Donald Trump wins 2016 US presidential election

[Renaissance]

I cannot believe how many so-called spiritual seekers and researchers here support Trump, a man that epitomizes SERVICE TO SELF and during his campaign scapegoated racial, religious and sexual minorities, plus demeaning half the human race (women). I am simply appalled. Nothing that Hillary has done can compare to the damage Trump will inflict on the USA. Have you seen his cabinet choices? A white supremacist, Wall Street Insiders, including a Goldman Sachs executive, a woman to head public education who does not believe in public education nor child labor laws. Every single one hates gay people and has campaigned against their equal rights under the US Constitution in the past. Tony Perkins (Family Research Institute) is a recognized HATE GROUP. A retired general who wants war with Iran. OMG, people! How can any of this be possibly construed as a spiritual choice?

There are a handful of directions where one could go in describing why Hillary Clinton would have been much more destructive than Trump. She's been involved in more scandals during her public life than most any other US politician (and that says a lot right there!), she's destroyed foreign relationships, but most important she's been instrumental in destroying entire countries. The issues in which Clinton has played a heavy part also involve heavy programming and mountains of lies from the media, state department, etc.

I really didn't know how I truly felt about the election until the day before when I thought she might win. It was a pretty heavy and low feeling. I'll try to explain what that feeling was informed by, but it's not a simple and I doubt even an attempt at an long answer would do the trick. It also takes a sincere desire to uncover the truth, and that includes taking a look at our long held beliefs and that takes time and a concerted effort. The world is not as black and white as it is often presented.

Much of the efforts in seeing the world here extend beyond the domestic issues in the US. Many of the domestic issues in recent years reflect the United States presence in the world, but it's important to see the significance of the US world presence. You'll be hard pressed to find media sources in the US that delve into this area deeply. Even popular US alternative media sites like the Yong Turks and others only focus on domestic affairs. When they do go into these issues it is severely limited and usually involving directed and distorted concern about human rights issues. The education of Americans about geopolitics is severely lacking, which is interesting given the dominant position of the US. Americans, like other Westerners, identify their country as a nation-state. This is inaccurate in modern times because of the hegemonic power the US holds. It represent the 'leader' of the Western world, however it's position hasn't been one of partnership but of authoritarian rule through the use of the terrorism threat, espionage, and economic, military and covert warfare. The US as a 'nation state' was more true from the time the country was founded up until shortly after WWII. During the following period, the US was 'passed the torch' from the UK as the world's premier power. The early formation of what would become its global empire was through the newly developed CIA and their tactics involving illegal coups to overthrow foreign governments. The system that developed has been used dozens and dozens of times. This is all to say that the US government isn't just a domestic system and it's issues cannot be regarded through domestic issues alone. It is also an international government that extends far reaching influence, which it maintains through destabilization.

Here's William Blum's list on US involvement in coups since WWII:

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)

China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *

This is by far a very conservative list. You can delve into any one of these coups and learn a lot from it. I'd highly suggest doing so. Many on the list were being led by remarkable leaders who were forging beautiful societies that were not only designed to help the people, but were succeeding. One example is Yugoslavia. There is a thread on it here with a documentary called the Weight of Chains that is really well done. The point about the destruction of human societies is important and is an issue I'd like to come back to.

For now, the years when Clinton was Secretary of State are useful to look at (2009-2013) because there were some critical events that led to the current disasters playing out on the world scene, namely the Arab Spring and the destruction of Libya, which paved the way for 'terrorism on steroids'. Clinton's connections with Saudi Arabia and the influence of Wahhabism are important factors relating to the growth of ISIS as well. Same thing with preparing Turkey to be a terrorist transport hub.

Wayne Madsen describes a list of the countries affected by State Department policies from when she was in office, and a number of them relate to the above issues:

The Complete A To Z Of Nations Destroyed By Hillary Clinton's "Hubris"

Wayne Madsen

The following is a before and after recap, country by country, of the destabilizing effects of Clinton’s policies as Secretary of State:

Abkhazia
Before Hillary: In 2009, more and more nations began recognizing the independence of this nation that broke away from Georgia and successfully repelled a U.S.-supported Georgian invasion in 2008.

After Hillary: Clinton pressured Vanuatu and Tuvalu to break off diplomatic relations with Abkhazia in 2011. The State Department pressured the governments of India, Germany, and Spain to refuse to recognize the validity of Abkhazian passports and, in violation of the US-UN Treaty, refused to permit Abkhazian diplomats to visit UN headquarters in New York. The Clinton State Department also threatened San Marino, Belarus, Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba, Somalia, Uzbekistan, and Peru with recriminations if they recognized Abkhazia. Georgia was connected to Clinton through the representation of Georgia in Washington by the Podesta Group, headed by Tony Podesta, the brother of Mrs. Clinton’s close friend and current campaign chairman John Podesta.

Argentina
Before Hillary: Under President Nestor Kirchner and his wife Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Argentina’s economy improved and the working class and students prospered.

After Hillary: After former president Nestor Kirchner’s sudden death in 2010, the U.S. embassy in Buenos Aires became a nexus for anti-Kirchner activities, including the fomenting of political and labor protests against the government. Meanwhile, Clinton pressed Argentina hard on its debt obligations to the IMF, also crippling the economy.

Bolivia
Before Hillary: Bolivia’s progressive president Evo Morales, the country’s first indigenous Aymara leader, provided government support to the country’s coca farmers and miners. Morales also committed his government to environmental protection. He kept his country out of the Free Trade Area of the Americas and helped start the Peoples’ Trade Agreement with Venezuela and Cuba.

After Hillary: Clinton permitted the U.S. embassy in La Paz to stir up separatist revolts in four mostly European-descent Bolivian provinces, as well as foment labor strikes among miners and other workers in the same model used in Venezuela.

Brazil
Before Hillary: Brazil’s progressive presidents, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff, ushered in a new era for the country, with workers’ and students' rights at the forefront and environmental protection and economic development for the poor major priorities.

After Hillary: Clinton’s authorization of massive electronic spying from the US embassy in Brasilia and consulate general in Rio de Janeiro resulted in a “constitutional coup” against Rousseff and the Workers’ Party government, ushering in a right-wing, CIA-supported corrupt government.

Central African Republic
Before Hillary: Under President Francois Bozize, the CAR remained relatively calm under a peace agreement hammered out under the auspices of Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya.

After Hillary: In 2012, Islamist terrorists of the Seleka movement and supported by Saudi Arabia conducted an uprising, massacring Christians and riving Bozize’s government from power. The CAR became a failed state under Clinton’s State Department.

Ecuador
Before Hillary: Ecuador began sharing its oil wealth with the people and the economy and the plight of the nation’s poor improved.

After Hillary: Clinton authorized a 2010 National Police coup against President Rafael Correa. The economy soon plunged as labor disputes wracked the mining and oil sectors.

Egypt
Before Hillary: Under Hosni Mubarak, Egypt was a stable secular nation that suppressed jihadist politics in the mosques. The jihadist-oriented Muslim Brotherhood was kept at bay.

After Hillary: After Clinton’s 2011 “Arab Spring” and the toppling of Mubarak, Egypt saw Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood elected president. Immediately, the secular country began a process of Islamization with Christian Copts experiencing repression and violence, including massacres. Morsi’s rule resulted in a military coup, thus ending Egypt’s previous moves toward democracy.

Germany
Before Hillary: The nation was a peaceful country where German culture, as well as religious freedom and women’s rights were guaranteed.

After Hillary: Clinton’s “Arab Spring” eventually resulted in a flood of mainly Muslim refugees being welcomed into Germany from the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. Today, Germany is wracked by Muslim refugee street crime, unsanitary and harmful public health habits of migrants, sexual assaults by migrant men of women and children, increased acts of terrorism, and a diminution of German culture and religious practices.

Greece
Before Hillary: Greece was a nation that saw government safety net social services extended to all in need. It also remained a top tourist destination for northern Europeans.

After Hillary: The 2010 debt crisis emaciated the Greek economy and Clinton remained adamant that Greece comply with draconian economic measures dictated by Germany, the European Union, and the IMF/World Bank. Making matters worse, Clinton’s “Arab Spring” eventually resulted in a flood of mainly Muslim refugees being welcomed into first, the Greek isles, and then mainland Greece, from the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. Today, Greece, especially the islands of Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Symi, Rhodes, Leros, and Kos, are wracked by Muslim refugee crime, unsanitary public health habits of migrants, sexual assaults by migrant men of women and children, acts of arson and vandalism, and a diminution of Greek culture and religious practices.

Guatemala
Before Hillary: Under President Alvaro Colom, the nation’s first populist progressive president, the poor received access to health, education, and social security.

After Hillary: Clinton authorized the U.S. embassy in Guatemala to work against the 2011 election of president Colom’s wife, Sandra Torres. Colom was succeeded by a right-wing corrupt president who resigned for corruption and then was arrested.

Haiti
Before Hillary: Haiti was prepared in 2011 to re-elect Jean-Bertrand Aristide, forced out of office and into exile in a 2004 CIA coup. The prospects of Artistide’s return to power was a blessing for the slum dwellers of Haiti.

After Hillary: Clinton refused to allow Aristide to return to Haiti from exile in South Africa until it was too late for him to run in the 2011 election. Under a series of U.S.-installed presidents, all approved by Bill and Hillary Clinton, Haiti is a virtual cash cow for the Clintons. The Clinton Foundation diverted for its own use, international aid to Haiti, and the Clintons ensured that their wealthy friends in the hotel, textile, and construction businesses landed lucrative contracts for Haitian projects, none of which have benefited the Haitian poor and many of which resulted in sweat shops and extremely low wage labor practices.

Honduras
Before Hillary: Emergent multi-party democracy with a populist progressive president, Manuel Zelaya. Children received free education, poor children received free school meals, interest rates were reduced, and the poorest families were given free electricity.

After Hillary: Clinton authorized a military coup d’etat against Zelaya in 2009. Clinton family “fix-it” man Lanny Davis became a public relations flack for the military dictatorship. A fascist dictatorship involved in extrajudicial death squad killings of journalists, politicians, and indigenous leaders followed the “constitutional coup” against Zelaya. During 2012, Clinton ordered U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa to work against the 2013 election of Xiomara Castro de Zelaya as president.

Iraq
Before Hillary: Under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq experienced small moves toward an accommodation with the Kurds of the north and Sunnis. Iran acted as a moderating political force in the country that deterred any attempts by Saudi-supported jihadis to disrupt the central government in Baghdad.

After Hillary: Clinton’s Arab Spring resulted in the rise of the Sunni/Wahhabist Islamic State in northern and western Iraq and Iraq’s plunge into failed state status. Shi’as, Kurds, Yazidis, Assyrian Christians, and moderate Sunnis were massacred by the jihadis in northern, western, and central Iraq. The Iraqi cities of Mosul, Kirkuk, and Nineveh fell to ISIL forces with non-Muslims being raped, tortured, and executed and priceless antiquities being destroyed by the marauding jihadists.

Kosovo
Before Hillary: Kosovo, which became independent in 2008, initially granted its Serbian minority in northern Kosovo and Metohija some degree of self-government.

After Hillary: In 2009, Kosovo increasingly became a state ruled by criminal syndicates and terrorists of the former Kosovo Liberation Army. The rights of Serbs were increasingly marginalized and Kosovo became a prime recruiting ground for jihadist guerrillas in Arab countries subjected to Clinton’s “Arab Spring” operations, including Libya and Syria.

Clinton pressured states receiving U.S. aid and other U.S. allies to recognize Kosovo’s independence. These included Pakistan, Palau, Maldives, St. Kitts-Nevis, Dominica, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Burundi, East Timor, Haiti, Chad, Gambia, Brunei, Ghana, Kuwait, Ivory Coast, Gabon, St. Lucia, Benin, Niger, Guinea, Central African Republic, Andorra, Oman, Guinea-Bissau, Qatar, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Honduras, Somalia, Djibouti, Vanuatu, Swaziland, Mauritania, Malawi, New Zealand, Dominican Republic, Jordan, Bahrain, and Comoros. In the Kosovo capital of Pristina, there is a 10-foot-high statue of Bill Clinton standing over Bill Clinton Boulevard. Not far away is a women’s clothing store called “Hillary.”

Libya
Before Hillary: Under Muammar Qaddafi, post-sanction Libya saw a boom in urban construction and a new major international airport to serve as a hub for Africa. Plans announced for an African dinar, supported by Libyan gold holdings, to serve the needs of Africa. All Libyans received free education and medical care. There was a program for revenue sharing of Libya’s oil wealth with the Libyan people.

After Hillary: Clinton’s 2011 regime change operations against Qaddafi, which saw the Libyan leader sodomized, beaten, and shot in the head by U.S.-supervised jihadist rebels, resulted in Clinton laughing about the incident in the infamous, “We came, we saw, he died” comment. Libya became a failed state where Islamic jihadist terrorists vied for control of the country and Qaddafi’s arm caches were given or sold to jihadist terrorists in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, the pan-Sahel region, and sub-Saharan Africa. After Qaddafi’s ouster, black African guest workers and their families were massacred by jihadist forces.

Malaysia
Before Hillary: Malaysia, before 2009, was a religiously tolerant nation where Buddhists, Christians, and Hindus enjoyed freedom of religion.

After Hillary: In 2009, Najib Razak became prime minister and he began accepting bribes from Saudi Arabia that totaled some $2.6 billion with additional Malaysian public money in Razak’s personal bank accounts plus the Saudi cash totaling some $3.5 billion. Razak began allowing Saudi-influenced clerics to push for sharia law throughout Malaysia and Christians in Sarawak, Sabah, and Penang began experiencing Wahhabist repression. Clinton was silent about Malaysian persecution of non-Muslims. The reason may have been a reported several hundred million donation from Razak’s slush fund into the Clinton Foundation’s coffers.

Palestine
Before Hillary: In 2012, Palestine was granted non-member observer status in the United nations. The 2009 Goldstone Report of the UN found that Israel violated international humanitarian law in its war against Gaza in 2009. Palestine was gaining more support and sympathy internationally and was successfully putting to rest Israeli propaganda disinformation.

After Hillary: Hillary Clinton rejected the Goldstone Report as “one-sided.” Clinton’s unbridled support for expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem and its silence on the dehumanizing Israeli blockade of Gaza, emboldened Israel’s theocratic right-wing government to further encroach on Palestinian territories and cementing into place an apartheid-like series of Palestinian “Bantustans” in the West Bank and an open-air ghetto in Gaza.

Paraguay
Before Hillary: The country under Fernando Lugo began lifting out of poverty the nation’s rural campesinos and urban workers. Paraguay also began a steady move toward democratization after years of military dictatorships.

After Hillary: Clinton’s 2012 “constitutional coup” against Fernando Lugo brought back into power the military-industrial oligarchy with the nation’s campesinos being forced back into poverty and repressive rule.

South Sudan
Before Hillary: Prior to independence in 2011, South Sudan, while rife with intra-tribal feuding, was relatively calm.

After Hillary: After being rushed into independence from Sudan in 2011, South Sudan, a special project of Clinton, George Soros, and actor George Clooney, descended into civil war and chaos. It beat all records in being transformed from a newly-independent state into a failed state.

Syria
Before Hillary: Syria was a multi-cultural and multi-religious secular state championing the concept of pan-Arab socialism and progressive policies advanced by Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. Syria was not a safe place for jihadism.

After Hillary: After Clinton’s 2011 green light for the “Arab Spring,” Syria became a failed state where the Islamic State gained a firm foothold. Minority Alawites, Christians, Druze, and Kurds were massacred by jihadist groups aided and abetted by NGOs and other interests backed by Clinton.

Thailand
Before Hillary: Thailand’s Red Shirt movement was a powerful force that demanded a return to democracy in Thailand and the restoration of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, ousted in a 2006 military coup, to power.

After Hillary: A Red Shirt protest in 2010 resulted in a bloody crackdown by the Thai military. Clinton remained silent about the Thai army’s killing of protesters and the mass arrests of Red Shirt leaders. U.S. military assistance to the Thai government was continued by Clinton. When Thaskin’s sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, became prime minister in 2011, Clinton began working to undermine her and her government in a manner not unlike Clinton’s subterfuge against Rousseff in Brazil and Cristina Kirchner in Argentina. When it comes to women leaders, Clinton only tolerates conservatives who kow-tow to the United States. The pressure against Yingluck eventually resulted in her ouster in 2014 and her being criminally charged in the same manner that saw Rousseff charged in Brazil.

Tunisia
Before Hillary: Tunisia was one of the most secular nations in the Arab and Islamic world. A top destination for European tourists, the country was more European in its outlook than North African.

After Hillary: After Clinton’s 2011 “Jasmine Revolution,” a textbook themed revolution crafted by Clinton’s friend George Soros, Tunisia descended into Islamist rule and violence. Today, Tunisia is the top country for recruits to the Islamic State.

Turkey
Before Hillary: Turkey was moving steadily closer to European standards on human rights and democracy. Even under the Islamist-oriented Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the country remained committed to pluralism.

After Hillary: Clinton authorized the shipment of Libyan weapons captured from Qaddafi’s arms caches to Turkish middlemen in the employment of Erdogan’s government for transfer to the jihadist rebels in Syria. A complication in this arrangement resulted in the September 11, 2012 jihadist attack on the CIA warehouse facility in Benghazi, which killed U.S. envoy Chris Stevens and other State Department personnel. Turkey’s dalliance with jihadist rebels in Syria was mirrored by increasing Islamization of Turkey. The events of 2011 and 2012 resulted in Turkey today being ruled by an Islamist strongman, Erdogan, with open political opposition being stamped out.

Ukraine
Before Hillary: Ukraine was a stable and neutral country that neither aligned itself with the West and NATO nor with Russia under the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, elected in 2009 and inaugurated in 2010.

After Hillary: Clinton tried everything possible to ensure the 2009 defeat of Viktor Yanukovych. The State Department and its friends in the George Soros camp provided assistance to Clinton’s favorite candidate Yulia Tymoshenko to defeat Yanokovych. It was this early interference in the 2009 election that ultimately led to the “Euromaidan” themed revolution in 2014 against the government, resulting in civil war, the retrocession of Crimea back to Russia, and secessionist states in eastern Ukraine. Clinton’s policies directly led to a failed state in Europe.

Venezuela
Before Hillary: Under Hugo Chavez, the country provided basic social services to its poorest of citizens. Venezuela also provided discounted gasoline to several Caribbean and Central American countries through the PetroCaribe consortium.

After Hillary: After Clinton allowed the U.S. embassy in Caracas to foment anti-Chavez labor and political protests, the country began to falter economically. After Chavez’s 2012 diagnosis of terminal cancer, the State Department stepped up pressure on Venezuela, crippling the nation’s economy and political system.

Western Sahara
Before Hillary: Recognized by the African Union and several nations around the world as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), Western Sahara saw some hope for an evacuation of illegal Moroccan occupation troops from its territory.

After Hillary: In 2010, Moroccan troops began entering Sahrawi refugee camps and attacking residents, even in UN-protected exclusion zones, where Moroccan troops were prohibited from entering. Clinton ensured that UN talks and a proposed popular referendum on the future of Western Sahara were stalled. Clinton pressured a number of states to withdraw their recognition of the SADR, including St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Paraguay, Haiti, Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, Malawi, Kenya, Mauritius, Zambia, Panama, and Burundi. The Clinton Foundation received a 2011 donation of $1 million from a Moroccan phosphate company owned by the Moroccan government and which has mining operations in Western Sahara.

Yemen
Before Hillary: Yemen was a largely secular state that was transforming into a federation where the rights of South Yemen and the Zaidi Houthis of north Yemen were being recognized.

After Hillary: Clinton’s “Arab Spring” of 2011 and the fall of Abdullah Saleh from power saw Yemen become a failed state. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Islamic State gained control over several areas of North and South Yemen. The fall of Saleh permitted Saudi Arabia to conduct a genocidal war in the country with Mrs. Clinton’s full support.

The above list includes particular areas of focus for disruption, of which Latin America and the Middle East were particularly targeted. It's also important to note that this isn't to describe Hillary Clinton as some war machine master mind. It is more about the powers she is aligned with and enthusiastically serves.

William Engdahl describes more on the Arab Spring and the State Department:

Hillary Emails, Gold Dinars and Arab Springs

Secretary of State Clinton was also knee-deep in the conspiracy to unleash what came to be dubbed the “Arab Spring,” the wave of US-financed regime changes across the Arab Middle East, part of the Greater Middle East project unveiled in 2003 by the Bush Administration after occupation of Iraq. The first three target countries of that 2011 US “Arab Spring”–an action in which Washington used its “human rights” NGOs such as Freedom House and National Endowment for Democracy, in cahoots as usual, with the Open Society Foundations of billionaire speculator, George Soros, along with US State Department and CIA operatives–were Ben Ali’s Tunisia, Mubarak’s Egypt and Qaddafi’s Libya.

There was a drastic increase in US 'intervention' since 9/11, initially led by neoconservatives but carried out with even more vigor during the Obama administration. While Bush bombed Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama continued bombing those countries as well as Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, and Syria. As a side note, while I refer to Bush or Obama, there are of course bigger powers behind them as they've only been the 'front men'. The people behind 'Bush's wars' drive the same foreign policy within the Obama administration. These are also the same people who supported Hillary Clinton's election, even though they were the prominent leaders of the neoconservative movement. While many activists were up in arms over the Bush invasions, everything changed during the Obama administration. Suddenly it was okay to spy, bomb, and drone. Current day progressives became the unwitting supporters of the neoconservative movement, which was all the better for them because the 'left' has developed a great denial of the significant and severe abuses committed by the United States. I don't think that most of these people are aware and conscious of the evil they promote (as many neocons are); I think they are blinded by their 'cause' and can't see past their myopic and self-serving definition of justice.

Robby Martin recently made a documentary about the Neocons and how they transformed during the Obama administration. The below link includes the documentaries, which are pretty nauseating but also really informing.

Exposing the Neocons, in their own words: Tom Secker reviews A Very Heavy Agenda

As the series progresses it incorporates more and more footage showing the impact of these statements and policies on the real world. The ease of saying such things in the internal isolation of a TV studio is writ large upon the world through a series of brutal exteriors from various NATO war zones. Terrifying moments from Syria and the Ukraine 'crisis' interrupt the neo-cons as they articulate their psychotic vision of the world. These interruptions are powerful illustrations that these are not mere ideas and words but that - as Robert Kagan articulates as one of the key principles of neo-conservatism - ideas have power.

Kagan also dwells on how this political philosophy developed out of a tension in classical liberalism. The idea of individual rights and freedoms, which in some respects both Britain and the US have embraced more fully than many nations, faces a problem when applied to the rest of the world. Should a 'liberal' country export its values in the form of military and paramilitary might? Should 'liberal' countries insist that others conform to their values? Do they have that right?

Neo-conservatives say yes, but then neo-conservatives say a lot of things. This critical question facing Western countries is rarely discussed, let alone in the context of an informative documentary series. It is a rare treat to see any film that stares down the barrel of serious issues, let alone one that does it with such commitment and rigour. For that Martin deserves a lot of praise.
...
What Martin does exceptionally well is to show how the neo-cons have faced a serious quandary in the upcoming US presidential election. Initially supportive of Donald Trump for his tough stance on absolutely everything, Trump's outlandish and explicitly racist rhetoric is inspired by and rooted in the same ideas of America's role in the world. However, by taking it to such an overt and ludicrous extreme Trump appears to have alienated the neo-cons, and as they began criticising him Trump began to employ more isolationist and even diplomatic language (e.g. saying he could work with Putin).

This leaves the neo-cons in the awkward position of having to temporarily abandon the Republican party entirely and throw their weight behind Clinton, the most neo-con candidate available. This demonstrates not just the imperial liberal roots of the neo-conservative philosophy, but also their ability to reinvent themselves to suit the political landscape.

SOTT also had an interview with Robbie Martin here:

The Truth Perspective: A Very Heavy Agenda: The rise, fall and resurrection of the neocons, with Robbie Martin

The transformation of the American left into a war-supporting position is remarkable. I doubt most define themselves as such but it is relevant given how the US has acted on the world stage without criticism. It might not be of great significance in progressives minds, but it is to the millions and millions of people who have been deeply affected. It is these issues that carry the most weight regarding mass suffering which have been tragically glossed over. This is what Hillary Clinton represents in the deepest way. To really see the depths of her depravity, one need not look any further than the Libyan coup, and the overthrow and murder of Gaddafi.

The standard line in the US is that Gaddafi was a terrorist supporting dictator and that NATO destroyed the country at the direction of the US because he was attacking his people. Many knew that these were lies, and it's even been recently admitted by the British Parliament that there was no evidence of Gaddafi attacking civilians. The fact is that Gaddafi kept Islamic extremists in check and created one of the most advanced civilizations in modern times. His system was being poised for expansion throughout Africa and that represented a significant threat to Western dominance. The 'Libyan protesters' have been uncovered to be paid mercenaries of the West. This isn't a conspiracy theory and has been validated even by official sources. Many of the rebels in Libya went on to form the Islamic State. See Tony Cartalucci's article Libyan 'rebels' now ISIS (they always were).

The situation in Libya served as the foundations for much of the turmoil in Syria and Iraq that we're seeing today. There's quite a lot of information to dig into on this topic, but it is at least worthwhile to understand what happened in Libya.

Here's an article here from a couple from the U.S. who lived in Libya just prior to the NATO campaign and barely lived through it. It's a jaw dropping testimonial in many different ways:

The truth about Gaddafi's Libya, NATO's bombing, and the Benghazi 'consulate' attack

Here's an except but it's worth reading the whole thing:

I would like to note that the Libyan people were not in any way extremist Muslims. The part of the Koran that was added by the Ayatollah Khomeini talking about killing infidels was thrown out of Libya by Ghadafi because he said it was not part of the Koran. For this there was a fatwa or death order put on Ghadafi for over 20 years by the radical extremist Muslims. All religions with a book were allowed in Libya. Women were emancipated in the 1970s by Ghadafi. No special clothing were required and all women were highly educated if they choose to be. They were doctors, lawyers, ministers, business owners, or just house wives whatever they decided.

Libya shared ½ of all the its oil revenue with its 5.5 million population. All medical care was free, if you could not get the care you needed in Libya then you could travel wherever you needed with a family member and all costs and expenses were fully paid. Education was free and if you wanted to go outside to another University that was paid in full with a stipend. When a Libyan couple got married they received a $46,000 gift from the government to start their lives. Their first home, a 2,500 sq foot condominium cost 10% of their salary for 20 years and then it was theirs. Gasoline was 44 cents a gallon, all utilities were free. If you were hungry and had no money they had huge stores of food where you could get rice, milk, cheese, flour and money to buy meat. The average salary in Libya was the highest in Africa, higher than China or India at $15,800 a year. If you had a college education and could not find a job you received that money until you found a job.

The Libyan people were happy, there was no tax, only businesses had some tax but it was minimal. The government shared the wealth of Libya with its people, there was no taxing of the people to support the state. There was no reason for a revolution, there were some disgruntled radical Islamists who had tried to enforce Sharia law and radical Islam upon Libya to no avail because they only made up about 3 to 5%. These are the people NATO and the US joined hands with to take over Libya. In April of 2011 we were invited to travel to Tripoli on an NGO Fact Finding Commission. We agreed and in May of 2011 we traveled to Tripoli, Libya to take part in this Fact Finding Commission. We spent a whole lot of time with the Tribes of Libya learning about the truths of Libya and their government. We also were witness to huge war crimes committed by NATO upon the innocent people of Libya.

SOTT also did an interview with the couple here, which I think was one of the most important shows done. If you check out any of the articles or resources in this post, check out this one:

Behind the Headlines: NATO Slaughter - James and Joanne Moriarty expose the truth about what happened in Libya

Clinton represents the very worst of the dark powers operating within the United States. These people have created the most destabilizing force on the world stage. The sum total of the suffering they have caused in the past years is incomprehensible. Trump has said quite a number of stupid things, but none of it comes close to matching the destructive actions of Clinton and her ilk. There's just no comparison. When it comes down to it Clinton has been far more destructive towards Muslim nations and societies than any of Trumps rhetoric.

There are of course many other issues, but this is a good one to expose Clinton for who she truly is.

 

[Oxajil]

Thank you for putting it all together, Laura. And Renaissance, I thought your post was very well put. If chandlersdad would've studied Hillary's actions over the years, I'm certain (I would hope at least) he would've never said that "Nothing that Hillary has done can compare to the damage Trump will inflict on the USA". Hillary has killed many, many families. Trump has done nothing of the sort, and to say that he will do worse is rather silly without any concrete data to back that up. As others have said, he's still President-elect.

I'll be honest, I wasn't quite sure what to think of his Muslim ban talk (especially since the US is a big part of the refugee problem), but as Beau said, candidates can say all kinds of things during their campaign and act differently once President. On the other hand when you think about it, a leader has the responsibility to make sure there is no danger to the citizens of the nation he's a leader of. And if increase in safety means a ban on Muslim immigrants or some kind of system that makes sure they're checked and monitored efficiently (not the way Europe does it where they conveniently say 'We knew this guy was an extremist for a long time, but didn't do anything about it, oops!'), that's a good thing.

After all, Hillary's "solution" would've been to accept more immigrants while continuing to bomb the Middle East (and who knows where else). Is it any wonder that many Muslim Americans did not vote for her? Trump is showing signs of wanting to cooperate with Putin and appears to not support regime change in other countries. I hope he will be able to make a difference Hillary was never interested in making. Just a few thoughts.

 

[aragorn]

Continuing a bit off topic, on Assange, there has been a couple of videos published lately by 'Anonymous' where they basically say that Assange was kidnapped on October 16th, and has probably been moved to Guantanamo bay, or is dead. And, that Wikileaks was always a CIA-psyop/front, but some of the material they dumped to Wikileaks was never meant to be published. Thus, Assange, even if he was one of their own, had to be eliminated. They even go as far as saying that the recent Assange interview with John Pilger was "computer animated". The evidence that this could be done is quite compelling, so who knows. But that would mean that Pilger would be "in the know", which I find hard to believe.

I don't trust 'Anonymous' that much, and my gut feeling is that this is some kind of weird "double-reversed-psyop". However, some of the points they bring up would explain a lot of the recent events.

Video 1:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...hM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Video 2:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...qA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Laura]

More to think about:

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/is-donald-trump-really-only-a-showman-who-will-prepare-the-usa-for-war/

Is Donald Trump Really Only a Showman Who Will Prepare the USA for War?

The Saker

Let me begin by immediately say that I have the utmost respect for F. William Engdahl and that I consider him a person far more knowledgeable of US politics than myself. Furthermore, I want to also make it clear that I am not going to refute a single argument Engdahl makes in support of his thesis simply because I believe that his arguments are fact-based and logical.

I strongly urge everybody to read Engdahl’s article “The Dangerous Deception Called The Trump Presidency” in the New Eastern Outlook and carefully consider each of his arguments. Of course, Engdahl only offers indirect, circumstantial evidence and only time will really show whether he is right or wrong. What I propose to do today is to consider the other possibility, that in spite of all the evidence presented by Engdahl, Trump might not be a fraud and a showman. You will see that this conclusion is not necessarily more optimistic than Engdahl’s.

My main argument is much more primitive than Engdahl’s and even more circumstantial: I see clear signs of a real struggle taking place inside the US elites and if, indeed, such a struggle is taking place, then I conclude that Trump is not a showman who has been “selected” (to use Engdahl’s words) by the US elites but that quite to the contrary, his election is a nightmare for these elites.

My subsidiary argument is that even if Engdahl is right and if Trump is a showman, the ploy of the US elites to save the Empire and prepare for war will fail.

Let’s take them one by one:

The reality of the struggle inside the US elites

Frankly, I don’t believe that the imperial “deep state” was so devious and sophisticated to order the mainstream media to organize a year-long hate campaign against Trump because the “deep state” has calculated that only such a demonization of Trump would make him popular and get him elected. Why? I just don’t believe that the US propaganda machine is that flexible.

You look at freaks like Rachel Maddows or Martha Raddatz and you can tell that they are for real, in the sense that they were never hired to parrot a specific political line but they were hired because they are the living embodiment of a specific political line. And that goes for 90% of the Trump-bashing media. Yeah, maybe some are cynical presstitutes, but most of them come from what I would call the “tribe of assorted minorities” which viscerally hates everything Trump stands for. Their hate is sincere, it is pure, it comes from their very identity.

Likewise, when I look at the fawning in lockstep before Hillary which the mainstream media carefully nurtured I can only conclude that this is the logical outcome of decades of brainwashing by the liberal propaganda machine. This machine was built around hating the “common” American, the “deplorables” in Hillary’s parlance, and this machine could not do anything but to worship her 24/7.

I am therefore convinced that Donald Trump got elected in spite of, and not thanks to, the “Patriarchy of loveless old men like David Rockefeller or George Herbert Walker Bush“. Furthermore, when I see the desperate efforts by Soros & Co to organize some kind of “color revolution” against Trump under the slogan “not my president” and the efforts by, again, Soros & Co. to get Jill Stein to get a recount only in the states were Trump won, I come to the clear conclusion that the Neocons have still not accepted their defeat and that they are still trying to prevent Trump from occupying the White House. In contrast, Engdahl writes that,

We should not imagine for one second that the Patriarchy– those loveless old men like David Rockefeller or George Herbert Walker Bush or unnamed others– were so overwhelmed by the political genius of candidate Trump emerging from every scandal more powerful than before, that they were surprised, out-foxed, and just groaned and let it happen. The Trump Presidency has been planned in minute detailby them and their think tanks

I don’t know about you, but I sure don’t get the feeling that what is taking place today is the result of something carefully planned. I fully agree that the US deep state did not just “groan and let hit happen“. But rather than letting it happen, I see the US deep state fighting against Trump with everything it has! I don’t think that the post-election anti-Trump hysteria has been planned by the likes of Rockefeller or Bush at all. What I see are the Neocons using every bit of “ammunition” they have to try to oppose and sabotage a Trump presidency.

Engdahl also brings some very strong arguments against the nomination of General Mike Flynn who not only is known for his rather crude anti-Islamic rhetoric, but who even co-authored a book with the notorious Neocon Michael Ledeen. That a man like Flynn could find no better co-author than Ledeen should set off “red alert” alarms in the minds of everybody who understands what Ledeen stands for and represents. And Flynn is most definitely one of the better people around Trump.

In fact, a closer look at the folks around Trump reveals a lot of Neocons, Israelis and Judaics and all in key positions. There is a definite Likudnik smell to a lot of the people Trump has surrounded himself with. But that argument could also be reversed – if indeed Trump is “securely surrounded” by doubleplusgoodthinking Zionists, why their big panic? Could it be that these doubleplusgoodthinking Zionists have some very strong concerns about what Trump might do as a President once he is in full control?

Last but most definitely not least: not only has Jill Stein been used to trigger a recount in some states, but there are now rumors that some Electors are now being pressured not to give their vote to Trump, as the law says they should. Whether true or not, this kind of rumors clearly indicate that the Neocons are willing to do anything and everything to prevent Trump from getting into the White House or, if that is impossible, to maximally weaken him even if that puts the entire country at risk.

Why do I say that?

Because events have a way of getting out of control which makes the kind of reckless doubling-down the Neocons are currently engaged in extremely dangerous. Of course, nobody currently expects the Electoral College to refuse to nominate Trump. But the unexpected seems to be happening a lot these days. So what if something like that happens?

Or what if some states accept Trump’s victory, but others don’t? What if the “not my President” slogan really goes viral and infects the minds of many more people than right now? Or even worse, what if this absolutely irresponsible rhetoric ends up in violence with either protesters or Trump himself being shot? We know that the very same US deep state which organized and executed 9/11 also used snipers in Vilnius in 1991, in Moscow in 1993 and in Kiev in 2014 to bring about an insurrection. There are also report that such snipers were used in Libya, Egypt and Syria. Is there any logical reason to think that this time around the deep state would not use such snipers inside the USA?

While it is possible that the current situation has been triggered by the US deep state, it is equally possible that the US deep state is losing control of the situation which might now be developing a momentum of its own. Would the US deep state really take such a risk just in order to put “Trump the showman” into the White House?

The plan

According to Engdahl, Donald Trump was put into office to,

prepare America for war, a war the banks of Wall Street and the US military industrial complex are not presently in a position economically or industrially or otherwise, geopolitically, to win. His job will be to reposition the United States for them to reverse the trend to disintegration of American global hegemony, to, as the Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz Project for the New American Century put it in their September, 2000 report, “rebuild America’s defenses.”

To do that preparation, a deception strategy that will fatally weaken the developing deep bonds between Russia and China will be priority. It’s already begun. We have a friendly phone call from The Donald to Vladimir the Fearsome in Moscow. Russian media is euphoric about a new era in US-Russia relations after Obama.

Then suddenly we hear the war-mongering NATO head, Stoltenberg, suddenly purr soothing words to Russia. Float the idea that California Congressman and Putin acquaintance, Dana Rohrabacher, is leaked as a possible Secretary of State. It’s classic Kissinger Balance of Power geopolitics–seem to ally with the weaker of two mortal enemies, Russia, to isolate the stronger, China. Presumably Vladimir Putin is not so naïve or stupid as to fall for it, but that is the plot of Trump’s handlers.

If that indeed the plan, then I fully agree with Engdahl – Putin is not so naive or stupid to fall for it. In fact, such a possibility has been discussed many times by Russian experts on various Russian talkshows and they all agree that while Russia will definitely tone down its criticism of the USA if Trump appears to be interested in collaborating with Russia, there is no chance in hell that Moscow would in any way let the Americans weaken or otherwise affect the unofficial but extremely strong strategic partnership between Russia and China.

Besides, the USA have nothing very interesting to offer the Russians anyway. Why would the Russians spend any capital on a clearly dying Empire when they have an extremely beneficial alliance with a growing superpower? Does anybody in Washington DC really think that two decades of rabid russophobia have suddenly been forgotten or that anybody in Russia will ever trust a word coming out of an American politician’s mouth? For the past two years Russia has been scrambling to prepare for war against the USA and NATO.

Now that the danger of President Hillary has almost certainly passed, yes – the Russians are delighted that a thermonuclear war has become unlikely. But they will never forget how close it came and they will most definitely not stop their preparations. At most, they will somewhat slow down some programs, but that’s it. Fundamentally Russia will continue her rapid pace of military development which, considering the situation in the Ukraine and in the Middle-East, is a sound decision regardless of what the Americans do or say.

I think I can very accurately predict what Russia will do during the next four years: Putin will meet with Trump and try to work out with him as many of the outstanding issues between the USA and Russia as possible (that is, assuming the Neocons around Trump don’t torpedo it all before it even starts!).

If Trump wants a reasonable solution for Syria and the Ukraine, he will get it from the Russians. If Trump is serious about forcing the CIA & Co. to stop using al-Qaeda & Co., that is to say if Trump is serious about smashing Daesh, the Russians will help him too. And if Trump wants the Russians to help secure a deal for Israel and Palestine, or help mediate some deal with the DPRK – the Russians will oblige again.

But what will not stop is the massive re-armament of the Russian armed forces and the Russian efforts to politically decouple the EU from the USA. These are strategic goals of Russia which will not be affected by the USA. Furthermore, even if during the next four years the USA spends X billion dollars on “defense”, Russia will spend far less but get much more than the USA. Why? Because the entire US military-industrial complex is corrupt to the bone and the US armed forces in an advanced state of decay.

Contrary to what some Russian (and non-Russian) hurray-patriots think, Russia is still much weaker than the USA, but she is catching up at a rate which the USA is simply not able to match, Trump or not Trump, so the power ratio of the USA to Russia in four years will be even more favorable to Russia than it is now. If the Neocons really think that they can somehow reverse or even significantly affect this trend they are wrong. The USA are going down and Russia is going up, and nothing can stop this process.

The strongest argument in favor of Engdahl’s thesis is this: while the Neocons have always been clever and very driven, they are not very bright and they can only see as far as the immediate short term. Furthermore, their truly infinite arrogance always brings them to the same solution when presented with a crisis: double down. And if that don’t work, double down again. And again. And again. This is why all their grand plans first kinda work, but then inevitably come crashing down, over and over again.

Right now, there is nothing more stupid and self-defeating the USA could do than to double down on all their failures, miscalculations and mistakes. The smart thing to do is what Trump promises to do: to change course, “drain the swamp” in DC and save the USA by giving up on the AngloZionist Empire. I hope that this is what the slogan “make America great again” means: make it great by dumping the Empire.

My gut-feeling is that Trump is at least partially sincere, how could we explain the current Neocon panic otherwise? They seem to know something which really is freaking them out. Might that be that Trump is serious about kicking their collective rear-end back down to the basement from which they crawled out?

This being said, please don’t conclude that I am any more optimistic than Engdahl. I am not. It’s just that my fear is different from his. He thinks that Trump is a fraud while I think that the Trump is unlikely to have the right combination of intelligence, willpower, courage, abnegation and patriotism to purge the USA from the Neocon rot. Simply put – I don’t think that Trump will be the “American Putin”. Furthermore, I think that the choice of Pence as VP is indicative a deeply misguided hope by Trump that he can appease the Neocons.

Finally, let’s try to make sense out of Trump’s absolutely bizarre and, frankly, irrational phobia of Iran. Is that not his attempt at throwing the Neocons a bone to chew on in the hope that they will let him be if he “gives” them Iran?

One thing is absolutely certain: if the Americans attack Iran, any rapprochement with Russia will immediately go down the tubes. There is no way Trump can get some kind of partnership with Russia while threatening Iran. Yet another contradiction in the putative Neocon plan.

God knows I hope that I am wrong. And, of course, I hope that Engdahl is wrong too. Miracles do happen and sometimes seemingly mediocre or hesitant individuals end up showing a strength and willpower which can change the course of history. But I think that Engdahl is asking the right questions and sounding the right warnings. While it is legitimate to hope for a miracle, one must never forget miracles happen very rarely and that it is far more likely that they will not happen.

 

[angelburst29]

President-elect Donald Trump told reporters on Tuesday that the US Air Force is being charged too much money for new airplanes known by the call sign "Air Force One," which will be used by the US president.

Trump Calls for Cancellation of Boeing Order for New 'Air Force One' Plane
https://sputniknews.com/us/201612061048236555-trump-air-force-one/

Trump added that while he wants the airplane’s producer Boeing to make money off the deal, he thinks "Boeing is doing a little bit of a number" and does not need to make "that much money."

"The plane is totally out of control, it’s going to be over $4 billion," Trump told reporters in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York City. "It’s for Air Force One program and I think it’s ridiculous."

According to media reports, the Air Force has budgeted $1.65 billion for the new Air Force One plane between 2015 and 2019. Two planes will be needed to replace the two current Boeing 747-200's used by the US president. Those aircraft reach their 30-year life expectancy in 2017. The new planes likely will not be ready until 2024.

Media reports also noted the unique communications, safety, self-protection features and more required so the president can operate the aircraft as a mobile White House during any situation, which makes the airplane much more expensive.

AEROSPACE giant Boeing saw its shares plunge in pre-market trading on Tuesday, after President-elect Donald Trump threatened to cancel an order for a new Air Force One airplane from the company amid a row over costs.

Trump sends Boeing shares plunging after 'cancelling' Air Force One order
http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/740422/Donald-Trump-Boeing-stocks-shares-plunging-cancels-Air-Force-One-order

Mr Trump said the manufacturing firm has quoted more than $4billion to build a brand new plane, which would be used by future presidents' travel.

The incoming leader said the costs were out of control and that he would cancel the order.

Stock in the firm subsequently fell by more than one per cent ahead of market opening in the US.

The president elect took to twitter to write: "Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!"

In less than an hour the tweet had around 9,000 shares.

Boeing has made planes for US presidents since 1943, and the current Air Force One boasts 4,000 square feet of floor space that includes a conference/dining room, two galleys that can provide 100 meals at one sitting and areas for the presidential staff, media and crews.

In a statement Boeing today said: "We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the President of the United States.

"We look forward to working with the U.S. Air Force on subsequent phases of the program allowing us to deliver the best planes for the President at the best value for the American taxpayer."

Seven Democrats from the US House of Representatives wrote outgoing President Barack Obama on Tuesday requesting a classified briefing on the details of the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.

US House Democrats Ask Obama for Classified Briefing on Alleged Russian Hacks
https://sputniknews.com/us/201612071048249181-democrats-classified-briefing-russian-hacks/

The letter alleged that "Russia may have succeeded in weakening Americans' trust in our electoral institutions through their cyber activity."

"We are requesting a classified briefing that will provide details regarding Russian entities' hacking of American political organizations… and any other Russian or Russian-related interference or involvement in our recent election," the letter stated.

Veteran Democrats Eliot Engel, Elijah Cummings and Bennie Thompson were among the lawmakers that signed the letter.

On November 30, six Democrats on the US Senate Intelligence Committee sent a similar letter to Obama urging the US president to declassify information about alleged Russian intrusion in the presidential election. Russia has denied frequent claims by US intelligence agencies that it has tried to meddle in the US election. Russian officials have called the allegations absurd and an attempt to distract US voters from domestic issues and instances of corruption and other forms of wrongdoing revealed by WikiLeaks.

Senior US military officials are sticking with a tried and true method for justifying increases in US military spending by claiming that there is a “threat” posed by Russia, pointing to a recent increase in defense spending by the Kremlin.

Pentagon Hypes ‘Russian Threat’ to Increase Budget
https://sputniknews.com/military/201612061048246411-pentagon-hype-threat-increase-budget/

Air Force Secretary Deborah James recently claimed that Russia is an “existential threat” to the US, AntiWar.com reported. Statistics show that Russia does not spend anywhere near the amount of money spent by the US military, as Washington trounces that of the rest of the world in defense spending. The US defense budget just about exceeds the sum of the next-14 highest spenders combined, according to an International Institute for Strategic Studies 2016 Military Balance Report.

Even if Russia increased its defense budget, it is unlikely to outpace US military spending that has continuously grown since the Reagan administration, even after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, its arch-enemy.

Hyping Russia as a demonic threat comes amid a new investigative report that highlights that the Pentagon covered up an internal study showing billions in wasteful spending, so that Congress would not cut the military budget. Confidential documents obtained by the Washington Post show that Pentagon officials sought to clean up bureaucratic waste and transfer the savings back into operations. When administrative waste was estimated at a whopping $125 billion, defense officials killed the report by discrediting and suppressing the results, according to the newspaper.

The Washington Post study also revealed that the Pentagon employs approximately 1 million contractors, civilians, and uniformed personnel to support their 1.3 million active-duty troops, indicating that their are almost as many desk-job employees at the DoD as there are actual troops.

The Pentagon has buried an internal study that exposed $125 billion in administrative waste in its business operations amid fears Congress would use the findings as an excuse to slash the defense budget, according to interviews and confidential memos obtained by The Washington Post.

Pentagon buries evidence of $125 billion in bureaucratic waste
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.698da0ebc85a

Dec. 5, 2016 - Pentagon leaders had requested the study to help make their enormous back-office bureaucracy more efficient and reinvest any savings in combat power. But after the project documented far more wasteful spending than expected, senior defense officials moved swiftly to kill it by discrediting and suppressing the results.

The report, issued in January 2015, identified “a clear path” for the Defense Department to save $125 billion over five years. The plan would not have required layoffs of civil servants or reductions in military personnel. Instead, it would have streamlined the bureaucracy through attrition and early retirements, curtailed high-priced contractors and made better use of information technology.

The study was produced last year by the Defense Business Board, a federal advisory panel of corporate executives, and consultants from McKinsey and Company. Based on reams of personnel and cost data, their report revealed for the first time that the Pentagon was spending almost a quarter of its $580 billion budget on overhead and core business operations such as accounting, human resources, logistics and property management.

[The Defense Business Board’s 2015 study on how the Pentagon could save $125 billion]

The data showed that the Defense Department was paying a staggering number of people — 1,014,000 contractors, civilians and uniformed personnel — to fill back-office jobs far from the front lines. That workforce supports 1.3 million troops on active duty, the fewest since 1940.

The cost-cutting study could find a receptive audience with President-elect Donald Trump. He has promised a major military buildup and said he would pay for it by “eliminating government waste and budget gimmicks.”

For the military, the major allure of the study was that it called for reallocating the $125 billion for troops and weapons. Among other options, the savings could have paid a large portion of the bill to rebuild the nation’s aging nuclear arsenal, or the operating expenses for 50 Army brigades.

But some Pentagon leaders said they fretted that by spotlighting so much waste, the study would undermine their repeated public assertions that years of budget austerity had left the armed forces starved of funds. Instead of providing more money, they said, they worried Congress and the White House might decide to cut deeper.

So the plan was killed. The Pentagon imposed secrecy restrictions on the data making up the study, which ensured no one could replicate the findings. A 77-page summary report that had been made public was removed from a Pentagon website. (Article continues.)

An internal Department of Defense audit that reportedly showed $125 million wasted by the agency’s bloated bureaucracy is being sought for an investigation by Congress, according to a press release issued by US Senator Claire McCaskill on Tuesday.

Secret Report of $125Bln Wasted by Pentagon Prompts Demand for Congress Probe
https://sputniknews.com/us/201612061048242644-pentagon-wastes-money/

Earlier it was reported that the effort went awry when auditors discovered $125 billion in waste — an amount so large that Defense Department officials decided to kill the report and hush up the audit.

"If this is true, the Pentagon played Congress and the American public for fools," McCaskill said in the release. "It would mean that while some in Congress were busy debating cuts to vital services… the Department of Defense literally knew it could save the American people billions and billions of dollars in bureaucratic waste."

In January, McCaskill will become the ranking minority member of the US Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, according to the release. She is also a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

McCaskill’s call for an investigation was prompted by a newspaper report earlier on Tuesday of a Pentagon-ordered study that was intended to make the agency’s bureaucracy more efficient and use the savings to support combat troops.

McCaskill’s release noted that her office had contacted the Defense Department to demand a full copy of the buried study along with the background data.

The first family has spent over $10 million a year on travel and vacations, and the still growing bill has crossed over $85 million in eight years, according to a watchdog group.

Obama family travel, vacations, cross $85 million mark
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-family-travel-vacations-cross-85-million/article/2608882

Judicial Watch, which has charted the travel of presidents for years, on Monday said that it has received a new batch of bills for the first family’s Christmas break in Hawaii, bringing that trip to nearly $5 million. The Obama’s are expected to return to Hawaii this Christmas.

The expenses cover items such as security, flights and hotel rooms for staff and U.S. Secret Service. They do not include the price of prepositioning ships and aircraft in the area or much of the communications costs.

From Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained records from the U.S. Secret Service revealing that its travel expenses for the First Family’s 2015 Hawaiian vacation cost taxpayers $1.2 million, which bring the total cost of the vacation trip to at least $4.8 million. This was the Obamas’ eighth Hawaiian family vacation. The trip has become an annual event for the Obamas. To date, Obama’s and his family’s travel expenses total at least $85,029,819.

The records obtained by Judicial Watch for Obama’s Secret Service travel to Hawaii reveal the following expenses totaling $1,234,316.67:

Hotel and lodging costs totaled $1,000,458.63.

The Secret Service spent $165,893.88 on car rentals.

Air and rail expenses totaled $67,964.16.

Although the vacation officially lasted from December 18, 2015, to January 3, 2016, the Secret Service rented several Kailua homes for 19 nights, starting from December 16. The total for the rentals, located near the Marine Corps base at Kaneohe Bay was $245,993.12.

According to bills obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Secret Service also paid for rooms at the Hawaii Prince Hotel Waikiki and Golf Club. The Secret Service also reserved rooms at the Moana Surfrider resort on Waikiki Beach, and the Ala Moana Hotel, which cost a total of $40,249.48 and $671,895.99, respectively.

The Secret Service rented cars from Avis, Alamo, and Hertz – 103 cars for the two-week vacation, totaling $165,893.88 in taxpayer money.

 

[Joe]

What struck me as interesting is that the Cs talked about a color revolution in the US when I couldn‘t make much sense of it – because a color revolution is by definition a Soros-style LIBERAL revolution. Soro‘s network is liberal and can‘t do anything but a liberal revolution promoting ponerized pseuda-liberal values. Only now it might have become clear what the Cs meant to an extent, at least I couldn't see it before: the real new Nazis are the liberals! Who would have thought? Their 'brown shirts', i.e. ponerized ideological idiots on campuses and so on, might not be that frightening, but if they have the Orwellian newspeak and thought control on their side as well as the media and even the law, they are terrifying indeed!

Or, the neoliberal types will be encouraged to create tension and division in the country that there will be a backlash against them, of a 'civil war' type.

 

[SummerLite]

Recount Update: Dec. 6 2016. Warning: pro-Trump slant.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...p0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Ruth]

Continuing a bit off topic, on Assange, there has been a couple of videos published lately by 'Anonymous' where they basically say that Assange was kidnapped on October 16th, and has probably been moved to Guantanamo bay, or is dead. And, that Wikileaks was always a CIA-psyop/front, but some of the material they dumped to Wikileaks was never meant to be published. Thus, Assange, even if he was one of their own, had to be eliminated. They even go as far as saying that the recent Assange interview with John Pilger was "computer animated". The evidence that this could be done is quite compelling, so who knows. But that would mean that Pilger would be "in the know", which I find hard to believe.

I don't trust 'Anonymous' that much, and my gut feeling is that this is some kind of weird "double-reversed-psyop". However, some of the points they bring up would explain a lot of the recent events.

I wouldn't trust them either. They are saying all this weird stuff about everyone else, and it somehow doesn't manage to apply to them? Wow! I expect Anonymous to start waving their magic wand and saying 'abracadabra' any minute now. Julian Assange may well be an unwitting agent of those countries who play 'the long game' (you know who), but he's not much use to them locked up in the Ecuadorian Embassy (maybe). And, if he knew he was being used, probably even less so.

 

[sToRmR1dR]

More to think about:

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/is-donald-trump-really-only-a-showman-who-will-prepare-the-usa-for-war/

Is Donald Trump Really Only a Showman Who Will Prepare the USA for War?

The Saker

Let me begin by immediately say that I have the utmost respect for F. William Engdahl and that I consider him a person far more knowledgeable of US politics than myself. Furthermore, I want to also make it clear that I am not going to refute a single argument Engdahl makes in support of his thesis simply because I believe that his arguments are fact-based and logical.

I strongly urge everybody to read Engdahl’s article “The Dangerous Deception Called The Trump Presidency” in the New Eastern Outlook and carefully consider each of his arguments. Of course, Engdahl only offers indirect, circumstantial evidence and only time will really show whether he is right or wrong. What I propose to do today is to consider the other possibility, that in spite of all the evidence presented by Engdahl, Trump might not be a fraud and a showman. You will see that this conclusion is not necessarily more optimistic than Engdahl’s.

My main argument is much more primitive than Engdahl’s and even more circumstantial: I see clear signs of a real struggle taking place inside the US elites and if, indeed, such a struggle is taking place, then I conclude that Trump is not a showman who has been “selected” (to use Engdahl’s words) by the US elites but that quite to the contrary, his election is a nightmare for these elites.

My subsidiary argument is that even if Engdahl is right and if Trump is a showman, the ploy of the US elites to save the Empire and prepare for war will fail.

Let’s take them one by one:

The reality of the struggle inside the US elites

Frankly, I don’t believe that the imperial “deep state” was so devious and sophisticated to order the mainstream media to organize a year-long hate campaign against Trump because the “deep state” has calculated that only such a demonization of Trump would make him popular and get him elected. Why? I just don’t believe that the US propaganda machine is that flexible.

You look at freaks like Rachel Maddows or Martha Raddatz and you can tell that they are for real, in the sense that they were never hired to parrot a specific political line but they were hired because they are the living embodiment of a specific political line. And that goes for 90% of the Trump-bashing media. Yeah, maybe some are cynical presstitutes, but most of them come from what I would call the “tribe of assorted minorities” which viscerally hates everything Trump stands for. Their hate is sincere, it is pure, it comes from their very identity.

Likewise, when I look at the fawning in lockstep before Hillary which the mainstream media carefully nurtured I can only conclude that this is the logical outcome of decades of brainwashing by the liberal propaganda machine. This machine was built around hating the “common” American, the “deplorables” in Hillary’s parlance, and this machine could not do anything but to worship her 24/7.

I am therefore convinced that Donald Trump got elected in spite of, and not thanks to, the “Patriarchy of loveless old men like David Rockefeller or George Herbert Walker Bush“. Furthermore, when I see the desperate efforts by Soros & Co to organize some kind of “color revolution” against Trump under the slogan “not my president” and the efforts by, again, Soros & Co. to get Jill Stein to get a recount only in the states were Trump won, I come to the clear conclusion that the Neocons have still not accepted their defeat and that they are still trying to prevent Trump from occupying the White House. In contrast, Engdahl writes that,

We should not imagine for one second that the Patriarchy– those loveless old men like David Rockefeller or George Herbert Walker Bush or unnamed others– were so overwhelmed by the political genius of candidate Trump emerging from every scandal more powerful than before, that they were surprised, out-foxed, and just groaned and let it happen. The Trump Presidency has been planned in minute detailby them and their think tanks

I don’t know about you, but I sure don’t get the feeling that what is taking place today is the result of something carefully planned. I fully agree that the US deep state did not just “groan and let hit happen“. But rather than letting it happen, I see the US deep state fighting against Trump with everything it has! I don’t think that the post-election anti-Trump hysteria has been planned by the likes of Rockefeller or Bush at all. What I see are the Neocons using every bit of “ammunition” they have to try to oppose and sabotage a Trump presidency.

Engdahl also brings some very strong arguments against the nomination of General Mike Flynn who not only is known for his rather crude anti-Islamic rhetoric, but who even co-authored a book with the notorious Neocon Michael Ledeen. That a man like Flynn could find no better co-author than Ledeen should set off “red alert” alarms in the minds of everybody who understands what Ledeen stands for and represents. And Flynn is most definitely one of the better people around Trump.

In fact, a closer look at the folks around Trump reveals a lot of Neocons, Israelis and Judaics and all in key positions. There is a definite Likudnik smell to a lot of the people Trump has surrounded himself with. But that argument could also be reversed – if indeed Trump is “securely surrounded” by doubleplusgoodthinking Zionists, why their big panic? Could it be that these doubleplusgoodthinking Zionists have some very strong concerns about what Trump might do as a President once he is in full control?

Last but most definitely not least: not only has Jill Stein been used to trigger a recount in some states, but there are now rumors that some Electors are now being pressured not to give their vote to Trump, as the law says they should. Whether true or not, this kind of rumors clearly indicate that the Neocons are willing to do anything and everything to prevent Trump from getting into the White House or, if that is impossible, to maximally weaken him even if that puts the entire country at risk.

Why do I say that?

Because events have a way of getting out of control which makes the kind of reckless doubling-down the Neocons are currently engaged in extremely dangerous. Of course, nobody currently expects the Electoral College to refuse to nominate Trump. But the unexpected seems to be happening a lot these days. So what if something like that happens?

Or what if some states accept Trump’s victory, but others don’t? What if the “not my President” slogan really goes viral and infects the minds of many more people than right now? Or even worse, what if this absolutely irresponsible rhetoric ends up in violence with either protesters or Trump himself being shot? We know that the very same US deep state which organized and executed 9/11 also used snipers in Vilnius in 1991, in Moscow in 1993 and in Kiev in 2014 to bring about an insurrection. There are also report that such snipers were used in Libya, Egypt and Syria. Is there any logical reason to think that this time around the deep state would not use such snipers inside the USA?

While it is possible that the current situation has been triggered by the US deep state, it is equally possible that the US deep state is losing control of the situation which might now be developing a momentum of its own. Would the US deep state really take such a risk just in order to put “Trump the showman” into the White House?

The plan

According to Engdahl, Donald Trump was put into office to,

prepare America for war, a war the banks of Wall Street and the US military industrial complex are not presently in a position economically or industrially or otherwise, geopolitically, to win. His job will be to reposition the United States for them to reverse the trend to disintegration of American global hegemony, to, as the Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz Project for the New American Century put it in their September, 2000 report, “rebuild America’s defenses.”

To do that preparation, a deception strategy that will fatally weaken the developing deep bonds between Russia and China will be priority. It’s already begun. We have a friendly phone call from The Donald to Vladimir the Fearsome in Moscow. Russian media is euphoric about a new era in US-Russia relations after Obama.

Then suddenly we hear the war-mongering NATO head, Stoltenberg, suddenly purr soothing words to Russia. Float the idea that California Congressman and Putin acquaintance, Dana Rohrabacher, is leaked as a possible Secretary of State. It’s classic Kissinger Balance of Power geopolitics–seem to ally with the weaker of two mortal enemies, Russia, to isolate the stronger, China. Presumably Vladimir Putin is not so naïve or stupid as to fall for it, but that is the plot of Trump’s handlers.

If that indeed the plan, then I fully agree with Engdahl – Putin is not so naive or stupid to fall for it. In fact, such a possibility has been discussed many times by Russian experts on various Russian talkshows and they all agree that while Russia will definitely tone down its criticism of the USA if Trump appears to be interested in collaborating with Russia, there is no chance in hell that Moscow would in any way let the Americans weaken or otherwise affect the unofficial but extremely strong strategic partnership between Russia and China.

Besides, the USA have nothing very interesting to offer the Russians anyway. Why would the Russians spend any capital on a clearly dying Empire when they have an extremely beneficial alliance with a growing superpower? Does anybody in Washington DC really think that two decades of rabid russophobia have suddenly been forgotten or that anybody in Russia will ever trust a word coming out of an American politician’s mouth? For the past two years Russia has been scrambling to prepare for war against the USA and NATO.

Now that the danger of President Hillary has almost certainly passed, yes – the Russians are delighted that a thermonuclear war has become unlikely. But they will never forget how close it came and they will most definitely not stop their preparations. At most, they will somewhat slow down some programs, but that’s it. Fundamentally Russia will continue her rapid pace of military development which, considering the situation in the Ukraine and in the Middle-East, is a sound decision regardless of what the Americans do or say.

I think I can very accurately predict what Russia will do during the next four years: Putin will meet with Trump and try to work out with him as many of the outstanding issues between the USA and Russia as possible (that is, assuming the Neocons around Trump don’t torpedo it all before it even starts!).

If Trump wants a reasonable solution for Syria and the Ukraine, he will get it from the Russians. If Trump is serious about forcing the CIA & Co. to stop using al-Qaeda & Co., that is to say if Trump is serious about smashing Daesh, the Russians will help him too. And if Trump wants the Russians to help secure a deal for Israel and Palestine, or help mediate some deal with the DPRK – the Russians will oblige again.

But what will not stop is the massive re-armament of the Russian armed forces and the Russian efforts to politically decouple the EU from the USA. These are strategic goals of Russia which will not be affected by the USA. Furthermore, even if during the next four years the USA spends X billion dollars on “defense”, Russia will spend far less but get much more than the USA. Why? Because the entire US military-industrial complex is corrupt to the bone and the US armed forces in an advanced state of decay.

Contrary to what some Russian (and non-Russian) hurray-patriots think, Russia is still much weaker than the USA, but she is catching up at a rate which the USA is simply not able to match, Trump or not Trump, so the power ratio of the USA to Russia in four years will be even more favorable to Russia than it is now. If the Neocons really think that they can somehow reverse or even significantly affect this trend they are wrong. The USA are going down and Russia is going up, and nothing can stop this process.

The strongest argument in favor of Engdahl’s thesis is this: while the Neocons have always been clever and very driven, they are not very bright and they can only see as far as the immediate short term. Furthermore, their truly infinite arrogance always brings them to the same solution when presented with a crisis: double down. And if that don’t work, double down again. And again. And again. This is why all their grand plans first kinda work, but then inevitably come crashing down, over and over again.

Right now, there is nothing more stupid and self-defeating the USA could do than to double down on all their failures, miscalculations and mistakes. The smart thing to do is what Trump promises to do: to change course, “drain the swamp” in DC and save the USA by giving up on the AngloZionist Empire. I hope that this is what the slogan “make America great again” means: make it great by dumping the Empire.

My gut-feeling is that Trump is at least partially sincere, how could we explain the current Neocon panic otherwise? They seem to know something which really is freaking them out. Might that be that Trump is serious about kicking their collective rear-end back down to the basement from which they crawled out?

This being said, please don’t conclude that I am any more optimistic than Engdahl. I am not. It’s just that my fear is different from his. He thinks that Trump is a fraud while I think that the Trump is unlikely to have the right combination of intelligence, willpower, courage, abnegation and patriotism to purge the USA from the Neocon rot. Simply put – I don’t think that Trump will be the “American Putin”. Furthermore, I think that the choice of Pence as VP is indicative a deeply misguided hope by Trump that he can appease the Neocons.

Finally, let’s try to make sense out of Trump’s absolutely bizarre and, frankly, irrational phobia of Iran. Is that not his attempt at throwing the Neocons a bone to chew on in the hope that they will let him be if he “gives” them Iran?

One thing is absolutely certain: if the Americans attack Iran, any rapprochement with Russia will immediately go down the tubes. There is no way Trump can get some kind of partnership with Russia while threatening Iran. Yet another contradiction in the putative Neocon plan.

God knows I hope that I am wrong. And, of course, I hope that Engdahl is wrong too. Miracles do happen and sometimes seemingly mediocre or hesitant individuals end up showing a strength and willpower which can change the course of history. But I think that Engdahl is asking the right questions and sounding the right warnings. While it is legitimate to hope for a miracle, one must never forget miracles happen very rarely and that it is far more likely that they will not happen.

What really bothers me is from the session held on October 15, 2016:

Q: (Beau) If Trump is elected, will he actually change American foreign policy?

A: Will try.

;

Some food for thoughts from this excerpt:

Session Date: September 3rd 2008

A: USA heading for destruction!

Q: (L) Hello. Can we say hello first?

A: Hello

Q: (L) And who do we have with us this evening?

A: Yeaionnia of Cassiopaea.

Q: (L) Do you transmit through Cassiopaea?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Okay. Why do you introduce tonight's adventures with "US is headed for destruction"?

A: Passed the point when anything could possibly be done to change the outcome.

Q: (L) What is this outcome?

A: Increasing inner turmoil. Review what happened in Germany.

Q: (L) Well, what happened in Germany in what period?

A: Towards the end of the war. Hitler's madness and the hatred of the world towards Germany.

Q: (L) Wasn't a pretty picture, was it? (J) In Germany, the rest of the world bombed Germany...

A: Yes. Expect it in the USA ultimately.

Q: (J) Would that be nuclear bombs?

A: And more.

Q: (A***) Is it going to destroy the rest of the world with it?

A: Not exactly... but the cosmic stuff will take its toll.

Q: (L) Anything else on that topic for the moment since we have other issues we want to cover?

A: Be alert.

;

and excerpt from the session held on November 12, 2016:

(L) ...that people would rather have a giant comet than to go on. And I don't think the suffering is over yet...

A:Not by a mile!

 

[The Mechanic]

Interesting bit from a Trump speech from today _https://youtu.be/a0eqBr14Dw0?t=13380

And I thought, you know, when I got involved in this Boeing situation, and I have great respect for Boeing by the way, tremendous respect, but, I said to myself: 'You know, the people that spend all this money, you know, when you're talking about three or four billion dollars for an aeroplane, which is, you know, who knows? But when you're talking about that kind of money, I said, let me ask, who gives these orders out? Now there are people, procurement people. Now some of these people, then go to work for these companies. I think I am going to, and I'm going to have to check this out, and they're not going to like me saying this, but I think I am going to impose a ban that anybody that gives out these massive military contracts should never ever be allowed to work ever, I don't mean in five years or ten years, should never be allowed to work for those companies that make the equipment. I mean they're giving out, you know this F35 bomber, or fighter, that's totally, totally like uncontrollably over budget, and the people that give out those contracts and the people that have to approve the big change orders and the extras, as we say in the real estate business. I mean when you're good you don't build with these extras, but these massive numbers where they've doubled and tripled, I think anybody that gives out these big contracts should never ever during their lifetime be allowed to work for a defense company, for a company that makes that product. I don't know, it makes sense to me.

What also caught my attention that in that speech the crowd gave the biggest applause by far when he spoke about "draining the swamp".

 

[DreamGod]

What really bothers me is from the session held on October 15, 2016:

Q: (Beau) If Trump is elected, will he actually change American foreign policy?

A: Will try.

;

Some food for thoughts from this excerpt:

Session Date: September 3rd 2008

A: USA heading for destruction!

Q: (L) Hello. Can we say hello first?

A: Hello

Q: (L) And who do we have with us this evening?

A: Yeaionnia of Cassiopaea.

Q: (L) Do you transmit through Cassiopaea?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Okay. Why do you introduce tonight's adventures with "US is headed for destruction"?

A: Passed the point when anything could possibly be done to change the outcome.

Q: (L) What is this outcome?

A: Increasing inner turmoil. Review what happened in Germany.

Q: (L) Well, what happened in Germany in what period?

A: Towards the end of the war. Hitler's madness and the hatred of the world towards Germany.

Q: (L) Wasn't a pretty picture, was it? (J) In Germany, the rest of the world bombed Germany...

A: Yes. Expect it in the USA ultimately.

Q: (J) Would that be nuclear bombs?

A: And more.

Q: (A***) Is it going to destroy the rest of the world with it?

A: Not exactly... but the cosmic stuff will take its toll.

Q: (L) Anything else on that topic for the moment since we have other issues we want to cover?

A: Be alert.

;

and excerpt from the session held on November 12, 2016:

(L) ...that people would rather have a giant comet than to go on. And I don't think the suffering is over yet...

A:Not by a mile!

That is a very interesting comment, I almost forgot about that session from 2008. Thanks for share! ;)

 

[Cosmos]

A recent example how Trump handles a so called reporter and his deliberate question suggestion:

http://<iframe width="854" height="...AE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Basically Trump exposes the guy clearly as a liar, that tries to put things in his mouth to proof Trump as a hypocrite. Most of the "reporters" he has to deal with, operate exactly like that guy: Deliberately putting and quoting things out of context. Trump handled that one quite well I think. Pathological behaviour in action from a lot of reporters like that.

That is one of the reasons Trump said this a couple of days ago on his twitter:

If the press would cover me accurately & honorably, I would have far less reason to "tweet." Sadly, I don't know if that will ever happen!

No it won't happen and he should keep on tweeting. I have to say that reading some of his tweets is quite refreshing.

It all looks like Trump is trying to hold his promises at this point and it seems like the PTB are freaking out about it. Anything is possible at this point. Although I think this episode in the US, is just the calm before the storm.

I remember how lucky and hopeful we all were when Putin seemed to have changed the outcome on the big blue marble, with his actions in crimea and syria. I notice the same hope now with Trump.

What we have seen instead, is that things got more crazy and in the grand scheme of things didn't really change. It is very good that there are people like Putin out there, that give hope, direction and things to aspire to, but it seems to me that there is no way around learning things "the hard way", for most of the population on earth.

It would certainly be nice if just one person on top (or a team) could change the lessons or course of the society, but if the mass is determined to further feed the beast, believe in lies, live the easy live, then no amount of good leadership can or will change that downward spiral that is composed of ignorance in the society as a whole.

There is no free lunch and I certainly don't think the mass of humanity will get it either, simply by someone good at the top that is supposed to do the job for them. Doesn't work that way and it will never will. It is all over the crying I think, and the only sensible thing is for those with the eyes to see and ears to hear, to do the best they can in those times.

Trump will likely just be a period in where things SEEM to get better, followed by a period of more extreme learning processes. There are lessons to be learned and most of humanity has to learn them the hard way, or so it looks.

 

[goyacobol]

A recent example how Trump handles a so called reporter and his deliberate question suggestion:

http://<iframe width="854" height="...AE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Basically Trump exposes the guy clearly as a liar, that tries to put things in his mouth to proof Trump as a hypocrite. Most of the "reporters" he has to deal with, operate exactly like that guy: Deliberately putting and quoting things out of context. Trump handled that one quite well I think. Pathological behaviour in action from a lot of reporters like that.

That is one of the reasons Trump said this a couple of days ago on his twitter:

If the press would cover me accurately & honorably, I would have far less reason to "tweet." Sadly, I don't know if that will ever happen!

No it won't happen and he should keep on tweeting. I have to say that reading some of his tweets is quite refreshing.

It all looks like Trump is trying to hold his promises at this point and it seems like the PTB are freaking out about it. Anything is possible at this point. Although I think this episode in the US, is just the calm before the storm.

I remember how lucky and hopeful we all were when Putin seemed to have changed the outcome on the big blue marble, with his actions in crimea and syria. I notice the same hope now with Trump.

What we have seen instead, is that things got more crazy and in the grand scheme of things didn't really change. It is very good that there are people like Putin out there, that give hope, direction and things to aspire to, but it seems to me that there is no way around learning things "the hard way", for most of the population on earth.

It would certainly be nice if just one person on top (or a team) could change the lessons or course of the society, but if the mass is determined to further feed the beast, believe in lies, live the easy live, then no amount of good leadership can or will change that downward spiral that is composed of ignorance in the society as a whole.

There is no free lunch and I certainly don't think the mass of humanity will get it either, simply by someone good at the top that is supposed to do the job for them. Doesn't work that way and it will never will. It is all over the crying I think, and the only sensible thing is for those with the eyes to see and ears to hear, to do the best they can in those times.

Trump will likely just be a period in where things SEEM to get better, followed by a period of more extreme learning processes. There are lessons to be learned and most of humanity has to learn them the hard way, or so it looks.

Pashalis,

I have been seeing it the same way for awhile now (not that I am anyone to claim exemption). The chaos seems to be necessary before "change will come" and all of us living now came here with lessons to learn. The increased chaos probably will just expose any weaknesses or strengths inside of each one of us. If any of us are more stable or better off due to what we are learning here, then and only then do I think we can be "transducers of information into chaos".

 

[angelburst29]

Hillary Clinton and her supporters spent a record $1.2 billion for her losing presidential campaign — twice as much as the winner, Donald Trump, according to the latest records.

Hillary Clinton’s losing campaign cost a record $1.2B
http://nypost.com/2016/12/09/hillary-clintons-losing-campaign-cost-a-record-1-2b/

The president-elect, who confounded critics during the campaign by saying there was no need to raise or spend $1 billion or more, ended up making do with $600 million.

Clinton’s expensive machine tore through $131.8 million in just the final weeks, finishing with about $839,000 on hand as of Nov. 28.

Team Trump spent $94.5 million in the home stretch — from Oct. 20 to Nov. 28 — and had $7.6 million left.

The figures include all spending by the campaigns, PACs and party committees.

Trump contributed $66 million from his own pocket, $34 million less than he estimated he would shell out.

Brad Parscale, Trump’s digital director, credited strategic last-minute investments with helping propel the political newcomer to victory.

The campaign and the Republican Party spent about $5 million in get-out-the-vote digital advertising targeted in the final few days at Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida.

It proved critical: Some of those states were won by razor-thin margins.

“You think, what if we hadn’t spent that?” Parscale said. “We might not have won.”

Last June, Trump shrugged off skeptics who said he needed to spend $1 billion to have a chance to win.

“There’s no reason to raise that,” Trump said.

“I just don’t think I need nearly as much money as other people need because I get so much publicity. I get so many invitations to be on television. I get so many interviews, if I want them.”

Republicans support election-tampering probe, as Senator Lindsey Graham says "I'm going after Russia in every way".

Could Obama's Russian hacking probe overturn the US election results?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/could-obamas-russian-hacking-probe-overturn-us-election-results-1595788

Before he leaves office early next year, President Barack Obama expects a "full review" of Russia's reported involvement in tampering with the US election via efforts to hack into US voting systems and the Democratic National Committee's servers.

The move has bi-partisan support and Republicans have been laying the groundwork this week, but at the moment it does not look likely to overturn the election result.

"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," Lisa Monaco, Obama's counterterrorism and homeland security adviser, said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor Friday (9 December).

Republicans seek to probe Russian cyber-intrusions during the election. "I am going to lead the charge to investigate Russia's role, not only in the elections, but throughout the world," said South Carolina's Republican Senator Lindsey Graham in an interview with CNN on 7 December, "I'm going after Russia in every way you can go after Russia."

Graham and Senate Armed Services Chair and Arizona Senator John McCain have been looking at Russian attempts to hack US weapons systems in a separate probe as well. McCain said he has been "working closely" with Select Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr to investigate Russia's suspected interference in the US elections.

"I think they're one of the most destabilizing influences on the world stage," Graham told CNN. "I think they did interfere with our elections and I want Putin personally to pay the price."

Early this month seven Democratic senators sent a letter to Obama calling for him to declassify details, "concerning the Russian government and the US election." It was signed by all the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The "problem with hacking is that if they're able to disrupt elections, then it's a national security issue, obviously," McCain said on 8 December.

Trump continued to dismiss claims of Russian interference in the election this week and was rebuffed by former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden.

In an interview published in Time Magazine which named Trump "person of the year," the president-elect said, "I don't believe [Russia] interfered" in the election, after emails were published by WikiLeaks, reportedly hacked from the Democratic National Committee's server and Clinton campaign.

Trump said he thought a statement by the US Director of National Intelligence in October identifying Russia as the source of the cyber-intrusion was politically motivated.

"The president-elect is factually incorrect," Hayden said in New York on 7 December, a day after the Time article appeared, when asked about Trump's stance on Russia's involvement in hacking the Democratic party over the summer.

In October, Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson warned US states that, "malicious cyber actors have been scanning a large number of state systems, which could be a preamble to attempted intrusions." More than 20 states were targeted by the attackers.

In a few cases, "we have determined that malicious actors gained access to state voting-related systems. However, we are not aware at this time of any manipulation of data," Johnson said. He urged state election officials to seek assistance in bolstering cybersecurity ahead of the 8 November election.

Green Party leader Jill Stein has mounted a campaign to get a by-hand recount in states where cybersecurity experts and statistician have raised concerns about the security of voting equipment and abnormalities in the vote. But her efforts have been rebuffed and tied up in legal proceedings. Early this week a judge quashed her efforts for a recount in Michigan.

Throughout the 50 states, governors have said that they have seen no evidence of direct tampering that changed the outcome of the election.

During proceedings against Stein in Michigan, Trump's lawyers forwarded the same conclusion. "All available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake," they said in a court filing.

Harvard law professor and progressive activist Larry Lessig has announced that he is teaming up with a California-based law firm to offer “free and confidential” legal services to any members of the Electoral College who will vote against President-elect Donald Trump in violation of state law.

Activist Who Served on George Soros-Financed Boards Behind Scheme to Take Trump’s Electoral College Votes
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/09/activist-served-george-soros-financed-boards-behind-scheme-usurp-trumps-electoral-college-votes/

Lessig, a one-time presidential candidate, has served on the boards of numerous groups financed by billionaire George Soros.

Lessig’s Electoral College scheme, which is being called the Electors Trust, is a last-ditch effort to stop Trump from becoming president.

It comes after a petition drive by the Soros-funded MoveOn.org activist organization sought to abolish the Electoral College altogether.

Lessig’s project also follows the largely failed recount efforts of Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who was aided by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Breitbart News reported that the lawyer representing Clinton’s recount efforts, Marc Elias, recently led legal battles against state voting laws with an infusion of funding from Soros.

Lessig’s effort to help electors vote against Trump was first reported on Monday by Politico: (Video)

Lessig says his new effort, which he calls “The Electors Trust,” will provide free counsel to electors, provided by the midsize firm, Durie Tangri, whose partner Mark Lemley is a longtime associate of Lessig’s.

More significantly, Lessig said, the Trust will offer a platform – with guaranteed anonymity – for electors to strategize about stopping Trump from taking the White House. It’s a platform, he said, that could help electors coordinate to determine whether they’ve gathered enough support to stop Trump from winning the presidency.

“It makes no sense to be elector number five who comes out against Trump. But it might make sense to be elector 38,” Lessig said in a phone interview.

Writing at Medium.com, Lessig elaborated on his electors plot:

With their permission, the electors can allow others to know that they are considering a vote of conscience. But that information will not include either their identity or their state. Our primary objective is to provide a safe and confidential legal context in which electors can seek advice and support, and depending on the facts, an opportunity to litigate to defend their freedom.

Reached for comment, Lessig refused to provide Breitbart News with the specific numbers of electors who are allegedly considering switching their votes from Trump.

“”I’m not in the information flow for that. We’re being very careful to assure anonymity,” Lessig said.

Politico reported advocates of the bid to turn the votes of electors against Trump have briefed allies close to Hillary Clinton.

Reported Politico:

Clinton’s team and the Democratic National Committee have steadfastly refused to endorse the efforts spearheaded by a group of electors in Colorado and Washington state. But, as with the ongoing recounts initiated by Green Party nominee Jill Stein, the Clinton team has not categorically rejected them, leaving the collection of mainly Democratic electors to push forward with no explicit public support from the failed Democratic nominee or any other prominent party leaders.

Lessig launched his project after one Republican elector, Chris Suprun of Texas, published a news-making op-ed in the New York Times announcing his intentions not to vote for Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19 to formally elect the president.

Lessig’s movement seems to be gaining some momentum, even if it is a long shot. On Tuesday, the New York Times published an opinion piece by Elizabeth Williamson citing Republican insiders saying there are other quiet “faithless electors” like Suprun plotting to vote against Trump. Still, Williamson, a Times editorial writer who specializes in national politics, admitted the chances of the effort succeeding amount to a “moon shot.”

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker also advocated for the scheme in a piece titled, “The electoral college should be unfaithful.”

Parker claimed renegade electors would write a new history of “heroism”:

Electors are scheduled to meet Dec. 19 in their respective states to cast their final ballots. If there are 37 Republicans among them with the courage to perform their moral duty and protect the nation from a talented but dangerous president-elect, a new history of heroism will have to be written.

Lessig has been a national leader in the movement for so-called net neutrality, a concept highlighted in its infancy in his 1999 book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.

A study by the Media Research Center found that Soros’s foundations and the Ford Foundation donated a combined total of $196 million to groups supporting “net neutrality.”

Lessig served on the boards of numerous nonprofits advocating so-called net neutrality, including Public Knowledge, Free Press and the Sunlight Foundation. Lessig is still on Sunlight’s board.

All three are funded by Soros, as documented here, here, here, and here.

Asked about his associations with those groups, Lessig told Breitbart News, “I’ve served on the board of Public Knowledge, the advisory board of Sunlight, and I’ve been a fan of Free Fress. I’ve received no compensation from any of them, ever.”

Asked whether he served on the board of Free Press, where he was listed on the board, he subsequently replied that he did, from 2007-2009.

Despite its namesake, Free Press is a well-known advocate for government intervention in the Internet and news media.

Lessig has been a close associate of Free Press founder Robert W. McChesney, a communications professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who has called for the U.S. capitalist system to be dismantled and replaced with a socialist-style system.

“In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles,” McChesney wrote in a 2009 essay.

Lessig and McChesney have worked on projects together and have co-authored academic papers and opinion pieces in major newspapers.

This reporter previously documented Free Press has advocated for the development of a “world class” government-run media system in the U.S.

“The need has never been greater for a world-class public media system in America,” begins a 48-page Free Press policy paper titled, “New Public Media: A Plan for Action.”

“Commercial media’s economic tailspin has pushed public media to the center of the debate over the future of journalism and the media, presenting the greatest opportunity yet to reinvigorate and re-envision the modern U.S. public media system,” argued the Free Press document.

I further reported at the time:

The Free Press study urges the creation of a trust fund – largely supported by new fees and taxes on advertising and the private media – to jump start the founding of a massive government-run public media system that will ultimately become self-sufficient.

“We believe local news reporting should become one of public media’s top priorities,” said Free Press Managing Director Craig Aaron, one of the paper’s co-authors.

“We should redeploy and redouble our resources to keep a watchful eye on the powerful and to reliably examine the vital issues that most Americans can’t follow closely on their own,” Aaron stated.

 

[sToRmR1dR]

Silent Coup in Progress: American Intelligence Agencies Are Trying to Stop Trump From Taking Office

http://russia-insider.com/en/silent-coup-progress-american-intelligence-agencies-are-trying-stop-trump-taking-office/ri18123

Sketchy claims of Russian interference in the election are just the beginning. Shenanigans incoming.

The riots didn't work. And the countless Huffington Post op-eds have yet to inspire anything more than defiant emojis on Facebook. Pledges by two or three renegade members of the Electoral College don't seem to be adding up to much, either.

Fuck. At least our intelligence agencies can push Manchurian Candidate erotica, while quietly alluding that it's all baseless, circumstantial claptrap, right?

Via a website we haven't visited since high school:

A report affirming the intelligence community’s consensus that Russia hacked the U.S. election in an attempt to sway the results in favor of Donald Trump was bolstered Friday by a conclusion that Russians hacked the Republican National Committee—then sat on the information.

See? Clear evidence that the Russians had the dirt on everyone. It was her turn!

Let's see how GRU Comrade Colonel Donald Trump responded to this damming report:

Despite the intelligence community’s consensus, Trump—along with other Republican leaders—insist there is no evidence supporting the conclusion that the Russians hacked the election in order to help elect Trump.

“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” a Trump transition team statement reads, referring to reports that Russians interfered to elect the real estate mogul. “The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.’”
They've tried everything. Now they're claiming — half-heartedly — that Trump had the direct backing of the Kremlin. The problem? Obama apparently "knew" about this "fact" back in September, and did nothing to stop it. Seems likely. We'll let Zerohedge finish this off:

Emigrate While You Still Can!

here is why the story has dramatic implications. First, the only two quotes which matter:

"...there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”

"...Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by [PROVEN LIAR] James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said."

And then the summary:

1. Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.

2. Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.

3.Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.

4. Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.

5.Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.

Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."

We're now even seeing strange warnings from Michael Moore and other certified weirdos that something "big" will happen to prevent Trump from taking office. Great. We guess Hillbots prefer civil war to a peaceful, constitutional transition of power.

We're shocked! Shocked!

http://<iframe width="560" height="...ME" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>