The democracy too big too fail
If Donald Trump thinks the American electoral process is rigged, imagine what Gary Johnson and Dr. Jill Stein think.Of course it’s rigged. Clinton's got the receipt. The corruption runs deeper than Trump even knows or will acknowledge. The two conjoined major parties crush all outside dissent. Criticism is permitted to be general, but not pointed. Congress has about a 14% approval rating, but incumbents own a 96% reelection rate. Gerrymandering has left few areas of the country with even a choice between the two heads of the serpent.
Central Intelligence has stopped sharing classified information with Trump while continuing to spill to the former Secretary of State that helped concoct the Osama bin Laden death fiction. WikiLeaks and DCLeaks have uncovered that the Democratic National Committee acted to depress support for Bernie Sanders in the party primaries. Primary voting results from virtually any state in the union cannot be trusted for accuracy. Despite living in an era of widespread computer hacking, millions of Americans will vote on electronic systems on November 8th, and there will be no paper trail for any of their ballots. Julian Assange’s hacktivists have uncovered the secret that dozens of prominent members of the national news media were called to DC society parties thrown by DNC staffers this summer and fall and fed “news stories” directly from the Clinton campaign, instructed even what should be reported to the public as “on” or “off the record.” When these and other unfavorable stories came to light, corporate media outlets conspired not to report on them.
Hacked emails from Guccifer 2.0 show that the Clinton camp is using Super PACs as a vital, consistent part of her campaign, openly defying the Citizens United restriction on coordination between the two entities. So far there are crickets from the Justice Department on that one. The DOJ also served to downplay Clinton’s crimes on pilfering government emails, stating officially and clearly that she committed violations but doing nothing so much as giving her a slap on the wrist, that it might hamper her campaign effort. Perhaps most shockingly, Justice officials and media outlets have been silent about the fact that Saudi officials are now revealed to have been the chief financial sponsors of both 9-11 and ISIS, and Hillary Clinton has been well aware of that fact and kept it a secret, in the meantime supporting President Obama’s efforts to defeat Congressional legislation that would allow the families of U.S. terrorism victims to sue foreign governments.
As Donald Trump correctly explained to the American people last night, America military policy created the vacuum that created ISIS (although he’s wrong that we should have stayed in Iraq, and he knows he’s wrong). As we continue our policy in the Middle East of toppling the only governments that have secular leaders (Iraq, Libya, and Syria), we simultaneously continue to do the bidding of Saudi Arabia, a nation that unmistakably represents everything Hillary Clinton asserts that she’s against-- the democratic vote, the suppression of women, and terrorist attacks against the West. She’s got so much Saudi oil and American soldier blood under her fingernails, I’m amazed I don’t have some of that same mixture dripping from my flat screen after having endured three different televised debates.
Why in the world would Donald Trump make any vow right now to honor and abide by the results of the election? He doesn’t know yet what will happen. If he says yes last night to Chris Wallace’s gotcha question, the Clintons will have even more freedom than they already have to perform whatever misconduct they choose. If it were me-- and I’m not an idiot to the same degree he is-- I would make a public call upon the United Nations to monitor the voting process. If that organization finds malfeasance, it won’t be the first time for the United States. International inspectors harshly criticized our presidential election process in 2000. In ’04, it was the same when possibly tens of thousands of votes in Ohio went missing, and only Ralph Nader, among the presidential candidates, filed a formal challenge of the results.
It’s completely disingenuous when mainstream news commentators, in thrall to the military state, dare to say that it’s unprecedented in modern times for a candidate not to accept the reported results. Nader challenged the presidential results twice. Members of the Bernie Sanders campaign filed a class action suit against the conduct of supposedly impartial party officials as recently as two months ago. In 1963, an actual coup of the Oval Office took place when President John Kennedy was assassinated by a shadow conspiracy that included central intelligence officials. When they claim that nobody has ever challenged the results before, they’re really just referring to the inexplicable obsequiousness of Sanders the candidate and Al Gore.
---
Americans get the debates—and the election—they deserve. These are your chosen candidates. If you vote for either of them, you are giving them a mandate because they have no way of knowing which votes are for them and which are against the other candidate. I present the late great George Carlin for the block.
---
My favorite part of the evening was when Clinton quoted almost directly from The Manchurian Candidate in her attacks on the Russian Federation...
“There are……….. fifty-seven known Communists in the Trump campaign.”
That's only a slight exaggeration of the quote.
---
My wife hates when I talk back to the TV during the debates. She wants to know why it seems like I’m only attacking Clinton. I told her it’s because Trump is the only person allowed to debate against the next president of the United States, an executive-elect that has been thoroughly corrupted. I said I’m not for him, but if there were somebody on stage that was actually functionally capable of verbally challenging her most grievous sins, I wouldn’t have to do it from another room in another time zone to nobody in particular. That’s not exactly what I said but I had a day here to improve upon it.
---
I want to pull my hair out when I hear Clinton spew out her trite refrain about “working her entire career for children and families.” On the campaign trail, she has even used this angle as an excuse for having voted in the Senate in 2001 for a measure that made it harder for Americans to have their debt forgiven in bankruptcy. Clinton, who has received millions from the financial sector in paid speeches and quid pro quo fundraising, claims she supported the bill because she was able to work in an amendment that protected child support and alimony for mothers if a father declared bankruptcy. She claimed there was public pressure from women’s advocates to support the bill (“deluged,” in her words), but evidence now does not exist that there was pressure at all.
Those advocacy groups were adamantly opposed to the oppressive bankruptcy bill for which 35 Democratic senators in addition to Clinton voted in favor. A Clinton public relations consultant, Mandy Grunwald, suggested privately earlier this year that the campaign enlist women’s advocates to back up Clinton’s story from 2001, but could find none because they all opposed the bill. One campaign policy advisor, Ann O’Leary, wrote earlier this year, “(Women’s rights attorneys) Marcia (Greenberger), Judy (Lichtman) and I have been figuring out what we could say that doesn’t contradict their 2001 statement. She said women groups were all pressuring her to vote for it. Evidence does not support that statement… We cannot put something out proactive here b/c the record just isn’t good. Judy and Marcia are also prepared to say Hillary fought really hard for changes, was with the other women Senators, and committed to keep working with them to strengthen the bill.”
This documented dishonesty regarding the central theme of Clinton’s presidential campaign and, in fact, her entire political career, was another one culled from the treasure trove that is the hacked John Podesta emails.
posted by CM @ 10:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home