Killary Clinton, The Donald, or Jill Stein: The US Election

[Ca.]

Dang..... :O..... Jann Wenner, Ralph J. Gleason (of Rolling Stone magazine), publishes a smear campaign (Against Truth), On Jill Stein.

RS
The Case Against Jill Stein
_http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-case-against-jill-stein-w436362?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=daily&utm_campaign=090216_12

Though it's frustrating for many progressives who long for a viable third party, there are serious questions about Stein's judgement

By now, supporters of Green Party nominee Jill Stein are used to hearing she can't win. For those who watched Bernie Sanders come close to snatching the Democratic nomination from DNC favorite Hillary Clinton, that's frustrating.

For one thing, the platform Stein is running on has a lot in common with Sanders'. Stein supports single-payer health care and opposes fracking, for instance – two pieces of Sanders' agenda that didn't make it into the Democratic Party platform this year. And Stein, unlike Sanders, has the full support of her party. Is it so crazy to think she might be able to marshal the support of Sanders voters and other independents turned off by the historically unpopular major-party candidates, and let the "revolution" carry her to the White House?

Yes, it is. With only 67 days until the election, the Green Party is on the ballot in just 39 states and the District of Columbia. (There's one state with neither the Green Party nor a write-in option available, three where the party can only be written-in, two where the party has court actions in progress, four where it's awaiting notification of its status, and one more where it's actively petitioning.)

But, a Green Party diehard might argue, there are 458 electoral votes up for grabs in those states, and Stein only needs 270 to win. Sure, but in order to pull that off, Stein would have to dramatically increase her profile. The best way to do that would be to appear in the nationally televised presidential debates, but – fairly or not – the debate rules say she needs to hit at least 15 percent in the polls to qualify, and she currently attracts about a fifth of that support. (According to Real Clear Politics, she's polling at 3.1 percent nationwide, less than a tenth of what she'd need to win any one state in a three-way race.)

A rare inspirational candidate might be able to make up that vast chasm of a deficit – but Stein's electoral track record suggests she is not that politician. She's lost almost every election she's ever participated in, at almost every level of government, by huge margins. In 2002, she ran a losing bid for governor of Massachusetts, earning just 3.5 percent of the vote. Two years later, she ran for and lost a seat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Two years after that, in 2006, she ran for Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth and lost that race too. In 2010, she ran for governor again, and did even worse than the first time, garnering just 1.4 percent of the statewide vote. And when she ran for president four years ago, Stein won just half of one percent of the vote.

To be sure, some amount of the blame for those losses must be attributed to the structural barriers that prevent third parties from gaining traction in the United States – the fact that most cities and states operate on a winner-take-all rather than ranked-choice or instant runoff system, for instance, and that it takes millions of dollars and countless hours to successfully petition to get on the ballot in many states.

But the fact remains that in her entire political career, Stein has only gotten elected to one position: representative to the town meeting of Lexington, Massachusetts.

Still, Stein insists she can pull out a win in this, the highest-stakes race of her career. All she needs is for all 43 million people who carry student debt to come out the polls and vote for her, she says.

Not all Green Party supporters are fully buying this. Noam Chomsky, who's backing Stein, explained the inner conflict he and others feel in an interview with Democracy Now. "In a swing state – a state where it's going to matter which way you vote – I would vote against Trump, and by elementary arithmetic, that means you hold your nose and you vote Democrat," he said. "I don't think there's any other rational choice. Abstaining from voting or, say, voting for ... a candidate you prefer, a minority candidate, just amounts to a vote for Donald Trump, which I think is a devastating prospect."

Stein dismissed Chomsky's rationale, saying "he subscribes to the politics of fear."

"The politics of fear," Stein is fond of saying, "says you have to vote against the candidate you fear rather than for the candidate who shares your values."

Wanting to vote wholeheartedly for a candidate rather than merely against one is obviously ideal. But Stein's handling of even relatively minor issues has, for some progressives, increasingly called into question her judgement and the idea that she shares their values.

For example, when the UK, buffeted by anti-immigrant sentiment, shocked the world by voting to leave the European Union this summer, Stein released a statement hailing the referendum results. She called the Brexit vote "a victory for those who believe in the right of self-determination and who reject the pro-corporate, austerity policies of the political elites in the EU ... [and] a rejection of the European political elite and their contempt for ordinary people."

"People want change and they will get it one way or the other," Stein wrote. "The challenge is now to expand the political movement in the United States."

When her progressive supporters (including members of the UK Green Party, the official position of which was to support remaining in the EU) balked at Stein's interpretation of the results, she quickly overhauled the statement, stripping out words like "victory" and adding a line that claimed "before the Brexit vote I agreed with Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lukas, and the UK Greens who supported staying in the EU."

Stein didn't acknowledge these changes, though, responding to indignant supporters on Facebook by saying only, "You may not be seeing the actual text of this statement. Try clearing your cache." (The original and revised versions can be viewed thanks to the Internet Archive.)

Less than a week later, Stein did something similar: She published a heartfelt remembrance of late author and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel – "His life was a testament to the need for all of us to stand up against hatred that destroys our fellow human beings and diminishes life for all of us," she wrote – then quickly deleted the post, without acknowledgement, under pressure from supporters with anti-Israel views. (Stein has called for cutting aid to Israel "while it is committing war crimes and defying international law.")

On Twitter, Stein was forced to walk back gendered criticisms of her Democratic rival. She tweeted in May, "I agree with Hillary, it's time to elect a woman for President. But I want that President to reflect the values of being a mother. #MothersDay." When incensed Twitter users criticized the apparent attack on Clinton's parenting, Stein cowed. "I'm sorry if I wasn't very clear on Mother's Day — I wasn't criticizing Hillary as a mother, I was criticizing her record as a war monger," she said.

Stein's "war monger" criticism stems largely from Clinton's support of airstrikes in Syria during her tenure as secretary of State. Interestingly, Stein has not applied that same label to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who called for and oversaw airstrikes on the same country. In fact, Stein touted in a press release that she sat at the same table as Putin during a dinner for RT, the Russian government-funded television network, in Moscow last December, two months after Russia started bombing Syria. In that press release, Stein criticizes U.S. foreign policy in Syria and elsewhere, and acknowledges that in Russia "money runs short for critical needs because of the heavy burden of military spending," but stops short of remarking on Russia's Syrian bombing campaign, abysmal human-rights record or abhorrent treatment of the LGBT community. This, despite the Green Party's a staunch commitment to advocating for human rights around the world.

Stein, like her rival Donald Trump, has also refused to release a complete version of her tax returns; earlier this month she posted just the first two pages to her campaign website – and then, strangely, baited Trump over the issue, tweeting, "Where are yours @realDonaldTrump?"

For those who find it easy to dismiss Stein's social media missteps and her hypocrisy on tax returns and foreign policy, there is a question that looms larger: What about her feigned ignorance on issues that fall squarely within her one real area of expertise, medicine?

Stein, who holds both undergraduate and medical degrees from Harvard, has coyly and repeatedly courted conspiracy theorists who link autism to vaccines. When pressed on the issue of whether WiFi is dangerous, Stein once said, "We should not be subjecting kids' brains especially to that ... It's very hard to study that stuff. We make guinea pigs out of whole populations, and then we discover how many die." And despite abundant evidence that genetically modified foods pose no threats to human health, Stein has called for a moratorium on GMOs that would include some 92 percent of U.S.-grown corn and 94 percent of soybeans, according to the USDA. Not only are these anti-science views pernicious; they also undermine the Green Party's legitimately important climate-change agenda.

Then there's Stein's running mate. After she was rebuffed by Bernie Sanders, Stein choose Ajamu Baraka, who recently wrote of Sanders' supporters (i.e., the voters Stein is making a concerted effort to recruit), "As much as the 'Sandernistas ' attempt to disarticulate Sanders 'progressive' domestic policies from his documented support for empire ... it should be obvious that his campaign is an ideological prop – albeit from a center/left position – of the logic and interests of the capitalist-imperialist settler state."

Baraka has called President Obama an "Uncle Tom" and contributed an essay to the conspiracy theorist tome Another False Flag, edited by Holocaust denier and 9/11 truther Kevin Barrett that features pieces arguing, among other things, that the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino never happened. (Baraka's contribution focuses on the the "white supremacist ideology" that elevates events like the Paris attacks over the Beirut bombings that happened the same week; a spokeswoman for Baraka said he wasn't aware of Barrett's views.)

But all of these problems with Stein's views and judgement are ancillary to the fact that her one really big idea – the one she hopes will carry her to the White House – is a farce. Stein has promised that if elected, she'll dismiss all student debt through something called quantitative easing. "The president ... has the authority to cancel the student debt using quantitative easing the same way the debt was canceled for Wall Street," Stein has said.

Slate business and economics correspondent Jordan Weissmann has a good explanation of why that statement is fundamentally incorrect; he concludes that her view is akin to "if someone asked Stein how to play basketball, and she answered that teams scored points by kicking the ball off the backboard."

Despite all this, some voters may still understandably be inclined to vote for Stein because doing so could help ensure that the Green Party qualifies for public funding four years from now. (Parties need to have earned at least five percent of the vote in the previous election to get such funding.)

But getting the Green Party to five percent won't spell certain death to the two-party system. Even if the party managed to qualify for it, public financing is capped at $20 million plus a cost-of-living adjustment. If you take that money, you're forbidden from accepting private donations, and required to limit spending to just that amount. And $20 million is simply nowhere near enough money to mount a viable presidential campaign; that's why the last candidate to accept it was John McCain, in 2008. For reference, in 2012, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent in excess of $1 billion on their respective campaigns, and Clinton has made $1 billion her fundraising goal for this election.

And then there is the fact the Green Party has been running a candidate for president for 20 years and hasn't gotten within a mile of the five percent threshold. The closest the party came was in 2000, when Ralph Nader notched just under three percent. We all remember how that went down.

Especially this guy (who, it's worth noting, is no Hillary Clinton fan):

"First of all, I understand their feelings and misgivings," Al Gore said of environmentally conscious voters in a recent interview. "But if they are interested in my personal advice, I am voting for Hillary Clinton. I urge everyone else to do the same. I particularly urge anyone who is concerned about the climate crisis, sees it as the kind of priority that I see it as, to look at the sharp contrast between the solar plan that Secretary Clinton has put forward, and her stated commitment to support the Clean Power Plan, and the contrast between what she has said and is proposing with the statements of the Republican nominee, which give me great concern."

Those who are sincerely interested in dismantling the two-party system should, instead of wasting their votes on Stein, take her advice and lobby for ranked-choice voting at the state and local levels.

"We are in a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't situation right now, which should be fixed by a simple legislative reform that could be passed right now ... for anybody who is concerned about wanting to change this rigged political system," Stein told Rolling Stone earlier this year. "It allows you to rank your choices instead of just picking one; you don't have to make your vote a gamble."

Bold Red Links Within

Rolling Stone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stone
History

Rolling Stone magazine was founded in San Francisco in 1967 by Jann Wenner. To get it off the ground, Wenner borrowed $7,500 from his own family and from the parents of his soon-to-be wife, Jane Schindelheim.[3] The first issue carried a cover date of November 9, 1967,[4] and was in newspaper format with a lead article on the Monterey Pop Festival.[5] The cover price was 35¢ (equivalent to $2.48 today).

Jann Wenner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jann_Wenner
Born Jann Simon Wenner Ralph J. Gleason
January 7, 1946 (age 70)
New York City, New York, United States
Spouse(s) Jane Schindelheim (1967–1995)
Partner(s) Matt Nye (1995–present)
Children 6

Jann Simon Wenner (born January 7, 1946) is the co-founder and publisher of the popular culture biweekly magazine Rolling Stone, as well as the current owner of Men's Journal and Us Weekly magazines. Born in New York City, Wenner graduated from Chadwick School and later attended the University of California, Berkeley. He dropped out, but while at Berkeley he participated in the Free Speech Movement. Wenner, with his mentor Ralph J. Gleason, co-founded of Rolling Stone in 1967 with the help of a loan from family members and his soon to be wife.[1] Later in his career, several musicians would allege that Wenner was unfairly biased against their work, thus hindering their induction into the Hall of Fame.[2][3][4] Wenner received the Norman Mailer Prize in 2010 for his work in the publishing industry.

Rolling Stone endorses Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders
March 23, 2016
_http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/03/23/Rolling-Stone-endorses-Hillary-Clinton-over-Bernie-Sanders/6441458753951/

They Live

Hillary and Anna in 2003.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/amyodell/anna-wintour-in-politics-from-1992-to-now?utm_term=.ugR47dvLor#.hfPjLyz3Ag

Shelby Bryan (left) with Anna Wintour and Jan Wenner at a Zac Posen fashion show in February of 2003.

 

[sToRmR1dR]

Did Hillary Just Threaten to Attack Russia?

http://russia-insider.com/en/did-hillary-just-threaten-attack-russia/ri16225

Hillary the hawk spreads her wings

Originally appeared at Antiwar.com

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/09/01/speech-hillary-hawk-spreads-wings/

While the media and the American people were avidly watching and commenting on Donald Trump’s much-awaited immigration speech, another peroration by a presidential candidate somehow got overlooked: Hillary Clinton’s appearance before the American Legion. Overshadowed by Trump’s visit to Mexico, and his subsequent stem-winder, Hillary’s performance was greeted with tepid applause by her military audience, and pointedly ignored by her media cheering section. The reason for the latter’s silence is perhaps due to the fact that it underscores one of her biggest vulnerabilities: her militant interventionism in an age when the American people are sick and tired of foreign wars.

She didn’t waste any time getting down to her basic theme. Once through the preliminaries, she said:

“Thanks for your service in our armed forces. You wore the uniform. You took an oath. You put your life on the line to protect the greatest country on Earth. There are some who may argue with that, but not around me.”

Who is she talking about? I’ve never heard anyone dispute that our soldiers put their lives on the line: and while a few old-fashioned Marxists and so-called “social justice warriors” may disagree that this is the greatest country on earth, they’re all supportingher, if I’m not mistaken, rather than Trump. So whom is she arguing with?

Incredibly, she is trying to characterize her opponent – someone who has adopted “America First” as his campaign slogan – as being somehow anti-American.

Now, Trump may have his demagogic qualities, but they have more to do with his tone rather than the content of what he has to say: with Hillary, it’s the opposite. She somehow manages to utter the most vicious lines in a carefully modulated monotone. Like one of those killers who, after doing the deed, goes off to the church social, she then segued into praise for Boys Nation, Girls Nation, and the various American Legion auxiliaries.

That’s her style: paragraphs of boilerplate and bromides, interspersed with flashes of demagoguery. And so we must wade through the swamps of regurgitated rhetoric – references to Lincoln’s “last best hope,” Reagan’s “shining city on a hill,” and something Robert Kennedy is supposed to have said – before we get to the theme of this philippic: “The United States is an exceptional nation,” itself a bromide borrowed from every political candidate in recent memory. Through sheer momentum, this soon morphs into an ode to global interventionism:

“And part of what makes America an exceptional nation, is that we are also an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation. People all over the world look to us and follow our lead. My friends, we are so lucky to be Americans. It is an extraordinary blessing. It’s why so many people, from so many places, want to be Americans too. But it’s also a serious responsibility. The decisions we make and the actions we take, even the actions we don’t take, affect millions even billions of lives.

“You know that; you’ve seen it.

“Now all of this may seem evident, especially to men and women who have worn the uniform. You may wonder how anyone could disagree.”

Where does this “indispensable nation” nonsense come from? She’s citing, without attribution, Madeleine Albright, who told interviewer Matt Lauer on “The Today Show”:

”If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.”

The irony of this is astounding if one remembers the context: the year was 1998. Bill Clinton had announced his intention to start bombing Iraq, which – we were told – had “weapons of mass destruction.” Economic sanctions were squeezing the life out of Iraq’s women, children, and elderly – a crime Madame Albright told Lesley Stahl was “worth it.” In short, this was the prelude to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which was carried out by Clinton’s successor: the Clintons, however, laid the groundwork.

Albright and the Clinton administration didn’t stand tall enough to see as far into the future as was necessary to get a glimpse of the disaster that was the Iraq war – a war Mrs. Clinton voted for and avidly supported until political opportunism forced her to back down.

Hillary defines “American exceptionalism” in terms of an exceptional arrogance. It doesn’t mean patriotism, it doesn’t mean that our system is uniquely libertarian. Nor is she saying that the American Revolution was a signal event that held up the torch of human freedom so that all the world’s peoples might see it and marvel at its light. What she means is that we have not only the right but also the moral responsibility to intervene in every conflict, no matter how far from our shores or how removed from our actual interests.

This comes across when she attacks Trump for giving credit to Vladimir Putin’scritique of her brand of “exceptionalism”:

“But, in fact, my opponent in this race has said very clearly that he thinks American exceptionalism is insulting to the rest of the world. In fact, when Vladimir Putin, of all people, criticized American exceptionalism, my opponent agreed with him, saying, and I quote, ‘if you’re in Russia, you don’t want to hear that America is exceptional.’ Well maybe you don’t want to hear it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.

“My opponent misses something important. When we say America is exceptional, it doesn’t mean that people from other places don’t feel deep national pride, just like we do. It means that we recognize America’s unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress, a champion for freedom and opportunity. Our power comes with a responsibility to lead, humbly, thoughtfully, and with a fierce commitment to our values.”-"force for wars and destruction"

This nonsense about our “unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress” demonstrates either ignorance of history, or else contempt for it. The British Empire imagined itself playing an identical role – and where are they now? A spent force, reduced to playing the role of second or even third fiddle to the US, economically broken. Indeed, every empire has always thought of itself as “a force for peace and progress” whose abilities were “unparalleled” – so read countless inscriptions on crumbling Roman ruins. The Soviets claimed to represent the forces of “peace and progress,” and their ideology proclaimed their inevitable triumph. One of their favorite phrases has been taken up by President Obama and American “progressives,” who declare themselves to be “on the right side of history.” But history has no “right side” – only the relentless rule that hubris is always punished.

And so we are now being punished, with the horror in the Middle East and the threat of terrorism on the soil of the homeland. Yet according to Mrs. Clinton, we must be willing – even glad – to take on this punishment. We must grin and bear it as we pay the cost in lives, in dollars, in the exhaustion of our nation: “No matter how hard it gets, no matter how great the challenge, America must lead.”

This is crazy: there is no other word for it. Is she saying that we must pursue this ephemeral “leadership” no matter what the costs? Should we bankrupt the country, lest we abdicate our sacred duty to save the world from itself? This isn’t “leadership” – it’s recklessness.

Hillary is quite correct when she avers that “No other country in the world has alliances like ours” – although not in the way she intended. Yes, it’s true, our alliances – actually, client state relationships – span the globe, but their uniqueness lies in the fact that we pay them for the privilege of protecting them. Billions of taxpayer dollars are shipped overseas in military and economic aid, and nothing comes back: e.g. of all the members of NATO, only little Estonia pays its agreed upon share of the costs of maintaining extensive forces in Europe. And those forces are there to “deter” an attack from Russia that is less likely than an alien invasion of flying saucers – that is, unless Hillary gets her way and we find ourselves in the middle of another cold war with Russia.

And part of the costs – the most substantial one – of our empire of “allies” is that there are countless tripwires all across the globe that could drag us into an overseas conflict at any moment. The territorial integrity of Lower Slobbovia, Upper Volta, and every little Balkans backwater is our responsibility to uphold and defend – with the lives of our soldiers, if need be. And what do we get for it in return? Politicians like Mrs. Clinton get to make speeches about how glorious it all is – but is it?

The American people don’t think so: every poll shows that they aren’t willing to pay any price, bear any burden – as John F. Kennedy stupidly averred when exhorting us to fight in Vietnam. They want to start putting America first – not Ukraine, not Syria, but this country. And if that be “isolationism,” then so be it.

Toward the end of her speech, Hillary really bares her fangs and gives us an indication of what life is going to be like under the Clinton Restoration. While claiming that she’ll only use military force as “a last resort” – the typical rhetoric of warmongers – she hints at what the future holds:

“You’ve seen reports. Russia’s hacked into a lot of things. China’s hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we’ve got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us.

“As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses.”

If that isn’t a veiled threat to attack Russia in retaliation for their alleged “cyber-attacks” on the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton Foundation, then what is she trying to say?

This should scare the bejesus out of “liberals” and others on the left who have been scammed into jumping on the Clinton bandwagon in the name of stopping Trump. Are we really going to start World War III in order to avenge the honor of Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Given how problematic attribution is in the case of cyber-attacks, this threat of “military action” makes Dr. Strangelove look sane.

For all the yelping and screeching in the media about how Trump is “unstable,” and even crazy, this threat shows that Hillary in quite simply unhinged. Her major theme these days resembles something out of Joe McCarthy’s playbook: her campaign has come right out and said Trump is “Putin’s puppet.” And since she so clearly believes the Russians are actively disrupting her efforts to take the White House, it’s reasonable to assume her policy toward Russia will reflect this in a vindictive campaign of revenge.

And they tell us Trump is “scary”!

If Hillary Clinton doesn’t scare you, then you aren’t paying attention.

 

[Ca.]

FTR #903 Daniel Hopsicker on Donald Trump and How He Is Going to Make America Great Again (May 4, 2016)
http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-903-daniel-hopsicker-on-donald-trump-and-how-he-is-going-to-make-america-great-again/
This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment.
http://emory.kfjc.org/archive/ftr/900_999/f-903.mp3

Do not fail to note that real estate projects and gambling casinos are major vehicles for laundering money–the available evidence suggests that Trump’s business dealings may well have been money laundering operations.

Introduction: With the supposed “outsider” Donald Trump having locked up the Republican nomination, we take a look at the underbelly of Trump’s business career. Noted for his supposed business acumen, Trump has benefited from financial dealings with organized crime figures and people with long-standing intelligence connections. Underlying his associations are relationships stretching back to the secreting of Axis loot during, and after, World War II.

 

[JEEP]

An interesting development in the Ohio U.S. Senate race between incumbent Rob Portman (R) and challenger and ex-governor Ted Strickland (D) - $200,000 of TV commercials to begin Sept. 6, for Strickland were pulled by a Democratic political action committee headed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada while Freedom Partners, an independent conservative organization formed by the Koch brothers, subsequently announced it will end it's TV campaign in Ohio by Sept. 14, because of Portman's strong lead. Reid’s PAC has reserved $10 million in Ohio for TV commercials, but they can cancel them at any time.

Portman, according to reports filed at the end of June with the Federal Elections Commission, has nearly $13.3 million in the bank while Strickland only has $3.8 million.

Jerry Austin, a Democratic consultant in Cleveland, said the Senate Democratic decision to cancel the advertisements is “rope-a-dope. Why waste these spots in the summer? Why not wait until October and hope Hillary has such a lead she can bring Strickland in?”

Democrats targeted this race as one where they had potential to pick up a seat — with the hopes of gaining the majority back in the Senate — and considered Portman vulnerable, especially after he endorsed Trump.

The race is believed to be the most expensive in the nation with $33 million from outside groups already spent on web, radio and TV ads.

Wonder if that $200,000 was reallocated to Hillary's campaign in particular or to some other Democratic account. Of course, that amount is small potatoes to the millions in play. No wonder our world is going to h*ll - sickening.

 

[Ca.]

CrossTalk: Universal Bogeyman
Published on Sep 2, 2016

http://<iframe width="560" height="...m4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Turning reality on its head. Candidate Hillary Clinton claims the woes of the world are due to a vast alt-right conspiracy – and it is run out of Moscow. The fact is western elites are in a panic. Publics and audiences around the world are no longer convinced by the messages propagated by the corporate mainstream media.
CrossTalking with Matthew Gordon-Banks, Gilbert Doctorow, and Earl Rasmussen.

PressTV News
Sun Sep 4, 2016
Clinton's story on concussion ‘hard to swallow’ Video

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/09/04/483060/us-2016-presidential-election-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-emails

Allegations by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, saying she could not recall every briefing on preserving records from the time when she suffered a concussion, are

“hard to swallow,”

an analyst says.

Clinton has come under fire for using a private email account and server at her home in New York for official emails during her tenure as secretary of state between 2009 and 2013.

The Democrat, running for the 2016 presidential election, told the FBI that she

"could not recall any briefing or training by State [Department] related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information," according to the bureau's notes of their July interview with Clinton, released on Friday. “In December of 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot [in her head]. Based on her doctor’s advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received."

According to Scott Bennett, a former US army psychological warfare officer, the claim is

“a bridge too far” and “blatantly a lie.”

“Having had a security clearance myself, a top secret FBI clearance, one of the highest in the nation at multiple agencies, I can affirm that when a person is given security clearance status, they are given very thorough instruction by the agency… Each person is given a thorough teaching,” he told Press TV during a Saturday phone interview.

Clinton probably received a “more intense training” as she was being given the top job at the department, said the analyst, arguing, her claims violate the policy of the State Department “since its inception by the United States.”

“Since information was made secret they have always had protocols for treating it.”

In regard to Clinton’s health, Bennett referred to evidence indicating the former first lady is not in a good condition.

He touched upon symptoms, he said, are deemed to be

“indications of either Parkinson's or other ailments.”

During her interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clinton said she does not "recall" or "remember" at least 39 times.

SHELL GAME: AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY
Published on Jul 14, 2016

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

On Friday, the 28 Pages will be exposed. Here's what they will contain, among other things: James Comey and Loretta Lynch are connected to HSBC and Union Bank of Switzerland, and a whistleblowing report that exposed terrorist financing through Saudi Wahhabi sympathizers and foreign nations. Additionally James Comey and Loretta Lynch knew about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation being paid extortion money in exchange for influence and "pay to play" favors--including Chinese Uighar terrorists being sent to Switzerland.

Loretta Lynch then gave a non-prosecution agreement to Union Bank of Switzerland, at the instruction of Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer--who worked for the law firm that represented these banks before they joined the Department of Justice.

Subsequently, Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer returned to work for Covington and Burling, and hired Roger Zakheim--the son of Pentagon comptroller and thief of the missing $2.3 trillion dollars from the department of defense. Roger Zakheim, ironically, worked for the House Armed Services Committee, and blocked Army Officer Scott Bennett's report from being shared with Congress. This is a story of TREASON--by Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer, Roger Zakheim, Hillary Clinton, and Donna Chalela (President of the Clinton Foundation). Interestingly Donna Shalela's nephew, David Chalela, fraudulently represented Scott Bennett when trumped up false charges were filed against Bennett.

The rest is history....or rather, just the beginning.
These phone calls are evidence to be used in Court actions relating to the false imprisonment of Army Officer Scott Bennett, and the treason and fraud committed by the Obama Administration in one of the most shameful episodes of political corruption in American history.
1) evidence presented in these phone calls and whistleblowing reports exposing the terrorist finance connection to Hillary Clinton, the Saudis, Swiss Banks;

2) one of the greatest cover up conspiracies in American history...for which Michael Hastings was murdered.

Outreach to Senators Diane Feinstein and Bill Nelson who conspired to silence military whistleblower Scott Benett

 

[JEEP]

Marking the most bountiful fundraising month of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to date, $143 million was raised in August. The total, to be shared with other Democratic groups, breaks a record set in 2008, when the Obama campaign raised a comparatively meager $66 million.
[...]
The Washington Post reported Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump brought in about $24 million in July in small donations.

Washington Post article dated Aug. 22:

Clinton, already dominant on the airwaves, reserves nearly $80 million more in TV time

Hillary Clinton has reserved nearly $80 million in additional television advertising across eight key states in coming months, according to a senior aide, offering both a window into how the Democrat sees the presidential contest shaping up and a reminder of her dominance on the airwaves in the the race against Republican Donald Trump.

The new ad reservations include $3 million more for the remainder of August and nearly $77 million for September and October in the eight states, the aide said. The campaign is targeting Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In addition, Clinton is continuing to advertise in the Omaha market in Nebraska, one of only two states that awards its electoral votes based on performance in congressional districts.

The Trump campaign, by contrast, launched its first general-election TV ad last week, saying it planned to spend $4.8 million on a 10-day buy in four states: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The Clinton aide spoke on the condition of anonymity to share campaign strategy more freely.

The disparity in TV ads reflects fundraising by Clinton that until recently had been far more robust than that of Trump, as well as a strategy by Trump to generate more exposure through television interviews and social media.

Before the new buys, Clinton’s campaign said it already had spent $70 million on TV ads in targeted states, not including other ads running nationally on cable. Clinton also is planning to air $15 million in radio ads in the fall, the aide said.

The advertising targets underscore which states the respective campaigns consider to be in play. The four that Trump is targeting are viewed as essential to his path to victory, while Clinton is investing in more battlegrounds than she necessarily needs to reach the requisite 270 electoral votes on Nov. 8.

Back in mid-June, when Clinton began her first general-election ads, she also went on the air in Colorado and Virginia, two states from which she pulled back advertising amid growing confidence that the states are winnable for her.

In Virginia, Clinton has a 14-point advantage, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll published last week. Some recent surveys in Colorado also have shown Clinton with a double-digit lead over Trump.

The Clinton aide stressed that targets and spending levels could continue to change as the race evolves.

The latest Clinton ad set to air in the battleground continues a well-established theme for her campaign: that Trump is unfit to lead the nation. The new spot uses some of Trump’s own words to suggest that he would pose a danger as commander-in-chief.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/22/clinton-already-dominant-on-the-airwaves-reserves-nearly-80-million-more-in-tv-time/

It's hard to say which is more terrifying - the candidates themselves or the millions in play to win buy the election!

Then there's this WaPo article dated Aug. 21:

Donald Trump is finally raising money. So why isn’t he spending it?

Last month, Donald Trump finally appeared to be on par with Hillary Clinton in fundraising — a sign that he would have the resources to compete with her on the ground and in the air in the last stretch of the White House contest.

But new Federal Election Commission filings show that Trump’s campaign transferred in much less than anticipated from its joint fundraising committees with the Republican National Committee, sharply reducing his expected monthly take. And of the cash the campaign raised, it spent fitfully, making little effort to expand its meager field operation at a key juncture in the race.

The GOP presidential nominee’s limited investments in July illustrate Trump’s tightfisted approach to building a national infrastructure, a frugality that has forced the RNC to effectively serve as the campaign’s organizing arm.

he party’s field operation — and its top strategists — are emerging as even more essential as the campaign copes with its second leadership upheaval of the summer.

RNC officials have said that their ground operations are far ahead of where they were in the 2012 race, with 504 field organizers now deployed in 16 states, up from 461 in June. The responsibility for identifying voters, registering them, tracking absentee ballots and getting supporters to the polls on Nov. 8 largely falls on those party staff members.

“The major reason we are fundraising through the RNC is that a huge part of that fundraising will support a ground game, which not only benefits Donald, but benefits other people on the ticket,” said Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s national campaign finance chairman. “In essence, our strategy is to do a lot more in conjunction with the RNC.”

But Trump allies fear that the real estate tycoon is leaving himself vulnerable by outsourcing his voter mobilization program to the party, which has a responsibility to the entire GOP ticket.

“They have to basically make sure that in those eight or nine states that matter, they have their own imprint,” Ed Rollins, senior strategist for the pro-Trump Great America PAC, said of the campaign. “The risk is obvious. If in three or four weeks from now he’s not doing better in the polls, there are going to be big pressures inside the [RNC] building to help out Senate and congressional races. There will be cross-pressures to take that money and use it.”

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus on Sunday dismissed the notion that resources could be withheld from Trump, noting that the party’s victory program works to help the ticket as a whole.

“There is no moving the turnout operation or the absentee ballot program away from Donald Trump and in someone — some senator’s favor,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “It doesn’t work that way.”

It seems unlikely that Trump will reverse course and finance a costly field program at this point in the race. The billionaire has dismissed many traditional campaign tactics as a waste of money, relying instead on his vast social media reach and the intense media coverage of his raucous rallies.

Clinton has built a massive organization in pursuit of the presidency, with 705 staff members on the payroll last month. Trump’s campaign had just 82 individuals on the payroll in July, up from 76 in June, FEC reports show.

The Democratic nominee raced through $108 million by the end of July on TV ad production and airtime, according to federal filings. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign launched its first general election TV ad last week, saying it planned to spend $4.8 million on a 10-day ad buy in Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida.

“We have said all along that between Donald’s coverage and online presence and the digital advertising we’re doing, we think that has a significant presence,” Mnuchin said. “I do think you will see us ramping up with less than 80 days to go. We are spending what we need to be effective. ”

This month, the GOP nominee announced he had nearly matched Clinton’s fundraising for the first time, a development that sparked worries inside her campaign. Trump officials said they raised $82 million in conjunction with two RNC joint fundraising committees in July, just shy of the $90 million that Clinton collected in cooperation with the Democratic Party.

But Trump does not appear to be harvesting as much cash from his joint fundraising committees as Clinton is from hers. His campaign said that it raised $64 million with the RNC through online donations and direct mail in July, ostensibly mostly small contributions that would be directed to his committee, rather than the party.

But Trump’s campaign reported just $36 million in receipts last month. That included $14.5 million transferred from the joint fundraising committees and a $2 million donation from Trump himself, who has now given a total of $52 million to finance his White House bid.

It is unclear why more money was not transferred from the joint fundraising committees, which are not scheduled to file their next finance reports until Oct. 15.

Mnuchin said the campaign had ample cash on hand. “We were not focused on clearing out on every single penny at the end of month,” he said.

Meanwhile, Clinton raised $62.3 million for her campaign in July, including more than $30 million raised through two joint fundraising committees. She tore through $49 million of her funds in July — nearly three times more than the $18.4 million Trump spent.

Nearly half of Trump’s spending, $8.4 million, was directed to one company: Giles-Parscale, a Web-design firm whose president, Brad Parscale, serves as the Trump campaign’s digital director. The San Antonio-based company, which got its foothold designing websites for the Trump Organization in 2011, has been paid $12.5 million overall, largely to place digital ads.

Other large sums spent by the Trump campaign in July went to travel ($3.2 million) and merchandise ($1.8 million). The campaign doled out $773,000 to reimburse various Trump-owned companies for expenses. In all, nearly $7.7 million has been paid out to Trump companies or Trump family members to cover campaign expenditures, filings show.

While Trump’s payroll remained a fraction of Clinton’s last month, he continued to pay one former staff member: ousted campaign manager Corey Lewandowski received his regular $20,000 monthly fee on July 6 — two weeks after he was jettisoned and had been hired by CNN as a political commentator. Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that the July payment was for Lewandowski’s work in June before he left the campaign.

Altogether, since the beginning of the 2016 campaign, Trump’s campaign has spent $89.5 million on his bid, while Clinton’s operation has invested almost $319 million.

 

[Ca.]

Wall Street Journal is Bullish for Hillary

Donald Trump Dealt With Members of Organized Crime- Sep 2, 2016

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

Donald Trump’s real-estate developments in Atlantic City and New York led him to deal with members of organized crime and people like the late Robert LiButti, a racehorse trader and gambler. WSJ’s Michael Rothfeld joins Lunch Break to discuss. Photo: Getty

Ralph Nader: I’m not a spoiler & neither is Jill Stein Video
Publicado: 3 Sep 2016 | 21:40 GMT
Snip:
https://www.rt.com/usa/358173-jill-stein-ralph-nader/
"https://www.rt.com/document/57cb3a17c3618898358b460f/amp"

Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader has fired back at Democratic Party critics, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and a Washington Post columnist for trotting out a 16-year-old argument that the legendary consumer advocate “spoiled” the 2000 election, prompting George W. Bush to be “elected.”

In a letter to the editor of the Washington Post (WaPo), printed very late on the Friday before Labor Day Weekend (when relatively few people would have been likely to read it), Nader responded to “one the most extreme ideologues in the business,” WaPo columnist Dana Milbank, who wrote a piece “From Jill Stein, disturbing echoes of Ralph Nader” late last month about the current and former Green Party candidates.

Ask most centrist Democrats, and they’ll tell you that Ralph Nader is responsible for the Bush presidency, the illegal invasion of Iraq, and the global financial crash in 2008, rather than blame Hillary Clinton, even though she voted for the invasion and backed her husband’s deregulation of Wall Street.

 

[Pierre]

Goldman Bans Partners From Donating To Trump Campaign To "Minimize Potential Reputational Damage"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-06/goldman-bans-partners-donating-trump-campaign-minimize-potential-reputational-damage

In the last days of August, Goldman Sachs surprised its employees with a new rule: the firm's top employees will be barred from donating to certain political campaigns, including that of Trump-Pence.

In a memo sent out on August 29, the firm's global compliance office said that starting on September 1, "all partners across the firm are considered “Restricted Persons” as defined by the firm’s Policy on Personal Political Activities in the US." This means that as of this moment, Goldman's partners are "prohibited from engaging in political activities and/or making campaign contributions to candidates running for state and local offices, as well as sitting state and local officials running for federal office", and specifically donating to the Donald Trump campaign, in order to "minimize potential reputational damage."

The memo conveniently provides the following example of the type of political activity that is barred, among others:

Any federal candidate who is a sitting state or local official (e.g., governor running for president or vice president, such as the Trump/Pence ticket, or mayor running for Congress), including their Political Action Committees (PACs).

As Fortune, which first obtained the memo reported, said that Goldman's new rule was meant to remove any implication of so-called “pay to play.” Four years ago Goldman bank paid $12 million to settle charges that a former Boston-based banker had picked up bond underwriting business in the state while working for and contributing funds to the campaign of a then Massachusetts state treasurer and governor-hopeful, Tim Cahill.

Pay-to-play rules were first introduced by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010, after several investment advisors were accused of trying to win business, such as managing public pensions, with improper tactics including political contributions. If a financial advisor were to make a campaign contribution to a public official or candidate, they would be banned from providing advisory services for compensation to the government client for two years under the rules.

Goldman explains that "the policy change is also meant to minimize potential reputational damage caused by any false perception that the firm is attempting to circumvent pay-to-play rules, particularly given partners’ seniority and visibility," adding that “all failures to pre-clear political activities as outlined below are taken seriously and violations may result in disciplinary action."

Yet while the new policy would be perfectly reasonable if it was treated both political candidates equitably, it appears that there is a loophole: namely Clinton-Kaine.

Because as Forbes diligently reports, "the rules do not restrict donations to Clinton-Kaine. Kaine is a U.S. Senator for Virginia, and not considered a local official under Goldman’s rules. Although the memo does say that Goldman partners are no longer able to donate to the Virginia Democratic party, which could be a reference to Kaine. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman’s CEO, has declined to say who he is supporting for president, but is known as a long-time Clinton supporter. Blankfein donated to Clinton when she ran against Obama is 2008."

Goldman declined to comment to Forbes.

Still, while partners are henceforth barred from donating to Trump - and with their boss' well-known bias to Hillary we doubt they would in any case - the ban doesn’t eliminate a large number of potential Trump donors. The bank has 467 partners globally, out of 30,000 plus employees. But since Goldman partners tend to be some of the wealthiest people in finance, the fact that they aren’t allowed to send money to the Trump campaign could make a difference, particularly among the race for Wall Street dollars, where Trump has been trailing Clinton but catching up lately. What makes the situation even more ironic is that Trump's fundraising chief, Steven Mnuchin, happens to be a former Goldman employee himself.

Incidentally, Hillary's campaign finance chief, former CFTC head Gary Gensler, is also a former Goldman banker; he appears to have done a better job of keeping the "access" flowing between his former coworkers and his current boss.

* * *

The full Goldman memo courtesy of Fortune:

From: Global Compliance
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 11:57 AM
To: ‘All Partners’
Subject: New Policy on US Political Activities by “Restricted Persons”

Global Compliance
August 29, 2016
New Policy on US Political Activities by “Restricted Persons”

You are receiving this e-mail because effective Thursday, September 1, all partners across the firm are considered “Restricted Persons” as defined by the firm’s Policy on Personal Political Activities in the US. As outlined below, Restricted Persons are prohibited from engaging in political activities and/or making campaign contributions to candidates running for state and local offices, as well as sitting state and local officials running for federal office.

The policy change is meant to prevent inadvertently violating pay-to-play rules, particularly the look-back provision, when partners transition into roles covered by these rules. The penalties for failing to comply with these rules can be severe and include fines and a ban on the firm from doing business with government clients in a particular jurisdiction for a period of at least two years.

The policy change is also meant to minimize potential reputational damage caused by any false perception that the firm is attempting to circumvent pay-to-play rules, particularly given partners’ seniority and visibility. All failures to pre-clear political activities as outlined below are taken seriously and violations may result in disciplinary action.

Highlights of the policy as it applies to you as a Restricted Person are as follows:

All Political Activities Require Pre-Clearance

Like all firm personnel, you must pre-clear all politicalactivities through the US Political Contributions Pre-Clearance System. A pre-clearance requirement applies to all contributions and solicitations, as well as to attending or hosting events; lending your name to lists, letters or invitations; serving on committees; and volunteering with campaigns and elections. Each contribution or political activity must be separately approved, even if you have received prior approvals for the same political campaign.

Prohibition on State, Local and Certain Federal Political Activities

As a Restricted Person, you may not make any contributions or solicit in connection with:

Any federal candidate who is a sitting state or local official (e.g., governor running for president or vice president, such as the Trump/Pence ticket, or mayor running for Congress), including their Political Action Committees (PACs).
Any state or local candidate or official in any state or locality (e.g., candidate for governor, mayor, state treasurer, state comptroller, state legislator, local city council).
State and local party committees (e.g., the Democratic Party of Virginia, the Suffolk County Republican Party).
PACs and Super PACs supporting or opposing one or more state or local candidates.
Inaugural/Transition Committees or expenses for newly elected state and local officials.
Bond ballot initiative committees (e.g., a committee seeking authorization to issue municipal securities to fund a public infrastructure project).

Contact Government Interactions Compliance or Government Affairs Legal if you have any questions about these restrictions.

 

[A Jay]

Still, while partners are henceforth barred from donating to Trump - and with their boss' well-known bias to Hillary we doubt they would in any case - the ban doesn’t eliminate a large number of potential Trump donors. The bank has 467 partners globally, out of 30,000 plus employees. But since Goldman partners tend to be some of the wealthiest people in finance, the fact that they aren’t allowed to send money to the Trump campaign could make a difference, particularly among the race for Wall Street dollars, where Trump has been trailing Clinton but catching up lately. What makes the situation even more ironic is that Trump's fundraising chief, Steven Mnuchin, happens to be a former Goldman employee himself.

Incidentally, Hillary's campaign finance chief, former CFTC head Gary Gensler, is also a former Goldman banker; he appears to have done a better job of keeping the "access" flowing between his former coworkers and his current boss.

Seems a little late in the game to be making this policy change as far as the presidential race goes, and certainly GS has never had any qualms about dirty dealings and buying various government officials with all sorts of "bribes" before.

So perhaps it's got more to do with damage control with all that's come out about the Clinton Foundation's pay-to-play scandal than hampering the Trump/Pence campaign? After all, Wall Street has to at least try and keep up the appearance of being run by upstanding citizens. Otherwise people might wake up from their American dream and get really pissed off.

 

[Laura]

Geeze, with the way the PTB are going after Trump, one gets the impression that he scares them.

I was thinking the other day that maybe Trump was maneuvered to run so as to make Killary a shoo-in, only Trump started taking it seriously and they found they had manipulated/created a Frankenstein.

Lord have mercy, that the USA should have descended to this!

 

[bjorb]

From what I am getting at,

The PTB are dealing with a very unpopular candidate which they intent to make president. How is that going to work? The Obama spell isn't going to apply this time.

+ it seems Hillary's is really about to choke on her lies every time she has a public event. She is a complete mess.

Also, her whole campagin of making this all about evil Russia and Putin seems to really backfire. I mean, isn't Putin even more popular than Hillary in the US? Not only that, people seem to be tired of war. Voting on her is voting on a war-president. Trump is crazy allright, but not as much to basically declare war on Russia, China, Iran and Syria during his campaign.

 

[Ca.]

Jill Stein Full Interview With Greta Van Susteren On The Record (8-23-2016) FOX NEWS

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

Gretta Van Sustern Abruptly Quits Fox News (Sep 6, 2016)
_https://youtu.be/ApwGQWqY3G4
_http://downloadhd.in/watch.php?id=k2xskhc-RlE (Jill Stein Full Interview With Greta Van Susteren On The Record (8-23-2016) FOX NEWS)
_https://twitter.com/greta

Greta Van Susteren

_https://www.facebook.com/greta/

 

[goyacobol]

[...]
Greta Van Susteren

_https://www.facebook.com/greta/

c.a.,

Yep, they say a picture is worth 1000 words...

 

[goyacobol]

This certainly is an election about "decisions". And it seems to be the most confusing one I have ever witnessed. I can see how people are filled with a sense of dread and uncertainty. I thought of a biblical verse that hints of this time of decision. I have taken the Cs advice to view religious text with an eye for "biblical gloss". I have been surprised that they still sometimes reference parts of the bible when it seems relevant.

With your "biblical gloss" goggles on consider this scenario:

King James Bible
The Lord Judges the Nations
1For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,

2I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.

3And they have cast lots for my people; and have given a boy for an harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might drink.

4Yea, and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the coasts of Palestine? will ye render me a recompence? and if ye recompense me, swiftly and speedily will I return your recompence upon your own head; 5Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into your temples my goodly pleasant things: 6The children also of Judah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border. 7Behold, I will raise them out of the place whither ye have sold them, and will return your recompence upon your own head: 8And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the LORD hath spoken it.

9Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up:

10Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.

11Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O LORD.

12Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about.

13Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe: come, get you down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great.

14Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.

15The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.

16The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.

Blessings for God's People
17So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more.

18And it shall come to pass in that day, that the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, and a fountain shall come forth of the house of the LORD, and shall water the valley of Shittim.

19Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land.

20But Judah shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation.

21For I will cleanse their blood that I have not cleansed: for the LORD dwelleth in Zion.

I now view the above with very different eyes than I did years ago. If I take out the gloss it is almost like the return of Odysseus to slay the suitors. The Zionist reference has certainly tainted it in my mind. As the Cs say "Life is religion".

The reference to earth changes is also an interesting component. I hope this is not off-topic. It covers a slightly larger scope than the 2016 elections but I kind of felt it deals with our decisions this year and "The Valley of the Shadow" we seem to be treading through. :/

 

[bjorb]

Geeze, with the way the PTB are going after Trump, one gets the impression that he scares them.

I was thinking the other day that maybe Trump was maneuvered to run so as to make Killary a shoo-in, only Trump started taking it seriously and they found they had manipulated/created a Frankenstein.

Lord have mercy, that the USA should have descended to this!

Thinking about it, both parties have always been controlled opposition. So what happened here. Bush and Kerry, McCain and Obama. Both parties never rallied against the imperial policies of the Empire.

Trump was first all about immigration. Later in the race he suddenly swifted his attention towards global affairs. And in such a way that it goes against everything the PTB basically stands for.

First I doubted if Trump even ever meet the real people in charge. But that goes against their way of handling things. Both parties have always been controlled opposition. They don't simply let something crucial like that by chance.

So Trump has gone renegade? First Brexit, than Turkey, and now they have lost control of their controlled opposition Trump? He also seems way more popular than Hillary. Not that both are even popular to begin with. But who likes Hillary, I am not noticing much support. This election is just choas. Did they lose control?