WikiLeaks Reveals What Clinton Really Thinks About US-Cuba Thaw

Source:  TeleSUR
October 14 2016

The leaked emails also provide further detail on how Hillary Clinton’s team dealt with the Benghazi hearing and other campaign concerns. 

hillary clinton plagued with scandals.jpg

Hilary Clinton has been plagued by email scandals. | Photo: Reuters

The latest batch of hacked emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign Chairman John Podesta were released by whistleblowing group WikiLeaks early Friday. The newly-released emails add to the thousands already made public that detail the inner-workings of Clinton and her staff.

RELATED:   Clinton Cozier with Big Interests Than Thought, Emails Show

On an email thread discussing a party with policy reform group Engage Cuba, Podesta’s friend Luke Albee proposed last year that Clinton deliver a Cuba speech in Miami to “be seen as future oriented” and “brave” even though “she wouldn’t be brave to do this.”

One month later, Clinton delivered the speech. A draft, shared in a later email exchange, made her position clear on Fidel Castro:

“But as Secretary of State, it became clear to me that our policy of isolating Cuba was strengthening the Castros’ grip on power rather than weakening it—and harming our broader efforts to restore American leadership across the hemisphere,” she said.

Not a gift but a threat

“They have it backwards: Engagement is not a gift to the Castros—it’s a threat to the Castros. An American embassy in Havana isn’t a concession—it’s a beacon. Lifting the embargo doesn’t set back the advance of freedom – it advances freedom where it is most desperately needed.”

RELATEDClinton Emails Reveal Direct US Sabotage of Venezuela

Harnessing the business community on Cuba

Two weeks after Albee’s email, he sent another requesting a meeting with Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama’s senior advisor, “so we can talk through harnessing the business community” on Cuba.

Just below, he threw in that his PAC would contribute US$5,000—at another party.

A few months earlier, Clinton was grappling with a House investigation into her emails regarding the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi.

Her staff discussed a draft of her speech, likely for the House committee hearing, with two lawyers advising her on the emails looped in. Her campaign manager Robby Mook raised a red flag:

“The one thing in here I feel strongly about is that she NOT include the part about meeting with other former secretaries and that they told her she should do this. I recognize that the boss will have to approve, but if she wants to include that, I’d say we should discuss with her. I worry it opens a major can of worms and deflects the heat in a potentially unhelpful way.”

Benghazi – shifting the blame

A few months later, in an email from Podesta to Clinton discussing her Benghazi hearing, Podesta suggests shifting the blame onto the Republican Party. Podesta suggested that Clinton’s team could ask why the Benghazi committee was “spending over US$4 million dollars and two years on a tragedy involving the death of four Americans” while Republicans were not concerned about thousands of American lives lost to firearms, cigarette smoking, work injuries and cancer.

The email stated that the hearing “is about PEOPLE and not about Hillary Clinton” and that this approach would put “Benghazi Republicans on the defensive while siding with Americans.

During her time as U.S. secretary of state, Clinton took responsibility for a number of security breaches stemming from her use of a personal email account for classified communications during the hearing set up to investigate the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

RELATED:   WikiLeaks Publish 2,000 Hillary Clinton Campaign Emails

Deleted emails

The latest leak also details how Clinton’s staff prepared for the hearing through a number of draft statements and how they planned to account for deleted emails.

“Off-record: If pressed on whether we are essentially admitting the possibility that she deleted some emails: Look, we do not know what these materials are, or where they came from. Just take a look at them: many of the documents are not even formatted as emails,” an email from campaign spokesman Brian Fallon explained.

Other emails from Clinton’s staff explained dealing with the media and journalists, and how her campaign was concerned about her connection with Wall Street and their concessions on supporting a carbon tax while opposing Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination.

World War 3 has never been so close

Russian Reaction to US Attack

Source:  Information Clearing House

Date:  September 23 2016

us bombs syria.jpgAs we have already said many times, the main aspect of this political season is not elections, but war. But if elections do have importance somewhere, then this is in the US where, once again, they are closely connected to war. Two days ago, on Saturday, September 17th, the likelihood of this war was breathtakingly high. As we know, American troops, who no one ever invited to Syria, bombed the positions of the Syrian army at Deir ez-Zor. As a result of the bombing, 60 Syrian soldiers were killed.

A war declariation on Russia

This strike was extremely important for ISIS militants, whom the US is informally advising and arming while supposedly fighting them. This crossed the line. Bombing Syrian soldiers is one thing, but this means declaring war not only against Syria, but also Russia, which is fighting in Syria on Assad’s side. And this means that we have reached a climax.

Sure, the US leadership immediately reported that the airstrike was a mistake and warned the Russian leadership not to express any emotions. But Americans can only be lying, as modern technology allows satellite objects to be seen from a desktop. Theoretically, American bombers could not have simply confused such a strike. And what’s most important: if they had told you that they were preparing to bomb you, and you said nothing, then does that mean you agree?

US is preparing to start a war against Russia

It is completely obvious that the US is preparing to start a war against Russia. Border incidents represent reconnaissance operations. But how will Moscow, Putin, and the Kremlin react? The point of no return has not yet been crossed, but did Moscow’s reaction not show just how many Russians are ready for a direct, frontal confrontation with the US and NATO? This was why the airstrike was launched against Syrian army positions.

A war needed before Trump gets in office

The globalist US leadership obviously cannot rule the whole world and, what’s more, the threat posed by Trump puts their control over America itself into question. Now, while the puppet Barack Obama is still in office and the globalist candidate Hillary Clinton is falling apart in front of American voters’ very eyes, is the last chance to start a war. This would allow them to postpone elections or force Trump, if he were to win, to begin his presidency in catastrophic conditions. Thus, the US neoconservatives and globalists need war. And fast, before it’s too late. If Trump gets into the White House when there will be peace, then there will be no such war, at least for the foreseeable future. And this would spell the end of the omnipotence of the maniacal globalist elites.

Thus, everything at this point is very, very serious. NATO’s ideologues and the US globalists falling into the abyss need war right now – before the American elections. War against us. Not so much for victory, but for the process itself. This is the only way for them to prolong their dominance and divert the attention of Americans and the whole world from their endless series of failures and crimes. The globalists’ game has been revealed. Soon enough, they’ll have to step down from power and appear before court. Only war can save their situation.

Russia doesn’t need a war

But what about us? We don’t need war. Not now, now tomorrow, never. Never in history have we needed war. But we have constantly fought and, in fact, we have almost never lost. The cost entailed terrible losses and colossal efforts, but we won. And we will always win. If this were not so, then today we wouldn’t have such an enormous country free from foreign control.

But in this case, we need to buy as much time as possible. The Americans have essentially attacked our positions, like the Georgians in Tskhinvali in August 2008. Russians are under fire, and this cannot be ignored. Our reaction is extremely cautious and balanced. We have expressed what we think about this American act of aggression, but in very deliberate terms.

The struggle for peace

The fatality of the situation lies in that, if Washington decides to opt for war now, then we cannot avoid it. If they will insist and repeat the September 17th situation again and again, then we will have to either accept the challenge and go to war, or knowingly admit defeat.

In this situation, the outcome of the struggle for peace which is, as always, fully in our interests, does not depend on us. We really need peace, to buy time until November 8th, and then everything will be much easier. But will the collapsing colossus allow us this time?

God forbid that this happens. But those who could pray prayed on the eve of the First and Second World War. In any case, our goal is always and only victory. Our victory.

The Americans are bombing our guys. A Third World War has never been so close.

Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin is a Russian political scientist. He has close ties with the Kremlin and the Russian military, having served as an advisor to State Duma speaker Gennadiy Seleznyov and key member of the ruling United Russia party Sergei Naryshkin

Trump vs. Hillary: A Summation

Source:  Information Clearing House
By Paul Craig Roberts

August 24, 2016

The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption.

trump vs hillary.jpg

We don’t know much about Trump, and anti-Trump propaganda rules in the place of facts.
But we know many facts about Hillary. We know about her violation of classification laws and the refusal of the Democratic administration to do anything about it. The Democrats prefer to control the White House than to enforce the law, another nail into the coffin in which the rule of law in the US lies.

Agents for the oligarchy that rules America

We know from their words and deeds and material success that the Clintons are agents for Wall Street, the Big Banks, the military/security complex, Israel, agribusiness, and the extractive industries. Their large personal fortune, approximately $120 million, and the $1,600 million in their foundation, much of which came from abroad in exchange for political favors, attests to the unchallengable fact that the Clintons are agents for the oligarchy that rules America, indeed, that rules the American Empire from Australia and Japan, through North America and Western and Eastern Europe to the Russian border.
We know that Hillary, like Bill, is a liar.

We know that Hillary is a warmonger.

Raising tensions between the US and Russia

We know that Hillary made the most irresponsible statement ever uttered by a presidential candidate when she declared the President of Russia to be the “new Hitler,” thereby raising tensions between the US and Russia to a higher level than existed during the Cold War.

We know that Hillary is allied with the neoconservatives and that her belief in the neocons’ ideology of US world hegemony is likely to result in war with Russia and China.

All we know about Trump is that the oligarchs, who sent America’s jobs overseas, who flooded the country with difficult-to-assimilate immigrants, who destroyed public education, who bailed out Wall Street and the “banks too big to fail,” who sacrificed American homeowners and retirees living on a fixed income, who intend to privatize both Social Security and Medicare, who have given the public killer cops, relentless violations of privacy, the largest prison population in the world, and destroyed the US Constitution in order to increase executive power over the American people, are violently opposed to Trump.

The ruling elites concerned about Trump’s challenge 

This opposition should tell us that Trump is the person we want in the Oval Office.
Some claim that it is all a charade and that Trump is playing a role in order to elect Hillary. American politics are so corrupt that anything is possible. However the ruling elites and their puppets seem to be genuinely concerned about Trump’s challenge to their control, and they have united against Trump. They have used their money to buy up “progressive” websites paid to bring the print and TV anti-Trump propaganda onto the Internet, thus joining the Internet presstitutes with the print, TV, and NPR whores who are working overtime to demonize Trump and to elect Hillary.

The entire power structure of our country is behind Hillary. Both political parties, Democratic and Republican, and both ideologies, neoliberals and neoconservatives, are united behind Hillary.

How much more evidence do Americans need in order to know that a vote for Hillary is a vote for their own emasculation?

The consequences of voting for Hillary

Apparently, Americans remain captives of their insouciance. According to news reports, a majority of voters still haven’t a clue about the consequences of voting for Hillary. Polls report that Hillary is well in the lead. Are these real polls or just another presstitute lie to discourage Trump supporters? Why vote when they have already lost?
The propaganda assault against Trump, vicious as it was, did not succeed during the Republican primary. Despite the media condemnation of Trump, he swept the other Republican candidates aside effortlessly.

The current media demonization of Trump might fail as well. Indeed, it is so transparent that it could elect him.

Planet Earth

All that is required is for enough Americans to awake from their insouciance to recognize that it is the enemies of their own lives, their own living standards, and their own liberty who are violently opposed to Trump.

If Americans cannot reach this realization, they have no future, and neither does the planet Earth.

The ruling oligarchy hates Trump because he disavows war with Russia, questions the purpose of NATO, opposes the offshoring of Americans’ jobs, and opposes the uncontrolled immigration that is transforming the United States into a multi-cultural entity devoid of unity. The oligarchs are replacing the United States with a Tower of Babel. Oligarchic power grows exponentially among the confusion of diversity.

Voting for war

In other words, Trump is for America and for Americans.  This is why the oligarchs and their whores hate Trump.  The imbecillic Americans who vote for Hillary are voting for war and their own immiseration.

Possibly, a vote for Trump is the same. However, in the case of Trump we do not know that. In the case of Hillary we most certainly do know it.

Of course, it could matter not how Americans vote. Those who program the electronic voting machines will determine the vote, and as the establishments of both political parties totally oppose Trump, the programmed machines can elect Hillary. We know this from our electoral history. The US has already experienced elections in which exit polls show a winning candidate different from the candidate selected by the electronic machines that have no paper trail and no way of affirming the vote.

Nuclear war

If Hillary gets into the Oval Office, I predict nuclear war before her first term is over. A vote for Hillary is a vote for nuclear war.
If you look at the forthcoming election realistically, you have no alternative but to conclude that the entirety of the presstitute media and American Establishment prefers the risk of nuclear war to the risk of losing control of the government to the voters.

That Americans permitted the rise of unaccountable power tells us all we need to know about the dereliction of duty of which United States citizens are guilty. The American people failed democracy, which requires accountable government. The American government has proven that it is not accountable to the US Constitution, to US statutory law, to international law, or to voters.

If the result of Americans’ dereliction of duty is nuclear war, the American people will be responsible for the death of planet Earth. One would hope that with responsibility this great on their shoulders, the American people will reject the unequivocal war candidate and take their chances on holding Trump accountable to his words.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the WestHow America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

Yes, Obama and Clinton Created ISIS – Too Bad Trump Can’t Explain How It Happened

Source:  Black Agenda Report
August 17 2016

by Glen Ford

“Together, the U.S. and the Saudis gave birth to the international Islamic jihadist movement.”

yes obama and clinton created isis.jpgClinton supporters rejected out of hand Donald Trump’s charge that she and Barack Obama “created” the Islamic State — and even Trump seemed to retreat from his statement. But, a solid case can be made that Obama and Clinton were, indeed, the “most valuable players” in spawning ISIS. Moreover, it is an historical fact that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created the international jihadist network from which al Qaida and ISIS sprang, almost four decades ago.

The Zbigniew Brzezinski plan

Donald Trump has backtracked — sort of — on his assertion that President Obama and Hillary Clinton are “the founders” of ISIS, or the “most valuable players” on the Islamic State team. “Obviously, I’m being sarcastic,” said the self-styled “America-Firster” – quickly adding, “but not that sarcastic, to be honest with you.”

Trump cannot articulate or fully grasp the horrific truth of his original statement because that would require a much more fundamental indictment of U.S. imperial policy in the Muslim world since the last days of 1979, when Zbigniew Brzezinski convinced President Jimmy Carter to set the jihadist dogs loose in Afghanistan. As stated in his memoir From the Shadow, Brzezinski advised Carter to aid the right-wing Muslim resistance to the leftist, secular government in Afghanistan in order to “induce a Soviet military intervention” and thus embroil the USSR in a Vietnam-like quagmire.

Brzezinski viewed the so-called Mujahadeen as potential foot soldiers of U.S. global policy. “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” Brzezinski asked, rhetorically, decades later.

Carter, Reagan, the CIA and the Saudis

Having acted in accordance with Brzezinski’s counsel, President Carter can accurately be described as a founding “creator” of al Qaida, along with fellow “most valuable player” Ronald Reagan, whose CIA partnered with Saudi Arabia to spend billions drawing Muslims from around the globe into the war in Afghanistan. Together, the U.S. and the Saudis gave birth to the international Islamic jihadist movement – a phenomenon that had not previously existed in world history. The jihadists would become an essential weapon in the U.S. imperial armory, a ghastly tool for regime change in the Muslim world which also doubled as justification for the never ending American quest for planetary dominance, now that the Soviet boogeyman was gone.

In 2011, Obama launched the Mother of All Proxy Wars

Brzezinski became Barack Obama’s foreign policy guru, with consequences that should have been predictable for U.S. Middle East policy but were largely ignored by liberals and so-called progressives in their euphoria at the exit of George W. Bush.

Clearly, the U.S. public would not tolerate another episode of massive, direct U.S. troop involvement in the region; that was no longer an option. But what force, then, was available to execute Washington’s unfinished agenda for conquest in this part of the worldIn 2011, Obama launched the Mother of All Proxy Wars, first against Muammar Gaddafi’s government in Libya, then swiftly mobilizing the totality of the international jihadist network that had been created out of whole cloth under Carter and Reagan nearly 30 years before.

Washington and its NATO partners in the Libya aggression, in close concert with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, turned Syria into a cauldron of death, funneling billions of dollars in weapons to literally hundreds of Salafist and outright mercenary militias, with Al Qaida’s regional affiliate, al Nusra, at the core. This was Obama’s idea of a “smart” war: a frenzied terror offensive cloaked in lies and deception.

Creating the basis and space for the emergence of ISIS

The criminal foreign policy pursued by Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is rooted in the same worldview arrogantly articulated by Brzezinski when he derided those who fretted over the blowback that might result from deploying “some stirred-up Moslems” as foot soldiers of imperialism. As the U.S. and its allies literally competed with each other to flood Syria with the weapons, funds, intelligence resources and diplomatic and media cover to bring down the government in Damascus, they collectively created both the material basis and political space for the jihadists to pursue their own ideological objectives. ISIS emerged, to establish a caliphate of its own in Syria and Iraq. No one should have expected otherwise.

“This was Obama’s idea of a ‘smart”’war: a frenzied terror offensive cloaked in lies and deception.”

Back in July of 2014, we at Black Agenda Report described the rise of ISIS as signaling “the final collapse of U.S. imperial strategy in the Muslim world — certainly, in the Arab regions of Islam.” We wrote:

“Think of it as a Salafist declaration of independence…from the Arab monarchies and western intelligence agencies that have nurtured the international jihadist network for almost two generations. The Caliphate threatens, not only its immediate adversaries in the Shiite-dominated governments of Syria and Iraq, but the potentates of the Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and the Mother of All Monarchist Corruption in the Arab Sunni heartland, the Saudi royal family. The threat is not inferential, but literal, against ‘all emirates, groups, states and organizations’ that do not recognize that ISIS in its new incarnation is the embodiment of Islam at war.’”

Russian intervention in Syria

ISIS did not exist when President Obama took office and put Hillary Clinton in charge at Foggy Bottom. His (and her) regime change in Libya and massive, terroristic pivot to Syria “created” ISIS. And, let’s get the history right, on this score: the U.S. did not reject the jihadist death cult that became ISIS; rather, the Islamic State divorced itself from the U.S. and its European and royal allies. Yet, it still took the Russian intervention in Syria in September of last year to push Washington to mount more than token air assaults against ISIS. Apparently, the U.S. wants to avoid killing too many Islamic State fighters, in hopes that there will be lots of them left to join U.S.-sanctioned jihadist outfits when it gets too hot for ISIS. (Al Nusra has changed its name and resigned from al Qaida — with the blessing of al Qaida’s leadership in Pakistan — so as to better blend in with the other jihadist outfits on western payrolls.)

“U.S. military intelligence saw clearly the imminent rise of ISIS.”

You don’t need to take Donald Trump’s word for it, that Obama and Clinton have been “most valuable players” for ISIS. The U.S. military’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) came to much the same conclusion, back in 2012. The military spooks’ reports, declassified last year, showed the DIA had warned that “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey [which] support the [Syrian] opposition” believe “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

The DIA was alarmed that

“…the deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows:

“This creates the ideal situation for AQI [al Qaida in Iraq, which became ISIS] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters [meaning, Shia Muslims]. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”

Thus, a year after Obama and his European and Arab friends brought down Libya’s Gaddafi and shifted their proxy war of regime change to Syria, U.S. military intelligence saw clearly the imminent rise of ISIS — and that “this is exactly” what “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey…want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

Only Arabs and Africans and people that Americans have never heard of, die

Yes, Obama created ISIS, with the enthusiastic assistance of Hillary Clinton, and he is still nurturing al Nusra, the erstwhile affiliate of al Qaida, which was mid-wifed into existence by Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski. In the intervening years, the jihadists have become indispensable to U.S. imperial policy, but especially so since George W. Bush’s defeat in Iraq, which soured the American public on “dumb” wars – meaning, in Obama-Speak, wars in which large numbers of Americans die. Proxy wars are ideal — “smart,” because only Arabs and Africans and people that Americans have never heard of, die. Libya wasn’t even a war, according to Obama, since no U.S. personnel perished.

Extreme imperial chauvinism

The truth about ISIS and the Obama administration is so obvious that even Donald Trump has a hazy idea of what happened in Syria and Libya. However, the spoiled man-brat white nationalist billionaire from Queens is incapable of putting the Obama/Clinton/ISIS connection in the historical context of U.S. imperial policy. Sadly, most “liberals” and far too many “progressives” (including Black ones) are afflicted with the same disease as Trump: extreme imperial chauvinism — which is practically inseparable from white supremacism.  Extreme imperial chauvinism allows Americans to send to the White House people that should, instead, be sent to the gallows or a firing squad (after a trial, of course). It allows Americans that claim to be on the “left’ side of the spectrum to recoil in horror at Donald Trump (who hasn’t killed anybody that we know of, and who says he will not engage in regime change as president), yet will vote for a woman whose career is soaked in the blood of hundreds of thousands in the Middle East and the northern tier of Africa, and whose husband set in motion a genocide that has killed six million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

One candidate, Trump, most resembles the late Alabama governor George Wallace with a “let’s make a deal” foreign policy. The other, Clinton, is a genocidal maniac, whose crimes as president will be Hitlerian in scale.

What is scarier than Clinton or Trump, is that Americans seem to have no visceral aversion to genocide (of non-white peoples). But, unless you’re a Green or some shade of Red, genocide isn’t even an election issue.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

Clinton Emails Reveal Direct US Sabotage Of Venezuela

Source:  Popular Resistance
July 30th, 2016

By noblehuman, www.linkis.com

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton led a team committed to delegitimizing the politics of the late Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution.

chavez y hillary clinton.jpg

Above Photo: From linkis.com

Hillary’s support of destabilization efforts in Venezuela

While Hillary Clinton publicly welcomed improved relations with Venezuela as secretary of state, she privately ridiculed the country and continued to support destabilization efforts, revealed her emails leaked by WikiLeaks.

In 2010, Clinton asked Arturo Valenzuela, then assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs, how “to rein in Chavez.” Valenzuela responded that, “We need to carefully consider the consequences of publicly confronting him but ought to look at opportunities for others in the region to help.”

Emails reveal US divide and rule strategy against Venezuela

His answer was in line with the U.S. embassy strategy in 2006, also revealed in WikiLeaks intelligence cables: “Creative U.S. outreach to Chavez’ regional partners will drive a wedge between him and them,” said the confidential cable from the embassy. “By refusing to take each of Chavez’s outbursts seriously, we frustrate him even more, paving the way for additional Bolivarian miscalculations. We also allow room for other international actors to respond.”

Spain was among the countries willing to help the U.S. in its subversive foreign relations strategy. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright passed on a message from the administration of conservative Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy in 2012 expressing intentions “to re-orient Spanish foreign policy so that it can work with the U.S. in Latin America, especially on Venezuela and Cuba … As a transition in Cuba and something significant in Venezuela (and possibly the Andes) loom, a stronger working relationship between the U.S. and Spain could be very helpful.”

When keeping an eye on regional meetings, Clinton was especially concerned with Venezuela. Responding to a United Nations statement against the coup in Honduras in 2009—that she supported—Clinton shifted the attention to Venezuela: “Ok—but have they ever condemned Venezuela for denying press freedom?” she wrote to Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan.

He responded “I highly doubt it. And that is just the tip of the iceberg,” to which Clinton wrote, “Ah, the proverbial iceberg.”

Clinton was cautious not to respond to all of Hugo Chavez’s “antics,” but her staff insisted that Venezuelan politics were a threat to U.S. interests.

Using USAID funds

An email advising how to spend USAID funds strongly suggested refraining from backing leftist states like Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba because the money “could undermine real democratic development to hand over ‘ownership’ to populist centralizers.”

Clinton should use language like “‘local ownership’ in a nuanced way” to avoid having her words “used against her by demagogues and kleptocrats,” said the email. Any funds channeled into such unreliable states, it added, must be accompanied by “(h)uman behavioral changes.”

International aid to Venezuela was siphoned off, but broadcasts to counter local “propaganda” were amplified.

Using the media

The Broadcasting Board of Governors—which runs the Marti stations, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks—requested more funding in a 2010 email forwarded to Clinton to “combat the public diplomacy efforts of America’s ‘enemies,’ which he (chairman Walter Isaacson) identifies as Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and China.”

The BBG, with a US$700 million annual budget—now increased to over US$750 million—was “facing increased competition from other governments’ forays into international broadcasting … including Venezuela’s teleSUR.”

A month later, when the board was facing cuts, Cuban-born Florida Senator Ileana Ros-Lehtinen suggested focusing resources on high-priority countries like Cuba, Venezuela and Ecuador.

“Let the fun begin—and let’s keep going w(ith) our plans,” responded Clinton.

Radio and TV aggressions against Cuba

Another leaked email from Stratfor described the BBG as “responsible for the radio and TV aggressions against Cuba,” which received its own category of state funding of nearly US$40 million. The board separated from State Department control in 1999, officially becoming an independent agency. “Congress agreed that credibility of U.S. international broadcasting was crucial to its effectiveness as a public diplomacy tool,” according to Congress’s 2008 budget on foreign operations.

While giving the cold shoulder to Venezuela, Clinton was cozy with Latin American players that opposed the country’s leftist politics.

Her counselor and chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, forwarded her a recommendation for Mari Carmen Aponte to be appointed as U.S. ambassador to El Salvador. Aponte, noted the email, “has consistently fought Cuba and Venezuela’s efforts to gain influence in Central America and as a result of her negotiating skills, the U.S. and El Salvador will open a new, jointly-funded, electronic monitoring center that will be an invaluable tool in fighting transnational crime.”

She won the appointment and later became assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs.

Clinton also drew fire for saying, “We’re winning!” when the Venezuelan opposition won a majority of seats in parliament in 2015 and for serving as secretary of state while the National Security Administration regularly spied on Venezuela.

Related Posts:

AFRICOM: Ready To Sabotage The Revolution

Source:  Popular Resistance
July 31 2016

By Mark P. Fancher, www.blackagendareport.com

The U.S. Military Command in Africa, AFRICOM, is the West’s standing army on the continent, guardian of multinational corporations and the natural and human resources that keep the North America and Europe on top. AFRICOM claims its mission is “anti-terrorism” – a catch-all, “convenient excuse for AFRICOM to interfere with legitimate efforts to achieve African self-determination.”

“These days imperialist business must be conducted with finesse, subtlety, calculated distortions and when necessary, blatant lies.”

africom ready to sabotage

 

Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, the new director of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), recently told a Senate panel:

“…AFRICOM must continue to work with national and international partners to disrupt these transnational [terrorist] threats and prevent the export of terror on the continent, in the region and ultimately to our homeland.”

It’s that type of rhetoric that may have led Colby College Professor Laura Seay to ask in a Washington Post column: “Is AFRICOM all that bad?

A reputation for meddling and causing problems for Africa

Seay readily acknowledges Africans’ suspicions, noting: “The history of United States policy in Africa is largely its Cold War history, and for Africans in particular, memories of those engagements are not often happy ones. Whether propping up dictators in the name of containment or turning a blind eye to human rights abuses by anti-communist forces, the United States earned a reputation for meddling and causing problems for Africa and its people throughout the Cold War. For many observers, it is hard to see how AFRICOM could be anything other than simply the latest iteration of neo-imperialist engagement by yet another bunch of shady, secretive white men sporting khakis, polo shirts and crew cuts.”

But Seay goes on to say: “The world has changed, though, and the environment in which AFRICOM and other U.S. security engagement occurs in Africa is vastly different from the one America’s Cold Warriors imagined.” Seay reaches no conclusions about the virtues or vices of AFRICOM, acknowledging only that “it’s complicated.”

“AFRICOM was already present in northern Africa where it was able to coordinate “Operation Odyssey Dawn,” the first stages of NATO intervention in Libya.”

In one respect, Seay is correct in that conditions have changed. To succeed, imperialism has always had to coordinate a seamless global network of governments, capital, mass media, and military resources. Long gone, however, are the days when this complex of industrial, intelligence and military forces can arrogantly flaunt not only its hegemony, but also its agenda. These days imperialist business must be conducted with finesse, subtlety, calculated distortions and when necessary, blatant lies.

AFRICOM : a quiet, unnoticed presence in select geopolitical regions

If asked, AFRICOM says it is motivated solely by an interest in defeating terrorism, stabilizing Africa’s governments and economies, and providing humanitarian assistance. It is not an entirely untruthful response because doing business in the midst of turmoil is never appealing to major corporations. But on a deeper, more fundamental level, the maintenance of a 21st century empire demands a quiet, unnoticed presence in select geopolitical regions, not to openly and notoriously exploit, but to simply have a presence there “just in case.”

stokely carmichaelKwame Ture used to say his organization, the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party, was “ready for the revolution.”  AFRICOM now stands ready to try and stop it. As just one example, in 2011, because of a perceived threat to the U.S. Empire coming out of Libya, western powers were no doubt pleased that AFRICOM was already present in northern Africa where it was able to coordinate “Operation Odyssey Dawn,” the first stages of NATO intervention in Libya.

Hillary Clinton – aborting African independence

The purported reason for intervention was that endangered Libyan civilians required protection. However, earlier this year, Foreign Policy Journal reported that Hillary Clinton’s emails show that, in addition to the West’s lust for Libya’s oil, the actual reasons for NATO intervention in Libya included a plan by Muammar Gadhafi to establish a gold-backed African currency. Such a currency would create new possibilities for African economic independence from imperialism. This “threat” had to be eliminated, and the U.S. not only intervened in Libya but also supported insurgency against the Gadhafi government. The fact that many of these rebel forces were openly anti-black and committed to purging black people from Libya was apparently of no concern to the U.S. which supported these racists until they cornered Gadhafi and shoved a bayonet into his rectum. After hearing the news of Gadhafi’s demise, then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cackled and said: “We came, we saw, he died.”

“To succeed, imperialism has always had to coordinate a seamless global network of governments, capital, mass media, and military resources.”

Fighting “terrorism” – a convenient excuse

Events like the destruction of the Gadhafi government demonstrate how fighting “terrorism” can be a convenient excuse for AFRICOM to interfere with legitimate efforts to achieve African self-determination. Those who understand this do not ask “Is AFRICOM all that bad?”  They instead take note of the great restlessness among Africa’s young, laborers, the poor, and the continent’s socialist movement. Because the reward for Gadhafi’s quest for an African currency was violent overthrow and death, AFRICOM has similar plans for others who achieve the capacity to strike damaging blows against Africa’s current neo-colonial reality.

AFRICOM must maintain a continuing presence in Africa “just in case.” For that reason, AFRICOM stands as a continuing threat to Africa’s revolution, and it really is as bad as we have all believed it to be.

Mark P. Fancher is an attorney who writes frequently about the U.S. military presence in Africa. He can be contacted at mfancher@comcast.net.

Related Posts:

 

Haiti 101 Years After US Invasion, Still Resisting Domination

Source:  TeleSUR
By: Justin Podur

The U.S. presidential candidates can be looked at from the perspective of Haiti. One candidate has an extensive record there. The other has some historical parallels.

demonstrators march in haiti jan 2016.jpgDemonstrators march during a protest in Port-au-Prince, January 2016. | Photo: AFP

The U.S. invaded and occupied Haiti 101 years ago today, and remained there for 19 years. Accomplishments of the occupation include raiding the Haitian National Bank, re-instituting slave labor, establishing the hated National Guard, and getting a 25-year contract for the U.S. corporation, United Fruit.

RELATEDHillary Clinton Already Has Destructive Legacy in Latin America

There was a pretext for the invasion—the assassination of Haiti’s president in 1915. But to understand the event, which has lessons to draw from a century later, it is necessary to look more closely at the invader than the invaded.

The U.S. is still the determining voice in Haiti’s politics and economy

In 2016, the United States is living through a presidential campaign with a candidate willing to exploit racism and pander to anti-immigrant sentiment. Police are killing Black people in cities across the U.S.

Having drawn down troop levels in its two big wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. still runs airsrikes and drone strikes in the region and covert actions all over the world. The U.S. is still the determining voice in Haiti’s politics and economy. In other words, 101 years after its invasion of Haiti, the U.S. retains two features: violent racial inequality and empire.

The U.S. presidential candidates can be looked at from the perspective of Haiti. One candidate has an extensive record there. The other has some historical parallels.

The Clintons have treated Haiti as a family business

The Clintons have treated Haiti as a family business. In 2010, after an earthquake devastated the country, the Clinton Foundation was among the horde of non-governmental organizations that stepped up their role in the, still unfinished, rebuilding phase. Haiti’s social sector had already been taken over by NGOs and its streets—since the 2004 U.S.-led coup and occupation—were patrolled by United Nations troops.

RELATEDInterim Haitian President Calls for New Elections in October

The Clinton Foundation received pledges of hundreds of millions of dollars in development aid to rebuild Haiti. The crown jewel of the Foundation’s work: the disappointing Caracol Industrial Park, opened in 2012, which promised and failed to expand Haiti’s low-wage garment-processing industry, long a source of foreign profits and little internal development.

Hillary Clinton’s interventions

Hillary Clinton made her own interventions into Haitian politics as secretary of state. At a key moment in Haiti post-earthquake politics, Clinton’s state department threw its weight behind presidential candidate Michel Martelly.

His electoral legitimacy was dubious and his presidency led the country to a constitutional crisis when people mobilized against another stolen election in 2015. That crisis is still ongoing, and will no doubt provide pretexts for the next U.S. intervention.

Woodrow Wilson

To try to imagine the impact of Trump on Haiti, one need only look back a century. As Trump continues his seemingly unstoppable march to the White House, he is compared to Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi and other populist buffoon-politicians. Woodrow Wilson, the invader of Haiti in 1915, may be a better example of the damage a president can.

When Woodrow Wilson became president, he set about doing what today would be called “Making America Great Again.” Decades had passed since the U.S. Civil War. The post-war Reconstruction involved efforts to desegregate cities and government workplaces and make a place for newly-freed Black people.

Strengthening racial apartheid in the U.S.

Wilson reversed these efforts, strengthening racial apartheid in the U.S. His administration made sure there were separate bathrooms in federal government offices.

Although Trump is unlikely to re-introduce segregation, something else happened under Woodrow Wilson’s rule that is relevant in this context: white vigilante violence and lynchings spiked.

Wilson created a permissive environment for such atrocities. First elected in 1912, Wilson only got around to making a statement against organized white violence—called “mob violence” or “race riots”—in mid-1917.

OPINIONThe US in Latin America: Obama for Now, Maybe Worse to Come…

When more riots broke out in 1919, this time designed to suppress the democratic impulses of Black soldiers returning from WWI, the NAACP implored Wilson to make a a statement. But it was Wilson, himself, who had restricted Black soldiers to non-combat roles during the war.

In foreign policy, Donald Trump’s pronouncements have been predictably incoherent and uninformed. But Woodrow Wilson’s presidency suggests that domestic policies of racism will not be confined to the domestic arena.

Wilson sent U.S. troops all over Latin America

Wilson sent U.S. troops all over Latin America—Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua and of course, Haiti—which may have gotten the worst of it all. Racist wrath has been a constant in Haiti’s history since it won its independence in a slave revolt, and Wilson unleashed that wrath on the island during the 1915-1934 occupation. Chomsky’s “Year 501″ gives a flavor for what U.S. occupiers were thinking and doing:

“Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, found the Haitian elite rather amusing: ‘Dear me, think of it, Niggers speaking French,'” he remarked. The effective ruler of Haiti, Marine Colonel L.W.T. Waller, who arrived fresh from appalling atrocities in the conquest of the Philippines, was not amused: “they are real nigger and no mistake … real nigs beneath the surface,” he said, rejecting any negotiations or other “bowing and scraping to these coons,” particularly the educated Haitians for whom this bloodthirsty lout had a special hatred.

Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Delano Roosevelt, while never approaching the racist fanaticism and thuggery of his distant relative Theodore Roosevelt, shared the feelings of his colleagues. On a visit to occupied Haiti in 1917, he recorded in his diary a comment by his traveling companion, who later became the Occupation’s leading civilian official.

WATCH: Unrest in Haiti as Elections Are Delayed

$1,500 at auction in New Orleans in 1860

Fascinated by the Haitian Minister of Agriculture, he “couldn’t help saying to myself,” he told FDR, “that man would have brought $1,500 at auction in New Orleans in 1860 for stud purposes.”

“‘Roosevelt appears to have relished the story,” (Hans) Schmidt notes, “and retold it to American Minister Norman Armour when he visited Haiti as President in 1934.”

Chomsky conclude this section of horrifically racist quotes from the U.S. elite about Haiti with a warning, “The element of racism in policy formation should not be discounted, to the present day.”

Nor should Haitian resistance.

Charlemagne Peralte

Charlemagne Peralte Haiti.jpgThe U.S. occupation of 1915-1934 faced a rebellion led by Charlemagne Peralte. Marines assassinated him and circulated a photograph of him crucified. Rather than intimidating Haitians, the photo enraged them and cemented Charlemagne Peralte’s place as a national hero.

If Haitians had a say in the U.S. presidential election, a case could be made for the devil-you-know of Clinton rather than the risk of a new Woodrow Wilson in Trump. But subjects of the empire can’t vote, only citizens. The U.S. tried to set the tone of master 101 years ago.

But people still resist.

Cornel West: Why I Endorse Green Party’s Jill Stern over Hillary Clinton

Source:  Democracy Now
July 18 2016

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: You are endorsing Dr. Jill Stein. You were a surrogate for Bernie Sanders. You spoke all over the country for him.

CORNEL WEST: Yes, yes, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: What made you decide to support the Green Party presidential candidate as opposed to Hillary Clinton?

CORNEL WEST: Well, I’ve never been tied to one party or one candidate or even one institution. And that’s true even with one church as a Christian. I’m committed to truth and justice. And Brother Bernie, no doubt, was the standard-bearer for truth and justice during the primary at a national level, at a highly visible level. Once he endorsed Hillary Clinton, who, for me, is a neoliberal disaster, it was clear—

AMY GOODMAN: What do mean by that?

CORNEL WEST: A neoliberal disaster is one who generates a mass incarceration regime, who deregulates banks and markets, who promotes chaos of regime change in Libya, supports military coups in Honduras, undermines some of the magnificent efforts in Haiti of working people, and so forth. That’s the record of Hillary Clinton. So there was no way—when my dear brother, who I love very deeply, Bernie Sanders said she will make an outstanding president, I said, “Oh, I disagree with my brother. I think she’ll—I don’t think she’ll make an outstanding president at all.” She’s a militarist. She’s a hawk. She could take us into war with Russia. She could take us into war with Iran. So, I mean, I think she’s—she’s dangerous in terms of her neoliberal ideology—not as a woman, because I’m supporting, of course, my dear sister Jill Stein.

I think after a magnificent campaign of Bernie Sanders, the next step is a green step. The next step is a progressive step. And when you’re calling for reparations, you’re calling for the release of prisoners who have been historically unfairly treated, especially tied to nonviolent crimes, and then saying they should vote and that vote should never be taken away, when you’re calling—putting people and planet and peace before profits, Sister Jill Stein, for me, is somebody that’s worth fighting for. And she’s not a spoiler. You know, a lot of people use that term “spoiler.” If Hillary Clinton can’t make the case to progressives, she doesn’t deserve our vote.

Now, Trump is a neofascist in the making. There’s no doubt about that.

AMY GOODMAN: Donald Trump.

CORNEL WEST: Yeah. Oh, there’s no doubt about that. But the thing is, is that you can’t just be a non-Trump and deserve one’s vote. If Hillary Clinton wants the vote of progressives, she better be real about it. But I don’t think she has the capacity to be real about it. She’s so tied to Wall Street. She’s so tied to the corporate elite.

AMY GOODMAN: Why do you say he’s a neofascist, Donald Trump, the—

CORNEL WEST: Because neofascism in the United States takes the form of big money, big banks, big corporations, tied to xenophobic scapegoating of the vulnerable, like Mexicans and Muslims and women and black folk, and militaristic policies abroad, with strongman, charismatic, autocratic personality, and that’s what Donald Trump is.

And we should know. This is why I salute you, my dear sister. Corporate media has played a fundamental role in the making of Donald Trump—$2 billion free time. They made big profits. They put their profits ahead of the public interest. They covered every speech, every word in Twitter for the last 14 months, just to make big money. Even this convention, even this—they can’t wait. They’re salivating for the profits. And what do they do? They throw out this mediocre, dumbed-down xenophobic-speaking brother, who—I mean, he’s a human being like anybody else, so, I mean, you know, he’s made in the image of God, in terms of my own Christian faith and so forth, but he’s a neofascist in the making. And corporate media is going to have to acknowledge the tremendous responsibility they have of making sure Donald Trump was center stage. If Bernie Sanders had received one-half of that kind of attention, we’d be in a very different place. If they would put more stress on what Jill Stein is saying, the unbelievable fairness, subtlety of analysis, moral passion of Sister Jill—corporate media won’t touch her with a 10-foot pole, for the most part. But it’s changing. It’s going to change.

AMY GOODMAN: What does Dr. Jill Stein represent? What—why are you drawn to the Green Party platform, now that Bernie Sanders has conceded?

CORNEL WEST: Well, one, in the language of Coltrane, she’s a major force for good, accenting the role of poor and working people being center stage. She’s green in terms of trying to save the planet in the face of corporate greed. She’s fundamentally concerned with issues of racial justice, legacies of white supremacy as well as male supremacy. She’s concerned about empowering working people. She opposes TPP, trying to make sure we don’t have the corporate reshaping of the world economy—the kind of policies, of course, Democratic Party has supported, President Obama has supported. It’s hard to find somebody at the national level who provides a certain kind of hope, given the unbelievable spiritual decline and moral decay. And by spiritual decline and moral decay, I mean greed and indifference and contempt in the driver seat among our elites vis-à-vis all working people and poor people. It’s just sad to see so many fellow working people and fellow citizens supporting a pseudo-populist and neofascist like Donald Trump. They’re in pain. The pain is very real, but they’re moving in a right-wing direction.

AMY GOODMAN: What happened with the Democratic platform? You were one of the people on the committee. A lot of people don’t know how this stuff is made, how the sausage is made. Explain what happened. What did you win? What did you lose?

CORNEL WEST: Well, I was blessed to be put on the committee by Brother Bernie Sanders. We had wonderful deliberations. Brother Elijah Cummings was very fair. He was the chairperson. But we lost TPP. We lost Medicare for all. We lost, of course, Israeli occupation and Israeli settlements included within the platform, keeping track while precious Palestinian brothers and sisters—

AMY GOODMAN: What about them? You lost—what do you mean, you lost them?

CORNEL WEST: We lost them, in that we made the case, and we lost the vote.

AMY GOODMAN: What were you looking for?

CORNEL WEST: We were looking to include them within the platform, so at least it was on paper. Now, of course, putting it on paper is different than putting it in practice. A declaration is different from the execution. But we lost over and over again, because the Clinton people lined up and voted against it. That’s why I, of course, abstained, initially, at the move from writing the draft, and then we took it to the platform committee in Orlando. I was also a member of the platform committee. And I had to abstain again, because—even though they didn’t allow for abstention; it was just no or yes. But there’s no way, based on moral grounds, those based on my own moral conscience, that I could support that platform.

And once my dear brother moved into his endorsement, his strong endorsement of the neoliberal disaster that Sister Hillary represents, there was no way that I could stay with Bernie Sanders any longer, had to break with the two-party system. The duopoly has to come to an end. I was hoping we could bring the neoliberal era to a close, because a year ago, populist, Bernie Sanders; neofascist with Trump, or neoliberalism limps on with Hillary Clinton. Right now the Democratic Party still run by big corporations, big lobbyists and so forth, from AIPAC to a host of other lobbyists of big money, and it looks like they want to hold on for dear life. And it’s a sad thing to see, because the country is having a nervous breakdown. And you just hope that there can be enough people with compassion and courage to hold onto justice, keep the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel and Edward Said and Dorothy Day alive.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, when you look at what Donald Trump is calling for—the wall on the border with Mexico, banning Muslims from coming in—barring Muslims from coming into the country, hesitating to disavow the support of the white supremacist David Duke and other issues—for those who say it’s only Hillary Clinton who could defeat that, what is your response?

CORNEL WEST: My response is, and when you actually look at the mass incarceration policies, when you actually look at the reinforcement of the new Jim Crow and the segregation of our educational systems and so forth, that occurred under Democrats. It would persist under Hillary Clinton. What Donald Trump talks about in the abstract has actually been concretely enacted under neoliberal regimes of the Democratic Party.

Same would be true in terms of foreign policy. Foreign policy, for me, is very, very important in terms of the no-fly zones in Syria that can lead toward war, the kind of encirclement of Russia. I mean, can you imagine Russian troops in Mexico and Canada? What would the U.S. response be? Oh, my god. Well, that’s very much whatNATO troops are vis-à-vis Russia. Now, we know Russia is run by autocratic Putin, but that kind of provocation for Russia, who has nuclear arms, is the kind of thing that Hillary Clinton, of course, supported. And her connection to the Robert Kagans and Henry Kissingers, of course, are just frightening in regard to militaristic orientations.

And so, this idea that somehow we’ve got to opt for a neoliberal disaster as the only option vis-à-vis the neofascist catastrophe, as a blues man, I appreciate you playing that blues, said I can deal with catastrophe, not by panicking and being driven by fear, but I can look the catastrophe in the face and still tell the truth and still go down swinging with a smile and, most importantly, love, Coltrane’s love—and for me, Jesus’s love—at the center of how we proceed.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to leave it there, but we’ll be talking to you through the week, Dr. Cornel West, professor at Union Theological Seminary. He endorsed Bernie Sanders for president last summer and was appointed by Sanders to serve on the Democratic platform committee, author of a number of books, most recently Black Prophetic Fire, now is endorsing Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party presidential candidate.

This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we go to Istanbul and stay right here to talk about the attempted coup over the weekend. Stay with us.

 

Would The World Survive President Hillary?

Source: President Killary: Would the World Survive President Hillary
by Paul Craig Roberts, Institute for Political Economy
April 13, 2016

paul craig roberts 3This is an English translation of an article that I wrote for the German magazine, Compact. I was encouraged by the high level of intelligent discourse that Compact brings to its readers. If only the US had more people capable of reaching beyond entertainment to comprehending the forces that affect them, there might be some hope for America.

Compact brings hope to Germany. The German people are beginning to understand that their country is not sovereign but a vassal of Washington and that their chancellor serves Washington’s hegemony and American financial interests, and not the German people.

Hillary Clinton – the “teflon candidate”

Hillary Clinton is proving to be the “teflon candidate.” In her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, she has escaped damage from major scandals, any one of which would destroy a politician. Hillary has accepted massive bribes in the form of speaking fees from financial organizations and corporations. She is under investigation for misuse of classified data, an offense for which a number of whistleblowers are in prison.

queen of chaos.jpgHillary has survived the bombing of Libya, her creation of a failed Libyan state that is today a major source of terrorist jihadists, and the Benghazi controversy. She has survived charges that as Secretary of State she arranged favors for foreign interests in exchange for donations to the Clintons’ foundation. And, of course, there is a long list of previous scandals: Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate. Diana Johnstone’s book, Queen of Chaos, describes Hillary Clinton as “the top salesperson for the ruling oligarchy.”

Hillary Clinton is a bought-and-paid-for representative of the big banks, the military-security complex, and the Israel Lobby. She will represent these interests, not those of the American people or America’s European allies.

The Clintons’ purchase by interest groups is public knowledge

The Clintons’ purchase by interest groups is public knowledge. For example, CNN reports that between February 2001 and May 2015 Bill and Hillary Clinton were paid $153 million in speaking fees for 729 speeches, an average price of $210,000.

As it became evident that Hillary Clinton would emerge as the likely Democratic presidential candidate, she was paid more. Deutsche Bank paid her $485,000 for one speech, and Goldman Sachs paid her $675,000 for three speeches. Bank of American Morgan Stanley, UBS, and Fidelity Investments each paid $225,000. https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/hillary-clinton-earned-more-from-12-speeches-to-big-banks-than-most-americans-earn-in-their-lifetime/

Despite Hillary’s blatant willingness to be bribed in public, her opponent, Bernie Sanders, has not succeeded in making an issue of Hillary’s shamelessness. Both of the main establishment newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times have come to Hillary’s defense.

A war-monger

Hillary is a war-monger. She pushed the Obama regime into the destruction of a stable and largely cooperative government in Libya where the “Arab Spring” was a CIA-backed group of jihadists who were used to dislodge China from its oil investments in eastern Libya. She urged her husband to bomb Yugoslavia. She pushed for “regime change” in Syria. She oversaw the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Honduras. She brought neoconservative Victoria Nuland, who arranged the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Ukraine, into the State Department. Hillary has called President Vladimir Putin of Russia the “new Hitler.” Hillary as president guarantees war and more war. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/hillary-clintons-six-foreign-policy-catastrophes.html

The use of public office on behalf of the office holder’s interest

In the United States, government has been privatized. Office holders use their positions in order to make themselves wealthy, not in order to serve the public interest. Bill and Hillary Clinton epitomize the use of public office on behalf of the office holder’s interest. For the Clintons government means using public office to be rewarded for doing favors for private interests. The Wall Street Journal reported that “at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her [Hillary Clinton’s] tenure as Secretary of State donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation.”http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/hillary-clinton-exposed-part-1-aggressively-lobbied-mega-corporations-secretary-state.html

According to washingtonsblog.com, “All told, the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates have collected donations and pledges from all sources of more than $1.6 billion, according to their tax returns.”

According to rootsactionteam.com, multi-million dollar donors to the Clinton Foundation include Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, Kuwait, ExxonMobil, Friends of Saudi Arabia, James Murdoch, Qatar, Boeing, Dow, Goldman Sachs, Walmart, and the United Arab Emirates.

According to the International Business Times, “Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation.” http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

The end of life

Hillary Clinton has escaped unharmed from so many crimes and scandals that she would likely be the most reckless president in American history. With the arms race renewed, with Russia declared “an existential threat to the United States,” and with Hillary’s declaration of President Putin as the new Hitler, Hillary’s arrogant self-confidence is likely to result in over-reach that ends in conflict between NATO and Russia. Considering the extraordinary destructive force of nuclear weapons, Hillary as president could mean the end of life on earth.

Black Lives Don’t Matter, Black Votes Do: the Racial Hypocrisy of Hillary and Bill Clinton

Source:  Counterpunch
April 15 2016

By Richard W. Behan

Michelle Alexander.jpg

 The Clinton legacy is black impoverishment—so why are we still voting for Hillary?

–Michelle Alexander, authorThe New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness 

African-Americans have few reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton. No one understands this better—and says it more forcefully—than Michelle Alexander, civil rights activist, author, and professor of law. She has studied the public life of the Clintons, chronicled their catastrophic impacts on black lives, and observed their self-serving, hypocritical pandering to the African-American community.

The Clintons have always cultivated a warm affection for African-Americans. One iconic image shows Bill riffing on his saxophone for Arsenio Hall. Another pictures Hillary hugging parishioners in black churches. Similar beguiling images appear daily in the media as her presidential campaign progresses.

Loyalty tragically misplaced

The affection seems to be mutual. It was apparent in the primary elections across the South, where black voters gave Hillary Clinton overwhelming majorities. But their loyalty is tragically misplaced: the Clintons’ affection is not matched by a serious commitment to relieving the poverty, prejudice, mass incarceration, and second-class citizenry suffered by much of the black community today.

The Clintons’ affection is simply a political expedient. They have relied on the black vote in virtually every election either of them has faced over the past 24 years, but their respective incumbencies have savaged this faithful community.

Black Lives Shattered

“From the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted—and Hillary Clinton supported—decimated black America.” Those are Michelle Alexander’s words, accompanying her recent online essay, The Clinton Legacy is Black Impoverishment–So Why Are We Still Voting for Hillary? (The article appeared in print form in the Nation magazine on February 29 under the title, “Black Lives Shattered.”)

The case is compelling for African-Americans to withhold their votes from Hillary Clinton.

Read the full article here: Black Lives Don’t Matter, Black Votes Do: the Racial Hypocrisy of Hillary and Bill Clinton