Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Hilary's double-speak for the double-dealers on Wall Street

  1. #21

    Default

    If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” - Frederick Douglass
    "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
    "Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Lemkin View Post
    Abby Martin is great.

    If I didn't already have a full dance card for the November 8 Lefty Purity Ball (Iesha Evans for Prez, Diamond Reynolds for Veep) I'd think about voting for Abby!

    She largely avoided the Dominionist critique of the Clintons (emails! Monica! Benghazi!).

    She also avoided the subject over which there is a "no fly zone."

    http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...es_of_mena.htm

    Bill Clinton aided and abetted the George Bush smuggling operation out of Mena Airport, looks like.

    I think Hillary's saber-rattling may be more politics than policy.

    The removal of chemical weapons from Syria and nuke capacity from Iran curtails a major part of the War Party agenda.

    Abby Martin rightly sez: "We have to fight them both."

    Yes, we have to fight the Globalist Oligarchy of which Hillary Clinton is a card-carrying member, and we have to fight the Dominionist Oligarchy and its threat to impose theocracy.

    When there is a Republican in the White House the progressive wing of the Democratic Party has no influence.

    Barack Obama came into office a corporate centerist and yet some fine progressive policies came to fruition bottom-up -- gay rights, net neutrality, rollback of NSA/DEA violations of the 4th amendment.

    The progressive wing of the Dem party raised more money for Bernie than the Globalist raised for La Hillary.

    Trump beat the Globalists for momentary control of the Republican Party.

    He's gone all in on Dominionism by picking Pence.

    I say we have to make sure Dominionism is defeated first, then we can go after the Globalists by taking to the streets and the phones after Inauguaration Day 2017.

  3. Default

    Sen. Tim Kaine, Clinton VP.

    La Hillary goes all in on the Globalist Oligarchy.

    When Trump picked Mike Pence he went all in on the Dominionist Oligrachy.

    I haven't felt this much despair since 2000....

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff Varnell View Post
    Sen. Tim Kaine, Clinton VP.

    La Hillary goes all in on the Globalist Oligarchy.

    When Trump picked Mike Pence he went all in on the Dominionist Oligrachy.

    I haven't felt this much despair since 2000....


    What the hell?

    Best VEEP rollout...ever.

    I was ready to hate this prick but looks to me like we may have Tim Kaine with us for 16 years.

    Good government type susceptible to pressure from the base...first impression, anyhoo.

  5. Default Clinton Foundation email links to State Dept released

    Newly released emails show State Department ties with Clinton Foundation

    Aug 10th 2016 2:42PM

    http://www.aol.com/article/2016/08/1...n-fo/21449011/

    The fallout from Hillary Clinton's email scandal continues, as a newly released batch of correspondence from her time as secretary of state raises questions regarding the nature of the department's connection with the Clinton Foundation. Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch released 296 pages of emails, and according to the group, 44 of those pages were previously not handed over to the State Department during Clinton's tenure.


    Among the trove of information released, three emails point to possibly inappropriate connections between the State Department and people with ties to the Clinton Foundation. In one case Doug Band, a top official at the Clinton Foundation, asks Clinton aides about finding someone else -- whose name is redacted from the email -- a position at the State Department. In the email, Band tells the department that it is "important to take care of (redacted)." A reply email is sent to Band reassuring him that "personnel has been sending him options."



    Another email features Band ordering a linkup between a Clinton Foundation donor and Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire with the State Department's "substance person" on Lebanon. "We need Gilbert Chagoury to speak to the substance person re Lebanon," Band said in an email. "As you know, he's a key guy there and to us and is loved in Lebanon. Very imp [sic]." A Clinton spokesperson has responded saying, "Neither of these emails involve the secretary or relate to the Foundation's work."


    The Trump campaign is using this latest email scandal to fuel their main argument of Clinton as corrupt. Trump's spokesperson released a statement on the emails, saying "This is yet more evidence that Hillary Clinton lacks the judgment, character, stability and temperament to be within 1,000 miles of public power... She views public office as nothing more than a means to personal enrichment." The Clinton Foundation was not part of the (FBI's) recent investigation into Clinton's private server.
    Yet another example of the "pay to play" attitude of the Clintons. I note there were three emails cited but only 2 examples in the story.
    "All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)

    James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."

    Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."

    Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."

  6. #26

    Default Pentagon, CIA Form Praetorian Guard for Clinton as Warmonger President

    Pentagon, CIA Form Praetorian Guard for Clinton as Warmonger President

    Former director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael J Morell is the latest in a phalanx of senior US military-intelligence figures who are shedding any pretense of political neutrality and giving their full-throated endorsement to Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. In a New York Times opinion piece, Morell starkly backed Clinton as the most «highly qualified to be commander-in-chief… keeping our nation safe». The ex-CIA chief’s op-ed piece also served as a blunt hatchet job on Republican presidential rival Donald J Trump. Morell said the New York billionaire-turned politician is «not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security». The hoary, old scare-theme of «national security» is being rehabilitated as the criterion for electing Clinton. It also has the disturbing connotation of an increasingly militarized totalitarian regime that the United States is becoming. While showering Clinton with glowing praise, the former CIA spymaster trounced Trump with a litany of flaws, including «self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law». Morell’s «coup de grace» for Trump was that he was a «national security danger» owing to his alleged indifference towards the US-led NATO military alliance and European security, and unwillingness to confront Russia. After accusing Trump of being «careless with facts», Morell makes this reckless, sensationalist claim: «In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr Putin had recruited Mr Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation». This is a breath-taking interference in the nominally civilian sphere of US politics by unelected military-paramilitary elements, whereby a candidate for presidency is accused of being a foreign puppet. It is a throwback to the Cold War witch-hunting days of McCarthy and «Un-American activities». This very public intervention by a top CIA figure in the US presidential election is an extraordinarily brazen affront to constitutional norms. Traditionally, the American military and intelligence apparatus has always been careful to assume a neutral relation with regard to Washington politics – at least in public. In the 2016 election, however, the boundaries between civilian politics and the military powers are being flagrantly jettisoned. The military and the Deep State cabal are, in effect, moving to preordain the White House occupant. This situation has barely perceptible difference from a military coup appointing a civilian junta to administer. At the Democrat National Convention in Philadelphia last week, the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by military top brass was conspicuous. One of the main Pentagon cheerleaders was Four-Star Marine General John Allen, who gave a bloodcurdling and ranting speech declaring how «our enemies will fear» an America led by Clinton. This rush to partisan politics by the US military has even led to unease among certain Pentagon quarters. Only days after the DNC’s militaristic rally, General Martin Dempsey, who was formerly Chairman of the Joint Staffs, took the unprecedented step of publishing a cautionary article warning: «Keep Your Politics Private, My Fellow Generals and Admirals». Dempsey did not mention General Allen or others by name, but it was clear to whom he was referring and the jingoistic display in support of Clinton. And it was also clear that Dempsey saw the open embrace of partisan politics by the Pentagon as a worrying development undermining democracy in the US. He feared «the erosion of civil-military relations». What is that qualifies Hillary Clinton for such support? Former CIA boss Morell listed these «attributes» as «her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and, most important, her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all – whether to put young American women and men in harm’s way». In other words, what is most appreciated is how Clinton is prepared and willing to take America into ever more wars. Despite the horrific legacy that she is already responsible as Secretary of State in the Obama administration (2009-2013) when she prosecuted wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and, covertly, in Syria and Ukraine. And yet, ex-CIA chief Morell, who served alongside Clinton in these disastrous wars, has the gall to censure Trump for «his lack of respect for the rule of law». By contrast, Trump, for all his flaws and awry views on immigration and race relations, has not espoused warmongering zeal to any comparable extent. Indeed, the Republican candidate has called for normalization of relations with Russia in particular and has notified that he would order a withdrawal of US forces from Asia, Europe and other regions in order to «rebuild America first». His views on not rushing into a hypothetical war to defend NATO Baltic nations from a far-fetched Russian invasion are seen by many ordinary Americans as a common sense position. For the Pentagon-CIA nexus, however, Trump’s views are anathema. This is what it gets down to. Clinton is the candidate of choice for the US military-industrial complex because she will enhance corporate profits and a $600-billion annual budget that feeds the Pentagon-CIA leviathan. Crucial to this role is reinforcing a belligerent foreign policy towards the world in general and towards Russia in particular. Or, as Morell puts it, Clinton’s «belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous». It is this exceptional, supremacist Washington ideology that has brought the world to such a dangerous precipice. Hillary Clinton, ironically, far more than the maverick Donald Trump, is proving to be an exemplar of what can only be called the Neo-fascist ideology that is becoming increasingly extant in Washington. The Pentagon-CIA Praetorian Guard that is being formed around Clinton is not only a harbinger of the militarized totalitarian state administered from Washington; it is also a signal that the United States is moving openly to a policy of unabashed, unrestrained permanent war against any foreign country it so deems.


    http://www.strategic-culture.org/new...president.html
    "I think it would be a good idea." Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
    Karl Marx.

    "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963, replied Ms Rice Davies when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her.

  7. Default Former Bush adviser Wolfowitz to vote for Clinton

    Speaking of warmongers:

    Former Bush adviser Wolfowitz to vote for Clinton
    Andrea Shalal
    Aug 26th 2016 1:38PM

    http://www.aol.com/article/2016/08/2...egel/21459626/

    BERLIN, Aug 26 (Reuters) - Paul Wolfowitz, a Republican adviser to former U.S. President George W. Bush, plans to vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the November presidential election despite his "serious reservations," Der Spiegel magazine reported on Friday. Wolfowitz, who served as deputy defense secretary under Bush and also as president of the World Bank, said he viewed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as a security risk because of his admiration of Russian President Putin and his views on China, the magazine reported. "It's important to make it clear how unacceptable he is," the magazine quoted Wolfowitz as saying in an interview.


    Wolfowitz joins a long list of Republicans who have said they will not vote for Trump. "I wish there was a candidate whom I could support enthusiastically. I will have to vote for Hillary Clinton, although I have serious reservations about her," he said. A Reuters/Ipsos poll this week showed that Clinton would win the key swing states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia, and have a 95 percent chance of beating Trump if the election were held now.


    Wolfowitz rejected a common description of him as a key architect of the 2003 U.S. war against Iraq, saying that if he had truly been the architect many things would have gone differently, the magazine reported. Wolfowitz said the goal had been to free the country, not occupy it, creating tensions with many Iraqis.


    He also defended the decision to invade Iraq, saying it was based on intelligence that later turned out to be faulty. "Of course we would have proceeded differently if we had known that Saddam Hussein was not stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, but was only planning to do so," he said. "We would not have invaded." In an interview with Vanity Fair magazine in May 2003, several months after the invasion, he suggested there were multiple reasons for it, but the Bush administration highlighted Iraq's supposed WMD as the justification for the war as the most politically convenient. "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," he said at the time.
    Happy to know that the "Big Fat Lie" was a bureaucratic compromise, as opposed to something anyone actually really believed.

    Which is worse: David Duke of the KKK endorsing Trump, or Wolfowitz of the PNAC endorsing Clinton?
    "All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)

    James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."

    Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."

    Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Phipps View Post

    Which is worse: David Duke of the KKK endorsing Trump, or Wolfowitz of the PNAC endorsing Clinton?
    Yeah, it has come to that. Weird how the Clintonites parade these endorsements as a badge of honour.
    "I think it would be a good idea." Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
    Karl Marx.

    "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963, replied Ms Rice Davies when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •