Likely Bernie Sanders would have tromped Donald Trump in any general election. Unfortunately the DNC and American MSM collectively have too much skin in the establishment's game to allow even a modicum of reasonableness to infect America's institutionalized self-serving policies.
The DNC e-mail hack showed enormous preferential treatment for Hillary during the Democratic primaries while MSM outlets conspicuously and voluntarily followed suit. So blatant were DNC transgressions that chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign because of her unscrupulous role as lead saboteur. Apparently the lack of scruples immediately elevated her to the top of Hillary's hiring list. Nevertheless Hillary says it's the Russians' fault that U.S. electioneering is so effective in protecting Clintonian interests.
Most Americans don't realize that there are choices other than Republican and Democrat even in the current election. The American system is rigged against third party candidates and not all third party candidates will be on the ballot in every U.S. state. Nonetheless since neither major party has fielded a candidate who champions substantive American needs, this is the election in which to endorse and vote for the third party of choice. If that party does not make your state's ballot, write them in.
We prefer the Green Party's Jill Stein who wisely espouses "People, Planet, and Peace over Profit". Barred from televised presidential debates, Dr. Stein gets ideological exposure through non-MSM outlets like DemocracyNow.Org. You can watch her after-the-fact participation in this week's presidential debates here.
The finger pointing never stops in the upper echelons of U.S. government expecially where Russia is concerned. In the past two or three years Russia has been blamed for almost everything with a downside anywhere in the world. Most of the claims appear to be smoke screens, attempts to cloud issues in the minds of the general public. There is a plethora of western media claims that one "high-level official" or another is "reasonably certain" that the Russians are responsible for some horrendous act or the other but the official can't be named because he/she isn't authorized to discuss the matter and the information is somehow classified. This is a primary reason that RT has gained a substantial worldwide following in the past 15 years—RT simply provides better journalism with less unsubstantiated speculation than its western rivals.
Lately all the western buzz is about Russia "possibly" being guilty of war crimes "if" Russia were behind the recent Aleppo humanitarian convoy attack. "Several [unidentified] representatives at the [UN] meeting suggested Russia may have committed a war crime over the bombing of a humanitarian convoy near Aleppo on Monday." Once again RT.COM likely has the best assessment of all this. According to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov as quoted by RT.COM the U.S. wants to distract attention from the [recent] coalition strike on Syrian troops.
Consider too that the Russians may be guilty of war crimes if they were behind the illegal invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, but that certainly does not seem to be the case. In Syria too, America's unequivocal primary interest is regime change—slaughter for that purpose is considered war crime as well. The Brits' investigation of the Iraq invasion is detailed in the Chilcot Report. Since its publication U.K. leaders have expressed regret over their participation in the effort because the primary purpose of that invasion was regime change and American "leaders" choreographed "the coalition of the willing". The non-existent weapons of mass destruction and the non-existent Iraqi links to Al-Qaeda once again were smokescreens. That makes the invasion of Iraq an enormous war crime. Until the United States renders accountability for her own1, she really ought not finger-point. From Afghanistan to Syria in the past 15 years U.S. foreign policy has escalated international terrorism by orders of magnitude and produced the greatest European refugee crisis the world has ever known. Over two million individuals needlessly have lost their lives because tenured psychopaths seem in control of contemporary U.S. policies.
Now back to Syria: Russia was invited by Syria's legitimate government to help fight terrorist insurgents. Any American presence in Syria, however small, is blatantly illegal. Further it appears that neither Syria's legitimate government nor the vast majority of Syria's terrorists are enamored of any Yankee presence—although they do appreciate continuing U.S. armament gifts to the ephemeral "Free Syrian Army". The U.S. wants regime change in Syria bad enough to spawn chaos in hopes of getting it—"defeating ISIS" is only a rallying cry for public support. This is one point Trump acutally might understand since he opposes continuing intervention in Syria. (Anything Trump "might understand" is pure speculation on our part.)
In any case ultimate "prizes" for the psychopaths-in-charge include control of resource-rich Iran and undisputed influence throughout the Middle East and North Africa PLUS demonization of Russia and rejuvenation of NATO revenue streams and the "permanent" Cold War economy. Achieving these "successes" will require the utmost secrecy through fruition. Good luck with all that in this rapidly changing universe where truths are hidden less often than the moon and sun. Nevertheless Hillary would give it all an enthusiastic go.
1domain criminalisewar.org no longer available 02/11/2017 As of 5/29/2017 domain criminalisewar.org is under new ownership unaffiliated with Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal.
Today's highlighted story about the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff speaking before the U.S. Senate, as reported by RT.COM, incidentally contains a subtle admission of U.S. sin. . "I don't have the facts" said General Joseph Dunford, but "it was either the Russians or the [Syrian] regime [who recently attacked a humanitarian convoy near Aleppo]". There you have the crux of Syrian problems in a nutshell, no pun intended. Inimitably devoid of facts the U.S. is quick to assign blame to whoever opposes America's illegal presence in Syria, or the entire Middle East for that matter.
As harsh as it seems, it would be characteristic of America to plan and execute the convoy attack in order to blame any designated "opposition" which in this case is the legitimate Syrian government and its most significant ally. Remember that during the Cuban crisis U.S. "intelligence" considered shooting down a commercial airliner over the Atlantic in order to blame the Cubans and gain sympathy for U.S. "causes"—which nowadays remain frequently illegal under strict interpretations of international law. America has no military peer and consequently gets away with far too much for anyone's good.
The U.S. has no right to force regime change in countries whose leaders prefer the cultures and values of other nations over those of the U.S.. That might be considered "war crime" on a level playing field—although America is hell-bent to keep the playing field tilted in her favor. But it's not really "America" doing all that. It's a group of tenured psychopaths in the "intelligence" communities and Pentagon who have hijacked U.S. policy without public debate. They serve the moneyed interests of war profiteers and have no serious congressional opposition because elected senators and representatives largely serve the same moneyed interests. Familiarize yourself with a de facto contemporary definition of "Manifest Destiny" by looking into something called "The Wolfowitz Doctrine"—then consider whether America practices "free enterprise", encourages "free markets", or supports "unfettered competition".
Now here's another GREAT Syrian proposal! John Kerry wants to ground only Syrian and Russian aircraft in Syria. The Secretary of State thinks the U.S. can simply declare a no-fly zone for Syria's legitimate government and its essential ally in order to allow illegally-present U.S. regime changers to rule the skies. Does that sound like "spreading freedom and democracy"? Well it's the American way. The U.S. has little interest in defeating ISIS—that's a rallying cry for public support. America has enormous interest in subverting Assad thereby continuing the folly which witlessly deposed three other "undesirable" heads of state and produced the greatest European refugee crisis the world has ever known while escalating international terrorism by orders of magnitude. In the process, over two million innocent lives have been needlessly lost because of absurd U.S. policies—policies virtually identical to those lending impetus to 9/11. Times have changed but U.S. foreign policy and prevailing military mindsets remain stuck in the 1940s.
General Dunford and Senator Lindsey Graham were in agreement that the US has two objectives in Syria:
"to destroy IS and to 'remove Assad'". Senator Graham asked
"If the main fighting force inside of Syria is not signed up to take Assad out, where does that force come from?"
The article states that "Neither Dunford nor Carter had an answer to that."
A more reasonable question is why are we in Syria at all?
Our presence there is illegal and unwarranted.
We need a president like Jill Stein in order to begin considering questions and answers indispensable for survival in the new millennium.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is enormously indebted to President Obama for not demanding his resignation after publicly lying to Congress, the American people, and the world about U.S. mass surveillance. Now Clapper is trying to help Democrats put one over on the American electorate by insinuating that Russia could be behind the DNC email hacks that have caused Hillary grief in the polls—but so could Mickey Mouse.
It is doubtful that Mr. Clapper believes the Russian government had anything at all to do with those hacks—smart money says state-sponsored hackers would not have revealed their "success" in the fashion wrought—nevertheless Clapper wants to raise questions in U.S. voters' minds about Russia having an interest in defeating Hillary—which is exactly what he has suggested that the Russians are doing: "sowing the seeds of doubt, where doubt is cast on the whole [election] process", according to RT.COM. If voters can be convinced that Russia has keen interest in defeating Hillary, it could have a mitigating effect on revelations found inside the odious content of those leaked emails. Such are the games of power.
In any case thinking people agree Clapper shot his reputation and credibility by zealously lying to the world about mass surveillance and by sticking to his answer even when elected officials later gave him the opportunity to recant. Of course he wants to help Hillary. Judged only by candor in public testimony they are two of a kind. No matter who wins the election the U.S. will be saddled with at least 4-8 more years of secret arguably-illegal operations against the American people and the rest of the world without recourse and without a president capable of independent thought in standing-up against America's ingrained military-industrial-surveillance complex in favor of peace, Magna Charta principle, and the U.S. Bill of Rights—unless we can somehow elect Jill Stein.
Dr. Stein believes America's imperialism needs to be curtailed and the empire shrunk. She agrees with astute defenders of the Constitution that Edward Snowden should be pardoned. She understands that constitutional principles are of far more lasting import to the nation than any methodologies preferred by "intelligence" communities. She knows that NATO is obsolete in original context and she can explain its current use in playing against U.N. processes, acquiring finances for belligerence, and as a ready market for U.S. arms. She supports critical social programs like Social Security and beneficial proposed programs like single-payer health care and education for all—plans already adopted in the world's more advanced societies [among whom the U.S. long ago lost its standing]. Briefly, Jill Stein and the Green Party believe in "People, Planet, and Peace over Profit". Who—other than Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians—can argue with that?
See the dedicated American Warpaths page for a brief assessment of unnecessary US-led belligerence since 9/11—posted yesterday.
Additionally for those more curious about use of war as an instrument of national policy, here are the historical context and content of the arrogant and still evolving "Wolfowitz Doctrine" which suggests a no-holds-barred approach to maintaining the U.S. as the world's lone superpower while preventing competing nations and confederations of resource-rich nations from eventually challenging US economic or military supremacy.
Should the U.S. "embrace its role as imperialist hegemon over the world"? Is this morally and ethically desirable? Can we constrain others while publicly espousing "free enterprise" and "open markets"? Is rejuvenation of the Cold War wise? Should we continue demonizing Vladimir Putin in order to bring NATO [revenue streams] out of obsolescence? Do you believe that the U.S. can keep China "in its place"? Or would you prefer less war, militarism, and hegemony in favor of free education and health care for all U.S. citizens while maintaing effective defense forces? That is what most "civilized" nations have chosen and even some considered not-so-civilized. Cuba has both free education and health care despite an atrocious economy partly choreographed by U.S. actions. In fact, the one annual "product" that the U.S. consistently purchases from Cuba is cancer research. The nation so disparaged by Uncle Sam is noted worldwide for exceptional cancer research facilities.
In any case, from our vantage point near Florida's highest peak [345 feet above sea level] it appears that neither time, wisdom, nor common decency favor the U.S. "as imperialist hegemon over the world". Use this site's contact form to let us know how you feel. Thanks in advance for your interest.
Tonight while Hillary and The Donald practice the art of spin and quarrel over which can fill military-industrial-surveillance larders more effectively, Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka are engaged in worthwhile pursuits. Both earlier were charged with "criminal trespass and mischief" while supporting the Standing Rock Sioux Nation's opposition to Dakota Access Pipeline construction through sacred Sioux lands in North Dakota. A few days ago the Sioux won a temporary construction halt via injunction.
According to RT.COM Ajamu Baraka "spray painted 'decolonization' on a bulldozer" with Jill Stein "spray painting 'I approve this message' on another"—certainly a focused work obviously revealing mindsets capable of redeeming U.S. values in worthwhile directions. "Decolonization" of course implies unhappiness with America's arrogantly Jacobin hegemony while at the same time suggesting there is a way for the "leader of the free world" to capably lead toward world peace.
The last presidential election saw Jill Stein illegally detained and
clandestinely hobbled for attempting to attend the candidates' debates. This year it appears that she is trying a different avenue to get the Greens'
message out. It certainly would be easier for her and a greater service to the nation if both the Greens and Libertarians were invited to participate in
all televised events spotlighting "our" candidates.
Yesterday according to RT.COM, Hillary Clinton proudly claimed to be one of those bloodthirsty psychopaths who believes in "American exceptionalism" which she defines as "America's unique ability to be a force for peace and progress". Nonetheless even casual observers note that if America has the unique ability to be a force for peace and progress, the Yankee countryside certainly hides it well. Nowadays "American exceptionalism" typically is spelled with four letters in more scholarly circles. What Hillary calls "the global force for freedom, justice and human dignity" recently has unapologetically practiced international kidnapping with gusto and embellished that effort with clandestine incarceration and torture sans habeas corpus.
Further, America's needless illegal invasions and bombings throughout the Middle East and North Africa have, in a mere 15 years, caused enormous physical, cultural, and emotional devastation to at least five innocent nations while creating the greatest European refugee crisis in the history of the world—all of it completely avoidable. The "exceptionality" of this "exceptional" nation has fueled an exponential rise in worldwide terrorism while trampling international law and nullifying America's own once revered Bill of Rights meanwhile globally invalidating any semblance of Magna Charta principle in western society. This is the "American exceptionalism" that Hillary worships and will preserve. She would revive the cold war too—an effort already underway by NATO revenue stream beneficiaries. She's on that pecuniary bandwagon and already ludicrously blames Russia for purloining and leaking e-mails which expose a mere pittance of her repugnant activities like influence peddling. Hillary could well prove to be exactly what she labeled The Donald, "the most reckless president in American history"—yet in her case, much richer after the experience..
In contrast, Donald Trump may be a buffoon, and, in the frequent words of one Huffington Post editor, "regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims - 1.6 billion members of an entire religion - from entering the U.S"— things that resonate well with Caucasoid ignorance—nonetheless he professes skepticism about American foreign policy and calls our use of the military "disasterous". Who can argue with that? He also insightfully sees NATO as obsolete in today's world and would cultivate cooperative Russia as an ally. For those reasons alone The Donald would be preferable to Hillary in the Oval Office. But who would vote for either one of these two individuals? In the final analysis both are barbarians.
Fortunately there are third parties gaining ballot access despite our rigged two-party game. Educable Americans CAN find candidates worthy of election. The Green Party ticket, Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka, is a far wiser leadership choice for America going forward in this millennium. Even if they fail to make your state's ballot, write them in. Give reason, enlightenment, and understanding a chance in this bloodthirsty, self-serving, self-professed "exceptional" nation. Here is what Ajamu Baraka very accurately and insightfully has written about Hillary's beloved exceptionalism: "In fact some states—like the United States—proudly claim their 'exceptionality', meaning impunity from international norms, as a self-evident natural right"—obviously right on target. And now lastly consider this site's favorite question: "How can a nation devoid of humanitarian goals, dismissive of human rights, and primarily exporting war be considered 'the leader of the free world'?" Humanity begs for substantive change. The Greens would try to provide it. No traditionally American political party can or will.