The Selective Application of Justice Is Not Justice At All–Democrats Deserve Their Desired Election Investigation

The Selective Application of Justice Is Not Justice At All–Democrats Deserve Their Desired Election Investigation

The selective application of justice is not justice at all…

…it’s a tool for tyrants to crush opposition or “problematic” citizens.

The Democrats say that their concern about the alleged Russian hacking, and the alleged Trump/Russia collusion, is the integrity of our elections. Despite the fact that whoever leaked the DNC/Podesta emails actually exposed the Democrats’ and media’s own subversions of a fair electoral process, and despite no evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, and despite never explaining exactly what sort of collusion they’re looking for…surely we need an independent investigation, they say–a special prosecutor, even.

Well if that’s the concern, then yes, let’s have an investigation into the election, and everything that may have affected its integrity. Here are some of the issues that would fall under that umbrella:

Bad for the Democrats:
– The Clinton server + investigation

  • Aiding a coverup for, or scuttling a worthy prosecution of, a presidential candidate would clearly be a problem and indeed a serious interference with the electoral process
  • The crime
    • Classified info mishandling
    • Endangering cybersecurity at State Dept, possibly wider (disabled govt security systems due to issues with the private server, State Dept was hacked within weeks)
    • Destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice (smashed devices with hammers, deleted emails after subpoena, modified emails (see “stonetear”))
  • The coverup, politicization of law enforcement
    • FBI giving immunity like candy
    • Allowing destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice
    • Mishandling witness/person of interest interviews: allowing people of interest to the suspected crime, who had given testimony prior, to act as Clinton’s lawyers/advisors during her testimony
    • Comey overstepping his authority to protect Clinton from prosecution, despite her clear guilt, where he invoked intent as necessary for prosecution despite such a requirement not being in the statute
  • Investigation interference, compromised Justice Dept: Bill meeting w/ AG Lynch on the Arizona tarmac (known about only thanks to a tip given to a local reporter)
  • Email about Lynch “not letting it go too far” (?)

– The Clinton Foundation investigation (ongoing?), pay for play

  • Again, was law enforcement politicized, and criminal activity of a presidential candidate shielded from investigation and prosecution?
  • The lucrative private speeches, the donations to the foundation
    • To/by people whom she made diplomatic deals and government contracts with, and pushed policy that benefited them (e.g. Libyan/Syrian wars)
      • Contractors, e.g. defense
      • Russian uranium deal
      • Foreign governments (and individuals within those governments), often mideast despots, Chinese, Russians
      • Individuals (given government/board positions)
    • Or to whom the Clintons gave access (e.g. Morocco)
  • Charity malfeasance (and crimes?)
    • Charity as cover for a political operation, e.g.
      • Sid Blumenthal and his activity in Libya (and perception by other Foundation employees)
      • Simultaneous employment of Huma by State Dept, CF, and Hillary’s personal office
    • Human trafficking activity/associations in Haiti?
    • Payments to Teneo holdings? Being used to arrange private, lucrative contracts (e.g. speeches) for Bill?

– DNC malfeasance

  • Violating their charter by not being impartial to the candidates (see: DNC class-action lawsuit)
    • Thereby:
      • Defrauding donors
      • Wasting taxpayer money on primaries
    • Cheating in the debates (questions given to Clinton beforehand)
    • Scheming to create media narratives against Bernie
    • Intimidation and control over endorsements
    • Laundering and pilfering state party/candidate funds to DNC coffers via Hillary Victory Fund and control over transfers
    • Superdelegates, misleading media reporting of delegate totals
    • Limiting # of debates and controlling all of them, via rule changes by DWS (none unsanctioned by DNC allowed)
    • Collusion/coordination by DNC and Clinton campaign

– Media malfeasance

  • Collusion w/ Clinton team, revealed in the Podesta emails
  • ‘Pied piper’ strategy to engineer the Republican primary
  • Rampant, outright dishonesty and bias, for Clinton and against her opponents (esp. Trump)
  • AP declaring Clinton the winner of the Democratic nomination the night before the California primary, based on private, anonymous polling of superdelegate endorsements (not even officially added to the delegate count until they vote at the convention)
  • NBC holding the pussy tape for maximum impact, leaked before they intended

– REAL story behind DNC leaks and Russia

  • Who leaked
    • Zero evidence it was Russia, or that the leaker obtained emails via hacking
    • Assange says it was not a state actor, Craig Murray says it was a DNC insider, Robbin Young says it was Seth Rich (via alleged correspondence with Guccifer 2.0, wherein it’s claimed he was murdered for leaking)
    • Podesta emails were phished, not hacked
  • Was it whistleblowing
    • It did reveal corruption, cheating, collusion, violation of charter (i.e. defrauded donors)
  • Was Seth Rich (DNC staffer) the leaker?
    • He was murdered in July, right before the leaks and the convention, on the streets of DC, with the police concluding it was a “botched robbery”, despite his valuables being left on his person. Case remains unsolved.
    • Podesta emails revealed his attitude towards leakers in Feb 2015: “I’m definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.”
    • The Robbin Young messages, if true, show just how criminal, dangerous, and immoral the DNC/Clintons and/or their allies were.
    • Wikileaks has STRONGLY hinted Seth Rich is the leaker, offering a reward for information about his murder, and Assange talking about him in the context of the dangers that leakers face in this interview
    • NEW REPORTING, BOMBSHELL: http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/254852337-story
      • Rod Wheeler, former DC homicide detective, now PI hired by Rich’s family, has stated
        • tangible evidence on Rich’s laptop that confirms he was communicating with WikiLeaks prior to his death
        • believes there is a cover-up and the police department has been told to back down from the investigation
        • “The police department nor the FBI have been forthcoming,” said Wheeler. “They haven’t been cooperating at all. I believe that the answer to solving his death lies on that computer, which I believe is either at the police department or either at the FBI. I have been told both.”
        • “I have a source inside the police department that has looked at me straight in the eye and said, ‘Rod, we were told to stand down on this case and I can’t share any information with you.’ Now, that is highly unusual for a murder investigation, especially from a police department. Again, I don’t think it comes from the chief’s office, but I do believe there is a correlation between the mayor’s office and the DNC and that is the information that will come out [Tuesday].”
      • Julian Assange and Wikileaks have both retweeted this story (though maintain their practice of not revealing sources)
      • UPDATE: The family has pushed back on Wheeler’s claims, via their spokesperson, Brad Bauman, who just happens to be a Democratic PR crisis consultant who’s been “serving” them since just after Rich’s death.
      • UPDATE 2: Apparently Wheeler has walked back his claims of hard knowledge about emails and WL contact, take that as you will (Was he just looking for attention for himself? Trying to revive the issue?  Has he been intimidated/threatened?  Regardless, we still have all the other evidence, and WL’s strong hints)
  • Who hacked, how, and why
    • DNC had terrible cybersecurity (a familiar habit for Clinton); showed lack of concern, action; ignored warnings by FBI of cyber attacks and threats
      • So really, could have been anyone
      • RNC received same warnings by FBI, had better security that foiled alleged hacks
    • Terrible, nonsensical, unverifiable evidence provided to public in embarrassingly sparse intelligence reports
      • All on the word of Crowdstrike, hired by the DNC, headed by Russian expat Dmitri Alperovitch, and who have severely damaged credibility after their false Ukrainian artillery story
      • FBI & gov never allowed to analyze server
    • Evidence that the Russia hacking narrative is false
      • All of the above, and:
      • Counter testimony by other cybersecurity experts
        • Ukrainian malware was an old version, easily obtainable on the web by anyone
        • Cyrillic characters, etc.–no apparent attempt by Russia to hide their tracks
        • APT’s not actually well-defined groups? Not necessarily Russian state or state-associated?
      • Emails showing planning of the Trump/Putin bromance narrative by Clinton campaign before the leaks: e.g. “Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin” (Podesta, Dec 21 2015)
      • Wikileaks showing insane CIA malfeasance, and ability to frame a hack as other nations
      • Politicization of IC and law enforcement (see FBI, Comey)

– Crimes by Democratic operatives at highest levels (e.g. one and two degrees away from Obama and the Clinton campaign, one often personally visiting the White House)

  • Conspiring to commit mass voter fraud, admission of doing so for years (see: Project Veritas videos)
  • Instigation of violence at opponents’ rallies, organized at highest levels (see: Project Veritas videos, “birddogging”)

– Leftist political violence and intimidation

– Voter disenfranchisement in Dem primaries

  • Unexplained registration changes/drops
  • Massive reduction in polling places in some states, e.g. Arizona, leading to hours long waits in sun and heat
  • Harry Reid’s shenanigans in NV w/ unions? Letting them off work to vote for Clinton?
  • Biased ballots? E.g. California showing Clinton with picture and no one else?

– Obama admin. abuse of power (for political ends and electoral advantage)

  • DOJ slush fund (allowing billions of dollars in fines payed by corporations as punishment/settlement to go to Dem-favored political groups instead of Treasury)
  • IRS targeting conservative political groups

– Improper, politically-motivated surveillance, unmasking, and leaking of info targeting Trump/campaign (Fisas, warrantless surveillance, unmasking)

  • Rejection of FISA warrant request (super rare, ~ 1 in 3000) in June
  • Fake Dossier (paid for by FBI?) (falsified/improperly used to get October FISA?)
  • Inappropriate unmasking of Trump and associates (and family?) for no apparent legitimate intelligence reason, as revealed by Nunes (and not challenged by Dems who’ve seen the reports–they just shot the messenger, as usual)
  • Rule change by Obama in final days of presidency, to allow wide dissemination of unmasked intelligence on Americans throughout government (to facilitate leaks on Trump)
  • Leaking/spreading of piss dossier
  • Illegal leaks of classified info targeting Trump and associates’ legal activities

– Post-election attempts to subvert democracy

  • See above, Russia narrative, collusion narrative, surveillance/unmasking/leaking against Trump and associates
  • Riots (e.g. at inauguration, Berkeley, Portland)
    • Antifa, an anarcho-communist terrorist movement, ignored/downplayed by media (while “Nazis” are everywhere!)
    • Violence towards innocents allowed to happen (twice!) at Berkeley, cops stood down and did nothing
      • Likely ordered to stand down by mayor, who was a member of the extremist, leftist cult BAMN’s Facebook group
  • Calls for political violence, sedition by celebrities and media
  • Paid protesting
  • Widespread hate crime hoaxes to demonize Trump and his supporters
  • False narratives of election fraud and recounts specifically targeting Trump
  • Campaign to overturn the results via electors
  • And all this on the heels of Clinton (and the media) accusing Trump of being a “threat to democracy” for not pre-emptively accepting election results, when result-affecting fraud or legitimate recounts were still actually a possibility (unlike after the election, when the results were clear)
  • Continuous calls for impeachment, investigation of Trump on ZERO evidence (after nearly a year of investigation, including surveillance), continuing to this day

Bad for Trump:

  • Alleged collusion between his campaign and Russia
    • Only bad for him IF you believe it actually happened, despite there still being zero evidence, and all signs pointing to it being a false, politically-motivated narrative to undermine our democracy and delegitimize a legitimately elected president. Bad for Dems if false.
  • Comey press conference in July outlining findings in Clinton server case and recommending against prosecution, letter to Congress committee in October about reopening of case
    • But these aren’t even Trump’s doing, and the alternative should not just be Comey’s public silence on, but Clinton actually being prosecuted for her crimes, not to mention anyone around her who also might be guilty

So, Democrat party, establishment RINOs, and media: still want a special prosecutor/investigation? You want to ensure the integrity of our democracy and our elections? What an admirable goal! So let’s do it. Let’s clear out this mountain of corruption, crime, and lies you’ve buried this country under for years.

Anyone who bypassed the mainstream media even momentarily last year at least caught glimpses of all this stuff. I think when looking at it in total, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Clintons and the DNC are an astoundingly corrupt and conniving political machine, and posed an unparalleled threat to the health of our electoral, political, and governing processes.

They spent years amassing control over the Democratic party to the point where they thought they could muscle their way to both the DNC nomination and to the Presidency, through control, subversion, and collusion, rather than win on merit via a legitimate, democratic electoral process. As the Clintons gained control, the party’s attitudes and practices came to be more than just a reflection of their own–they became one and the same. The same thing can largely be said of the media, who acted as a partisan, political force and did their utmost to get her in the White House, while attempting (and failing) to maintain a facade of legitimate, ethical journalism.

Democrats should be thankful that Clinton didn’t ultimately succeed, as who knows what even just 4 more years of rot could have further done to their party, both internally and to its image, but more significantly, what the rot could have further done to the country and the world–indeed everyone should be thankful. We were saved from their Orwellian, authoritarian, corrupt mode of operation, perhaps only by the grace of their hubris and incompetence. They undoubtedly did not deserve to win this election, but if they were slightly more adept at their conniving, or at hiding their corruption, they might have won anyway, and we would all be in for some serious shit.

Since the election, the narratives have been continuously unraveling, and the Clintonian Democrat party slowly and visibly descending into desperate, unhinged, Russia-obsessed, anti-Trump madness. Polls have shown more Clinton voters would now switch their votes than Trump voters, and the Democrat party remains less popular than both the Republican party and the primary object of their seething, unhinged hatred, Trump himself. This despite the continued all-out war by the media on Trump and on the truth–or perhaps because of it, with trust in the media at a well-deserved all-time low (and continuing to decline, I would imagine).

Now as much as their twisting in the wind provides some sweetly poetic Schadenfreude to many, for their sake and the sake of our entire country I would like to see it end, punctuated by nothing less than the unmistakable signal of some long-awaited justice well-served:

  • for the Obama/Clinton empire to face the music for the corruption it has sown and for the damage it did to us, the world, and the faith in our institutions;
  • for an intellectually and morally decrepit Democratic party to pay penance to its defrauded donors and voters, implode, then start anew, with a hopefully legitimate, patriotic, and truly liberal (as in liberty) opposition party to take its place;
  • for an intelligence community that has been politicized, corrupted, and weaponized (literally) against the interests and security of the American people, to be reined in and made accountable at last, its methods and missions re-evaluated and–hopefully–effectively reformed;
  • and for the thoroughly dishonest, unscrupulous, and tunnel-visioned legacy media–who have rested on the laurels of their monopolistic past for far too long–to take their rightful place in the dustbin of history; and for an open, meritocratic, innovative and free (as in freedom) independent media to take their place, with the public empowered to leverage new communication technologies, and to reap the benefits of truly open dialogue, rather than the corporate/establishment/leftist-controlled dialogue that has obfuscated reality to our great harm

And I think nothing would help to expedite this justice more than a thorough, independent, honest review of all the issues I listed above that may have corrupted the integrity of our elections. So let’s get this show on the road. This Bernie-turned-Trump supporter is 100% on board.

I call on the Democratic Party to do what is right, not only for our country, but for themselves, to restore their own moral compass and credibility.  It will be a painful, embarrassing process for those who are guilty, but it’s the only way to stop the bleeding, and prevent more people like me from finding greener political pastures among their opposition.

(title image courtesy of Wikipedia user Continentaleurope)

Advertisements

Holy Shit. Our President is the Greatest Troll of All Time

Holy Shit. Our President is the Greatest Troll of All Time

(left image courtesy of /r/the_Donald)

That is, of course, assuming he’s the one who actually leaked his tax return, which seems extremely likely, given how it looks for him.  If he didn’t leak it, and this was the worst the leaker could find/put out on him…holy crap, he should release all his returns for the glowing publicity he’ll get.

What all did this accomplish?

  • Exposed the McCarthyist-in-chief, Rachel Maddow, and her entire organization, for the desperate, overhyped shills that they are.  Also shows them to be complete idiots, for not realizing this is positive for him (or for not reviewing the document before hyping it).
    • This will rub off on the corporate media, the Democrats, and anti-Trumpers as a whole.
    • This damages the jingoistic, McCarthyist witch-hunt movement, given her role as its spiritual leader. This is great not just for him, but for the country and the world as a whole.
  • Shut down any desire from his opposition to talk about his tax returns for the time being
  • Showed he had income at a rate where he probably is indeed a billionaire, and that he has paid a fairly high tax rate (higher than NBC, Obama, and Sanders), completely cutting down two speculative criticisms of him.
    • Further, shows he probably earned at least a billion between ’95 and ’05 alone, given the billion dollar loss in ’95 he could have deducted for up to 18 years
  • Tarnished the reputation of David Johnston (the reporter who received the document and took it to Maddow), who wrote a negative biography of Trump during the campaign.

The fact that it went to Maddow is probably just incidental (but extremely fortunate) as it was probably Johnston’s own choice to go to her.  And the spectacular, extremely hyped-up fashion it all blew up in is just about the best result Trump could have hoped for, but couldn’t actually control.

This is also the greatest trolling not just because it’s funny as hell and he utterly BTFO his opponents, but because he did a GREAT service to the country, as it might be enough to put an end to the extremely dangerous McCarthyism and jingoism that Maddow has been leading, and the media at large has been fueling.  As someone who has been calling out (more so on social media than here) the Russia hacking/collusion narrative as the politically-motivated, dangerous, hysteria that it is ever since it started last summer, last night was both a huge relief and extremely satisfying.

I’ve recently seen commenters on Reddit literally calling for war with Russia over what is clearly nothing (or almost nothing, if Russia actually was the one who leaked the DNC/Podesta emails and exposed their unethical, democracy-subverting behavior; which is probably not the case, and perhaps completely unknowable).  Everything Trump ever did or said involving a Russian has been fuel for the paranoid fires in their heads, and each one of the daily litany of lazy, disingenuous and innuendo-laden articles further ignited their rage.  The jingoism was getting crazy and feverish, and the baseless accusations of treason and treachery even more rampant and vicious than during the run-up to the Iraq war.

I think the Dems were likely going to spin themselves into a political death spiral before they could actually gain the power/influence to outright stoke war with Russia—but it still presented a serious risk of that, among other dangers like pressuring the administration into unnecessary belligerence, which it may have already done.  It’s not something I want to see fucked around with in the slightest.  Michael Tracey, who is from what I’ve seen one of the more reasonable and respectable liberal journalists, outlines well the very real danger the anti-Russia hysteria poses.  I hope it tamps down quickly now.

I’m not trying to idolize Trump, or revel in partisan schadenfreude—I think this is truly a watershed moment in exposing an unscrupulous media, and hopefully in refocusing/shifting our approach towards Russia and, really, our entire political atmosphere. Maybe, just maybe, we can get on to governing now.  Trump will come out of this with more respect (if begrudging) and sympathy from a lot of people, and the many vicious, irresponsible, tunnel-visioned opponents of his in the media and government will rightfully come out of this with a lot less respect.  I think this is evidenced by the online reactions, case in point (found in an anti-Trump community):

bvy4ozz33jly.jpg

God bless this timeline.

The Road to Fascism Could Not Be Clearer, but It’s Not What the Media Says It Is

The Road to Fascism Could Not Be Clearer, but It’s Not What the Media Says It Is

Last night should make it clear where the greatest threat of fascism in this country lies.  If the left continues on its current course, it will either bring it about directly, or in concert with whatever response it provokes.

The longer the media downplays and excuses, even celebrates leftist violence, extremism, hate, and ignorance, the greater the risk that all of it festers into war and/or fascism.  (Or communism/whatever term you prefer.  Violent, doublethink-ridden, authoritarian movements are what I’m talking about here.)

THE SEEDS OF THIS HAVE BEEN VISIBLE FOR A YEAR, though invisible to most.  There are videos of dozens upon dozens of physical attacks on Trump supporters, that the media conveniently swept under the rug all last year.  It’s really disturbing and hard to watch.  Have you seen the incidents in this video?  It’s only from June of last year:

Most people haven’t seen them, because the media acted as a deceptive, one-sided, gatekeeper.  They were the true builders of our “post-truth” society.

But they made sure the world saw, on repeat, the one clear instance of a Trump supporter hitting someone else at a rally.  And they uncritically relayed a series of alleged post-election hate crimes, the vast majority of which turned out to be hoaxes, and to this day still use them to claim there was an epidemic of right-wing violence.  One of many BIG LIES of late (e.g. “17 intelligence agencies“).

Again, all this deception, this inversion of reality by the media, and the downplaying of extremism and violence on the left, has. to. stop.

They have fueled a false hysteria that the political opposition are all nazis, and now are giving calls to violence against these alleged nazis.  How do they expect this to turn out?  Who the fuck are they, that raucously celebrate an awards ceremony speech that calls outright for political violenceWhat have they become, if not exactly what they claim to protest?

Have you seen the Project Veritas videos?  Whatever you have heard about James O’Keefe, it is clear and well established that he did not fake these videos, and that the misdeeds, of both conspiring to commit mass voter fraud and of routinely instigating violence at Trump rallies, are undeniable, and were committed by Democratic operatives at the very highest levelsThe left needs to wake up and smell the bullshit, because it is and has been all around them, and they need to get out of it.

Whatever you do, do not consider yourself informed if you only get/trust information from major mainstream and left-leaning outlets.  Sure, read those, but not exclusively.  Independent and right-leaning media are a must if you want a real sense of what is happening in the world.  E.g. Sargon of Akkad, Dave Rubin, Ron Paul Liberty Report, DailyWire, Fox, and yes, even r/The_Donald, Breitbart and InfoWars are all useful to keep on your radar.  You don’t have to believe or agree with everything they say, or how they say it, to get value out of them.  And the fact is they are all usually far less deceptive than mainstream outlets, who deceptively edit, omit (a LOT) and skew things constantly.

Cast a wide net, folks, as wide as you can, and never trust a headline without reading and verifying an article.  Above all, think critically.

FIN

[1] Footage from the Berkeley riots/violence last night, if you haven’t seen it:

[2] Some background on Antifa and the black bloc

We Need Vigilance Against Bigotry, and That Means Increasing Our Understanding—Of Trump Voters

Emotions were extremely high this election, and one only need glance at social media to see that.  My regional, educational, and generational cohort swing liberal, so I’ve seen the gamut of raw, day-after shock and anger.  Much of it calls for vigilance against further bigotry and hatred of the kind we saw during the campaign.  And it’s spot-on.  We will need to be vigilant in opposing further bigotry and ignorance out of Trump, or bigotry he might continue to inspire or expose.  LGBT and racial minority rights and relations are literally a matter of life and death for many Americans, and directly affect the quality of life for the rest.  We are in this together after all (and even if we somehow weren’t, every decent person still deserves a decent life!)

Some of the reactions go further, and blame Trump voters for being ignorant, racist, sexist, selfish, or hateful—that as privileged whites, they’ve demonstrated that they don’t care about the needs or aspirations of anyone but themselves, or people superficially like themselves.

But to the people who feel this way, who are assigning blame this way, please remember—people’s choices were constrained.  Most of America wouldn’t have chosen Trump to be a nominee, and it should provide some small relief knowing that ~70% of America disapproves of him, despite the 48% (of people who voted) who voted for him.  Most people are appalled by the disgusting, offensive, and hateful things he’s said, even those people who checked his name on the ballot.

The reason many people chose him over Clinton in spite of all that is not because they are white, or because they only care about themselves, or only care about white straight men.  Starting from that premise assumes far too much about their motives, and assumes the worst about them—its the least empathetic interpretation of their decision, and is thus an extremely inaccurate interpretation in most cases.  It’s also thus a non-starter for building understanding and working together to move forward as a country.

What would you say to the 29% of Latinos who voted for him?  Or the 8% of blacks?  Or the 29% of asians?  Are they all “white” on the inside?  The very notion is offensive.

What would you say to the 14% of LGBT voters who chose him?  Are they simply unaware of who they are?  Do they not care about their own rights?

You have to be willing to understand someone’s decision-making before you judge their motive, or before you assume they made such a decision out of prejudice, ignorance or callousness—or even privilege. Many of the people who are appalled by some of Trump’s attitudes, also have fears about war, or the balance of power in society, or terrorism, or the economy, or malfeasance in government.  Those are life and death matters too.  Decisions about war and peace are clearly a life and death matter.  And the health and accountability of our institutions intimately affects everyone’s opportunities and quality of life.  Many of the same people who voted Trump are themselves economically down and out, disadvantaged, suffering because they have been beaten down by society in one way or another, held back by a government that is corrupted, or left behind by established interests and institutions that enrich themselves at others’ expense.

A thought experiment: hypothetically, if Hillary Clinton fueled a war in a smaller foreign country that Donald Trump wouldn’t have fueled, and 100,000 people died as a result, and a million ended up in refugee camps—is all that death and suffering “worth it”, to have a president who is a bigger proponent of LGBT rights for four years?  What if the actual resulting policy difference, or cultural difference, between candidates around those rights is minimal, or non-existent in those four years?  What if the war was with Russia, and the prospect of war actually threatened your life and livelihood, and your family’s?

Now, you may disagree with the premise that Clinton would be more likely to fuel war than Donald Trump, and you may hotly contest and debate that premise.  Good!  Society needs such debates.  But that debate gets off to a really bad start if you assume someone believes such a premise, or gives it the weight they do, simply because of the color of their skin.

So please do not fret, about this, at least: the results of this election do not mean bigotry has won.  It does not mean half of America is okay with bigotry.  If we understand that, we’ll all be better equipped to operate in the political arena in the coming years, to work together to make the world a better place for all, and a better place particularly for the most disadvantaged among us.

Some Overlooked Considerations When Choosing a Presidency (not just a president)

On November 8th, we’re not just electing a president, we’re choosing a presidency.

A Donald Trump presidency would see his feet held firmly to the fire by the media on many, if not most, issues—just as we’ve seen so far.

A Clinton presidency, and we’d see: more of the wall-to-wall obfuscation of the Clintons’ self-enriching, corrupt “charity work” and the ongoing obligations they have as a result, or the morally bankrupt worldview it represents; and more obfuscation of her obsession with projecting American power militarily, and encirclement and brinksmanship with Russia.

Donald Trump is an awful person, and certainly unfit to be president.  He could do a lot of damage to the country and the world.  But at least he’d be held somewhat accountable by a media that clearly has an interest in opposing him.

Hillary Clinton is also an awful person, and certainly unfit to be president.  She could also do a lot of damage to the country and the world.  THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE IS: she would not be held accountable by the media to nearly the same extent—they would continue to shield her, keeping the public in the dark as they so often deliberately do, making it that much easier for her to march us to war with Russia, to pour new record amounts of weapons into the Middle East (surpassing the records she set as SoS), to fuel civil wars in a few more countries that refuse to roll over and be complete U.S. puppets, to continue to aid and abet terror-exporting Gulf states, to continue to support Islamic extremists in Syria for the sake of unnecessary regime change.  Millions more people could die, tens of millions more could suffer and be displaced.  And if she should lead us into war with Russia (which could come sooner than later if she enacts her no-fly zone, which she’s been itching to do), those numbers might not “just” be numbers any more—civilian Americans might be faced with risking their own lives and livelihood for unnecessary war, rather than somebody else’s, for the first time in a long while.

And that’s just on foreign policy.

There’s a whole other realm of her shady, staunchly pro-corporate worldview that poses a threat to the quality of life domestically, and a threat to the health of our politics, our government, and our economy.

For these reasons, when I look at these two astoundingly awful candidates, I can’t shake the feeling that Clinton is the more dangerous.  This comes from someone who can count on one hand the number of Republicans they’ve voted for in their life, and has said for years that Trump is a toxic, ignorant, xenophobic buffoon.  But to me, the behind-closed-doors machinations of an extremely well-connected Kissinger acolyte draw a clearer line to death and suffering in the world, than does divisive, ignorant bluster spewed into a microphone—particularly when that bluster is roundly condemned by American media and both political parties in this country.

No matter who is elected, we will have some serious challenges ahead in constraining their behavior, but such is the conundrum we find ourselves in.  I personally will be voting for Gary Johnson, and I encourage everyone else in a non-battleground state to vote for either Johnson or Stein.  The more support they get, the more likely we are to break free from the two-party stranglehold that put us in this situation in the first place.

If you’re not in a locked-in blue or red state, I won’t tell you who you should vote for.  Directly advocating either way in this regrettably high-stakes crapshoot, for such terrible candidates, wouldn’t feel right.  But I will encourage you to make as informed of a decision as possible, and to please, inform yourself about Clinton’s history on foreign policy (my other essays would be a good place to start), and about her fundamentally corrupt style of politics and governance (the latest Doug Band / John Podesta emails would be a good place to start, as well as the repeated intersection of corporations (and Gulf dictatorships!) who donated to the Foundation, paid the Clintons millions for speeches, and/or received lucrative State Dept-approved contracts).  I assume, thanks to the media, that you’re already familiar with Trump’s deplorable personal behavior, suspect business practices, and dangerous policy ideas, but if you’re not, I certainly encourage you to read up on those too.

And when you enter that booth, or mark that ballot at home, please, above all, consider the totality of the presidency and its potential effects, including how they will be treated by the media, the Congress, and already established elites, and whether or not as president they’ll be enabled or opposed in enacting the more troubling aspects of their agendas.

Clinton’s Plan to Fight Fire with Fire Could Leave Us All Burned

Clinton’s Plan to Fight Fire with Fire Could Leave Us All Burned

Her Foreign Policy Speech Reveals Another Ill-Advised Facet of Her Ill-Advised Strategy Against Trump

[ Note:  To anyone who doubts Hillary’s central role in the run-up to both Iraq and Libya, or who doubt her hawkishness, her penchant for looking tough and taking action when faced with “hard choices”, I highly suggest reading these two articles.  I highly suggest reading them anyways.  They are the best accounting I’ve seen of the role she played in the decisions to intervene, and offer great insight into her worldview and her role in the Democratic party.  For all its faults, including its demonstrated bias, NYT does good work sometimes. (If you hit a paywall you can copy the link address and paste into the wayback machine)
– On Iraq, “Hillary’s War”: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/magazine/03Hillary-t.html
– On Libya pt 1, “Hillary Clinton, ‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall”: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html
– On Libya pt 2, “A New Libya, ‘With Very Little Time Left'”:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/libya-isis-hillary-clinton.html ]

 
Amid flagging poll numbers, a damning State Department IG report on her private email server, and the ensuing doubts about her general election viability, Hillary Clinton stepped out of her week-long lull from the public eye and sought to shift the narrative back in her favor. On that account, her highly publicized speech on foreign policy may have worked to a degree—we all have an interest in knowing what a president Hillary Clinton would mean for us and the world, and given that foreign policy is supposedly one of her strengths in this election, the media conversation was bound to focus on the speech, and shift away from the topics that gnaw at her image just days before the crucial California primary.

So, what did we learn about Clinton’s vision for America’s role in the world? Did she inspire confidence in that vision?

Not much, and not really. By most accounts it was a well-written speech. It took some well-aimed shots at Trump, appealed to our national pride, and sought to reassure us that we are great and will never not be great.

In other words, she played it safe. She did not present a vision for the future beyond anything we’ve heard before; America is defender of the free world, Iran can’t get nukes, and we must remain steadfast with our allies, especially Israel. In fact, she did not give us much information at all as to what her strategy or approach would be for any single issue; as many have noted, she spent 90% of the time either blasting Donald Trump or contrasting him with common sense positions, like diplomacy is good, and alliances are great.

For many, this hardly inspires confidence. Trump is an easy target, and anyone who’s watched him closely will have a litany of his bombastic statements to criticize. What is really concerning is what was left unaddressed. For those who fear her presidency would mean repetition of her past mistakes—and thus more of the aggression, regime change, and arms buildup that has invariably led to deadly civil wars, refugee crises, and the fueling of global terror—she did nothing to ease their concerns.

In fact, most of her emphatic criticisms of Trump apply directly to her and her record (whereas Trump doesn’t yet have one):

  • Trigger happiness:
    • The charge: “…it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.” “…Do we want his finger anywhere near the button?”
    • Her record:
      • A penchant for looking tough and decisive. When making a “hard choice”, she would rather take action than be seen as weak.
        • “Anne-Marie Slaughter, her director of policy planning at the State Department, notes that in conversation and in her memoir, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly speaks of wanting to be ‘caught trying.’ In other words, she would rather be criticized for what she has done than for having done nothing at all.” (source)
      • Did not do the minimum due diligence before vocally advocating for, and voting for, authorization of force in Iraq. The 90 page intelligence estimate—a few hours of reading at most—was available to all members of Congress, and she didn’t read it (only six senators did). It proved false the Bush administration’s lies (that she repeated) about Saddam’s weapons programs and his alleged links to al-Qaeda.
      • Convinced Obama to intervene in Libya, against the warnings of the Secretary of Defense, the Vice President, and the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency that the consequences would be far ranging and that they did not have an adequate plan for post-intervention.
  • Support for dictators and oppressive regimes
    • The charge: “I have to say, I don’t understand Donald’s bizarre fascination with dictators and strongmen who have no love for America.”
    • Her record:
      • She didn’t seem to have a problem with dictators when the Clinton Foundation accepted money from Saudi Arabia and a handful of other despots, or when she turned around and approved the sale of hundreds of billions of dollars of weaponry to them as Secretary of State.
      • Her foreign policy mentor, Henry Kissinger, supported dictators and coups to install them anywhere U.S. business interests were threatened.
  • A closed mind
    • The charge: “…if you’re convinced you’re always right, you’ll never ask yourself the hard questions.”
    • Her record:
      • Surrounds her self with yes men and instills a culture of loyalty and obedience.  Just look at what happened with the private email server: any underlings who raised legitimate concerns with the department were told to never speak of it again. From the Inspector General’s report:
        • “Two staff in S/ES-IRM reported to OIG that, in late 2010, they each discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account in separate meetings with the then-Director of S/ES-IRM. In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system. According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”
  • Eschewing diplomacy
    • Her record:
      • Voted against the Levin amendment that would have required U.N. diplomacy and approval before authorizing war in Iraq, or a return to Congress if such efforts failed.
      • Blocked the 2012 Syrian ceasefire effort by Kofi Annan, because war on Assad was her priority.
  • Empowering terrorists and extremists
    • The charge: “We need to…dismantle the global network that supplies money, arms, propaganda and fighters to the terrorists.”
    • Her record:
      • Regime change in Iraq, Libya, and Syria that creates power vacuums and chaos, empowering militant extremists and aids their recruitment.
      • Arming and supporting rebels in Syria, which has directly empowered al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda affiliate who has established footholds there.
      • Support for and continued arming of Saudi Arabia, the biggest exporter of radical Islam and terror since 9/11 and earlier.
  • Abandoning allies who cooperate in fighting terror
    • Her charge: “This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO – the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad”
    • Her record:
      • For all her talk of realism and pragmatism, she abandoned it when it counted: it would have been pragmatic to not overthrow Qaddafi, who had been providing us intelligence and assistance against al-Qaeda, and was acting as a bulwark against extremism. Senior intelligence officials warned that taking him out would lead to an expansion of extremism and terror, and that’s precisely what happened.
  • Making enemies unnecessarily
    • The charge: “Why would he want to make one of them an enemy?”
    • Her record:
      • Unthinking intransigence against Syria, Iran, Russia
      • Wants to stick her thumb in Russia’s eye at every turn—instilling a no-fly zone in Syria, toppling Assad, funneling weapons to Ukrainian troops.
        • Syrian no fly-zone could put us in direct military conflict with them, yet she still pushes for it.
  • Increasing the debt
    • The charge: “His economic plans would add more than $30 trillion – that’s trillion with a ‘t’ – $30 trillion to our national debt over the next 20 years.”
    • Her record:
      • The $6 trillion dollar war in Iraq; the war in Libya; proposes expanding the effort to overthrow Assad.
      • Supported finance sector deregulation that led to the 2008 crash (cost estimated at up to $12 trillion). Profits from and is friendly with the big banks, who are now even bigger than they were in 2008; how much will it cost if/when they once again collapse and once again require bailouts?
  • Not standing up for women’s rights
    • The charge: “America stands up to countries that treat women like animals”
    • Her record:
      • Propping up and continually arming Saudia Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes in the world when it comes to women’s rights.
  • On Syria
    • “We need to keep pursuing diplomacy to end Syria’s civil war.”
      • This is the opposite of what she’s done. Her goal is to remove Assad from power, not broker peace.
    • “He said we should send tens of thousands of American ground troops to the Middle East to fight ISIS.”
      • This is exactly what her no-fly zone would require, as top military officials have repeatedly warned.

When she referenced her record she glossed over any ugliness, acknowledged no lessons learned from Iraq or Libya, and took no responsibility for those mistakes.


It’s a disheartening prospect, the idea of having to sit through four years of her doublespeak. This is the person who said, “I’ve been the most transparent public official in modern times, as far as I know,” when discussing the private email server she set up in her house specifically to skirt FOIA laws and hide her official communications away from the public eye.

I loathe the idea of four years of outright lies, four years of a sycophantic media and party covering for her and marginalizing her opponents, four years of pretending that warmongering, arms buildup and coups are for the good of the American people and the good of the world, without the faintest acknowledgement of the utter destruction, death, and danger they cause. It’s appalling, the moral bankruptcy of it all, covered in a facade of righteousness and pride, a veneer of can-do-no-wrong exceptionalism that obfuscates harsh realities, and ignores responsibilities we should be facing. It feels like the second coming of George W. Bush, and the parallels are striking—beyond what I already stated, their penchants for secrecy and unaccountability, the crony capitalism, and the expensive, belligerent, counterproductive method of projecting American power that has led to our greatest blunders. This speech only confirmed that her approach has not shifted, and that she will continue to obfuscate.

What would a better foreign policy speech look like?

A better speech would explore the moral issues we face in our world, rather than just assure us our endeavors are always righteous.  It would highlight the long term trajectory for our nation we should aim for, and how we can achieve it.  It would be revelatory for many, illuminating the crux of our conflicts and how we might deal with them—for example, how we can begin to ease the conflict in Israel and Palestine, or how we will deal with China as an emerging superpower, how we will deal with the wars in the Middle East, and change the course that has led to failed states, extremism and terror, or how we will deal with an ongoing Mexican Drug War that has killed over 100,000 and displaced over a million, yet is barely a blip in our national conversation.

A better speech would give us real hope that our leader has the judgement and vision to lead us forward, that they have the humility and the courage to acknowledge past mistakes so that we may begin to correct them, and avoid repeating them.

A better speech would challenge us to fight for what’s right alongside our president, rather than just pad our egos and stoke apathy. It would inspire confidence that if we work together and truly stand up for the values of humanity, liberty, and justice, then a more peaceful, prosperous world really is possible, and we can begin moving toward it this very day.

She gave us none of that. Instead, we got the typical patriotic trappings and a whole lot of ridicule of her opponent. This was more politics than policy, more fearmongering than a cogent, thoughtful, or forward-facing vision for American foreign policy in the coming years. It was devoid of any insight or courage, it was vapid; designed to appeal to our nationalist tendencies, rather than challenge us to think critically about the world and our role in it.

It’s interesting, because this is also Trump’s strategy, to a T. And the scary part is he seems to be better at it—not that his ideas are better, but that he’s better at politicking the idea of jingoism; he seems more authentic and straight-forward, and he has just as much, if not more ammo against Clinton, given that she has a PROVEN record of poor judgment and trigger happiness. Trump’s supporters have heard the criticisms she puts forth, and they will not be swayed by hearing them from her. She has neither the credibility nor rapport with the American people to pull voters away from Trump in this manner.

What would a winning strategy for her look like?  That’s a good question, and is difficult to answer.  She’s spent twenty years painting herself into this corner.  I imagine it would involve doing her damnedest to convince skeptics that she would not repeat her past mistakes, and that would mean owning up to them and acknowledging why they were mistakes, or at the very least it would mean laying out a future approach that is unmistakably different from that of her past–a substantive, credible vision for peace and prosperity, to contrast with the bluster and attack-focused politics of Trump.

The winning strategy for Democrats would have been to not nominate her in the first place.

If she does somehow manage to pull off a win in November despite her poor strategy (assuming she gets the Democratic nomination, which is not a foregone conclusion), she has shown us that we will still have an impulsive, irresponsible, dangerous person at the helm, an insecure trigger-finger resting on the button.

She is fighting fire with fire, and in doing so, increasing the chances that the flames of ignorance and war will engulf us all.