.com

Somebody doing pretty good job for Trump. really impressive video. If Trump transmit it battle state Hillary probably will be cooked.

YouTube

Needa Shreerangath 3 days ago i can't believe this crooked woman run for president!
Bungis Albondigas 2 days ago When the BBC reporters broke news of Gaddafis murder, they kind of all did it with a little glee, and the tone of their voice was one of excitement and bemusement, more so than one that would be typically used when reporting on a statesmen's death. But it was quite obvious to the public that the whole thing stunk worse than a rotten tomato covered in ghost queef. Sure, it's not like Gaddafi was a particularly nice man to those who wanted to ruin his country. But he didn't kill them because he wanted to be Evil, he killed them because he was protecting his country from both the meddling of money-motivated foreign powers, and filthy terrorist scum, the kind that has been blowing up the EU and US recently. He was loved, in a country where on any hill at any given time, some kid could have shot his head off with an old gun. But that never happened. He didn't need no pope mobile. In the end, he was gutted alive in the sewers. Would the news reporters sound happy if Hilary or Donald suffered the same fate? Would you make a home invader who killed a family member a cup of tea, or lock them in the basement and kill them?
fire5479 1 day ago Liar, liar her pantsuits are on fire.
MICKEY MARQUEZ 2 days ago pinokio seems as a innocent boy comparing with this demonic creation Hillary

[Aug 25, 2016] The Real Scandal of Clintons Emails Conducting Foreign Policy In Secret

Notable quotes:
"... According to the AP article, AP reporters had to sue in federal court to get records of who Clinton met with, and ultimately were only allowed to see the schedule of records of the first part of her tenure and even those were redacted and incomplete. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/858997d5d9a540688d316654a5bb0c15/clintons-state-dept-calendar-missing-scores-entries ..."
"... The clintons are a terminally vulgar and unethical couple ..."
"... Mr. Clinton always had an easy, breezy relationship with wrongdoing. But the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul. ..."
Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

naked capitalism

EndOfTheWorld , August 25, 2016 at 4:53 am

So their strategy is to get all ad hominem with Trump. He's a fascist serial liar with narcissistic character disorder. But they don't actually have much documentation to back up all these claims. Hill is somehow taking the "moral high ground" by using paid surrogates to sling the mud. But what's she gonna do at the debates, when he looks right at her and gives her hell?

TomDority , August 25, 2016 at 7:09 am

What pecuniary benefit(s) accrue to the Clinton's through the foundation? Any estimates of actual dollars and dollar equivalents?

I assume from the interview and Hillary's comments that; Hillary is dedicated to the same operational methods that President Obama has demonstrated…… say one thing to the public and do the opposite in policy….like transparency ….most transparent statements with the least transparency in practice.

It still is al about the money and influence pedaling, special interests and legal bribery, justice for a fist full of dollars and injustice and misery if you don't dish the bucks out. Investment through scam, as it is just to tough to do real investments in real things because that would require thinking and employing people to make a difference. IBGYBG.

Politics like Barnum's Circus….a suckered born every minute.

Well…there is my cynicism for the day.

On the other side……there can absolutely be a better and more harmonious future if a bunch of special interests would realize it is in their best interest to shoot for better days than insist on standing frozen in fear.

Roger Smith , August 25, 2016 at 7:18 am

Ugh… Here is Merriam Websters stub definition of a fascism:

a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.

Everything I have seen for months and months constantly shows me that the Clinton's and this massive all in push for them is the real fascist presence in this country. Looking at MW above shows that Trump is the opposite of fascist, he is and wants the government to be criticized. One cannot sit here an claim he is a fascist (at this time, with the evidence we have). Clinton is the one saying that we shouldn't have such a "negative" view of things, that criticism is bad. Everyone and their brother tells you that Trump has to be beaten…because… It smells rancid in here.

For Curry to sit here and dance around calling Clinton a massive tumor, the highest symbol of the system's problems brings into question why he is even talking about it at all. He makes some valid points then "oh god but Trump"s.

Roger Smith , August 25, 2016 at 7:27 am

The push for Clinton and validation of our current status quo is a campaign massive indoctrination.

Harold , August 25, 2016 at 7:23 am

According to the AP article, AP reporters had to sue in federal court to get records of who Clinton met with, and ultimately were only allowed to see the schedule of records of the first part of her tenure and even those were redacted and incomplete. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/858997d5d9a540688d316654a5bb0c15/clintons-state-dept-calendar-missing-scores-entries

pretzelattack , August 25, 2016 at 7:28 am

they were quite carefully redacted if you please.

Jim Haygood , August 25, 2016 at 8:13 am

'were only allowed to see the schedule of records of the first part of her tenure'

Then Hillary blitzed AP for not covering her entire tenure in their review - as if the incompleteness was AP's fault.

hreik , August 25, 2016 at 7:46 am

Bob Herbert said it best 15 years ago

The clintons are a terminally vulgar and unethical couple

Out of order quotes:

Mr. Clinton always had an easy, breezy relationship with wrongdoing. But the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.

Link http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/26/opinion/in-america-cut-him-loose.html

Jim Haygood , August 25, 2016 at 8:10 am

" The clintons are a terminally vulgar and unethical couple "

Wish this forum allowed signatures, so Bob Herbert's deep truth could appear with every post.

Harold , August 25, 2016 at 8:13 am

Something is wrong when foreign policy is being outsourced to secret, unaccountable private interests (i.e., tax-evading oligarchs and brutal foreign dictatorships), but this is the neoliberal model for all government functions, foreign and domestic (vide - charter schools).

Anne , August 25, 2016 at 8:27 am

Months ago, Curry was railing against the Democratic Party that had anointed Clinton as inevitable, and rigged the whole process to ensure Clinton would be the nominee. Now? It's all about the technicalities of the law and Donald Trump's insanity. How…principled.

What I find tragically amusing is Curry's inability to recognize that the things he finds so abhorrent about Trump are qualities the Clintons have honed to a razor's edge after years and years of working the system to benefit themselves. The former president who parsed the word "is" to within an inch of its life is married to the presidential nominee who proves to us on a daily basis that she, too, operates on the basis that as long as there's no law that makes what she's doing illegal, she will do as she pleases.

This is not a good quality for the person upon whom the office of president will confer such tremendous power.

People think she is "better than" Trump, because she lacks his crude and rude qualities, but in my opinion, Trump and Clinton are cut from very similar cloth. Hillary Clinton is just as hollow, just as devoid of principle, and just as greedy.

Here's what really bothers me: Clinton winning validates everything she represents. Winning encourages her to see every policy and every issue through a lens of "what's in it for ME?" Winning makes her think that not only is she right about what we've been able to see, but that she's right about all the things we haven't yet seen.

I'd pretty much like both Trump and Clinton to lose, because we're losing not matter who wins. And I'd like every person who voted, again and again, for the lesser of two evils (and I did that more than once, myself) to acknowledge that this is where that metric takes us: choosing between two damaged, corrupt, conniving candidates who don't give a flying fk about anything but themselves.

Jim Haygood , August 25, 2016 at 8:38 am

'Trump and Clinton are cut from very similar cloth.'

You're right. The technical distinction is that Trump suffers from NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder), whereas Hillary is a straight-up sociopath (no conscience; inability to feel shame).

In simpler terms: The Flake vs The Crook.

Jim Haygood , August 25, 2016 at 8:33 am

'When it'�s done out in public you get the Martial Plan and Alliance for Progress. You get better stuff."

Seventy years ago, we had the Marshall Plan.

Now we have the Martial Plan. And the armed forces get better stuff.

YY , August 25, 2016 at 8:41 am

Imagine, if you will, that you are a career foreign service officer and take your job, especially as to holding to base foreign policy edicts/policies as well as to the norms of how decisions are made. It's bad enough that the likes of DEA, CIA, and military intelligence continually make loose cannon incursions on your turf, but your job is also compromised by the direct interaction/intervention, on behalf of the very same foreign parties you are supposed to deal with, by a totally unaccountable "charity" organization with your senior/top management. For this reason alone HRC's tenure at the State Dept should be viewed with some question as to whether she knows how to properly manage an organization (not just a small team of ass kissers).

[Aug 25, 2016] Arms Industry Donating to Hawkish Clinton Over Incoherent Trump Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Com by Deirdre Fulton

www.commondreams.org

'My view is Hillary is far more aligned with the types of issues that are important to the defense industry than Trump is'

Employees of 25 of the nation's largest defense companies-such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon-are choosing to fill the coffers of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over those of her rival, GOP nominee Donald Trump.

That's according to a new analysis by Politico, published Wednesday and based on federal campaign finance filings.

Indeed, Politico found that Clinton-whose hawkish tendencies have been front-and-center during the 2016 campaign-is leading Trump "by a ratio of 2-to-1 in campaign donations from employees working for defense giants like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. That's a sharp turnaround from 2012, when defense contractors gave more to then-Republican nominee Mitt Romney than to President Barack Obama."

Specifically, employees of those 25 firms have donated $93,000 to Clinton, compared with $46,000 for Trump. "Clinton's donor rolls also include more than two dozen top defense executives, while Trump's show just two," Politico adds.

It's no wonder why defense giants prefer Clinton.

"My view is Hillary is far more aligned with the types of issues that are important to the defense industry than Trump is," Linda Hudson-who ran the U.S. branch of British defense firm BAE Systems, the Pentagon's eighth largest contractor, from 2009 to 2014-told Politico.

And an anonymous lobbyist told the publication: "With Hillary Clinton we have some sense of where she would go, and with Trump we have none."

Signs abound pointing to "where she would go." As commentator JP Sottile wrote earlier this month of Clinton, "she's weaponized the State Department. She really likes regime change. And her nominating convention not only embraced the military, but it sanctified the very Gold Star families that neocon-style interventionism creates."

Or, as investigative journalist Robert Parry declared in June: "Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes."

Parry quoted the New York Times as calling Clinton "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes."

And defense contractors, too, it seems. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

[Aug 25, 2016] Main Street gets a nod from Hillary Clinton

[Video]
Notable quotes:
"... She knows a little about a lot and that is very dangerous. Let's see who her cabinet is. Friends or real players in the office they hold. Oh, she is the biggest liar I have personally ever seen nominated for President of any party ever. ..."
"... She is more crooked than a dog's hind leg! ..."
"... Clinton, a self-absorbed pathological liar, has an excuse for just about everything, and if elected president, the only policy to recieve any priority must come attached with a multi-millon dollar 'donation' to ever see the light of day. ..."
"... She'll promise the world to the world. And deliver nothing, all she cares about is your vote on her quest for power.. ..."
"... The main problem I have with any Clinton proposal is, "who's going to believe anything she says". That's the bi-product of getting away with everything, no one forgets. ..."
Aug 25, 2016 | finance.yahoo.com
Billy Boy 59 minutes ago
She knows a little about a lot and that is very dangerous. Let's see who her cabinet is. Friends or real players in the office they hold. Oh, she is the biggest liar I have personally ever seen nominated for President of any party ever.

So guess what, the BITCHAAA will say anything for your vote. Doesn't matter if you are a legal resident or a pigmie from Guinea she will blow smoke up your #$%$ while trying to find a way for you to vote. I think she should give every burried dead person last rights a minimum of once a week for their vote too.

She is more crooked than a dog's hind leg!

F 6 hours ago

How can nearly every comment on this, and most other articles as a matter of fact, be so anti-Hillary, yet the 'polls' have her in the lead? How can this be?
Tulane 6 hours ago
Not journalism. Propaganda.
David 2 hours ago

Clinton, a self-absorbed pathological liar, has an excuse for just about everything, and if elected president, the only policy to recieve any priority must come attached with a multi-millon dollar 'donation' to ever see the light of day.

Boot 2 hours ago
She'll promise the world to the world. And deliver nothing, all she cares about is your vote on her quest for power..
Stanley 2 hours ago
The main problem I have with any Clinton proposal is, "who's going to believe anything she says". That's the bi-product of getting away with everything, no one forgets. With Obama emptying the prisons onto the streets, fighting against law enforcement, and giving all our biggest enemies nuclear weapons, Hillary should offer to drop-out and let someone run with judgment skills. Even then, they would still have to run on Obama's record.

[Aug 24, 2016] Hillary Clinton received a score of 152 on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory test, putting her in the top 20 percent.

Aug 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

https://www.rt.com/uk/356820-trump-psychopathic-hitler-oxford/

Psychologist Dr. Kevin Dutton has ranked the psychopathic traits of the Republican candidate and various historical figures using a standard psychometric tool – the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Experts suggested likely scores against a series of questions. Trump scored 171, two points more than Hitler.

Saddam Hussein topped the list, scoring 189, while Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton received a score of 152, putting her in the top 20 percent.

Margaret Thatcher scored 136 points, and Elizabeth I was put at 130.

Dutton says the test scores people on eight traits that contribute to a psychopathic character. They are fearlessness, cold-heartedness, egocentricity, ruthlessness, self-confidence, charisma, dishonesty and deficits in empathy and conscience.

I find it surprising that Hilary did not peg the needle. Obama who, in candid moments, brags about being "really good at killing people" should be way up there as well (the article did not mention him which seems surprising). Or, is being good at killing people more of a sociopath thing? Anyway, here are what sociopaths do:

Glibness and Superficial Charm.
Manipulative and Conning. They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. …
Grandiose Sense of Self. …
Pathological Lying. …
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt. …
Shallow Emotions. …
Incapacity for Love.
Need for Stimulation

OMG, that describes American leaders and foreign policy to perfection! The only item missing is exceptionalism

Jen , August 23, 2016 at 8:55 pm
Exceptionalism would come under Grandiose Sense of Self.

[Aug 23, 2016] Trump Tweets Video Of Hillary Clinton Referring To Blacks As Super-Predators Video

RealClearPolitics

Donald Trump retweeted the video of Hillary Clinton referring to black gang members as "super-predators" who need to be "brought to heel" in support of criminal sentencing reforms in 1996.

YouTube
‎@YouTube

... ... ...

Clinton has faced this controversy already during the 2016 campaign. "Well, first of all, you know, I have said that I should not have used that word. You know, I was talking about drug gangs and traffickers and cartels, but it was a poor choice of words," Clinton told the hosts of WWPR-FM's "The Breakfast Club," a popular black radio show in New York City in April.

During the heat of the Democratic primary she was interrupted by Black Lives Matter activists demanding an apology for her use of the term. "Do you want to hear the facts or do you just want to talk?" she asked the protesters before they were removed from the building.

[Aug 22, 2016] Hillary Clinton's Ethics Problems Are Worse Than She Understands by Jonathan Chait

Notable quotes:
"... There are a number of problems with this article. 1) it posits Clinton as a center-left liberal. She is a right warhawk fossil fuel conservative. 2) the sexism card is obsolete in this case. Clinton's very real ethical, moral, and legal problems have nothing to do with her gender. It's time to stop trotting that out as if it were relevant, it isn't. 3) you say that Sanders' supporters are on the whole less liberal than Clinton supporters. Clinton supporters are NEOliberal, not Liberal. That is a RIGHT of center position ..."
"... Then she selected Tim Kaine, a very strong promoter of TPP, had her surrogates on the Platform Committee prevent addition of an anti-TPP plank, and generally indicated she's going to do what President Obama wants. ..."
"... Much worse, in my opinion, is her seeking out and then trumpeting the endorsements of people like John Negroponte and Robert Kagan. Kagan is the architect of the policies that have led to the current ongoing disasters in the Middle East and advocates policies that will likely lead to much worse. Hillary apparently approved the conduct of the coup in the Ukraine -- how else to explain why she promoted Victoria Nuland? And she certainly approved the provocation of Russia, which Nuland continues despite Kerry's public claims of wanting cooperation. ..."
"... The Clinton's are the only political family that has created a charitable foundation that employs dozens of friends and family members and receives billions in donations, and speaking fees from foreign and domestic governments seeking access and or favors from a charter board member when she Secretary of State and later when she was a Presidential candidate. There were virtually no boundaries between Clintons State Department and the foundation; Clinton's top aide at State, Human Abedin was simultaneous a State Department employee, a contract employee with the Clinton Foundation and a consultant to the Teneo group, a consulting group deeply interwoven with the Foundation. ..."
"... thats despicable. she's a terrible, corrupt candidate with a dead center platform who preaches left but governs right and is a straight up neocon when it comes to foreign policy. kissinger is her hero? give me a break. ..."
"... Democrats who are not bothered by primary rigging, the obvious collusion between Corporate Democrats and the corporate media, endless war, influence peddling by the Clintons, and the take-over of the Democratic Party by Corporate America are the real problem. ..."
"... That poor dear. It seems she suffers from the same financial burden that Bernie has: too many houses. ..."
"... @DFrancis NO ONE got more free handouts than the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars given away to Wall St kingpins like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Citigroup as well as oil behemoth, ExxonMobil to name a select few of the actual, real life "Welfare Queens" sucking up resources to piss away that could do exponentially more to create jobs and fix crumbling infrastructure problems than this group of jokers have been promising but not delivering for years now. ..."
nymag.com

"Give a man a reputation as an early riser," said Mark Twain, "and he can sleep 'til noon." Hillary Clinton finds herself in the opposite situation: She has a reputation for venality - the merits of which we can set aside momentarily - that forces her to a higher ethical standard. Her inadequate response to the conflicts of interest inherent in the Clinton Foundation show that she is not meeting that standard, and has not fully grasped the severity of her reputational problem.

The purpose of the Clinton Foundation is to leverage Clinton fame into charitable donations. That purpose has important positive effects - shaking loose donations for AIDS prevention and training African farmers and other worthy causes. But it also has the unavoidable side effect of giving rich people a way to curry favor with a powerful elected official. The Clinton Foundation has announced that, should Hillary Clinton win, it will stop accepting donations from corporations or foreign entities, which mitigates the problem without dispelling it altogether. Wealthy individuals, or corporations passing their money through foundations, can still use Clinton Foundation grants as chits.

Ultimately, there is no way around this problem without closing down the Clinton Foundation altogether. Passing off management of the foundation to non-relatives or other third parties doesn't do the trick, either. If the Clinton Foundation is not leveraging the Clinton name, it has no purpose.

... ... ...

The Clinton Foundation is a stand-in for the Clintons' sloppy ethics in general. In the eyes of their enemies, the Clintons are criminals on a world-historic scale;

... ... ...

For Sanders, and his most philosophical adherents, his campaign represented a revolt not only against Clinton but against the entire center-left orientation of the party, including Barack Obama and his compromising, neoliberal ways.

... ... ...

The risk that Clinton's tainted image will defeat her is small but real enough to merit concern. The much larger risk is that her lax approach to rule-following and ethical conflicts will sink her presidency.

alesh, 6 hours ago

Stop it. Clintonistas were kind enough to carry Vince Foster into a lovely park so that he might be found in a pretty place immaculate down to his shoes. Very respectful of the dead.

Of course it could have been that 'vast right-wing conspiracy' behind his death, hoping to frame the Clintons with the obvious, blundering murder of a Clinton liability... but darn! Everyone important bought into the suicide story.

Thanks to Trump's errancy, Hillary remains the safe pick for the USA regardless of herself or her foundation... in 2016. To quote Tony Kornheiser, "we'll try to do better the next time".

baruchzed, 7 hours ago

There are a number of problems with this article. 1) it posits Clinton as a center-left liberal. She is a right warhawk fossil fuel conservative. 2) the sexism card is obsolete in this case. Clinton's very real ethical, moral, and legal problems have nothing to do with her gender. It's time to stop trotting that out as if it were relevant, it isn't. 3) you say that Sanders' supporters are on the whole less liberal than Clinton supporters. Clinton supporters are NEOliberal, not Liberal. That is a RIGHT of center position, while Sanders supporters are actually liberal thinkers, decidedly left of center. The two are very different.

Bottom line, this is a pro Clinton puff piece pretending to be critical but in fact presenting falsehoods predicated upon falsehoods. Shoddy work, not journalism.

asher2789, 7 hours ago

@baruchzed "Bottom line, this is a pro Clinton puff piece pretending to be critical but in fact presenting falsehoods predicated upon falsehoods. Shoddy work, not journalism." like almost every piece about clinton published by the "left wing" media who's actually not left wing as fox claims, but pro corporate democrat.

Procopius, 20 hours ago

I think you're mistaken when you say, "If anything, Clinton has positioned herself slightly to the president's left, even opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership he continues to tout." The problem is that nobody believes she means her words when she (reluctantly) said she would not vote for a free trade agreement that did not protect jobs and the environment. She already left herself an out there, because the TPP is not a "free trade agreement." It's an agreement to increase protectionism on some products and force governments to submit to an arbitration scheme which is likely to favor private investors. There are other weasel words in there that allow her multiple outs.

Then she selected Tim Kaine, a very strong promoter of TPP, had her surrogates on the Platform Committee prevent addition of an anti-TPP plank, and generally indicated she's going to do what President Obama wants.

Much worse, in my opinion, is her seeking out and then trumpeting the endorsements of people like John Negroponte and Robert Kagan. Kagan is the architect of the policies that have led to the current ongoing disasters in the Middle East and advocates policies that will likely lead to much worse. Hillary apparently approved the conduct of the coup in the Ukraine -- how else to explain why she promoted Victoria Nuland? And she certainly approved the provocation of Russia, which Nuland continues despite Kerry's public claims of wanting cooperation.

I see (and I hope I'm just paranoid) an intention there to provoke a shooting war with Russia, even though both Russia and Ukraine have stocks of nuclear weapons.

jkk1943, 23 hours ago

Decent article but it fails when it offers the every body does it defense to suggest that Clinton's venality is no better or worse than most politicians. The Clinton's are the only political family that has created a charitable foundation that employs dozens of friends and family members and receives billions in donations, and speaking fees from foreign and domestic governments seeking access and or favors from a charter board member when she Secretary of State and later when she was a Presidential candidate. There were virtually no boundaries between Clintons State Department and the foundation; Clinton's top aide at State, Human Abedin was simultaneous a State Department employee, a contract employee with the Clinton Foundation and a consultant to the Teneo group, a consulting group deeply interwoven with the Foundation.

If a GOP presidential Secretary of State who later became a Presidential candidate had so many potential conflicts of interest not only would he or she not receive their parties nomination there would have been incessant and unceasing demands from every media outlet tin the country for the appointment of a special prosecutor.

asher2789, 8 hours ago

@ConejoBlanco clintons appeal is based on hate against trump and his supporters (understandable) and the fact that she has a vagina and is married to a man credited with overseeing one of the biggest economic booms in memory (wrongly credited, bill's timing was just lucky - he was president when PCs and then the internet became a consumer item).

i can't find a single person to answer me why the support clinton other than 1. she's not trump / stop trump / trump is scary and 2. they want a woman president and 3. well the economy was good under bill clinton...

not a SINGLE ANSWER about her foreign or domestic policies. not one. and id say about 90% of her support is solely from those terrified of trump and are voting for the lesser evil.

thats despicable. she's a terrible, corrupt candidate with a dead center platform who preaches left but governs right and is a straight up neocon when it comes to foreign policy. kissinger is her hero? give me a break. i guess hillary forgot to poll test the public and the democrat base's opinion about foreign policy because kissinger is literally the antithesis to all of whats good and right in the world of left thought. "liberals" need to grow a spine and hold this woman accountable for her ethics, her morals, and her actions, not just give her a pass because they are so scared of trump that they might wet their bed at night over it.

nikki33161, 1 day ago

Democrats who are not bothered by primary rigging, the obvious collusion between Corporate Democrats and the corporate media, endless war, influence peddling by the Clintons, and the take-over of the Democratic Party by Corporate America are the real problem. Hillary and Trump are just the symptoms of our political malaise.

capitalist.roader, 1 day ago

Last year The Federalist did a nice story on the B, H, & C Clinton Foundation:

In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation's expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.

Sean Davis, 27 Apr '15

It seems as if the Foundation exists solely to allow the Clintons to travel in the comfort and style to which they became accustomed during Bill's tenure as POTUS. The Foundation fixed their money problems:

We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt. We had no money when we got there and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea's education. You know, it was not easy.

Hillary Clinton, June 2014

That poor dear. It seems she suffers from the same financial burden that Bernie has: too many houses.

brian.taylor, 11 hours ago

@DFrancis NO ONE got more free handouts than the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars given away to Wall St kingpins like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Citigroup as well as oil behemoth, ExxonMobil to name a select few of the actual, real life "Welfare Queens" sucking up resources to piss away that could do exponentially more to create jobs and fix crumbling infrastructure problems than this group of jokers have been promising but not delivering for years now.

***News Flash***

When the C.I.A. is responsible for the largest portion of the contraband smuggling and illegal border crossings, nothing short of their discontinuation of that practice to fund their "off the books", black ops operations will have any kind of impact on volume of illegal border crossings. By no means will a wall do any bit of good. The second best plan would be to heavily punish the people and companies that hire illegal aliens and are the MAIN cause of encouraging them to come here illegally. Paying cheaper wages with no benefits while having the leverage of reporting them at any time assures employers that they can treat them as shabbily as they wish while pocketing the increased profit. THAT is the true cause of the problem, not so much people doing looking to get a gob wherever they can. No money or job prospect equals no reason to go anyways.

cleo50, 1 day ago

What Hilary understands about her problems are unclear and moot at best. A sociopath does not self analyze. The only important thing is how much the electorate understands about her.

[Aug 22, 2016] A Hard Look at the War Criminals, Um, Hawks Who Say Never Trump

Notable quotes:
"... Let's start with the last bit: "the leader of the free world." That's what journalists used to call the U.S. president, and occasionally the country as a whole, during the Cold War. Between the end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the "free world" included all the English-speaking countries outside Africa, along with western Europe, North America, some South American dictatorships, and nations like the Philippines that had a neocolonial relationship with the United States. ..."
"... I have absolutely no doubt that he and his eastern European countrymen were far from free. I do wonder, however, how free his counterparts in the American-backed Brazilian, Argentinian, Chilean, and Philippine dictatorships felt. ..."
"... Some countries in the Third World refused to be pawns in the superpower game, and created a non-aligned movement , which sought to thread a way between the Scylla and Charybdis of the U.S. and the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Among its founders were some of the great Third World nationalists: Sukarno of Indonesia, Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, and Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, along with Yugoslavia's President Josip Broz Tito. ..."
August 22, 2016 | naked capitalism
Posted on August 22, 2016 by Yves Smith Yves here. This article by Rebecca Gordon does a fine job of calling out the recklessness and disregard for the law of a group of foreign policy "experts" who signed a letter calling Trump unfit for office. But it's disconcerting to see Rebecca Gordon document how these individuals have engaged in the same sort of unacceptable behavior that they Trump would undertake, and then argue that Trump is obviously dangerous, and by implication, Clinton is not. Clinton is fully on board with the policies that these experts represent, so how exactly is she better? Gordon needs to make a case, not just assert superiority in the face of facts she presents that indicate otherwise. Gordon tries arguing for Manafort as proof that Trump is tainted. But Manafort was a recent hire and has just been dispatched, while long-term Clinton key player John Podesta's firm also appears to have advised pro-Russia parties in Ukraine .

By Rebecca Gordon, who teaches in the philosophy department at the University of San Francisco. She is the author of American Nuremberg: The U.S. Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post-9/11 War Crimes (Hot Books). Her previous books include Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States and Letters from Nicaragua . Originally published at TomDispatch

It's not every day that Republicans publish an open letter announcing that their presidential candidate is unfit for office. But lately this sort of thing has been happening more and more frequently . The most recent example: we just heard from 50 representatives of the national security apparatus, men - and a few women - who served under Republican presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. All of them are very worried about Donald Trump.

They think we should be alerted to the fact that the Republican standard-bearer "lacks the character, values, and experience to be president."

That's true of course, but it's also pretty rich, coming from this bunch. The letter's signers include, among others, the man who was Condoleezza Rice's legal advisor when she ran the National Security Council (John Bellinger III); one of George W. Bush's CIA directors who also ran the National Security Agency (Michael Hayden); a Bush administration ambassador to the United Nations and Iraq (John Negroponte); an architect of the neoconservative policy in the Middle East adopted by the Bush administration that led to the invasion of Iraq, who has since served as president of the World Bank (Robert Zoellick). In short, given the history of the "global war on terror," this is your basic list of potential American war criminals.

Their letter continues, "He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world."

There's a sentence that could use some unpacking.

What Is The "Free World"?

Let's start with the last bit: "the leader of the free world." That's what journalists used to call the U.S. president, and occasionally the country as a whole, during the Cold War. Between the end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the "free world" included all the English-speaking countries outside Africa, along with western Europe, North America, some South American dictatorships, and nations like the Philippines that had a neocolonial relationship with the United States.

The U.S.S.R. led what, by this logic, was the un-free world, including the Warsaw Pact countries in eastern Europe, the "captive" Baltic nations of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, the People's Republic of China (for part of the period), North Korea, and of course Cuba. Americans who grew up in these years knew that the people living behind the " Iron Curtain " were not free. We'd seen the bus ads and public service announcements on television requesting donations for Radio Free Europe , sometimes illustrated with footage of a pale adolescent man, his head crowned with chains.

I have absolutely no doubt that he and his eastern European countrymen were far from free. I do wonder, however, how free his counterparts in the American-backed Brazilian, Argentinian, Chilean, and Philippine dictatorships felt.

The two great adversaries, together with the countries in their spheres of influence, were often called the First and Second Worlds. Their rulers treated the rest of the planet - the Third World - as a chessboard across which they moved their proxy armies and onto which they sometimes targeted their missiles. Some countries in the Third World refused to be pawns in the superpower game, and created a non-aligned movement , which sought to thread a way between the Scylla and Charybdis of the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Among its founders were some of the great Third World nationalists: Sukarno of Indonesia, Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, and Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, along with Yugoslavia's President Josip Broz Tito.

Other countries weren't so lucky. When the United States took over from France the (unsuccessful) project of defeating Vietnam's anti-colonial struggle, people in the U.S. were assured that the war that followed with its massive bombing, napalming, and Agent-Oranging of a peasant society represented the advance of freedom against the forces of communist enslavement. Central America also served as a Cold War battlefield, with Washington fighting proxy wars during the 1980s in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, where poor campesinos had insisted on being treated as human beings and were often brutally murdered for their trouble. In addition, the U.S. funded, trained, and armed a military dictatorship in Honduras, where John Negroponte - one of the anti-Trump letter signers - was the U.S. ambassador from 1981 to 1985.

The Soviet Union is, of course, long gone, but the "free world," it seems, remains, and so American officials still sometimes refer to us as its leader - an expression that only makes sense, of course, in the context of dual (and dueling) worlds. On a post-Soviet planet, however, it's hard to know just what national or geographic configuration constitutes today's "un-free world." Is it (as Donald Trump might have it) everyone living under Arab or Muslim rule? Or could it be that amorphous phenomenon we call "terrorism" or "Islamic terrorism" that can sometimes reach into the "free world" and slaughter innocents as in San Bernardino , California, Orlando , Florida, or Nice , France? Or could it be the old Soviet Union reincarnated in Vladimir Putin's Russia or even a rising capitalist China still controlled by a Communist Party?

Faced with the loss of a primary antagonist and the confusion on our planet, George W. Bush was forced to downsize the perennial enemy of freedom from Reagan's old " evil empire " (the Soviet Union) to three "rogue states," Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, which in an address to Congress he so memorably labeled the " axis of evil ." The first of these lies in near ruins; the second we've recently signed a nuclear treaty with; and the third seems incapable of even feeding its own population. Fortunately for the free world, the Bush administration also had some second-string enemies to draw on. In 2002, John Bolton, then an undersecretary of state (and later ambassador to the U.N.), added another group "beyond the axis of evil" - Libya, Syria, and Cuba. Of the three, only Cuba is still a functioning nation.

And by the way, the 50 Republican national security stars who denounced Donald Trump in Cold War terms turn out to be in remarkably good company - that of Donald Trump himself (who recently gave a speech invoking American Cold War practices as the basis for his future foreign policy).

"He Weakens U.S. Moral Authority…"

After its twenty-first century wars , its " black sites ," and Guantánamo , among other developments of the age, it's hard to imagine a much weaker "moral authority" than what's presently left to the United States. First, we gave the world eight years of George W. Bush's illegal invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as CIA torture sites, "enhanced interrogation techniques," and a program of quite illegal global kidnappings of terror suspects ( some of whom proved innocent of anything). Under President Obama, it seems we've traded enhanced interrogation techniques for an "enhanced" use of assassination by drone (again outside any "law" of war, other than the legal documents that the Justice Department has produced to justify such acts).

When Barack Obama took office in January 2009 his first executive order outlawed the CIA's torture program and closed those black sites. It then looked as if the country's moral fiber might be stiffening. But when it came to holding the torturers accountable, Obama insisted that the country should "look forward as opposed to looking backwards" and the Justice Department declined to prosecute any of them. It's hard for a country to maintain its moral authority in the world when it refuses to exert that authority at home.

Two of the letter signers who are so concerned about Trump's effect on U.S. moral authority themselves played special roles in "weakening" U.S. moral authority through their involvement with the CIA torture program: John Bellinger III and Michael Hayden.

June 26th is the U.N.'s International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. To mark that day in 2003, President Bush issued a statement declaring, "Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere. The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture, and we are leading this fight by example."

The Washington Post story on the president's speech also carried a quote from Deputy White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to the effect that all prisoners being held by the U.S. government were being treated "humanely." John Rizzo, who was then the CIA's deputy general counsel, called John Bellinger, Condoleezza Rice's legal counsel at the National Security Council, to express his concern about what both the president and McClellan had said.

The problem was that - as Rizzo and his boss, CIA director George Tenet, well knew - many detainees then held by the CIA were not being treated humanely. They were being tortured or mistreated in various ways. The CIA wanted to be sure that they still had White House backing and approval for their "enhanced interrogation" program, because they didn't want to be left holding the bag if the truth came out. They also wanted the White House to stop talking about the humane treatment of prisoners.

According to an internal CIA memo , George Tenet convened a July 29, 2003, meeting in Condoleezza Rice's office to get the necessary reassurance that the CIA would be covered if the truth about torture came out. There, Bellinger reportedly apologized on behalf of the administration, explaining that the White House press secretary had "gone off script," mistakenly reverting to "old talking points." He also "undertook to [e]nsure that the White House press office ceases to make statements on the subject other than [to say] that the U.S. is complying with its obligations under U.S. law."

At that same meeting, Tenet's chief counsel, Scott Muller, passed out packets of printed PowerPoint slides detailing those enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, so that Bellinger and the others present, including Rice, would understand exactly what he was covering up.

So much for the "moral authority" of John Bellinger III.

As for Michael Hayden (who has held several offices in the national security apparatus), one of his signature acts as CIA Director was to approve in 2005 the destruction of videotapes of the agency's waterboarding sessions. In a letter to CIA employees, he wrote that the tapes were destroyed "only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries."

Of course destroying those tapes also meant that they'd never be available for any future legislative or judicial inquiry. The letter continued,

"Beyond their lack of intelligence value… the tapes posed a serious security risk. Were they ever to leak, they would permit identification of your CIA colleagues who had served in the program, exposing them and their families to retaliation from al-Qaeda and its sympathizers."

One has to wonder whether Hayden was more concerned with his CIA colleagues' "security" from al-Qaeda or from prosecution. In any case, he deprived the public - and any hypothetical future prosecutor - of crucial evidence of wrongdoing.

Hayden also perpetuated the lie that the Agency's first waterboarding victim, Abu Zubaydah - waterboarded a staggering 83 times - was a crucial al-Qaeda operative and had provided a quarter of all the information that the CIA gathered from human subjects about al-Qaeda. He was, in fact, never a member of al-Qaeda at all. In the 1980s, he ran a training camp in Afghanistan for the mujahedin , the force the U.S. supported against the Soviet occupation of that country; he was, that is, one of Ronald Reagan's " freedom fighters ."

Bellinger later chimed in, keeping the Abu Zubaydah lie alive by arguing in 2007 on behalf of his boss Condoleezza Rice that Guantánamo should remain open. That prison, he said, "serves a very important purpose, to hold and detain individuals who are extremely dangerous [like] Abu Zubaydah, people who have been planners of 9/11."

"He Appears to Lack Basic Knowledge About and Belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Laws, and U.S. Institutions…"

That's the next line of the open letter, and it's certainly a fair assessment of Donald Trump. But it's more than a little ironic that it was signed by Michael Hayden who, in addition to supporting CIA's torture project, oversaw the National Security Agency's post-9/11 secret surveillance program. Under that program , the government recorded the phone, text, and Internet communications of an unknown number of people inside and outside of the United States - all without warrants .

Perhaps Hayden believes in the Constitution, but at best it's a selective belief. There's that pesky 4th Amendment, for example, which guarantees that

"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Nor does Hayden appear to believe in U.S. laws and institutions, at least when it comes to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which established the secret courts that are supposed to issue exactly the sort of warrant Hayden's program never requested.

John Negroponte is another of the signers who has a history of skirting U.S. laws and the congress that passes them. While ambassador to Honduras, he helped develop a murderous " contra" army, which the United States armed and trained to overthrow the government of neighboring Nicaragua. During those years, however, aid to the contras was actually illegal under U.S. law. It was explicitly prohibited under the so-called Boland Amendments to various appropriations bills, but no matter. "National security" was at stake.

Speaking of the Constitution, it's instructive to take a look at Article 6, which states in part that "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." Such treaties include, for example, the 1928 Kellogg-Briand non-aggression pact (whose violation was the first charge brought against the Nazi officials tried at Nuremberg ) and Article 51 of the U.N. charter, which permits military action only "if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."

In 1998, Robert Zoellick, another of those 50 Republicans openly denouncing Trump, signed a different letter , which advocated abrogating those treaties. As an associate of the Project for a New American Century , he was among those who urged then-President Bill Clinton to direct "a full complement of diplomatic, political, and military efforts" to "remove Saddam Hussein from power." This was to be just the first step in a larger campaign to create a Pax Americana in the Middle East. The letter specifically urged Clinton not to worry about getting a Security Council resolution, arguing that "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."

... ... ...

relstprof , August 22, 2016 at 2:02 am

At least give us some lesser evilism, Prof. Gordon. No? But really, Clinton's endorsement of Kissinger and the lack of political and MSM response to that endorsement is perhaps the most shocking thing. My introduction to Kissinger's crimes was via Hitchens, who then promptly backed the Bush regime's interventionism. I shouldn't be surprised anymore at establishment Three-Card Monte.

Next homework assignment for Gordon: Hillary on Kissinger. What it means, why it matters.

Better yet: we should get John Oliver on it.

clarky90 , August 22, 2016 at 2:24 am

(1) The Republican Party is ALSO the Party of the Great Redeemer, Abraham Lincoln.

(2) Word(s) are not Things, they are change, change, changing signifiers of nothing.

(3) The divide (spectrum) is NOT, left to right! The Neo-Bolsheviks (cons/libs) have used money and influence to appropriate (own) BOTH the "Left" and the "Right". They own (as in bought and sold "own") the discussion.

(4) The true spectrum is up and down. The 99% vs the 1%.

(5) 1%ers, aspiring 1%ers, the service staff of the 1% (managers etc) should definitely vote for Hillary Clinton. She is the candidate (voice for) The Unique.

(6) Donald Trump is seeking to be a voice for the 99%. IMO, this make him The Progressive.(The Walt Whitman Progressive) People who see themselves as members of the Masses, The People, The Crowd, The Gaia, The 99%, EveryMan/EveryWoman/EveryGender

(7) Trump does not look or sound the way most of us imagine, The Redeemer should look. (Obama was a perfectly looking redeemer, IMO, except, he was a false messiah ). IMO, Trump is the Redeemer, the real McCoy .

(8) " Inattentional blindness, also known as perceptual blindness , is a psychological lack of attention that is not associated with any vision defects or deficits. It may be further defined as the event in which an individual fails to recognize an unexpected stimulus that is in plain sight. When it simply becomes impossible for one to attend to all the stimuli in a given situation, a temporary blindness effect can take place as a result; that is, individuals fail to see objects or stimuli that are unexpected and quite often salient."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness

Trump is right in front of us. Stop listening to all the bullshit and open your eyes and ears to what is going on. (IMO, of course!)

digi_owl , August 22, 2016 at 3:09 am

The empire is naked.

jgordon , August 22, 2016 at 3:31 am

No matter how bad Trump is, Hillary is worse. Hell I wouldn't be voting for Trump if Hillary weren't in the race, that's for damn sure.

So just go ahead and keep doing more oppo research on Trump. Please–I beg you. Because no matter what you manage to pull out of your butt I'm just nodding my head and saying to myself, "yep. Probably true, but still far better than Hillary."

Madmamie , August 22, 2016 at 4:22 am

" But it's disconcerting to see Rebecca Gordon document how these individuals have engaged in the same sort of unacceptable behavior that they Trump would undertake, and then argue that Trump is obviously dangerous, and by implication, Clinton is not. Clinton is fully on board with the policies that these experts represent, so how exactly is she better? Gordon needs to make a case, not just assert superiority. "

Isn't this just another good example of why we shouldn't be afraid of the truth and plain talk? When we finally start using words like "liar", "cheater", "thief" "murderer" "assassin" to describe those (politicians) guilty of such crimes, we might be able to get rid of them. PC is too often a trap for the one practicing it. It dims the bright lights we want to shine on the wrong-doer and robs us of our ability to debate . There's a reason why plain-talking demagogues like Trump are so successful. Instead of wrapping ourselves even more tightly in the saran wrap of genteel good manners (sometimes just another way of showing superiority?) we should be honing our language skills and engaging with the enemy.

Pavel , August 22, 2016 at 6:46 am

Here's to using the right words. "War" (or, nowadays, military intervention or (ha!) humanitarian intervention - what's "humanitarian" about dropping bombs and destroying infrastructure and causing environmental devastation?) is murder .

Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton - all mass murderers. The latter two who weep public tears every time there is a mass shooting in the US that kills a dozen or so victims. Hillary is all about "arms control" in the US and slammed Bernie because he was too "lenient" on guns, while she razed Libya and caused the spread of masses of weapons from Libya to Syria.

There is mass murder going on in Yemen as I type, aided and abetted by the US military, using weapons sold by Obama and HRC to the Saudis.

Trump is a bloviating idiot (at best) but a simple question: how many people has he actually killed compared to Bush, Obama, and the two Clintons? And never forget Albright's "it was worth it" comment regarding 500,000 Iraqi children killed as a result of Bill Clinton's sanctions.

The hypocrisy of all this is stunning.

Tom , August 22, 2016 at 6:54 am

"The Iraq war was a big, fat, mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes .. but this one was a beauty!"
Donald Trump

EndOfTheWorld , August 22, 2016 at 7:18 am

If Hill actually shows up for the debates, this is one thing Donald can hammer her about without people screaming at him for being mean to the little lady--which is what they will do if he rips into her on some of the other stuff he will rip into her on. HRC will hide behind her skirts, like the phony "feminist" she is.

Pavel , August 22, 2016 at 7:47 am

I just stumbled on a new post at CounterPunch regarding Hillary's fake "feminism", including the following 'grafs:

During her husband's presidency, Hillary was a vocal advocate for the barbaric sanctions regime, as well as the No-Fly Zone and other belligerent actions taken by her husband against the Iraqi Government of Saddam Hussein. In fact, many experts have noted that the Clinton Iraq policy essentially laid the groundwork for George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. In particular, Hillary was a leading proponent of the sanctions which, according to the UN, killed roughly 500,000 children.

And, of course, there's Hillary's infamous support for Bush's Iraq War when she was a Senator from New York. Clinton explained to the Council on Foreign Relations in December 2003, "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote….I stand by the vote." Of course this was in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Iraq and subsequent capture of Saddam Hussein, a time when one could still justify support for a war that, just a few years later, proved to be politically unpalatable, to say nothing of it being an egregious war crime, as we all knew from the beginning.

And Hillary was not perturbed in the slightest at the hundreds of thousands of women and children whose lives were irrevocably destroyed by the war and its aftermath, one which is still being reckoned with today.

Hillary and Bill – the power couple tag team of Washington – also led the charge to bomb Serbia in 1999. During the 78 days of "Operation Allied Force" more than 2,000 civilians were killed, including 88 children. Naturally, this was of little consequence to the great feminist heroine Hillary who, according to biographer Gail Sheehy, proudly proclaimed "I urged [Bill Clinton] to bomb [Serbia]." The barbarism and sheer viciousness of someone who gleefully takes credit for the deaths of scores of children and countless thousands of women should give anyone who believes in the Hillary the feminist mythos serious pause.

Who could forget Libya? In the war championed by Hillary Clinton, who is regarded by experts as being the loudest voice in favor of regime change against Gaddafi and the destruction of the country, tens of thousands of women were raped, lynched, and murdered by the glorious "rebels" (read terrorists) backed by Clinton and her imperial coterie . Perhaps the great feminist hero could speak to the children of Misrata, Sirte, and Bani Walid who have now grown up without their mothers and fathers, and explain to them just how "worth it" the war was. Maybe Clinton could look mothers in the eyes and tell them how the deaths of their children from war, disease, and terrorism is a small price to pay for the foreign policy objectives of Washington.

[My emphasis]

–Eric Draitser: Hillary Clinton: The Anti-Woman 'Feminist'

Amazing the amount of cognitive dissonance going on with the Clinton "liberal" supporters.

Ché Pasa , August 22, 2016 at 7:33 am

The failure of so many partisans to recognize what is going on is startling. This is really one of the most remarkable political seasons in my memory, and I go back to Stevenson/Eisenhower days. (Criminy.)

We're watching what amounts to a reversal of political polarities, with the Democrats led by Hillary becoming sort of hopped-up post-modern high-end Republicans (what the Republicans would have become if they hadn't gone insane with power during and following the Reagan regime) and the Republicans becoming the party of a hopped-up and angry rabble. Their spokesman is Trump, but he's not their leader by any means. For the moment, there isn't one, but if this reversal/realignment is sustained - and I think it will be - there will be a Leader of the Rabble. It's too juicy an opportunity to resist.

Hillary is signaling in every way possible that she will govern as a hot-dog Republican, fully on board with the War Party which has been the driving force of the Republican and a significant part of the Democratic establishment since Bush the Old. Hillary is become what Jeb! was supposed to be.

The Establishment's War Party is fully on board with Herself as well.

This could turn ugly very quickly. They have been telling us very loudly that they want a confrontation with Russia and then with China to establish once and for all the dominance of the American Empire over the entire globe. They are prepared - and apparently eager - to crush any resistance with whatever force they choose, whenever they choose. Moscow and Beijing to be turned to seas of glowing glass if they do not yield sufficiently and in a timely fashion.

That's the threat this War Party under Mrs. Clinton holds out.

That is the threat the Republicans and their Party would have held out if the War Party had continued to hold sway within it. Trump has short-circuited that by insisting that glassing the "terrorists" is the right course of action, leaving the Russians and Chinese pretty much alone. Except that's not what the War Party wants. The "terrorists" in fact are their allies in the quest for ultimate power.

Instead, the goal seems to be to dismember/destroy Russia and to contain and control China, exploiting both for whatever resources can be extracted, ultimately leaving both as empty husks.

Trump says he has other goals, but they amount to a similar program with somewhat different victims.

Partisans see one as ultimate Evil, the other as Less Evil and therefore Good.

But it's a goon show. The War Party is determined to have its way again. Clinton will follow their lead; Trump would try to lead it. Neither we nor they can escape it.

When somebody comes up with a way to disable the War Party within the permanent government, I'll listen. Until then, we are as they say, f**ked.

[Aug 22, 2016] Modern America The Empire of Lies

Notable quotes:
"... alternative media source Counter Punch would use a hash tag #NeverHillary, while giving the recent Democrats' champion the following evaluation: "She's sleazy – a cheater and a liar" ..."
"... The Baltimore Sun did not hesitate to accuse Clinton of the deliberate concealment of facts from Congress and the American people either, noting that the State Department's inspector general released a report last week concluding that Hillary Clinton is a breathtakingly brazen and consistent liar. ..."
"... So what behavior one can expect from most American citizens, including these "hero-swimmers", when even at the highest levels, officials are lying blatantly, while displaying no fear whatsoever of any potential consequences? ..."
"... In lies we trust here, it is our symbol and our flag, because we are the Empire of Lies ..."
Aug 20, 2016 | New Eastern Outlook

But honestly, what does one expect from the likes of Hillary Clinton if even the Washington Post wouldn't hesitate to present a video filled with her lies and "shifting positions?" Her ideas on Bosnia, healthcare, Wall Street, NAFTA are ever-shifting, since she's convinced that Americans are unable to memorize basic facts or recall even recent American history.

Accusing Hillary Clinton of blatant hypocrisy, alternative media source Counter Punch would use a hash tag #NeverHillary, while giving the recent Democrats' champion the following evaluation: "She's sleazy – a cheater and a liar", noting that she wanted to set the minimum wage at the level of 12 dollars per hour, but since Bernie's 15 dollars per hour was more popular, she claimed she wanted to introduce precisely the same wage. When pressed, she conceded she'd "like" 15 dollars per hour, but would not lift a finger to make it happen federally. Incredibly, she still conducts herself in this same manner.

The Baltimore Sun did not hesitate to accuse Clinton of the deliberate concealment of facts from Congress and the American people either, noting that the State Department's inspector general released a report last week concluding that Hillary Clinton is a breathtakingly brazen and consistent liar. What's infuriating about all of this is that it is not, in fact, news. Over a year ago, Hillary Clinton held a press conference at the United Nations with the intent to put the whole controversy around her released emails to rest, yet, nearly every significant statement she made was a lie, The Baltimore Sun would note, adding that we have known it for a year now, that from the earliest days of this scandal, Clinton was lying.

So what behavior one can expect from most American citizens, including these "hero-swimmers", when even at the highest levels, officials are lying blatantly, while displaying no fear whatsoever of any potential consequences? What's even more striking is that those liars are being promoted and encouraged in the US political establishment, and they are being allowed to occupy the highest political positions in the state, as if we are being told: "In lies we trust here, it is our symbol and our flag, because we are the Empire of Lies."

Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook."
http://journal-neo.org/2016/08/20/modern-america-the-empire-of-lies-2/

[Aug 21, 2016] Can The Deep State Be Cured Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured. ..."
"... The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state. ..."
"... Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business. ..."
"... Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command. ..."
"... Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks doesn't. ..."
"... The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. ..."
www.zerohedge.com

Submitted by Karen Kwiatkowski via LewRockwell.com,

So, after getting up late, groggy, and feeling overworked even before I started, I read this article . Just after, I had to feed a dozen cats and dogs, each dog in a separate room out of respect for their territorialism and aggressive desire to consume more than they should (hmm, where have I seen this before), and in the process, forgot where I put my coffee cup. Retracing steps, I finally find it and sit back down to my 19-inch window on the ugly (and perhaps remote) world of the state, and the endless pinpricks of the independent media on its vast overwhelmingly evil existence. I suspect I share this distractibility and daily estrangement from the actions of our government with most Americans .

We are newly bombing Libya and still messing with the Middle East? I thought that the wars the deep state wanted and started were now limited and constrained! What happened to lack of funds, lack of popular support, public transparency that revealed the stupidity and abject failure of these wars?

Deep state.Something systemic, difficult to detect, hard to remove, hidden. It is a spirit as much as nerves and organ. How do your starve it, excise it, or just make it go away? We want to know. I think this explains the popularity of infotainment about haunted houses, ghosts and alien beings among us. They live and we are curious and scared.

The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured.

My summary of the long Jeffrey Goldberg piece is basically that Obama has become more fatalistic (did he mean to say fatal?) since he won that Nobel Peace Prize back in 2009 . By the way, the "Nobel prize" article contains this gem, sure to get a chuckle:

"Obama's drone program is regularly criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability, especially considering incomplete intelligence means officials are often unsure about who will die. "

[M]ost individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names," Micah Zenko, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations told the New York Times."

This is about all the fun I can handle in one day. But back to what I was trying to say.

The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state.

Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business.

Can a lack of public support reduce the deep state, or impact it? Well, it would seem that this is a non-factor, except for the strange history we have had and are witnessing again today, with the odd successful popular and populist-leaning politician and their related movements. In my lifetime, only popular figures and their movements get assassinated mysteriously, with odd polka dot dresses, MKULTRA suggestions, threats against their family by their competitors (I'm thinking Perot, but one mustn't be limited to that case), and always with concordant pressures on the sociopolitical seams in the country, i.e riots and police/military activations. The bad dealings toward, and genuine fear of, Bernie Sanders within the Democratic Party's wing of the deep state is matched or exceeded only by the genuine terror of Trump among the Republican deep state wing. This reaction to something or some person that so many in the country find engaging and appealing - an outsider who speaks to the growing political and economic dissatisfaction of a poorer, more indebted, and more regulated population – is heart-warming, to be sure. It is a sign that whether or not we do, the deep state thinks things might change. Thank you, Bernie and especially Donald, for revealing this much! And the "republicanization" of the Libertarian Party is also a bright indicator blinking out the potential of deep state movement and compromise in the pursuit of "stability."

Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command.

Maybe we will one day soon be able to debate how deep the deep state really is, or whether it was all just a dressed up, meth'ed up, and eff'ed up a sector of society that deserves a bit of jail time, some counseling, and a new start . Maybe some job training that goes beyond the printing of license plates. But given the destruction and mass murder committed daily in the name of this state, and the environmental disasters it has created around the world for the future generations, perhaps we will be no more merciful to these proprietors of the American empire as they have been to their victims. The ruling class deeply fears our judgment, and in this dynamic lies the cure.

Jim in MN Tallest Skil Aug 20, 2016 8:22 PM

I made a list of steps that could be taken to disrupt the Beast. It's all I can offer but I offer it freely.

https://www.scribd.com/document/67758041/List-of-Demands-October-6-2011

4:00 AM October 6, 2011

Kitchen Table, USA

LIST OF DEMANDS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE

I.CURB CORRUPTION AND EXCESSIVE POWER IN THE FINANCIAL ARMS OF THE US GOVERNMENT

A. FEDERAL RESERVE

1. Benjaman Bernanke to be removed as Chairman immediately

2. New York Federal Reserve Bank and all New York City offices of the Federal Reserve system will be closed for at least 3 years

3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation

4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels

5. Interest rate manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years

6. Balance sheet manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years

7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years

B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT

1. Timothy Geithner to be removed as Secretary immediately

2. All New York City offices of the Department will be closed for at least 3 years

3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation

4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels

5. Market manipulation/intervention to be prohibited for at least five years

7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years

II. END THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF GIANT BANKS AND PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FURTHER EXPOSURE TO THEIR COLLAPSE

A. END CORRUPT INFLUENCE

1. Lifetime ban on government employment for TARP recipient employees and corporate officers, specifically including Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase

2. Ten year ban on government work for consulting firms, law firms, and individual consultants and lawyers who have accepted cash from these entities

3. All contacts by any method with federal agencies and employees prohibited for at least five years, with civil and criminal penalties for violation

B. PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM FURTHER HARM AT THE HANDS OF GIANT BANKS

1. No financial institution with assets of more than $10billion will receive federal assistance or any 'arm's-length' bailouts

2. TARP recipients are prohibited from purchasing other TARP recipient corporate units, or merging with other TARP recipients

3. No foreign interest shall be allowed to acquire any portion of TARP recipients in the US or abroad

III. PREVENT CORPORATE ACCOUNTING AND PENSION FUND ABUSES RELATED TO THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS

A. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING

1. Immediately implement mark-to-market accounting rules which were improperly suspended, allowing six months for implementation.

2. Companies must reserve against impaired assets under mark-to-market rules

3. Any health or life insurance company with more than$100 million in assets must report on their holdings and risk factors, specifically including exposure to real estate, mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other exotic financial instruments. These reports will be to state insurance commissions and the federal government, and will also be made available to the public on the Internet.

B. PENSION FUNDS

1. All private and public pension funds must disclose their funding status and establish a plan to fully fund accounts under the assumption that net real returns across all asset classes remain at zero for at least ten years.

Winston Churchill -> Sam Clemons Aug 20, 2016 7:26 PM

Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks doesn't.

sinbad2 -> Winston Churchill Aug 20, 2016 7:58 PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby: You know what happens when politicians get into Number 10; they want to take their place on the world stage.

Sir Richard Wharton: People on stages are called actors. All they are required to do is look plausible, stay sober, and say the lines they're given in the right order.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Some of them try to make up their own lines.

Sir Richard Wharton: They don't last long.

rlouis Aug 20, 2016 7:47 PM

The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

The failed coup in Turkey is a significant indication of institutional weakness and also vulnerability. The inability to exercise force of will in Syria is another. The list of failures is getting too long.

[Aug 21, 2016] Secret Service Agent Tells All - Hillary Clinton is CRAZY - Gary Byrne - Full Interview

Hillary Clinton's temperament, her "terrified staff," her mental symptom are all cause of concern. Dangerous, abusive and paranoid
Cocaine addition amplifies in person pre-existing sociopathic traits.
Notable quotes:
"... Byrne talks drug use in the White House: ..."
"... But there was one particular staff member that they had come in in the morning, and they'd be so beat up and exhausted looking, worn out, exhausted to the point where they couldn't be seen saying good morning. And they'd go in their office and go the bathroom and come out of the bathroom completely elevated and happy and smiling. ..."
"... It was obvious you thought coke was being used? ..."
"... I'M a FEMALE and I CAN tell you that a woman, ESPECIALLY Clinton, is not fit to be the leader of the Free World. She's a hysterical and angry woman who's been cheated on her entire life. It's the truism: Hell hath NO fury such as a woman scorned". Be careful what you vote for America! ..."
"... Here in Arkansas it's pretty much common knowledge that she is evil as hell itself. If this woman is elected we're so terribly screwed. ..."
"... I wish people would stop calling it 'crazy'. Let's call it what it is -psychopathy! Look it up - pathological lying, glib charm, lack of empathy, anger if challenged, lack of remorse, blaming others for their own actions, etc. It's a loveless marriage, a sham, and poor Chelsea was probably born for appearances - she didn't have a chance. We need to address psychopathy as a country - these people need to be tested and kept out of important positions and certain vocations like law enforcement, military, doctors, etc. or we are doomed as a society. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is definitely bipolar! ..."
Jun 29, 2016 | YouTube

Former Secret Service officer Gary Byrne, author of the new book Crisis of Character, which examines Hillary Clinton's conduct under his watch, appeared on Monday's broadcast of FOX News Channel's Hannity. Byrne talked Hillary Clinton's temperament, her "terrified staff," Bill Clinton carrying on affairs, drug use in the White House and more with host Sean Hannity. Byrne said Clinton was feared by her staff and was notorious for her yelling. Byrne told Hannity that she has "blown up" at him and other Secret Service agents.

"She gets angry at things that are policy issues that, you know, take time to fix, and she's got this attitude where she wants things fixed right now, immediately. She screams and yells at people," Byrne said in an interview aired on Fox News.

"There's many examples that I site in my book where she blows up at people," Byrne said. "Like I've said, she has blown up at me before, and agents, and her staff. At one time, I saw her staff so afraid to tell her about a mistake that was made. They weren't upset about the waste of the mistake, ordering the wrong invitations, they were terrified that someone was going to have to tell Hillary Clinton that there was a mistake made."

Byrne says Clinton's behavior during his tenure in the Secret Service proved to him that she does not have the temperament for the Oval office.

BYRNE: I feel so strongly that people need to know the real Hillary Clinton and how dangerous she is in her behavior. She is not a leader. She is not a leader.

SEAN: She does not have the temperament?

BYRNE: She doesn't have the temperament. She didn't have the temperament to handle the social office when she was First Lady, she does not have the temperament.

SEAN: She's dishonest.

BYRNE: She's dishonest, she habitually lies, anybody that can separate themselves from their politics and review her behavior over the past 15 years…

SEAN: You're going to be accused of being political.

BYRNE: Absolutely I'm sure I will be, I have already and it's not.

SEAN: And what's your answer? Byrne: It's got nothing to do as politics.

Byrne talked wrote about then-President Bill Clinton's behavior, accusing him of carrying on multiple affairs and gave his perspective on the Monica Lewinsky affair and the scandal as it was happening. Byrne talked about several different affairs and how the Secret Service was expected to clean up after him.

HANNITY: How many women do you know, for sure, that he had affairs with in the Oval Office?

BYRNE: In the White House complex? I'd say easily three, maybe four, that I know of.

HANNITY: And you could see Monica Lewinsky from a mile away?

BYRNE: Sure. Sure.

HANNITY: You knew she wanted to be near him.

BYRNE: She was certainly manipulated some of the staff, other officers, myself to find out where he was-

HANNITY: She wasn't manipulating if you saw through it.

BYRNE: Yeah, I agree. But I saw through it right away, but she was trying to place herself in his path, as he would move throughout the complex.

Byrne talks drug use in the White House:

HANNITY: Before I get into all the issues involving Bill and Hillary and what she knew and didn't know and covering up and lying and you being put in the middle of all this. People use drugs the at the White House?

BYRNE: There were some issues. One of the ones I comment in my book, and I'm very careful not to tell too much about it because I don't want -- hopefully this person got on with their lives and lived a healthy life. But there was one particular staff member that they had come in in the morning, and they'd be so beat up and exhausted looking, worn out, exhausted to the point where they couldn't be seen saying good morning. And they'd go in their office and go the bathroom and come out of the bathroom completely elevated and happy and smiling.

HANNITY: It was obvious you thought coke was being used?

BYRNE: I did. And later on, I was told that this particular person actually, they did something similar to an intervention and got her help and got her to a clinic, and I never did see her again. But I understand she did all right.

Kia Sophia

I'M a FEMALE and I CAN tell you that a woman, ESPECIALLY Clinton, is not fit to be the leader of the Free World. She's a hysterical and angry woman who's been cheated on her entire life. It's the truism: Hell hath NO fury such as a woman scorned". Be careful what you vote for America!

Trunks800

Where is the video that she is acting like Trump? Show me the proof or else it just all talk. Too bad Trump is displaying his behavior like a man with dementia on tape and live on TV.

Sunny Skye

Here in Arkansas it's pretty much common knowledge that she is evil as hell itself. If this woman is elected we're so terribly screwed.

Brian Brachel

She's a bipolar lunatic

Trish Dempsey

psychopaths!!!!

Donna Kurpaska

I wish people would stop calling it 'crazy'. Let's call it what it is -psychopathy! Look it up - pathological lying, glib charm, lack of empathy, anger if challenged, lack of remorse, blaming others for their own actions, etc. It's a loveless marriage, a sham, and poor Chelsea was probably born for appearances - she didn't have a chance. We need to address psychopathy as a country - these people need to be tested and kept out of important positions and certain vocations like law enforcement, military, doctors, etc. or we are doomed as a society.

Lu Martinez

Hillary Clinton is definitely bipolar!

Debbie Shenton

I am Australian and I want this woman to disappear...for the safety of the western world ....she is dangerous and insane and we don't want her leading not only the USA into despair but all off us in the future ....god help us all !!!!!

[Aug 21, 2016] Hillary said she was against the TPP as currently written

Notable quotes:
"... You know, the light bulb over my head went on when Hillary said she was against the TPP "as currently written." Political speak for: she'll fiddle with some words, pronounce it fixed, and pass it ..."
"... her surrogates extol her penchant for "free trade" and are sure she will support it. ..."
July 29, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com
sharonsj , July 29, 2016 at 4:37 pm

You know, the light bulb over my head went on when Hillary said she was against the TPP "as currently written." Political speak for: she'll fiddle with some words, pronounce it fixed, and pass it.

And while she and Kaine claim now to be against the TPP, her surrogates extol her penchant for "free trade" and are sure she will support it.

[Aug 21, 2016] Hillary Orwellian language

Manipulation of definitions is the most insidious type of lying...
Today's democrats are indeed neoliberals and twist the language like all neoliberals do. George Orwell probably is spinning in his grave looking to what extent they implemented his 1984 utopia NewSpeak as for destruction of meaning of words and manipulation of language.
Notable quotes:
"... Hilary likes to redefine terms. 'We are the most progressive platform ever' she likes to say but, in one of her debates with Bernie she redefined "progressive" She said that we are making lots of progress on different issues. Therefore, her logic goes, she is 'progressive' ..."
"... So, instead of universal healthcare being progressive, we are mandated to pay for health insurance (not healthcare) in order to insure corporate healthcare insurance profits (the rentier fire sector) --………..this is Hilary's definition of progressive and, it is how she uses it when speaking and policy making. ..."
"... Beware her definitions… ..."
www.nakedcapitalism.com
TomDority , July 29, 2016 at 10:46 am

Hilary likes to redefine terms. 'We are the most progressive platform ever' she likes to say but, in one of her debates with Bernie she redefined "progressive"
She said that we are making lots of progress on different issues. Therefore, her logic goes, she is 'progressive'

So, instead of universal healthcare being progressive, we are mandated to pay for health insurance (not healthcare) in order to insure corporate healthcare insurance profits (the rentier fire sector) --………..this is Hilary's definition of progressive and, it is how she uses it when speaking and policy making.

Beware her definitions… a re-working of the definition of is

[Aug 21, 2016] Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Thursday attempted to distance herself from the controversial 12-nation trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Notable quotes:
"... Clinton publicly promoted the pact 45 separate times - but with her Democratic presidential rivals making opposition to the deal a centerpiece of their campaigns, Clinton now asserts she was never involved in the initiative. ..."
"... "I did not work on TPP," she said after a meeting with leaders of labor unions who oppose the pact. "I advocated for a multinational trade agreement that would 'be the gold standard.' But that was the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative…State Department cables… show that her agency - including her top aides - were deeply involved in the diplomatic deliberations over the trade deal. The cables from 2009 and 2010, which were among a trove of documents disclosed by the website WikiLeaks, also show that the Clinton-run State Department advised the U.S. Trade Representative's office on how to negotiate the deal with foreign government officials." ..."
"... HRC has been trying to convince the gullible (and there are clearly a few here) that the donor class paid her 225K a pop because she's committed to working against the deals favored by globalists. ..."
"... The 'Trump is a racist who will deport 11 million undocumented foreign nationals' fiction must, at the very least, explain why 1/5 Hispanics support the candidate. ..."
"... evidently 1/5 Hispanics separate rhetoric from reality. ..."
"... Sanders offered the prospect of real change to voters sick of the same old. HRC is offering fables ..."
"... Trump will not be able to produce the solutions he's promising, but he's promising solutions that people do want, which is why HRC is suddenly making Trump/Sanders themes a centerpiece of her campaign. There will be no holding HRC to account. We know this. T above is entirely correct. HRC is a known factor. ..."
"... With Trump as president there will be intense scrutiny of his every action and he'll be hammered on all sides daily. This seems to me far, far better than handing a blank check to a highly secretive career client of the donor class who enjoys the full protection of a self-censoring (for the most part) fifth estate and indulged by zombies ready to scream 'racist' or 'atheist' at any candidate who might actually challenge her authority. ..."
Aug 14, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

kidneystones 08.14.16 at 2:27 am 822

Aug 13, 2015 from David Sirota rabid Republican spin-meister

"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Thursday attempted to distance herself from the controversial 12-nation trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. During her tenure as U.S. secretary of state, Clinton publicly promoted the pact 45 separate times - but with her Democratic presidential rivals making opposition to the deal a centerpiece of their campaigns, Clinton now asserts she was never involved in the initiative.

"I did not work on TPP," she said after a meeting with leaders of labor unions who oppose the pact. "I advocated for a multinational trade agreement that would 'be the gold standard.' But that was the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative…State Department cables… show that her agency - including her top aides - were deeply involved in the diplomatic deliberations over the trade deal. The cables from 2009 and 2010, which were among a trove of documents disclosed by the website WikiLeaks, also show that the Clinton-run State Department advised the U.S. Trade Representative's office on how to negotiate the deal with foreign government officials."

http://www.ibtimes.com/cables-show-hillary-clintons-state-department-deeply-involved-trans-pacific-2032948

The donor class invest immense sums to write laws and regulations, not just in the US, but in many nations. The list of examples is endless and includes big pharma and the banks participating in the crafting of the Affordable Care Act and the bank bailout. Both Sanders and Trump agree on this point, whatever their other differences may be.

HRC has been trying to convince the gullible (and there are clearly a few here) that the donor class paid her 225K a pop because she's committed to working against the deals favored by globalists.

Every moment wasted on 'did I tell you about my racist daddy, racist relatives, racist co-workers? ' is time and energy wasted. That would be bad enough, but the level of discourse is frankly so base and lacking in nuance as to be both worthless and corrosive.

The 'Trump is a racist who will deport 11 million undocumented foreign nationals' fiction must, at the very least, explain why 1/5 Hispanics support the candidate. Trump is a race-baiting vulgarian buffoon who routinely uses offensive slurs to control the news cycle. Some supporters believe he goes too far, others are delighted to watch liberal heads explode. But evidently 1/5 Hispanics separate rhetoric from reality.

To the outside observer, Detroit and Chicago do not look like success stories. I visited both cities in the 70's and they weren't exactly shining cities on the hill, then. In the four decades since, conditions for many have actually declined. Large parts of large cities and states controlled by Democrats fail entirely to provide basic education and safety to the people who need both most.

Sanders offered the prospect of real change to voters sick of the same old. HRC is offering fables, in much the same way Trump is. As I've stated repeatedly, Trump will not be able to produce the solutions he's promising, but he's promising solutions that people do want, which is why HRC is suddenly making Trump/Sanders themes a centerpiece of her campaign. There will be no holding HRC to account. We know this. T above is entirely correct. HRC is a known factor.

With Trump as president there will be intense scrutiny of his every action and he'll be hammered on all sides daily. This seems to me far, far better than handing a blank check to a highly secretive career client of the donor class who enjoys the full protection of a self-censoring (for the most part) fifth estate and indulged by zombies ready to scream 'racist' or 'atheist' at any candidate who might actually challenge her authority.

[Aug 21, 2016] Essay; Blizzard of Lies

Notable quotes:
"... Investigators believe that damning records from the Rose Law Firm, wrongfully kept in Vincent Foster's White House office, were spirited out in the dead of night and hidden from the law for two years -- in Hillary's closet, in Web Hubbell's basement before his felony conviction, in the President's secretary's personal files -- before some were forced out last week. ..."
"... Why the White House concealment? For good reason: The records show Hillary Clinton was lying when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S.& L., and indicate she may have conspired with Web Hubbell's father-in-law to make a sham land deal that cost taxpayers $3 million. ..."
"... By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators. ..."
"... Another reason for recent revelations is the imminent turning of former aides and partners of Hillary against her; they were willing to cover her lying when it advanced their careers, but are inclined to listen to their own lawyers when faced with perjury indictments. ..."
"... Therefore, ask not "Why didn't she just come clean at the beginning?" She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends. ..."
Jan 8, 1996 | The New York Times

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

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

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

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

  2. The abuse of Presidential power known as Travelgate elicited another series of lies. She induced a White House lawyer to assert flatly to investigators that Mrs. Clinton did not order the firing of White House travel aides, who were then harassed by the F.B.I. and Justice Department to justify patronage replacement by Mrs. Clinton's cronies.

    Now we know, from a memo long concealed from investigators, that there would be "hell to pay" if the furious First Lady's desires were scorned. The career of the lawyer who transmitted Hillary's lie to authorities is now in jeopardy. Again, she lied with good reason: to avoid being identified as a vindictive political power player who used the F.B.I. to ruin the lives of people standing in the way of juicy patronage.

  3. In the aftermath of the apparent suicide of her former partner and closest confidant, White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, she ordered the overturn of an agreement to allow the Justice Department to examine the files in the dead man's office. Her closest friends and aides, under oath, have been blatantly disremembering this likely obstruction of justice, and may have to pay for supporting Hillary's lie with jail terms.

Again, the lying was not irrational. Investigators believe that damning records from the Rose Law Firm, wrongfully kept in Vincent Foster's White House office, were spirited out in the dead of night and hidden from the law for two years -- in Hillary's closet, in Web Hubbell's basement before his felony conviction, in the President's secretary's personal files -- before some were forced out last week.

Why the White House concealment? For good reason: The records show Hillary Clinton was lying when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S.& L., and indicate she may have conspired with Web Hubbell's father-in-law to make a sham land deal that cost taxpayers $3 million.

Why the belated release of some of the incriminating evidence? Not because it mysteriously turned up in offices previously searched. Certainly not because Hillary Clinton and her new hang-tough White House counsel want to respond fully to lawful subpoenas.

One reason for the Friday-night dribble of evidence from the White House is the discovery by the F.B.I. of copies of some of those records elsewhere. When Clinton witnesses are asked about specific items in "lost" records -- which investigators have -- the White House "finds" its copy and releases it. By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators.

Another reason for recent revelations is the imminent turning of former aides and partners of Hillary against her; they were willing to cover her lying when it advanced their careers, but are inclined to listen to their own lawyers when faced with perjury indictments.

Therefore, ask not "Why didn't she just come clean at the beginning?" She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.

No wonder the President is fearful of holding a prime-time press conference. Having been separately deposed by the independent counsel at least twice, the President and First Lady would be well advised to retain separate defense counsel.

[Aug 21, 2016] Hillary and the War Party by Carl Boggs

Notable quotes:
"... You haven't heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas – indeed virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign trail. ..."
"... But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics. ..."
"... A triumphant Hillary, more "rational" and "savvy" than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump, could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record as vowing to "stand up" to Russia and China, face off against Russian "aggression", escalate the war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by "U.S. intelligence" to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers. ..."
"... A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated "crises" in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, "usable") nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone - having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. ..."
"... Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring familiar homilies such as "bringing jobs back" (not going to happen) and "healing the country" (not going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary's worshipful liberal and progressive backers routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished). ..."
"... Who needs to be reminded that Hillary's domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global "crises" take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first. ..."
"... There is a special logic to the Clintonites' explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism. They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have intimate ties to reactionary global forces – the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states. ..."
"... Predictably, Trump's "unreliability" to oversee American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. ..."
"... Jackie was reported as saying "that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started – not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones moved by fear and pride." ..."
www.counterpunch.org
You haven't heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas – indeed virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton's many liberal (and sadly, progressive) supporters routinely steer away from anything related to foreign policy, talk, talk, talking instead about the candidate's "experience", with obligatory nods toward her enlightened social programs. There is only the ritual demonization of that fearsome dictator, Vladimir Putin, reputedly on the verge of invading some hapless European country. Even Bernie Sanders' sorry endorsement of his erstwhile enemy, not long ago denounced as a tool of Wall Street, had nothing to say about global issues. But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics.

A triumphant Hillary, more "rational" and "savvy" than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump, could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record as vowing to "stand up" to Russia and China, face off against Russian "aggression", escalate the war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by "U.S. intelligence" to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers. Under Clinton, the Democrats might well be better positioned to recharge their historical legacy as War Party. One of the great political myths (and there are many) is that American liberals are inclined toward a less belligerent foreign policy than Republicans, are less militaristic and more favorable toward "diplomacy". References to Woodrow Wilson in World War I and Mexico, Harry Truman in Korea, JFK and LBJ in Indochina, Bill Clinton in the Balkans, and of course Barack Obama in Afghanistan (eight years of futile warfare), Libya (also "Hillary's War"), and scattered operations across the Middle East and North Africa should be enough to dispel such nonsense. (As for FDR and World War II, I have written extensively that the Pearl Harbor attacks were deliberately provoked by U.S. actions in the Pacific – but that is a more complicated story.)

... ... ...

A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated "crises" in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, "usable") nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone - having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. There are currently no visible signs she would exit the protracted and criminal war in Afghanistan, a rich source of blowback (alongside Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Israel). Increased aerial bombardments against ISIS in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere? More deployments of American troops on the ground? Such ventures, with potentially others on the horizon, amount to elaborate recipes for more blowback, followed by more anti-terror hysteria, followed by more interventions. Uncompromising economic, diplomatic, and military support of Israeli atrocities in Palestine? Aggressive pursuit of the seriously mistaken "Asian Pivot", strategy, a revitalized effort to subvert Chinese economic and military power – one of Clinton's own special crusades? No wonder the Paul Wolfowitzes and Robert Kagans are delighted to join the Hillary camp.

No wonder, too, that billionaire super-hawk Haim Saban has pledged to spend whatever is needed to get the Clintons back into the White House, convinced her presidency will do anything to maintain Palestinian colonial subjugation. Meeting with Saban in July, Hillary again promised to "oppose any effort to delegitimate Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement." She backs legislative efforts begun in several states to silence and blacklist people working on behalf of Palestinian rights. For this her celebrated "pragmatism" could work quite effectively.

Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring familiar homilies such as "bringing jobs back" (not going to happen) and "healing the country" (not going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary's worshipful liberal and progressive backers routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished).

Amidst the turmoil Trump has oddly surfaced to the left of Clinton on several key global issues: cooperating instead of fighting with the Russians, keeping alive a sharp criticism of the Iraq war and the sustained regional chaos and blowback it generated, ramping down enthusiasm for more wars in the Middle East, junking "free trade" agreements, willingness to rethink the outmoded NATO alliance. If Trump, however haphazardly, manages to grasp the historical dynamics of blowback, the Clinton camp remains either indifferent or clueless, still ready for new armed ventures – cynically marketed, as in the Balkans, Iraq, and Libya, on the moral imperative of defeating some unspeakable evil, usually a "new Hitler" waging a "new genocide". Who needs to be reminded that Hillary's domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global "crises" take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first.

... ... ...

...At the other extreme, Clinton emerges in the media as the most "rational" and "even-tempered" of candidates, ideally suited to carry out the necessary imperial agendas. A tiresome mainstream narrative is that Hillary is "one of the best prepared and most knowledgeable candidates ever to seek the presidency." And she is smart, very smart – whatever her flaws. All the better to follow in the long history of Democrats proficient at showing the world who is boss. The media, for its part, adores these Democrats, another reason Trump appears to have diminished chances of winning. Further, the well-funded and tightly-organized Clinton machine can count on somewhat large majorities of women, blacks, and Hispanics, not only for the march to the White House but, more ominously, to go along with the War Party's imperial spectacle of the day. Most anything – war, regime change, bombing raids, drone strikes, treaty violations, JFK-style "standoffs" – can escape political scrutiny if carried out by "humanitarian", peace-loving Democrats. Bill Clinton's war to fight "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, cover for just another U.S./NATO geopolitical maneuver, constitutes the perfect template here.

There is a special logic to the Clintonites' explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism. They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have intimate ties to reactionary global forces – the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states.

... In March 121 members of the Republican "national security community", including the warmongers Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, and Brent Scowcroft, signed a public letter condemning Trump for not being sufficiently dedicated to American (also Israeli?) interests. Trump compounded his predicament by stubbornly refusing to pay homage to the "experts" – the same foreign-policy geniuses who helped orchestrate the Iraq debacle. A more recent (and more urgent) letter with roughly the same message has made its way into the public sphere. Predictably, Trump's "unreliability" to oversee American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.

Returning to the political carneval that was the Democratic convention, amidst all the non-stop flag-waving and shouts of "USA!" Hillary made what she thought would be an inspiring reference to Jackie Kennedy, speaking on the eve of her husband's (1961) ascent to the White House. Jackie was reported as saying "that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started – not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones moved by fear and pride."

We can surmise that JFK was one of those "big men" governed by "restraint". History shows, however, that Jackie's esteemed husband was architect of probably the worst episode of international barbarism in U.S. history – the Vietnam War, with its unfathomable death and destruction – coming at a time of the Big Man's botched CIA-led invasion of Cuba and followed closely by the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the Big Man's "restraint" brought the world frighteningly close to nuclear catastrophe. As for "fear" and "pride" – nothing permeates JFK's biography of that period more than those two psychological obsessions.

Could it be that Hillary Clinton, however unwittingly, was at this epic moment – her breakthrough nomination – revealing nothing so much as her own deeply-imperialist mind-set?

Carl Boggs is the author of The Hollywood War Machine, with Tom Pollard (second edition, forthcoming), and Drugs, Power, and Politics, both published by Paradigm.

[Aug 20, 2016] Hillary Clinton Could Easily Push America into Open Conflict with Russia by Ted Galen Carpenter

nationalinterest.org
One especially disturbing trend in global affairs is the marked deterioration in relations between the United States and Russia. Much will depend on the outcome of the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Donald Trump has staked out a reasonably conciliatory policy toward Moscow. And in the highly improbable event that Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson emerged victorious, the United States would certainly pursue a less interventionist, confrontational foreign policy toward Russia as well as other countries.

But Trump and a handful of other dissenters have triggered the wrath of the foreign-policy establishment by daring to suggest that Washington's Russia policy may be unwise and that the two countries have important mutual interests. Most anti-Russian hawks are backing Hillary Clinton, and the implications of a Clinton victory are extremely ominous. When Russia annexed Crimea, Clinton compared Russian president Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler-a comparison so extreme that it drew dissents even from some usual supporters. Yet there is no doubt that she would take a very hard line toward Moscow. Among other things, Clinton recommended that the United States impose a no-fly zone in Syria despite the risk that it could mean shooting down Russian military aircraft that were operating at the request of the Syrian government. Anyone who is that reckless is not likely to retreat from confrontations in eastern Europe or other arenas. Indeed, she has already called for not only more financial assistance but more military aid to Ukraine.

... ... ...

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest, is the author of 10 books and more than 600 articles on international affairs.

 Informed • 2 days ago

Congrats! The author discovered the obvious: Hillary is a warmongering neocon willing to pursue totally suicidal policy with Russia. She is not called “Mrs. WWIII” for nothing. If we are to survive, this monster should be nowhere near the White House.

Anthony Informed • 2 days ago

It's not her it's George Soros he's funding her and Merkel two of the most pathetic politicians I've seen especially dopey Merkel. Soros is also funding blm and a Arab version in israel look at the leaked emails. If you don't know sata... I mean soros then you should just type his name into Google he sold his own people out to Hitler and said it was the best thing he ever did enough said

Informed Anthony • 2 days ago

You might be right. Soros looks like he had died already, but he is as greedy as ever. Looks like he plans to bribe God almighty: otherwise why would he need so much money so late in his life? Soros or CIA must have something really damning on Merkel: she is consistently working against her own country for more than two years now. Hillary just follows the money, preferring the consensus between AIPAC and Saudis. The buyers and the goods they buy are all disgusting.

donnasaggia • 7 hours ago

We need to shift the analysis somewhat. While Russia (and this author) may (correctly) believe that fighting terrorism is a common interest of Russia and the US, the fact is, the US has no interest in fighting terrorism. Long ago Bush openly declared that he is not concerned about Osama bin Laden, and Obama continues to arm the so-called moderates, who are really a faction of al Qaeda. These neocon regime change wars are not about terrorism -- except in the sense that the US uses terrorist factions to attempt to overthrow legitimate leaders like Assad and Gaddafi. Rather than fighting terrorism, the US uses it as a weapon. The Russians are playing by one set of rules, but the US is using another.

Frank Blangeard • a day ago

There will be no 'second Cold War' because the United States never ended the first Cold War.
alan Frank Blangeard • a day ago
Amen, brother!
alan • a day ago
No other country on earth, save Israel, has legitimate interests or security concerns other than the United States. No spheres other than the western hemispheric one under the control of the US are ever to be considered acceptable. This arrogant hegemon is headed for a fall. Preferably, since I am an American I hope it will be a long slow peaceful one. Athens was as arrogant as the American empire. Athens was defeated by a coalition led by Sparta.
Joe Stevens alan • a day ago
Pride always comes before the fall. In this case, it will be a big fall!
ApqIA • 2 days ago
A needed countermeasure, a difficult one, even unlikely -- but it would stand a chance of deterring the US' insane ambitions.

A full military alliance between Russia and China, with integrated conventional and nuclear forces, that would consider an attack on one an attack on both, and a two-nation nuclear retaliation for any nuclear attack. The alliance could also offer membership to other threatened nations, such as Iran.

Would include technology transfers between the two partners, which among other things would assure China of adequate engines for its aircraft. Perhaps joint business ventures would ease Russian unease at losing business: they can sell armaments together.

The US points nuclear warheads at both nations, so the US constitutes a credible existential threat to both nations.

Its depraved, aggressive idea of global "leadership" is a threat to all humanity, and any and all measures to deter it are worth the effort.

Want evidence? Here's its OWN map of the world, divided into American military provinces.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

This development would confront Washington with something like Hitchcock's "Birds" scenario -- how many "fronts" can the US fight in at once? scenario. The Eurasian land mass is a vast, impregnable fortress and US military planners already despair at Russian mobile nukes.

Unfortunately, only even greater insanity can really hope to deter the American lunatics and self-absordbed interventionists like Hillary.

ApqIA  -> Duane • a day ago

Georgia was a US-sponsored comic opera.

Syria was an attempt to use terrorists to get rid of Assad. Failing.

Ukraine was an attempt to get Ukraine in NATO, taking Crimea was a step to avoid a NATO base in the Black Sea.

Since before Pearl Harbor, the US has employed the tactic of creating a situation where an opponent has to choose an unacceptable outcome or use force.

What's the rate for a US-salaried troll?

Bilguun Khurelbaatar  -> ApqIA • 12 hours ago

Actually I believe that all those who call others as "Russian troll" are mostly Ukrainian trolls. It's easy to find them, they call everyone, even neutral minded people as putin troll, and all they demand is to arm Ukraine, nuke Russia etc...

Robert Willis • 18 hours ago

Excellent article. Hillary Clinton was instrumental in pushing for the Invasion of Iraq, which turned what was essentially a functional state into an ISIS hellhole. As Secretary of State, she was THE personality behind the destruction of Libya, now another Islamist breeding machine with a ruined economy & brutalized population. She has done everything in her power to destabilize Syria & has succeeded beyond her wildest dreams. Now millions of economic migrants are flooding into Europe, which will likely become a Caliphate under Sharia law within 100 years. Clinton's hands are soaked in blood of tens of thousands of men, women, & children. Her thirst for more is unquenchable. She is as much of a war criminal as her hero & good friend Henry Kissinger. All the media can do is scream endless unfounded accusations of Trump being a racist, yet they never mention a whisper of what Clinton has done & intends to do.

deliaruhe • 19 hours ago

"Unfortunately, given the growing probability of a Clinton victory in November, U.S.-Russian relations, already in bad shape, are likely to deteriorate further."

Hillary isn't exactly known for her wisdom and judgement (especially in her choice of role models and mentors--i.e., Albright and Kissinger), and she's very good at shooting herself in the foot on a regular basis (e.g., her Putin-as-Hitler hyperbole). She will soon become the imperial president of an empire in decline, and empires in decline are at their most dangerous.

I think this will end up being the saddest American election ever.

(Excellent article, by the way.)

Dank Lastname • 2 days ago

If Hillary dragged NATO into a war with Russia her incompetent leadership would see the collapse of the US and the Russian occupation of Eastern Europe.

Mikhailovich • 15 hours ago

When the money is your god and financial elite employs politicians to run the country, what else we can expect? It looks the American militarism can be tamed by efficient nuclear deterrent or other major power and there are no other way to avoid big war.

alan  -> JPH • a day ago

That's the tragedy of the situation. Trump has shown he is not a captive to the foreign policy consensus of the economic, social, and political elite of the New York-Wash DC beltway. He does not believe in intervention anywhere and everywhere. That I heartily endorse. On all other points he is totally unqualified and unacceptable. We are left with a war-mongering Neo-Con thug. When She takes office, begin the countdown---war is coming, a very big war

 

[Aug 20, 2016] Trip Reports from Sanders Delegates at the Democrat National Convention

Notable quotes:
"... Perhaps the most surreal point of the night is when a military leader speaks to how much butt we're going to kick once Hillary is elected, the Sanders delegates start the chant, "Peace, Not War", and the rest of the arena drowns this out with chants of 'U.S.A ..."
"... We discussed how it felt Orwellian, like the two minutes of hate in 1984. "Having chants of 'No More War' attempted to be drowned out by chants of 'USA' was baffling," Alan Doucette, Bernie delegate from Las Vegas, said. "To me, USA is a symbol of justice and equality and not warmongering and looking for excuses to go to war. That's what I want it to be and what it should be." ..."
"... "The most dislocating experience was General Allen's speech, with so many military brass on display, and the 'fight' between No More War and USA. That was chilling. Note, No More War is not: War Criminal! Or similarly 'disrespectful' stuff; it's simply a demand not to make our present worse with more 'hawkish' 'interventionist' 'regime change' wars and war-actions." ..."
"... The US 2016 election is different. You actually have a huge choice to make. Do you vote(or not vote) to support the Washington establishment, which is clearly pushing for war with Russia, or do you vote Trump who doesn't want such a war? Your choice. ..."
"... why would you even contemplate gambling that we can survive 4 years of Clinton without a nuclear war? ..."
naked capitalism
Militarism

Mark Lasser (CO): "Perhaps the most surreal point of the night is when a military leader speaks to how much butt we're going to kick once Hillary is elected, the Sanders delegates start the chant, "Peace, Not War", and the rest of the arena drowns this out with chants of 'U.S.A.'"

Carole Levers (CA): " I was harassed by five Hillary delegates who got in my face while I was sitting in my seat. They told me that we needed to quit chanting, go home, and that we did not belong there. They added that by chanting "No More Wars" we were disrespecting the veterans. I replied that none of us were disrespecting the veterans. We were honoring them by NOT WANTING ANY MORE DEAD VETERANS, killed in illegal wars for the profits of the wealthy. I reiterated that we were exercising our first amendment rights to which one replied that WE (Bernie delegates) had no rights. I was later shoved by a Hillary delegate into the metal frame of the seats."

Carol Cizauskas (NV): "We heard other Bernie delegates chanting "No more war" and then the "opposing team" of Hillary delegates thundering over those chants with "USA." It was darkly eerie. We discussed how it felt Orwellian, like the two minutes of hate in 1984. "Having chants of 'No More War' attempted to be drowned out by chants of 'USA' was baffling," Alan Doucette, Bernie delegate from Las Vegas, said. "To me, USA is a symbol of justice and equality and not warmongering and looking for excuses to go to war. That's what I want it to be and what it should be."

#SlayTheSmaugs (NY): "The most dislocating experience was General Allen's speech, with so many military brass on display, and the 'fight' between No More War and USA. That was chilling. Note, No More War is not: War Criminal! Or similarly 'disrespectful' stuff; it's simply a demand not to make our present worse with more 'hawkish' 'interventionist' 'regime change' wars and war-actions."

Lauren Steiner (CA): "[Clinton supporters] decided to chant with us when we chanted 'Black Lives Matter.' But for some reason, they found 'No More War' to be offensive and shouted "USA" right after. At first, I was puzzled by the fact that they were shouting exactly what Trump supporters shout at his rallies. Then, after all the bellicose speeches and the fact that they had so many Republicans endorsing Clinton, it hit me that perhaps it was because they were courting Republicans now. They didn't care about our support anymore."

Ike, August 18, 2016 at 1:02 pm

I am reading Primary Colors by Anonymous. It is entertaining as well as reaffirming a suspected baseline of conduct.

Lambert Strether, August 18, 2016 at 1:11 pm

Primary Colors (by Joke Line (Joe Klein)) is terrific. The movie is good too. I am so happy and amazed that I live in a world where John Travolta plays Bill Clinton in a movie.

Jeremy Grimm, August 18, 2016 at 1:31 pm

The harassment and dirty tricks pulled against the Sanders people - as described in these collected reports - leaves me wondering whether Sanders actually won the nomination. It would have been much more politic for the Hillary people to let the Sanders delegates blow off steam and wait until the nomination and end of the convention to circle the wagons in "unity". If Hillary clearly won the nomination then the stupidity and arrogance in team Hillary's treatment of the Sanders people speaks to a new level of disdain for the 99%. The business about the $700 hotels and the misinformation and lack of information provided from team Sanders raises other questions.

trent, August 18, 2016 at 2:17 pm

Wow, all those testimonials from the democrat convention are an eye opener, for some. Hillary's soft Nazism on full display for any of the still true believers. Yet the press calls trump the Nazi. Trump is crazy, but its almost an honest craziness compared to Hillary. She's nuts, but manipulates everything she can to hide it. I'll take out in the open crazy, easier to plan for.


EoinW, August 19, 2016 at 8:51 am

I haven't voted in years. In Canada, however, we've never been given a choice on anything. Doesn't matter if the election is federal, provincial or municipal, no issues just personalities.

The US 2016 election is different. You actually have a huge choice to make. Do you vote(or not vote) to support the Washington establishment, which is clearly pushing for war with Russia, or do you vote Trump who doesn't want such a war? Your choice.

But why would you even contemplate gambling that we can survive 4 years of Clinton without a nuclear war? Speculating on global warming or third party movements kind of lose their significance during a nuclear winter.

Patricia

This young woman turned it into a tale, "The Bullshittery of the DNC":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHD_bj5fXO0

[Aug 18, 2016] Hillary fairy tale about working for Children's Defense Fund

Notable quotes:
"... You raise the Children's Defense Fund in her defense? HRC betrayed Marian Edelman, the CDF founder by supporting the catastrophic welfare bill. Peter Edelman was so disgusted that he resigned from HHS and the Clinton administration. Between the crime bill and and the welfare bill Clinton did an enormous amount of damage to black families. HRC conservative? Yes. You probably call it the Third Way. Democratic neoliberlism at its finest. ..."
crookedtimber.org

T 08.09.16 at 8:53 pm 469

@464

In moderation? Really?

You raise the Children's Defense Fund in her defense? HRC betrayed Marian Edelman, the CDF founder by supporting the catastrophic welfare bill. Peter Edelman was so disgusted that he resigned from HHS and the Clinton administration. Between the crime bill and and the welfare bill Clinton did an enormous amount of damage to black families. HRC conservative? Yes. You probably call it the Third Way. Democratic neoliberlism at its finest.

[Aug 15, 2016] Hillary Clinton Short-Circuited

Notable quotes:
"... After Clinton recognized that even her strongest supporters doubted her statement, she attempted to walk it back. In doing so, she repeatedly lied again, but offered as an excuse a bizarre claim that she had "short-circuited" her answer. ..."
"... Who knows what that means? She claimed that she and Wallace were talking over each other and her answer had been misunderstood and misconstrued. Yet, Clinton said that Comey exonerated her as being "truthful" to the public when in fact he stated that she had been truthful during her three-hour, closed-door, unrecorded interview with the FBI. ..."
"... Could Clinton have legally received, opened, stored or sent a secret or top secret email without knowing it, as she has claimed? In a word: NO. ..."
"... That's because, on her first day in office, Clinton swore under oath that she recognized her legal obligation to recognize state secrets and treat them according to law - that is, to keep them in a secure government venue - whether they are marked as secrets or not. ..."
"... Last Sunday, Iran executed a scientist who sold Iranian nuclear secrets to the U.S. The secrets were eventually passed on to Secretary of State John Kerry for his use during the negotiations that led to the recent U.S.-Iran nuclear accord. But the sale of the secrets and the U.S.'s payments for them (several million dollars) were consummated under then-Secretary Clinton's watch. The scientist was lured back to Iran, fearing harm to his family. Upon his return, he was arrested, tried and convicted of treason. ..."
August 11, 2016 | The Unz Review
When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked last week if she has misled the American people on the issue of her failure to safeguard state secrets contained in her emails, she told my Fox News colleague, Chris Wallace, that the

FBI had exonerated her. When pressed by Wallace, she argued that FBI Director James Comey said that her answers to the American people were truthful.

After Clinton recognized that even her strongest supporters doubted her statement, she attempted to walk it back. In doing so, she repeatedly lied again, but offered as an excuse a bizarre claim that she had "short-circuited" her answer.

Who knows what that means? She claimed that she and Wallace were talking over each other and her answer had been misunderstood and misconstrued. Yet, Clinton said that Comey exonerated her as being "truthful" to the public when in fact he stated that she had been truthful during her three-hour, closed-door, unrecorded interview with the FBI.

Clinton told a group of largely pro-Clinton journalists that she had short-circuited her remarks. Then, she acknowledged that Comey had only referred to whatever she told the FBI as being truthful. Then, she lied again, by insisting that she told the FBI the same things she has told the press and the public since this scandal erupted in March 2015.

But that cannot be so, because she has issued a litany of lies to the press and to the public, which the FBI would have caught. In her so-called clarifying remarks, she again told journalists her oft-stated lie about returning all work-related emails to the State Department. She could not have told that to the FBI because Director Comey revealed in July that the FBI found "thousands" of unreturned work-related emails on her servers, some of which she attempted to destroy.

On the state secrets issue, she has told the public countless times that she never sent or received anything marked classified. She could not have said that to the FBI, because even a novice FBI agent would have recognized such a statement as a trick answer. Nothing is marked "classified." The markings used by the federal government are "confidential" or "secret" or "top secret." When Director Comey announced last month that the FBI was recommending against indictment, he revealed nevertheless that his agents found 110 emails in 52 email threads containing materials that were confidential, secret or top secret.

The agents also found seven email chains on her servers that were select access privilege, or SAP. SAP emails cannot be received, opened or sent without knowing what they are, as a special alphanumeric code, one that changes continually, must be requested and employed in order to do so. SAP is so secret that the FBI agents investigating Clinton lacked access to the code.

Could Clinton have legally received, opened, stored or sent a secret or top secret email without knowing it, as she has claimed? In a word: NO.

That's because, on her first day in office, Clinton swore under oath that she recognized her legal obligation to recognize state secrets and treat them according to law - that is, to keep them in a secure government venue - whether they are marked as secrets or not.

This past weekend, we learned how deadly the consequences of Clinton's failure to secure secrets can be.

Last Sunday, Iran executed a scientist who sold Iranian nuclear secrets to the U.S. The secrets were eventually passed on to Secretary of State John Kerry for his use during the negotiations that led to the recent U.S.-Iran nuclear accord. But the sale of the secrets and the U.S.'s payments for them (several million dollars) were consummated under then-Secretary Clinton's watch. The scientist was lured back to Iran, fearing harm to his family. Upon his return, he was arrested, tried and convicted of treason.

One email sent to Clinton, from Richard Morningstar, a former State Department special envoy for Eurasian energy, referred to this scientist as "our friend." The fact that Clinton's aides referenced this spying scientist as "our friend" shows a conscious awareness of their duty to hide and secure state secrets - his name and what he had done for the U.S. Yet, at the same time, Clinton put these state secrets at risk by having them sent to her via her nonsecure home servers. This "our friend" email was a top-secret email, which Clinton failed to keep secure. It was either one of the 110 that the FBI found on her servers or one of the work-related emails she did surrender.
Could this email have been used as evidence in the treason trial of the now-executed scientist?

That is not an academic question. Most of the intelligence community seriously mistrusts Clinton, as her recklessness has jeopardized their work. Some feared that many of their undercover colleagues were compromised or even killed due to Clinton's emails.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has established a clear and unambiguous record of deception. Her deceptions are not about the time of day or the day of the week; they are about matters material to her former job as Secretary of State and material to national security.

Do you know any rational person who continues to trust her?

Copyright 2016 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

  1. exiled off mainstreet says: Show CommentNext New Comment August 11, 2016 at 4:51 am GMT • 300 Words

    If the lamestream media were not fully in the bag for the harpy, questions would be being asked about the mysterious death of the man whom Assange says was the leaker to wikileaks of the Democratic National Committee emails. Others have noted that several other people have died mysteriously during the last few weeks including a UN figure who died from a suspicous home weightlifting accident and an anti-Clinton researcher who unexpectedly committed "suicide."

    The Libya thing is still on record as a war crime and the fact is indisputable that Clinton was the spearhead who convinced Obama, who has indicated it was against his better judgment, to carry through on the overthrow. Meanwhile, we have on record Clinton's barbaric gloat, "we came, we saw, he died" with a horror movie type cackle. Also on record is the fact that the jihadi element Clinton sponsored in the overthrow effort committed a crime against humanity, a mass liquidation of Sub-saharan Africans Khaddafi had settled in the city of Sirte in the wake of their seizure of that city. It has been documented again in an article in this week's blackagendareport by their regular reporter, Danny Haiphong.

    Of course Trump is accused based on an ambiguous off-the-cuff comment he made about 2nd amendment rights that he suggested violence against the harpy. The media's cashing in on this issues makes relevant the harpy's own statement in July, 2008 when she had been beaten by Obama but before the convention which would confirm that defeat, that she was staying in the race in case a "Robert Kennedy" incident occurs. This is a much more unambiguous statement which could be construed as hoping for something favorable. Her status as a major party candidate is a disgrace, particularly now that the wikileaks disclosures have revealed the fraud engaged in to secure it. Sanders, meanwhile, appears craven in light of these new disclosures. If she triumphs, the last shreds of legitimacy will be gone from the yankee imperium.

  1. Lawrence Fitton says: Show CommentNext New Comment August 11, 2016 at 4:20 pm GMT • 100 Words

    state secrets – just the words give me the creeps. reminds of police states. state secrets keep the people, the employers of the united states government, in the dark. criminal regimes everywhere flourish without sunlight. states secrets are used as a cya tactic, as well. if the citizens don't know what their government does, they can't object. we, the people, are kept ignorant, which allows corruption to proliferate and produce people like bill & hillary clinton.
    hillary lied to congress, didn't she? why isn't she prosecuted?
    donald trump is a braggart who lies so often and so much, the mind reels. hillary clinton is a serial prevaricator, part-time criminal, thoroughly corrupt, massively entitled, political hack who should have been yesterday's news 25 years ago.
    trump or clinton.
    try not to cry.

[Aug 14, 2016] Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump is a claim of a career sycophant pandering to neocon lobby by Ray McGovern

"For Michael Morell, as with many other CIA careerists, his strongest suit seemed to be pleasing his boss and not antagonizing the White House" His loyalty is to qhoewver occupies White House, not necessarily to the truth. "Morell [was] at the center of two key fiascoes: he "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 address to the United Nations and he served as the regular CIA briefer to President George W. Bush. Putting Access Before Honesty" Rise of Another CIA Yes Man – Consortiumnews
Notable quotes:
"... Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer. ..."
"... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
"... Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article. ..."
August 13, 2016 | Antiwar.com

As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump, well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer.

However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS.

Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article.

Read more by Ray McGovern

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.

[Aug 14, 2016] The Hypocritical Pandering Racist Liar Known As Hillary Clinton

Aug 13, 2016 | YouTube

Someone Explain To Me How ANY Minority Can Vote For Her?!?! Then Explain To Me How ANYONE ELSE Could Vote For Her?!

[Aug 14, 2016] In Defense of Trump's Name-Calling by Ted Rall

Notable quotes:
"... "She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies," Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton. "You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly - if not the - one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity." ..."
"... Trump is absolutely right. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, which killed a million people. As I've pointed out , it wasn't just an immoral decision - it was a stupid one ..."
"... As secretary of state, Clinton never met a war she didn't love. Under her watch and following her counsel, the United States armed radical jihadis who are now terrorists , helped topple Moammar Gaddafi , expanded a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans and reduced one of the most advanced nations in Africa into a failed state . Then she turned around and did the same exact thing to Syria. ..."
"... Ted Rall , syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net ..."
"... is the author of the book " Snowden ," the biography of the NSA whistleblower. ..."
December 15, 2015 | counterpunch.org

There is, on the other hand, something wonderfully refreshing about Donald Trump's gleeful deployment of the S-word.

"She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies," Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton. "You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess. She was truly - if not the - one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity."

Trump is absolutely right. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, which killed a million people. As I've pointed out, it wasn't just an immoral decision - it was a stupid one, since anyone with a half a brain could see at the time that Saddam probably didn't have WMDs, and that Bush's war would be a disaster.

As secretary of state, Clinton never met a war she didn't love. Under her watch and following her counsel, the United States armed radical jihadis who are now terrorists, helped topple Moammar Gaddafi, expanded a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Libyans and reduced one of the most advanced nations in Africa into a failed state. Then she turned around and did the same exact thing to Syria.

Stupid.

Let Hillary's supporters take offense. How is unfair, wrong or intemperate to call out a foreign policy record that fits the dictionary definition of "stupid" - doing the same thing over and over, even though it never works? Stupid is as stupid does. Hillary is stupid, especially on foreign policy, and Trump is right to say so.

Winner or loser, Trump has done political debate in America a huge favor by freeing "stupid" from the rhetorical prison of words and phrases polite people aren't allowed to use.

Interestingly, stupid people aren't all losers and losers aren't always stupid in Trumpworld. Hillary Clinton has one hell of a resume, which she has parlayed into a big pile of cash. She is, by Trump standards, a winner (albeit a stupid one). If I met Trump, I'd ask him if a smart person can be a loser (possible example: he called the obviously smart Russell Brand a loser, but also a "dummy").

Pre-Trump, American politics and culture suffered from a lack of stupid-calling. I am serious.

"There has been a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in America, unlike most other Western countries," Ray Williams wrote last year in Psychology Today. Insults reflect a society's values. Americans value macho masculinity, good looks and youth, so our top slurs accuse their victims of being effeminate, weak, ugly, fat, old and outdated. In France, where the life of the mind is prized so much that one of the nation's top-rated TV shows featured philosophers and auteurs discussing politics and culture over cigarettes, there are few things worse than being called stupid and having it stick. A society that ranks "stupid" as of its worst insults lets it be known that being smart is at least as important as being tough or hot or buff.

So, Donald Trump, thanks for dropping those S-bombs.

Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net, is the author of the book "Snowden," the biography of the NSA whistleblower.

[Aug 13, 2016] F. William Engdahl - Ambassador John Bass - professional CIA agent provocateur

This transformation of State Department into the branch of CIA started under Madeleine Albright and reached crescendo during Hillary Clinton.
Notable quotes:
"... I personally have suggested investigating the person of the US Ambassador in Ankara John Bass, who was Ambassador in Republic of Georgia in 2008 and who was involved in dirty business in Iraq, and also seems to be involved in "Color revolution" in Kiev. There are very few "traditional" diplomats in a state department. ..."
Katehon think tank

The new evidence of the US participation in the coup attempt in Turkey emerged. Greek press published a photo made a day before the coup. It shows the US ambassador in Turkey John Basse together with the Turkish senior officer, who looks like one of the leaders of the coup Col. Ali Yazıcı (former military adviser to President Erdogan). They had a private meeting in Cengelkoy café the day before the coup.

F. William Engdahl - historian, economic researcher, writer comments this:

The US right now is on a defensive. Erdogan has openly challenged leading NATO generals. There is investigation of evidences of the US involvement in the coup. I personally have suggested investigating the person of the US Ambassador in Ankara John Bass, who was Ambassador in Republic of Georgia in 2008 and who was involved in dirty business in Iraq, and also seems to be involved in "Color revolution" in Kiev. There are very few "traditional" diplomats in a state department.

[Aug 07, 2016] Is hillary a female phychopath

Notable quotes:
"... It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding, and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot get away with. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com
marknesop , August 5, 2016 at 5:06 pm
Sayyyyyy…..didn't someone here theorize, right after the news broke that the DNC's emails had been hacked, and Hillary blamed the Russians so people would forget what she and the rest of the coven did to Sanders, that the actual attacker was more likely someone much closer to home?

Enter the Disgruntled US Intelligence Worker . According to US government whistleblower William Binney, somebody in the NSA released Hillary's and the DNC's emails, infuriated at Teflon Hillary's non-stick escape from any accountability for her hijinks.

The headline suggests he knows, but the body of the story suggests he is just speculating, though. But it raises a valid point – the NSA probably has all those emails, including the 30,000 she deleted on the grounds that they were 'personal'.

Cortes , August 5, 2016 at 11:41 pm

The following piece by Andrew Napolitano speculates on what might have triggered a disgruntled NSA person to leak materials:

http://www.unz.com/anapolitano/lessons-from-the-deep-state/

At some point between now and November, is anyone in the media going to put the questions about the likelihood of NSA possession of, and therefore ease of FBI access thereto, the "missing" emails to Director Comey? Or will TPTB just smile grimly and pray no further leaks arrive to shatter the Narnian alternative reality world they inhabit?

marknesop , August 6, 2016 at 9:16 am

What an excellent article, quite a bit more authoritative than the one I cited although it helpfully offers the same source, and it shapes some more pieces of the puzzle which now make more sense. The compromising of intelligence personnels' identities was something that, to the best of my knowledge, was never discussed in any stories on her email peccadilloes. Intelligence agencies quite properly despise anyone who casually blows the cover of its operatives. It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding, and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot get away with.

Thanks for posting that revealing corroborative piece.

[Aug 04, 2016] Hillary Clintons own campaign is hacked: Dems were warned they were a target in March but REFUSED to help FBI probe

July 30, 2016

Source: Hillary Clinton's own campaign is hacked: Democrats were warned they were a target in March but REFUSED to help FBI probe into cyber attacks |29 July 2016

... leak also revealed anti-gay slurs, mocking African Americans and attempts to con reputable news outlets with fake Trump videos.

The computer network used by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign was hacked as part of a broad cyber attack on Democratic political organizations, people familiar with the matter told Reuters. The latest attack, which was disclosed to Reuters on Friday, follows reports of two other hacks on the Democratic National Committee and the party's fundraising committee for candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives.

The U.S. Department of Justice national security division is investigating whether cyber hacking attacks on Democratic political organizations threatened U.S. security, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.

[Jul 31, 2016] Clearly, from Hickenloopers speech before Clinton, the military brass cant wait for her becoaming POTUS!

Notable quotes:
"... 0bama v Bush43, who was the More Effective Evil? At least Bush43 didn't have the passion for Crapifying social insurance like 0bama did – IIRC Bush43 meekly tried to privatize SS & then let it go. Bush43 didn't push any Rigged Trade Outsourcing deals the size of TPP, perhaps there was a minor one (DR-CAFTA?). ..."
"... I'd guesstimate 0bama is even worse than Bush43. The sad thing is that I fear the Fockin New Guy will be even worse than 0bama ..."
"... Well, Bush43 has Iraq going for him. And IMNSHO, the only reason Obama didn't seriously put "boots on the ground" is that Iraq and Afghanistan broke the army. But I bet they're recovered enough now, and ready for Hillary! ..."
"... Clearly, from Hickenlooper's speech before Clinton, the brass can't wait! ..."
www.nakedcapitalism.com
ProNewerDeal , July 29, 2016 at 4:01 pm

BTW, do you think we "dodge 2 bullets" & make it to Jan 2017 without 0bama being able to implement his beloved TPP & Grand Ripoff?

Flying Spaghetti Monster Willing, I hope so!

0bama v Bush43, who was the More Effective Evil? At least Bush43 didn't have the passion for Crapifying social insurance like 0bama did – IIRC Bush43 meekly tried to privatize SS & then let it go. Bush43 didn't push any Rigged Trade Outsourcing deals the size of TPP, perhaps there was a minor one (DR-CAFTA?).

0bama's passion is allowing the 1%ers enrichment by parasitically ripping off 99%ers. In contrast Bush43's passion was neocon Middle East warmongering regime-change, & Christian Theocratic stances like banning stem cell research & gay marriage, & fellow theocrat SCOTUS nominations.

I'd guesstimate 0bama is even worse than Bush43. The sad thing is that I fear the Fockin New Guy will be even worse than 0bama.

Perhaps there is a small chance for HClinton to be less bad than 0bama if the Sanders-ish social democrats (typically labeled Progressives) can force HClinton to halfway stick to the 2016 platform. Based on HClinton's behavior during the campaign, I doubt that is possible – she seems to detest the Progressive faction, based off the Kaine nomination & authoritarian banning of Sanders delegates from the convention floor, etc, & so far HClinton seems to get away with this "hippie punching" behavior.

One positive aspect is that I feel like that HClinton will be unable to use the 0bama excuses to valid Progressives' policy critiques of

  1. You are a sexist for critizing Dear Leader! (racist in 0bama's case)
  2. Those Evil Rs won't let her do that policy

These bogus replies are "dead horses" after continual use by 0bamabots, that IMHO will not be available for HClinton to use.

Lambert Strether Post author , July 29, 2016 at 4:08 pm

Well, Bush43 has Iraq going for him. And IMNSHO, the only reason Obama didn't seriously put "boots on the ground" is that Iraq and Afghanistan broke the army. But I bet they're recovered enough now, and ready for Hillary!

Clearly, from Hickenlooper's speech before Clinton, the brass can't wait!

[Jul 31, 2016] Trump Ad Hillary Clinton Crooked Warmonger

Stakes are too high to elect warmonger like Hillary Clinton. Vote for Trump in November. See also another look at Hillary's war record. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNu-0Vrvrf0&feature=youtu.be
Notable quotes:
"... How can anyone vote for that corrupt warmonger? Seriously, can someone explain why she has 50% of the votes in the USA. Unbelievable. ..."
"... Killary, like Barry, loves killing people. Psychopaths--both of them. ..."
"... I honestly don't care if Trump wins. I don't think it will be good, but whatever. But I know for a fact that no matter what, Hillary must not win. ..."
"... Oy Vey! It's funny how Liberals, most Muslims etc are offended by Trump but not offended by the direct policies of the same old warmongers resulting in the deaths of millions of people in the Middle East for a decade and on going in the sham war on t3rror. The fuck? ..."
YouTube
aspiesresearchmom1 week ago
This video should be viral. #KweenKrookedKillary and her moronic minions don't have a chance when Bernie's voters get on board the #TrumpTrain2016
Oxymoron2
How can anyone vote for that corrupt warmonger? Seriously, can someone explain why she has 50% of the votes in the USA. Unbelievable.
gspotjazz
Killary, like Barry, loves killing people. Psychopaths--both of them.
Jim Mooney
Funny the Dems are so hot for Hillary and don't recognize she's a regime-changing warmonger on a par with Bush, responsible for millions of dead and displaced in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
Bad Dog
Exactly how nuts do you have to be to think you can go to war with Russia? Even if you come out on top, what's the environment going to be like? Is emerging from your bunker with 70% of the population dead and no atmosphere left considered a win? FUCK HILLARY RAW.
Alex O.
I honestly don't care if Trump wins. I don't think it will be good, but whatever. But I know for a fact that no matter what, Hillary must not win. She's bad news.
Tina Siz
WE ARE WITNESSING THE MOST CORRUPT, MAFIA-LIKE.. ANTI AMERICAN WOMAN IN HISTORY OF POLITICS. THERE ARE REASONS WHY SCANDALS AND LIES AND DEATHS HAVE FOLLOWED HER FOR YEARS.

Truth Archives

Oy Vey! It's funny how Liberals, most Muslims etc are offended by Trump but not offended by the direct policies of the same old warmongers resulting in the deaths of millions of people in the Middle East for a decade and on going in the sham war on t3rror. The fuck?

2eyesofhorus

Hillary has become in effect, a NeoConservative, not a Democrat-she votes for war continually

Aisha K

Actually a lot of Muslims don't support Hillary or Trump and prefer Bernie because Bernie really did vote against the war in Iraq, while Trump only claims he was once against it. Regardless of that fact, Trump makes a powerful argument against voting for Hillary because of her warmonger record in Iraq, Libya and any other place she gets involved in, and the damage it has caused the entire world, including USA.

1800 Pupusas

I'm Hispanic but I prefer Trump

De Selby

she will literally say anything to benefit herself. the country will be ruined if she is elected president.

NSA Spying

Hilary Clinton is our generation's Henry Kissinger.

oanimalinho2

+NSA Spying No, she isn't. She is much worse than that.

Christopher Horton
This Trump ad gives us a taste of what the Democrats will be up against if we have to try to mobilize the voters behind Hillary to stop him. And why so many of us won't be able to put our hearts into it. Because on this issue he is absolutely right. Hillary's record on foreign policy is reprehensible - and terrifying. But it's not just on this issue - she has been lying about many things, among them the state of the economy. With no public voting record to defend, no fundamental commitment to the truth or reality, with a prostitute press that selectively forgets what he said yesterday, Trump can be selectively right - and righteous - on any issue he chooses. Until it no longer suits him.

Do I think Trump would be better than Clinton on issues of war and peace? Not for a minute. Would he be worse? Maybe - I'm honestly not sure...

Garou

Take it from me .. She's a monster.

gamira007

+PeaceAndJustice Yes absolutely she is propped up by the MSM and the Corporate death machine. The Majority do know this woman is pure evil but our rulers hand pick who is prez here cause if voting did really matter then it would be illegal.

PeaceAndJustice

+Philo Beddoe

Her 'support' is driven by the MSM which is completely controlled by the PRC (Predatory Ruling Class). Basically the people that believe the televis