Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Starbucks CEO declares support for Hillary Clinton


Starbucks “proudly serving” the occupation of Afghanistan
Press TV – September 8, 2016

Howard Schultz, the founder and CEO of Starbucks, announces support for US Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

In an interview with CNN, Schultz let slip which way he was voting, saying, “I’m hopeful that after the election – and hopefully Hillary Clinton will be elected president – that we will begin to see a level of unity and people coming together.”

When asked if he had officially backed Clinton with that statement, the CEO responded “I guess I just did. I think it’s obvious Hillary Clinton needs to be the next president.”

Starbucks, which has over 22,500 coffee stores, is one of the companies anti-Israel activists boycott.

Throughout her campaign for the 2016 US presidential race, Clinton has advocated herself as a champion for Israel. Zionist voters have in turn showed their support to her.


According to inminds.co.uk research:

Howard Shultz, the chairman of Starbucks is an active Zionist.

In 1998 he was honoured by the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah with “The Israel 50th Anniversary Friend of Zion Tribute Award” for his services to the zionist state in “playing a key role in promoting close alliance between the United States and Israel”. The Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah funds Israeli arms fairs chaired by the butcher of Jenin – General Shaul Mofaz, and the Zionist propaganda website honestreporting.com.[1]

His work as a propagandist for Israel has been praised by the Israeli Foreign Ministry as being key to Israel’s long-term PR success [2].

Recently whilst the Israeli army was slaughtering Palestinians in Jenin, Nabulus and Bethlehem he made a provocative speech blaming the Palestinians of terrorism, suggesting the intifada was a manifestation of anti- Semitism, and asked people to unite behind Israel [3].

At a time when other businesses were desperately pulling out of Israel, Starbucks decided to help Israel’s floundering economy and invest in Israel – a joint venture with Israeli conglomerate Delek Group for Starbucks outlets in Israel (Shalom Coffee Co).[4][5][6]. A bad business decision – Starbucks had heavy losses and in April 2003 Starbucks were forced to announced that all 6 Starbucks cafes in Israel will be shut down and its partnership with Delek end.[14]

It has been revealed that Starbucks still continues to support Israel by sponsoring fundraisers for Israel.[15]

See [11] for suggested action against Starbucks.

Oxfam has misguidedly partnered with Starbucks in return for £100,000 – please support our “Campaign Against Oxfam Agreement with Starbucks“.

Starbucks fully supports Bush’s war of terror and has opened a Starbucks in Afghanistan for the US invaders – they like to do their bit to help the occupation.[17]

ADDITIONAL INFO & REFs :

[1] Israel 50th Anniversary Friend of Zion Tribute Award

Howard Schultz was presented with “The Israel 50th Anniversary Friend of Zion Tribute Award” by the The Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah in August 27, 1998. [a][e]

According to the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah “The Friends of Zion award salutes leaders who have played key roles in promoting close alliance between the United States and Israel”[e]

Awards Page Mystery

Its interesting that the Israel 50th Anniversary Award given to Howard Schultz was once displayed with pride on the Starbucks website on the company’s “Awards and Accolades” page but since the boycott started biting it has mysteriously disappeared from the page![a]


Original page(above) listing Howard Shultz Israel Award as an award for Starbucks can still be seen at www.archive.org. The new page is shown below with no mention of the Israeli connection.

The Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah

1. The Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah sponsors Israeli military arms fairs chaired by the butcher of Jenin – General Shaul Mofaz, Israel’s Minister of Defense. It aims to “strengthen the special connection between the American, European and Israeli defense industries” and “to showcase the newest Israeli innovations in defense”.[f]

2. The Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah also sponsors the Zionist propaganda website “honestreporting.com“.[g]

3. The Aish HaTorah, the main beneficiary of The Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah, whilst described as an apolitical international network of Jewish education centres, produces propaganda material for Israel.

One video they produce by Rabbi Ken Spiro titled “The Islamic Connection to Jerusalem” starts “The Islamic connection begins in the 7th century, thousands of years after the original Jewish connection.” and continues to belittle Jerusalem’s Islamic heritage – propaganda to justify Israeli occupation of Jerusalem.[b]

Also featured on their site is “The Occupied Territories – A Primer” which denies the status of the West Bank and Gaza as “occupied” and argues that they be called “disputed territories”.[c]

No wonder they were praised by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu:

“I congratulate Aish HaTorah for what they’re doing, where they’re doing it, and for whom they’re doing it.”[d]

[a] http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/recognition.asp
(original still available at http://web.archive.org/web/20010502093522/www.starbucks.com/aboutus/recognition.asp?cookie_test=1 )

[b] http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Video_The_Islamic_Connection_to_Jerusalem.asp
[c] http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/The_-Occupied_Territories-_A_Primer.asp
[d] http://www.jerusalemfund.com/aboutus/aboutusCommendations.asp
[e] http://www.jerusalemfund.com/honorees/herzl_honorees1998.php
[f] http://www.jerusalemfund.com/missions/homeland_sponsorship.php
[g] http://www.jerusalemfund.com/programs/index.php

[2] Jerusalem Report

Losing the Media Battle (April 22, 2002)

“… The key to Israel’s long-term PR success, Meir(*) believes, is on the campuses of North America and Europe. Wealthy Jews like Howard Schultz, the owner of the Starbucks chain, are helping with student projects, including seminars held in both Israel and North America, in which students hear Israeli presentations on the crisis…”

(*) Gideon Meir, the official in charge of the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s PR effort.

[3] Starbucks CEO says anti-Semitism on the rise

Howard Shultz warns American Jews against complacency

04/04/2002

Reported by Elisa Hahn, KING 5

SEATTLE – Divisions within the Jewish community were on display Thursday in Seattle as Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz criticized Palestinian inaction in the Middle East while others protested the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.

“If you leave this synagogue tonight and go back to your home and ignore this, then shame on us,” Howard Schultz told a crowded temple of Jewish Americans on Seattle’s Capitol Hill.

Schultz warned other Jews against sitting back and doing nothing.

“What is going on in the Middle East is not an isolated part of the world. The rise of anti-Semitism is at an all time high since the 1930’s,” he said.

“The Palestinians aren’t doing their job they’re not stopping terrorism.”

While reaction inside the temple to Schultz’s remarks grew from a warm reception to a standing ovation, the mood outside the temple was different.

A handful of Jews gathered there to protest the Israeli government’s actions of late and their occupation of Palestinian lands.

There were similar sentiments Thursday at Seattle’s Westlake center.

“We only get the side that talks about Palestinians as terrorists. As if all the civilians right now living in a state of siege and terror are terrorists and they’re not,” said protestor Alethea Mundy, whose younger brother is in Bethlehem doing relief work for Palestinian refugees.

She’s worried about her brother, but realizes that everything is relative.

“This is what the Palestinians live with every day, two weeks is nothing for my brother,”

[4] American-Israel Chamber of Commerce, Southeast Region e-Newsletter

JULY-AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2001

Starbucks will open its first two cafes in Tel Aviv during the first week of September and plans to open another three branches in the area by the end of the year with 15 more throughout Israel by the end of 2002. Israel-based Delek, which recently purchased a chain of US convenience stores and established its US headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee, will be the majority shareholder in Starbucks Israel.

see [13] for more on Delek’s US connection.

[5] Starbucks next market: Israel

Starbucks Coffee Co. chairman Howard Schultz loves a challenge. He opened the Japanese market during the depths of that country’s spectacular recession, and now he’s set his sights on conflict-ridden Israel.

The stores will be built through a joint venture company, Shalom Coffee Co., which will be owned by publicly traded Israeli conglomerate Delek Group and Starbucks Coffee International, Starbucks’ internationally focused wholly-owned subsidiary. No word yet on how many Starbucks stores are planned for the tiny Middle Eastern nation, which has been plagued by escalating violence between Palestinians and the Israeli military since last fall. … http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2001/04/16/daily31.html

[6] Jerusalem Post, Sunday, April 22 2001

Starbucks to open here later in year
By Sharon Berger
JERUSALEM (April 20) – The Delek Group and Starbucks Coffee International, a wholly owned subsidiary of Starbucks Coffee Company, said yesterday that they had reached an agreement to form a joint venture to open Starbucks here. The costs involved in the joint venture were not disclosed.

According to the agreement, which is expected to be signed in the next few weeks, Delek will hold 80.5 percent of the coffee chain, while Starbucks Coffee International will hold the remaining 19.5%. Starbucks will have the option to increase its share to 50% at a later date. Originally Delek and Burger King co-owner Yair Hason were negotiating for a 40% share each in a venture with Starbucks, but a few months ago the deal was cancelled.

The announcement that Starbucks will be coming is expected to be welcomed by local coffee lovers who have long been awaiting the rumored arrival of the chain which has with 3,600 stores in the US. According to the Delek Group the plan is “to open dozens of stores.” The first stores are expected to open late this year.

“We expect Israel to be an excellent market for Starbucks, with great growth opportunities,” said Peter Masien, president of Starbucks Coffee International.

Delek’s investment in the coffee chain is part of its strategy to expand into new areas, said Giora Sarig, president of Delek’s Israel Fuel Corporation, one of the three subsidiaries of the Delek Group. “We are delighted to become partners with such a world-class brand as Starbucks,” he said.

The coffee shops will not be connected to the Delek gas stations.

The local competition is not overly concerned about the entrance of the well known chain. Aroma’s operating manager Ben Balbinder told The Jerusalem Post that “more coffee stores will raise the awareness of coffee drinking.”

He added that according to his personal experience in the US, Starbucks coffee is not on the same level as that of Aroma.

Aroma, which sells one and half tonnes of coffee a month, currently has eight cafes with another three are to be opened in the next two months. Balbinder said that the local coffee market is continuing to grow and has contributed to a decision to expand aggressively in the next year and a half.

Starbucks , which has been traded on Nasdaq since 1992, has a current market capitalization of $7.8 billion, with more than 4,500 retail locations in the US, Europe, the Middle East, and the Pacific Rim. It is well represented in the Middle East with stores in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

The company was founded in 1971 and also sells tea, pastries, ice creams, other food and beverages, and coffee accessories. The company also has an on-line store as well as selling directly to restaurants, businesses, airlines, and hotels.

The Delek Group, which was founded in 1951, has three major subsidiaries: Israel Fuel Corporation, Delek Real Estate, and Delek Investments & Properties, a holding company for activities in automotive distribution and retailing, oil and gas exploration, biochemical manufacturing, convenience stores, and other retail operations. Delek is traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange at a value of NIS 2.8b.

[7] Two “Standard replies” activists are receiving from Starbucks when they complaint about the recent speech Howard Schultz made:

First:

Thank you for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company.

Howard Schultz recently spoke at his local synagogue and shared his concern over the rise of anti-Semitism, which is linked to the growing crisis in the Middle East. Howard’s position is pro-peace and for two nations to co-exist peacefully. His comments were not intended to be anti-Palestinian in any way. As part of his comments, Howard addressed the rising concern over terrorist acts overseas, specifically relating to the bombing of a synagogue in France. Howard does not believe the terrorism is representative of the Palestinian people. Howard was speaking as a private citizen and did not interview with the media regarding this subject, however several local media outlets did run portions of his speech.

Thank you again for contacting Starbucks. If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact us at info@starbucks.com or call (800) 23-LATTE to speak with a customer relations representative.

Sincerely,

Customer Relations Starbucks Coffee Company

Second:

Thank you for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company.

Please find below the company statement regarding Howard Schultz’s speech on April 4, 2002. It is followed by Howard Schultz’s personal statement in which he is speaking as a private citizen.

April 17, 2002 – Company Statement re: Howard Schultz Speech on April 4, 2002

Starbucks Coffee Company is deeply saddened by the current events in the Middle East.

As a company working with business partners around the world, we believe it is important for us to embrace diversity as an essential component in the way we do business and treat each other with respect and dignity. Starbucks, as a commercial organization, does not get involved in international or local
politics on principle.

We are aware that our chairman, Howard Schultz, recently spoke at a private gathering and commented on the current Middle East situation. However, we are unable to comment on his speech as he was speaking as a private citizen.

April 17, 2002 – Howard Schultz Personal Statement

“I deeply regret that my speech in Seattle was misinterpreted to be anti-Palestinian,” said Howard Schultz. “My position has always been pro-peace and for the two nations to co-exist peacefully. I am deeply saddened by the current events in the Middle East.”

Attribution: Howard Schultz

If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us at info@starbucks.com or call us at 1-800-235-2883 to speak directly with a customer relations representative.

Sincerely,
Customer Relations

[8] Starbucks Coffee have partnerships with:

  • Hotels with Starbucks:Hyatt Hotels
    Marriott Hotels
    Starwood Hotels (Sheraton)
  • Bookstores with Starbucks:Canadian bookstore Chapters Inc
    Barnes & Noble, Inc bookstores
  • Albertson’s Supermarkets
  • Special relationship with NY Times :Starbucks Coffee Company and The New York Times announced a strategic alliance in August 2000. Under this agreement, The New York Times is using its national advertising resources to promote Starbucks products and retail locations as a destination for readers. Although other local, daily newspapers will still be offered at Starbucks, The New York Times will be the only national newspaper sold across Starbucks extensive network of company-owned locations in the United States.

Source:

http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/friends.asp
http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/timeline.asp

[9] Starbucks Coffee has 4,709 locations around the world in the following countries (Mulsim countries are shown in bold)

Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Canada
Germany
Greece
Hawaii
Hong Kong S.A.R.
Palestine (Israel )
Japan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Malaysia

Mexico
New Zealand
Oman
People`s Republic of China (Beijing)
People`s Republic of China (Shanghai)
Philippines
Qatar
Saudi Arabia

Singapore
South Korea
Spain
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States

Source:
http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/internationaldev.asp

[10] To locate your nearest Starbucks (internationally) see:

http://www.starbucks.com/retail/default.asp

[11]
Some activists have mentioned that Starbucks provide a glossy pamphlet “We’d love to hear your thoughts” for people to write their comments on.

If the pamphlet includes free postage then we would urge all activists to use it for voicing their disgust at Starbucks CEO and at Starbucks policy to invest in apartheid Israel. Remember to provide your name and address and ask them to reply to you in writing otherwise your effort will simply be ignored.

Please read their standard response[7] before composing your complaint.

[12] According to Yahoo Finance :

Howard Shultz’s annual pay as Chairman of Starbucks is $2.2 Million, and last year he received an additional $22.6 Million from the value on options excercised in the fiscal year.[a]

Howard Shultz also has interests in the following companies:

  • Drugstore.com – Director with 1,592,246 shares (indirect) [b]
  • eBay Inc. – Director with 112,500 shares (indirect) [c]

[a] http://biz.yahoo.com/p/S/SBUX.html
[b] http://biz.yahoo.com/t/28/1051.html
[c] http://biz.yahoo.com/t/29/1051.html
Latest: 28 October 2004 – Howard Shultz has joined the board of directors of DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc (buying 71,429 shares).[d]

[d] http://biz.yahoo.com/t/29/1051.html

[13] Boycott Mapco Express & East Coast store-gas stations

An activist has pointed out that Delek (Starbucks Israeli partners) owns Mapco Express filling stations and convenience stores in Tennessee (198 stores) and East Coast convenience store-gas stations in Virginia (36 stores). These should be boycotted.

Source:

Alexander’s Gas and Oil Connections Company News,
[Volume 6, issue #12 – 02-07-2001]
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnn12792.htm

Delek completes acquisition of Mepco Express filling stations

[31-05-01] Delek Group said that it has completed its acquisition of 234 gas stations and convenience stores in the US for $ 234.5 mm. The acquisition consists of 198 Mapco Express filling stations and convenience stores in Tennessee in consideration for $ 147 mm and 36 East Coast convenience store-gas stations in Virginia for $ 36.5 mm The concerns will continue to carry their respective brands names following the transaction. Delek also announced that it is in the process of establishing Delek USA, a wholly owned US-based subsidiary which will conduct the company’s American operations. The investment marks the Netanya-based company’s first entrance into the overseas retail gasoline markets. Company president Avinoam Finkelman said that the decision to enter international markets is mostly due to eroding returns in the domestic market, a product, he believes of increased competition and government regulatory activity.

[14] Starbucks Exits Israel

April 2, 2003

All six Starbucks cafes in Israel will be shut down at the end of the week, Starbucks Coffee International and the Delek Group said as they announced the end of their brief partnership. All 120 of the coffee chain’s employees in Israel will be laid off.

According to Israel’s Haaretz, poor sales and Delek’s failure to find an investor to bail it out of a losing venture caused the decision to shut down the expensive coffeehouses. Starbucks Corp., the parent of Starbucks Coffee International, told Haaretz that its decision to dissolve the joint venture was driven by “market challenges,” an allusion, the newspaper said, to “Israel’s severe recession and security problems.”

http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-news-0381.html

[15] Starbucks Sponsers Israel Fundraiser

Bowl 4 Israel
Bowl-A-Thon 2002 & Bowl-A-Thon 2003 (9 Nov, 2003)

Starbucks sponsors “bowl 4 Israel”, one of the fund raisers for Israel organised by Elie Haller. Her last fund raiser was a barbecue that “raised $15,000 for a paratrooper unit in the Israel Defense Forces”.[a] This time the money raised – some $50,000 was to be distributed to families of “Israeli terror victims” by the Israel Emergency Solidarity Fund (OneFamily).[a] [d] Innocent enough you may think, but you’d be wrong – apparently their definition of “terror victim” includes Israeli soldiers who were killed whilst they were butchering Palestinian women and children during the Jenin massacre (April 2002). For April 2002, their spending record includes the following entry:

“P. W. lost his brother S. in an anti-terror operation in Jenin April 8, 2002. The family is left with eight children, of whom P. is the first to get married. OneFamily (Israel Emergency Solidarity Fund) gave them $1000 toward the wedding.”[c]

So the fund rewards the families of war criminals for a job well done!


Perverted reality – provocative advert for the Israel Emergency Solidarity Fund.
In reality its this fund that rewards war criminals – the money they raise goes to,
among others, Israeli soldiers who were wounded or killed whilst they were
butchering Palestinian women and children during the Jenin massacre

No wonder the page on the web-site for bowl4israel which showed Starbucks as the sole sponsor is now mysteriously showing a blank space where Starbucks appeared.[b] A peek at the html code for the page reveals that Starbucks name and logo are still there but have been hidden – commented out – no doubt to protect it from the boycott.


Original page showing Starbucks as the sponsor


New page shows an empty space for “Event Sponsor”,
the html however reveals that the sole sponsor
Starbucks has been commented out

[a] http://www.bowl4israel.org/article_heilman.jsp

[b] http://www.bowl4israel.org/sponsors.jsp

[c] http://www.onefamilyfund.org/OF_Right_2.asp?ID=377

[d] Israel Emergency Solidarity Fund(IESF) raises money in the US and its Israeli counterpart OneFamily spends it in Israel, the two organisations have officially merged together.
( http://www.yucommentator.com/news/2003/09/09/Israel/Israel.Emergency.Solidarity.Fund.Goes.Mia-458996.shtml )

[16] ADL vouches for Starbucks Zionist credentials

After Starbucks closed down its cafes in Israel[14], many Zionists were upset and accused Starbucks of succumbing to the boycott. Some even suggested boycotting Starbucks:

It is time for all Americans to boycott Starbucks Coffee. Spread the word on this. They are stopping business relations with Israel, because like so many companies, people, and leaders in the world, they do not have the moral values or courage needed to do otherwise. Add this to the fact that Starbucks does tons of business in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, as well as other radical Arab countries who are working to destroy America. Where they will not pull out of and it makes it clear their stand is with the enemies of Israel and of America. Standing is something that takes moral value and courage today.And their stand indicates the lack of quality of their product. Starbucks has chosen. NOW is the time for us to choose to boycott. Let’s call on everyone we can to boycott Starbucks.. [a]

Its interesting to observe that it was the ultra-Zionist Anti-Defamation League (ADL) that came to Starbucks rescue[b] and put down the Zionist backlash against it. (For those unaware of the activities of the ADL see http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-news-0313.html ). As the New York Times put it:

“Perhaps the most effective of the company’s weapons used to combat the rumor, experts said, came from the Anti-Defamation League, which lent its support. Starbucks, which is based in Seattle, did not place any messages refuting the rumor on its Web site. But the Anti-Defamation League contacted the company to investigate the matter and later circulated the company’s message to interested parties on its Web site and in telephone calls.”

It also quoted Starbucks chairman Howard Shultz, describing him as “a Jewish American who has long been supportive of Jewish organizations and causes in the United States and in Israel”, saying that the company will return to Israel in due course.[a]

See also [17] for another Zionist defence of Starbucks.

Many other Zionist groups also came to Starbucks defence including the Jewish Council for Public Affairs whose alert[d] states:

“The chairman of Starbucks is an avid Zionist who opened the stores in Israel despite the ongoing violence. Coffee is serious business in Israel, and Starbucks was unable to penetrate the market.”

[a] http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-starbucks_israel.htm

[b] http://www.adl.org/rumors/starbucks_rumors.asp

[c] New York Times, “New Economy” by Sherri Day Monday, June 2, 2003

[d] http://www.e-guana.net/organizations.php3?action=printContentItem&orgid=54&
typeID=88&itemID=4758

[17] Starbucks support War of Terror

Starbucks has donated a store to the US army to help in the occupation of Afghanistan. See photos below from Afghanistan of US troops thanking Starbucks for their donation:

Source:
US Soldiers Thank Starbucks For Their Coffee Donation – Set Up Mini Starbucks Store in Afghanistan, http://www.boycottwatch.org/misc/starbucks4.htm

NB: Boycott Watch is a Zionist organisation[a] which provides the above photos as part of their campaign to support Starbucks from any possible Zionist boycott for closing its stores in Israel.

[a] “Boycott Watch and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) are
leading the fight against divestment and boycott campaigns against
Israel.”

Source: http://www.boycottwatch.org/abi/divest001.htm

Also according to the American Forces Press Service Nov.9 2004:

Starbucks Chief Executive Officer Jim Donald said during a Capitol Hill press conference today in the office of U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks that his company would provide 50,000 pounds of free, whole-bean coffee that will be brewed and distributed by Red Cross workers to troops serving in Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

“It’s important that we show the support – and we have shown support — for our troops overseas,” Donald explained. In fact, he said, Starbucks, headquartered in Seattle, has 80 employees in the military now deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And many of Starbuck’s 85,000 employees, Donald pointed out, have friends and family members serving overseas in the military. Starbuck’s partnership with the Red Cross, he noted, “is just a way of reaching into the community and supporting troops from all over the U.S.”

Source: Starbucks, Red Cross ‘Bring a Bit of Home’ to Overseas Troops, by Gerry J. Gilmore, American Forces Press Service, Nov. 9, 2004

[18] Starbucks Leaflet

One of our readers has designed a leaflet on Starbucks:
Starbucks Contribution To Violence (PDF 1.3Mb)

Please note that we cannot take responsibility for the contents of the leaflet as we did not produce it, it does however seem to be based on the research above (thanks NEdo Sul)

September 7, 2016 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

There has Never Been Anyone Less Qualified than Killary to be President

By Steven MacMillan – New Eastern Outlook – 07.09.2016

“There has never been a man or a women – not me, not Bill, nobody – more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as the President of the United States of America” – Barack Obama speaking at the Democratic National Convention.

There he goes… the liar in chief is at it again: inverting reality and spouting some of the most transparent BS in modern history. The fact that Obama can stand up there and give such an outlandish endorsement of Killary is truly emblematic of his main strength: his ability to deceive.

Killary should be immediately disqualified from being eligible to run for President, considering the fact she had highly classified information on multiple unsecured private servers. Killary should be in jail, not running for the highest office in one of the most powerful countries on earth.

Even the thought of a Killary presidency should terrify everyone not only in the US, but everyone on the planet. Make no mistake about it: she is a neocon and a war hawk. Killary is not just a puppet of Wall Street, but of the military-industrial complex. She has received over $300,000 from war contractors in her presidential bid so far, the second highest amount (after Bernie Sanders) out of all the candidates who initially ran for President.

Killary was instrumental in NATO’s 2011 war in Libya, which resulted in the ousting of Muammar al- Qaddafi and the complete destruction of Libya – a country that previously had the highest standard of living on the African continent. She famously remarked after Qaddafi was murdered that “we came, we saw, he died” (before demonically laughing). I would question the mental sanity of anyone who paraphrases Julius Caesar in such circumstances. 

With Killary at the helm, we can expect the total escalation of the Syrian conflict in addition to the very real potential of war with Iran. Killary is also a zealous supporter of Israel (along with Trump), and we can expect the continued support for Israel’s genocidal policies against the people of Palestine no matter who is elected.

Would the World Survive a Killary Presidency?

And now for the most dangerous aspect of a Killary administration: the very real danger of nuclear war with Russia. Although Vladimir Putin and the Russian leadership will try to work with Clinton in a bid to reduce tensions, her close relationship with the neocons and her warmongering attitude would most probably drive the world towards war.

In 2014, when referring to the Ukrainian conflict, Killary actually compared Putin to Hitler in one of the most disrespectful and ludicrous remarks that a Western politician has made in recent years. It becomes even more absurd when you consider the fact that the West overthrew the Ukrainian government, using and supporting neo-Nazis in the process.

A Clinton administration staffed with neocons and war hawks would continue the policy of encircling Russia, and of putting missile facilities in Eastern Europe. With tensions between NATO and Russia already great, the last thing the world needs is a Killary administration.

Putin: “The World is Being Pulled in an Irreversible Direction”

 I will leave you with the warning Putin issued to foreign journalists at the end of the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum on the 17th of June, regarding how NATO and the US are driving the world towards nuclear war, yet the Western public is absolutely oblivious to this reality considering the complete blackout in the mainstream media:

“The Iranian threat does not exist but the NATO missile defense system is being positioned in Europe… Now the system is functioning and being loaded with missiles… So, these are being loaded with missiles that can penetrate territories within a 500km range; but we know that technologies advance, and we even know in which year the US will accomplish the next missile. This missile will be able to penetrate distances of up to 1000km, and then even further; and from that point on, they will start to directly threaten Russia’s nuclear potential.”

Putin continues:

“We know year by year what’s going to happen, and they know that we know; it’s only you [the journalists] that they tell tall-tales too and you buy it, and spread it to the citizens of your countries. Your people in turn do not feel the sense of impending danger – this is what worries me. How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they pretend that nothing’s going on. I don’t know how to get through to you anymore.”

September 7, 2016 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

It’s All About Russia

Hillary and the neocons know who to blame for Trump

By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • September 6, 2016

Many issues characteristically beloved by Democrats are being raised to disparage Donald Trump. The man has been maligned as a racist, a bigot, as unfit for office and even described as a psychopath, presumably in contrast to Hillary Clinton who loves people of every color and shape as long as they are not living next door and will faithfully vote Democratic after they are afforded entry into the United States and amnestied. Hillary, who has held nearly every senior government office that a human being can reasonably aspire to but the one she is currently lusting after, is unlike Trump only sufficiently deranged to kill people if they live somewhere in the third world and can’t do anything about it.

A persistent line emanating from the “national security” experts who have flocked to Hillary’s side is that Trump would threaten the safety of the United States. That many of the crossovers are neoconservatives who have brought us a number of unnecessary wars in the past fifteen years is pretty much ignored by the media just as the argument that the U.S. has a presumptive right to intervene militarily wherever and whenever it chooses is generally accepted. The latest talking head who stands firm for national security is Paul Wolfowitz, who was interviewed by the German magazine Der Spiegel on August 26th. Some readers might recall Wolfowitz. He was the number two at the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld. A forceful advocate for the Iraq war, he is famous for having observed that the Iraqis would welcome the American invasion and that the war would pay for itself rather than the $5 plus trillion that it has actually cost. How he came to the latter erroneous conclusion is not very clear, though it may have had something to do with looting Iraq’s oil reserves and exporting them through a pipeline to Israel, an idea that was once floated by Wolfowitz’s godfather Richard Perle.

Wolfowitz has never been apologetic. He now claims that he was deluded by the information provided by the intelligence establishment into believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, an odd claim as he himself was largely responsible for the bad intelligence through his setting-up of the Office of Special Plans, a separate organization within the Pentagon intended to critique and supplement what the CIA was producing.

Wolfowitz’s zeal was rewarded by George W. Bush, who appointed him head of the World Bank, a position that he was forced to relinquish when it was determined that he had been concealing his relationship with a woman who worked for him as well as promoting her far beyond organizational guidelines. He was also accused of general mismanagement. Some things apparently never change.

In any event, Wolfowitz, who has now characteristically found yet another comfortable and well remunerated niche at the largely defense contractor funded American Enterprise Institute, has finally joined the neocon host that is working for a Hillary victory in November. They understand that it is a bread-and-butter issue. Hillary is clearly predisposed to continue the kinds of mindlessly aggressive policies that have made Neoconservatism Inc. and its vibrant cash flow possible in the first place.

More to the point however, in the real world both Hillary and Wolfie sometimes visit, there is renewed enthusiasm for jumping on the hate Russia bandwagon. To belong to that club one has to repeatedly accuse Moscow of interfering in American politics, preferably without any evidence at all to support the claim. Not surprisingly, the reality is actually quite different. It is the Hillary camp that has injected Russia into the campaign debate to use it as a bludgeon to beat on Trump. They do so without considering that regular excoriation of Russia in the media and from various political pulpits might actually have consequences.

Wolfowitz believes it is weakness in a leader to avoid confrontation with adversaries. He writes that Trump’s apparent desire to “step back” from crises in the world makes him “Obama squared.” It is a principal reason why he will likely be voting for Clinton in November. He describes Trump as a security risk precisely “because he admires Putin” and is “unconcerned about the Russian aggression in Ukraine. By doing this he tells them that they can go ahead and do what they are doing. That is dangerous” as “Putin is behaving in a very dangerous way.”

In a recent speech Hillary Clinton also piled on Russia while affirming that she is now the candidate of “American exceptionalism,” an obvious ploy to attract even more neocons and dissident GOP hawks. Hillary has also denounced Trump’s appearance on stage with Nigel Farage, who headed the successful British Brexit movement. Hillary declared Farage to be both racist and sexist before castigating him for being a stooge of the Russians. His crime? Appearing on Russia Today television, where the author of this piece has also appeared numerous times.

So Farage and Trump are together part of Hillary’s alleged vast right wing conspiracy and the strings for that are being pulled by Moscow. She went on to call Putin “the godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism” before launching an attack on Trump personally, claiming that he “heaps praise on Putin and embraces pro-Russian policies.” And he does that because there is something “wrong” about him: he is part of a “paranoid fringe in our politics, steeped in racial resentment.”

Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook took the argument still further, observing that “Trump is just a puppet of the Kremlin,” taking the claim that Trump is a Putin collaborator and elevating it to make him a true Manchurian candidate, a tool of what used to be Godless communism but is now something more like a revival of the Holy Russian Empire run by the KGB.

Justin Raimondo notes that putting all the bits together one comes up with a Hillary view that her nemesis Donald Trump is the face of a “Vast Right Wing Pro-Russian Conspiracy,” making him an enemy that comprises both domestic and international threats, producing a target rich environment for the slings and arrows produced by Hillary and her hack speech writers.

The Clinton view of Putin is particularly ironic as it runs against the frequently expressed Russian government desire to work together with Washington to solve mutual problems, to include dealing with Islamic terrorism and stabilizing the Middle East. Putin in fact pulled President Barack Obama’s chestnuts out of the fire in 2013 when the latter got caught in a series of lies relating to Syria’s alleged chemical weapons.

It would be bad enough if a delusional Hillary Clinton were alone, a voice crying in the wilderness, but she is not. She is supported by a growing number of neoconservatives as well as the Establishment Dems in her own party. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has called on the FBI to investigate whether the Putin government is trying to undermine the November ballot, implying that they might try to cyber-meddle with election results. Of course, if Hillary wins as expected he will fade back into the woodwork and stop complaining.

And then there is the media, which is playing its part by fearmongering. On August 18th The reliably neocon Washington Post featured two op-eds, one written by David Kramer and the other by Angela Stent. Kramer, who is a Senior Director with the McCain Institute for International Leadership and an ex-George W. Bush official, posits that “Russia is now a threat. The U.S. should treat it like one.” That an ex-GWB official should expound on sound policy from the pulpit of an institute reflecting the values of Senator John McCain might be considered comical, but Kramer asserts that “Russia under Vladimir Putin is an authoritarian, kleptocratic regime that poses a serious threat to our values, interests and allies. We should contain and deter Russian aggression…”

Kramer cites the familiar examples of Ukraine, Crimea and Syria as evidence of Putin’s bestiality but his descriptions are curiously one-sided, making it appear that Russia is invariably purely malevolent while all the alleged victims are peace loving and high minded democrats-to-be. Such thinking is, of course, nonsense. Putin is a realist and a nationalist who is well aware of his country’s limitations but who is willing to protect his genuine interests. Would that President Hillary Clinton might be intelligent enough to do the same.

In the second op-ed Stent, who directs the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies at Georgetown University, blames Russia for failing to integrate into “Euro-Atlantic and global institutions” while also “thwart[ing]” America’s “commitment to create a peaceful, rules-based post-Cold War order.”

I must have missed some of the recent history that Stent recalls so unambiguously, possibly because I was somehow misled by the reported looting of Russia by the west and the western aligned oligarchs as well as the more recent interference in the country’s internal affairs by Congress and the White House. She also seems unaware that the United States has a far worse international record than Russian since 1991, invading Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya while also interfering in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. And, oh yes, there was also that little matter of expanding NATO up to Russia’s doorstep, which just might seem provocative, as well as the direct encouragement of anti-Russian sentiment and worse in Georgia and Ukraine.

Stent admits that she does not know if Moscow actually hacked U.S. computers or released embarrassing information about candidates, but she nevertheless is confident enough to see Russia as “clearly intend[ing] to sow doubts about the legitimacy of our democratic election process.” What to do? Forget about any reset with Putin and instead consider building up military strength to “deter any further attempts by Russia to destabilize its neighboring countries.”

One has to wonder what stimulants they are serving in the coffee at the McCain Center and Georgetown, but it really doesn’t matter as the Wolfowitzes, Clintons, Kramers and Stents of this world are all bottom feeding out of the same gravy boat. For them, a world in conflict with a genuinely dangerous enemy that keeps them employed is a highly valuable commodity. The only problem is that Russia might really, really get pissed off by all the flatulence being directed at it. That could become very dangerous.

September 6, 2016 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

NYT: Hillary Not on Her Deathbed After All, Just Has No Time or Patience for You Commoners

By Steve Sailer • Unz Review • September 3, 2016

From the New York Times:

Where Has Hillary Clinton Been? Ask the Ultrarich
By AMY CHOZICK and JONATHAN MARTIN SEPT. 3, 2016

At a private fund-raiser Tuesday night at a waterfront Hamptons estate, Hillary Clinton danced alongside Jimmy Buffett, Jon Bon Jovi and Paul McCartney, and joined in a singalong finale to “Hey Jude.”

“I stand between you and the apocalypse,” a confident Mrs. Clinton declared to laughs, exhibiting a flash of self-awareness and humor to a crowd that included Calvin Klein and Harvey Weinstein and for whom the prospect of a Donald J. Trump presidency is dire.

Mr. Trump has pointed to Mrs. Clinton’s noticeably scant schedule of campaign events this summer to suggest she has been hiding from the public. But Mrs. Clinton has been more than accessible to those who reside in some of the country’s most moneyed enclaves and are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to see her. In the last two weeks of August, Mrs. Clinton raked in roughly $50 million at 22 fund-raising events, averaging around $150,000 an hour, according to a New York Times tally.

And while Mrs. Clinton has faced criticism for her failure to hold a news conference for months, she has fielded hundreds of questions from the ultrarich in places like the Hamptons, Martha’s Vineyard, Beverly Hills and Silicon Valley.

“It’s the old adage, you go to where the money is,” said Jay S. Jacobs, a prominent New York Democrat.

Mrs. Clinton raised about $143 million in August, the campaign’s best month yet. At a single event on Tuesday in Sagaponack, N.Y., 10 people paid at least $250,000 to meet her, raising $2.5 million.

If Mr. Trump appears to be waging his campaign in rallies and network interviews, Mrs. Clinton’s second presidential bid seems to amount to a series of high-dollar fund-raisers with public appearances added to the schedule when they can be fit in. Last week, for example, she diverged just once from her packed fund-raising schedule to deliver a speech. …

The public has gotten used to seeing Mrs. Clinton’s carefully choreographed appearances and her somewhat halting speeches and TV interviews over the course of the long — and sometimes seemingly joyless — campaign, but donors this summer have glimpsed an entirely different person.

It is clear from interviews with more than a dozen attendees of Mrs. Clinton’s finance events this summer and a handful of pictures and videos of her at the closed-press gatherings that Mrs. Clinton, often described as warm and personable in small settings, whoever the audience, can be especially relaxed, candid and even joyous in this company.

… If she feels most at ease around millionaires, within the gilded bubble, it is in part because they are some of her most intimate friends.

“It’s like going to a wedding or a bar mitzvah — you catch up,” explained Mitchell Berger, a Democratic donor in Florida, about the familial nature of the events. …

Mr. Berger, who joined Mrs. Clinton last month at a donor event in Miami Beach, said many of the individual conversations before and after she speaks at the gatherings are centered more on grandchildren than weighty policy matters.

But when she has had a give-and-take this summer about issues, Mrs. Clinton, who has promised to “reshuffle the deck” in favor of the middle class and portrayed Mr. Trump as an out-of-touch billionaire, has almost exclusively been fielding the concerns of the wealthiest Americans. …

Another advantage to choosing private fund-raisers over town halls or other public events is that Mrs. Clinton can bask in an affectionate embrace as hosts try to limit confrontational engagements.

Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a backer of Democrats and a friend of the Clintons’, made sure attendees did not grill Mrs. Clinton at the $100,000-per-couple lamb dinner Mrs. Forester de Rothschild hosted under a tent on the lawn of her oceanfront Martha’s Vineyard mansion.

“I said, ‘Let’s make it a nice night for her and show her our love,’” Mrs. Forester de Rothschild said.

Hillary, Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild, Bill, Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild (date unknown)

I can’t think of anything witty to say about Mrs. Forester de Rothschild, but I just wanted to help the reporters out with getting their point across by mentioning Mrs. Forester de Rothschild’s name a fourth and fifth time. And now a sixth: Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild. …

But Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have occupied a particular place in the social fabric of the enclave. Over the past several summers, they have spent the last two weeks of August in a rented 12,000-square-foot home with a heated pool in East Hampton and in a six-bedroom mansion with a private path to the beach in Sagaponack. This year, the former first couple stayed in the guesthouse of Steven Spielberg’s East Hampton compound built on nine acres overlooking Georgica and Lily Ponds.

Mr. Trump’s candidacy has allowed Mrs. Clinton to reach out to a new set of donors in the area who typically give to Republicans but dislike the current nominee. (Mr. Trump feels more at home at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., than in the Hamptons, where the exclusive Maidstone Club once denied him a full-time membership, according to The New York Post.)

So, is Trump a Golf Nazi or is he a victim of the Golf Nazis? This is all very confusing …

Let’s see if we can up this article’s Rothschild Index without doing too much work. From Wikipedia:

Lynn Forester de Rothschild
Born Lynn Forester
July 2, 1954 (age 62)
Bergen County, New Jersey
Nationality American
Alma mater Pomona College
Columbia Law School
Occupation E.L. Rothschild (CEO)
Title Lady de Rothschild

Spouse(s) Alexander H. Platt (m.1978; div.)
Andrew Stein (m.1983 – div. 1993)
Sir Evelyn de Rothschild (m. 2000)

Children 2

Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Lady de Rothschild (born Lynn Forester; July 2, 1954) is the chief executive officer of E.L. Rothschild, a holding company she owns with her third husband, Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild, a member of the Rothschild family.[1] The company manages investments in The Economist Group, owner of The Economist magazine, Congressional Quarterly and the Economist Intelligence Unit, E.L. Rothschild LP, a leading independent wealth management firm in the United States, as well as real estate, agricultural and food interests.[2]

She publicly supports many politicians and is a known early Hillary Clinton supporter.[3] She also rallies for a political movement called Inclusive Capitalism. She led the Conference of Inclusive Capitalism in London in 2014[4] and 2015 and founded the Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism.[5]

I think that gets the number of times the name “Rothschild” appears up to 17.

Oh, now the Rothschild Index is 18.

Wait, now the Rothschild Index is 19 …

I hadn’t actually been aware of the Rothschild-Economist magazine link, but now that I am, a lot more things make sense.

September 4, 2016 Posted by | Corruption | , | Leave a comment

FBI Notes: Hillary Staffers Smash Burner Phones With Hammers, Destroy Evidence

Sputnik – 03.09.2016

On Friday, the FBI released documents detailing its investigative process into Hillary Clinton’s alleged malfeasance as Secretary of State tied to the use of an unauthorized private email server that opponents contest placed America’s national security in peril by leaving it vulnerable to hacks from foreign powers.

The timing of the release, ahead of a three-day holiday weekend in the United States – a historic lull point in American media coverage as families across the country plan vacations and gather around the barbecue – appears to be the product of a careful stagecraft to limit the impact of the incendiary findings.

Notably, the FBI report included statements by a Hillary Clinton aide, Justin Cooper, who recalled “two instances where he destroyed Clinton’s old mobile phones by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer” in stark violation to the mandate for evidence preservation placed on public figures if they have receive a subpoena or if it was foreseeable to a reasonable person that they may be in the future.

Hillary Clinton had at least 13 mobile devices according to the investigation, used by the former Secretary of State to send official emails using her private email server, in a practice some are likening to a mobster’s use of burner phones to avoid detection by authorities.

Her top aide, Huma Abedin, chalked up the unusual use of mobile devices to Clinton’s age and technological ignorance suggesting that Hillary would use a new phone for a few days before reverting back to an older, more familiar model.

It has also been established in the FBI investigatory findings that Hillary Clinton’s IT team wiped the email server erasing any potentially incriminating evidence after she had already received a subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi – an act that appears to meet federal criminal standards for destruction of evidence and failure to preserve documents when under an obligation by subpoena.

Hillary received a subpoena from the House Select Committee on March 4, 2015 instructing her to preserve and deliver all emails from her personal servers, but three weeks later a staffer with Platte River Networks (PRN), Hillary’s IT team that managed the homebrew server, permanently erased the contents of the former Secretary of State’s email archive with a program called Bleach Bit.

The FBI findings show that the PRN staff member “was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton’s email data on the PRN server.”

Federal officials appear to have decided not to pursue criminal charges against the low-level IT staffer who was not the target of the investigation and were unable to find a definitive link between Hillary and the destruction of evidence – such as a direct order by Secretary Clinton to delete the documents.

It is established that there was a conference call between the PRN staff member and “President [Bill] Clinton’s Staff” immediately before the deletion of emails, but the contents of that call are unknown.

September 3, 2016 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , | Leave a comment

As Hillary Clinton kisses up to Henry Kissinger, RT looks at 4 of his most heinous acts

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (C) smiles as Henry Kissinger © Jonathan Ernst

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (C) smiles as Henry Kissinger © Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
RT | September 3, 2016

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has been seeking the endorsement of her long-time idol – and brutal war criminal – Henry Kissinger.

While the approval of such a man may seem at odds with an ideal endorsement, Clinton has long admired the work of the former secretary of state, and even sought his advice during her time in the same position.

Kissinger was national security advisor to Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford between 1969-73.

From 1973-77 he was secretary of state under both Nixon and Ford.

While Clinton retains the ultimate warmongering seal, RT examines some of Kissinger’s most memorable acts, with fingers crossed that Clinton doesn’t follow too closely in his footsteps.

Chilean coup

On 9/11 in 1973 the US-backed Chilean military carried out a coup which overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende.

Documents from the National Security Archive reveal Kissinger, then national security advisor, pushed Nixon to get rid of Allende, as his “‘model’ effect can be insidious”.

With help from the CIA, the coup was the start of more than a decade of horror and repressions under dictator Augusto Pinochet. Kissinger knowingly ignored reports of Pinochet’s repressions, choosing to send his “strongest desires to cooperate closely and establish firm basis for [a] cordial and most constructive relationship.”

The US meanwhile, enjoyed the spoils of a subservient government which allowed its corporations to plunder the country’s resources without interference.

Civilian slaughter in Vietnam, Cambodia & Laos 1969-73

While the US’s war in Vietnam was well publicized, even as it became clear it had been a failure, the US’s illegal carpet bombing of neighbouring Cambodia and Laos was lesser known.

During this time, the US dropped half a million tonnes of bombs in Cambodia alone, along with more in Laos and Vietnam, as well as devastating chemical weapons including agent orange and napalm, the effects of which are still being felt by Southeast Asians today. Then there are the unexploded bombs which continue to take the lives of innocent people. Studies estimate as many as 25,000 have died at the hands of the US’s unexploded bombs since the attacks ended.

Kissinger’s hand in the Indochina war extended the Vietnam war and set the stage for the Khmer Rouge reign in Cambodia.

Indonesia’s East Timor invasion

Kissinger approved the invasion of East Timor by Indonesian dictator Suharto in 1975, supplying Indonesia with arms in spite of an embargo. Suharto, who came to power as a result of a coup and arms support from the US which saw more than 1 million killed, proceeded to slaughter a quarter of a million people in East Timor.

Kissinger and Ford then made efforts to prevent the rest of the world from stopping the violence.

In 1999 when the small island voted for independence, president Bill Clinton chose to ignore the actions carried out by Indonesia which had been avoidable. Military aid given to Indonesia during Clinton’s presidency stood at about $150 million.

Pakistan’s Bangladesh genocide

Kissinger played a part in Pakistan’s invasion of Bangladesh, which saw as many as three million killed.

In 1971, Bangladesh, which was then East Pakistan, declared its independence following the victory of Bengali nationalists in the elections. The Pakistani army attempted to silence the population by raping women and killing civilians with US weapons, particularly the Hindu minority. Victims included children.

Kissinger and Nixon supported the Pakistani regime, with Kissinger congratulating Pakistani dictator Yahya Khan for his“delicacy and tact,” and mocked those who fought for “the dying Bengalis.”

Kissinger’s influence has shaped many other geopolitical disasters, including introducing the US-Saudi Arabia arms for oil relationship, encouraging the use of political Islam to destabilize Afghanistan, and the wiretapping of staffers and journalists in the US.

September 3, 2016 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Hillary Supports Illegal Sanctions on Iran

By Stephen Lendman | September 2, 2016

In January, Security Council sanctions on Iran were lifted. America still maintains some of its illegally imposed ones, despite promises of relief following implementation of last year’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal – once again showing its word isn’t its bond.

Bipartisan US policymakers can’t be trusted, saying one thing, doing another. Hillary is militantly anti-Russia, anti-China, anti-Iran, anti-peace.

According to her spokesman Jesse Lehrich, she “supports a clean reauthorization of the Iran Sanctions Act,” imposed solely for political reasons, along with numerous other US hostile actions, punishing the Islamic Republic unfairly and illegally since 1979.

Initially it was by seizing $12 billion in Iranian government bank deposits, gold and various properties in November that year.

A full trade embargo followed, largely maintained despite last year’s JCPOA implementation, normalization with Tehran denied because of heavy bipartisan congressional and Israeli pressure against it.

In 2006, the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act was renamed the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA). Authorized through end of 2016, it prohibits US and foreign oil development investments.

Violators face stiff penalties. They include denial of Export-Import Bank of the United States help, rejection of export licenses, and a ban on all or some violating company imports.

Hillary wants US/Iranian relations based on a “distrust and verify” policy, continuing to punish the country for maintaining its sovereign independence and being Israel’s main regional rival.

She wants ISA renewed for another decade, effectively in perpetuity as long as Iran remains free from US dominance – with congressional authorization for new sanctions any time at Washington’s discretion.

Billions of dollars of Iranian assets remain frozen. European banks face heavy pressure not to resume normalized business relations with Tehran.

According to Iranian deputy oil minister for trade and international relations, Amir Hossein Zamaninia, European banks are reluctant to run afoul of US policies – complicated by deliberate lack of clarity on American-imposed rules for doing business with Tehran.

Sanctions relief isn’t coming as expected, Washington obstructing normalized relations. Decades of punishing Iran continues, things likely worsening if Hillary succeeds Obama.

War is the greatest risk with her in power, escalated against Syria, Iran next if Assad falls, Russia and China to follow. Possible nuclear armageddon awaits if she’s commander-in-chief of America’s military.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book as editor and contributor is titled Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.

September 2, 2016 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Neocon in the Oval Office

By Paul Larudee | Dissident Voice | August 31, 2016

Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

— Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna 1:45

If Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes US President, she will be the first neoconservative to actually occupy that office. The neoconservatives have been an ascendant force in policymaking since the Reagan administration, and remained (through Vice President Dick Cheney) an unsteady heartbeat from the presidency in the G.W. Bush administration. Now possession of the highest office in the land is within their grasp.

This is important because the neoconservatives are wedded to war, death and destruction. It is the foundation of their policy and it dominates the culture that they have created. They see war and conquest as the means to maintain unchallenged US military, political, and economic supremacy in the world – and even (according to H.R. Clinton) as a “business opportunity”.

The origins of neoconservatism

The neoconservative movement dates from the 1970s.  The term originally referred to “newcomers” to conservative politics from leftist and liberal origins. They gravitated to the politics of Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson and UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Among their adherents were Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and later Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

What they held in common was advocacy for aggressively challenging the Soviet Union, coercion of smaller countries through authoritarian puppet regimes and pre-emptive war. At home, they preached “free market” economic liberalism, while their domestic social agenda was moderately liberal and even progressive on some issues (e.g. civil rights). They became staunchly Republican during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, but gained a foothold in Bill Clinton’s Democratic administration and crossed party lines to an even greater extent during the Obama presidency. Their supporters include the military-industrial complex, the major financial institutions (“Wall Street”) and, importantly, the Israel lobby.

Israel and the neoconservatives

Israel and its supporters were inseparable from the neoconservative movement from the beginning. Many neocons were already Zionist or pro-Zionist, and their support for aggressive militarism was largely indistinguishable from Israel’s own strategic plans. To the extent that the neocon movement could sell Israel’s views as solidly American, it could bend the resources of the most powerful military on earth for Israel’s own ends.

Israel’s lobby invested heavily in strategic think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Brookings Institution, and later the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Project for a New American Century. By placing neoconservatives in these institutions, Israel helped to advance their influence and their careers in government while promoting Israel’s point of view in government circles.

Together, the Israel lobby and its neoconservative allies projected an image of Israel as a Middle East superpower, defending America against Arab nations allied with the USSR. In reality, Israel’s aggression against its neighbors and against Israel’s own captive Palestinian population only drove the Arab nations farther into the Soviet orbit and made the US more hated in the region. Ironically, Israel’s US allies used this to strengthen Israel’s image as a strategic and needed US asset.  Even Israel’s attack on US forces in 1967, killing 34 servicemen and wounding 174 aboard the USS Liberty, did little to weaken this image.

Post-USSR: The New American Century and the baptism of Hillary Clinton

With the end of the Soviet Union in 1991, the neoconservatives accomplished one of their main goals and went on to argue that the US should take advantage of its status as the only remaining superpower to consolidate and extend its domination of the world. The first articulation of this was in the February, 1992 Defense Planning Guidance prepared for Defense Secretary Dick Cheney by Paul Wolfowitz and his subordinate, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. The document and its subsequent revisions advocated a policy to “prevent the re-emergence of a new rival” and “maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” It also advocated pre-emptive US intervention regardless of international law and the UN, and assurance of Israeli dominance in the Middle East.

The “Wolfowitz Doctrine” did not immediately win favor in the waning days of the G.H.W. Bush administration, but Hillary Clinton was one of its relatively few supporters when Bill Clinton came to office. (Her main early success was to instate Madeleine Albright as UN ambassador and then Secretary of State.) Then, in 1996, neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and others prepared A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm for Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu during his successful campaign for prime minister of Israel. It argued for a “New Middle East” to be molded by “preemptive” war in order to “contain, destabilize, and roll-back” perceived threats.

The next year, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), an explicitly neoconservative think tank, was formed. It globalized the regional principles and policies described in Clean Break, for application to US policy, but one direct carryover was a recommendation for regime change in Iraq. This became the subject of an open letter to President Bill Clinton in February, 1998, and it spurred the Iraq Liberation Act, strongly supported by Hillary Clinton and passed in October of that year.

In 2000, PNAC issued a 90-page report, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, shortly before the presidential election of 2000. It recommended regime change and military force as cornerstones of US foreign policy.

When George W. Bush became president the following January, his Vice President, Dick Cheney, a leading neoconservative, brought many of his colleagues from PNAC and elsewhere into policy-making roles, including Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and many more. With the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, they put their plans for permanent warfare into motion. The first two objects of regime change were Afghanistan and Iraq. It is estimated that more than a million people died as a result.

The Senate years

2001 was also the year Hillary Clinton first took office in the US Senate. There she supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and essentially the same foreign policy objectives as her neocon Republican colleagues, as her voting record attests. In 2007, she encouraged the founding of the first specifically Democratic neoconservative think tank, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). One of the co-founders of CNAS was Michelle Flournoy, a Defense Department political appointee in the Bill Clinton administration who is expected to be Secretary of Defense in a H.R. Clinton cabinet.

General Wesley Clark has also revealed that by September, 2001, Defense Department offices in the Pentagon had drafted plans to invade Iraq, and that by the following month seven countries in the Middle East had been targeted for “regime change” in a five-year period. Plans change, but we know that after Afghanistan, Iraq was, in fact, invaded and destroyed, as well as Libya, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, either by the US or by its allies with US support. It is estimated that at least 2 million people died as a result of these actions (not including the million or more who died in the first Gulf War and as a result of a decade of economic sanctions), and that more than 20 million became refugees.

With the encouragement of her friends in Israel and its US Lobby, Hillary Clinton became one of the leading Democratic cheerleaders for these neocon projects while in the Senate during the G.W. Bush administration. In 2006, partly as a result of Israel’s experience of stronger-than-expected resistance from the Shiite Hezbollah movement during its war with Lebanon, Israel decided to make Shiite Islam a strategic target.

The neoconservatives in the G.W. Bush administration, such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Elliot Abrams and Douglas Feith, quickly championed this policy, as did Hillary Clinton. US destruction of Iraq had strengthened the hand of Iran and its Syrian and Hezbollah allies, and so neocon logic dictated that these countries should be destroyed, to prevent a potential challenge to Israeli and US supremacy in the region. It was also decided that it would be advantageous to stoke Sunni-Shiite rivalry in order to split and weaken the countries in the region, to the power advantage of Israel and the US. This policy formation is described in Seymour Hersh’s “The Redirection”.

Secretary of State

When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State in the Obama administration in 2009, she was in effect the top ranking neoconservative in government. During her four years in that post, she encouraged and supported the neoconservative priorities of overthrowing the elected Honduran, Libyan, Syrian and Ukrainian governments. She advocated intervention in Syria and the provision of funding, training and military equipment to groups fighting the Syrian government.

In Ukraine she created a $5 billion program to “democratize” Ukraine. This became a regime change operation, which her State Department chum Victoria Nuland actively engineered, and which resulted in the overthrow of the legally elected Ukrainian government. Nuland and her husband, Robert Kagan, are important figures in the neoconservative movement, co-founded the neoconservative PNAC and Foreign Policy Initiative think tanks, and have held posts in the Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush and Obama administrations.

The neoconservative movement is a hammer that views every problem as a nail. Its foreign policy consists of intimidating every potential rival and making an example of every nation or movement that does not follow US direction or accept without question the dictates of Israel. There is essentially no room for win-win outcomes, and even a lose-lose outcome is acceptable if the greater loss is on the other side. Total military domination and the profligate use of unlimited lethal force is their stock in trade. The fastest way to advance in the dominant neocon culture in Washington is to propose ever more spectacular destruction and bloodletting on a massive scale, and especially if it benefits Israel.

The US alliance with and use of terrorist organizations

This explains the neoconservative love/hate relationship with terrorist organizations. The artful covert support of such groups contributes greatly to their agenda. From the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the late 1970s to al-Qaeda, ISIS and other groups today, neocons have successfully encouraged US exploition and often subsidization of such groups for strategic mayhem. They were employed to create a quagmire for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Since then, US-subsidized mercenary terrorists have served to undermine real or potential adversaries of the US and Israel as quasi-allies and recipients of covert aid. As enemies, they serve as a pretext for US intervention wherever they may be.

From the neocon perspective, the al-Qaeda attacks against the USS Cole, the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es-Salam, the World Trade Center and other targets worldwide, as well as the ISIS targeting of western civilian populations, have helped to make the case for American military intervention and leadership without necessarily committing large numbers of American troops. The US has used these attacks to enlist countries like Britain, France, Canada and Australia in military actions against Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

Britain and France also participated with the US in the destruction of Libya, for which Hillary Clinton in particular took credit. Terrorist organizations were allowed and even encouraged to take over, with the result that Libya went from having one of the highest standards of living in the region to a failed and destitute state. Clinton appears to have taken particular enjoyment in the US-sponsored terrorists’ grotesque murder of Libyan President Muammar Qaddhafi. She is also strongly implicated in the transfer of Libyan weapons to terrorist groups in Syria. These have possibly included Libyan sarin gas used in the false-flag chemical attacks blamed on the Syrian government. She has promised that she will escalate US intervention in Syria after becoming president.

Currently and for the past five years, the neoconservatives have successfully promoted the use of terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. They are considered expendable, and they are a means of creating destruction where that is the intended result.  Their purpose in Syria is to overthrow the government and create a failed state, as in Iraq and Libya but also to threaten the security of Russia and Iran. This explains why the US is waging selective “war” against ISIS in some regions while protecting and supporting it in others.

The threat to Russia includes encouraging terrorist groups from Russia’s Chechnya province, who are an important part of the estimated 100,000 foreign terrorist mercenaries from nearly 100 countries that have participated in trying to overthrow the Syrian government. Until now, there is no sign that the US is encouraging them to take their war back to Russia, but this is clearly a possibility that neither government will ignore. Nevertheless, the neoconservative agenda includes supporting Russia’s enemies in Ukraine and placing NATO troops into former Warsaw Pact countries like Poland.

China is also not spared. Chinese Uighurs are among the terrorist mercenaries equipped largely with US arms in Syria, and the US is undermining China’s security in the South China Sea and through its bases in Korea, Japan and the Philippines.

The prospect of a 2017 H.R. Clinton administration

These neocon ambitions will be more dangerous and destructive when Hillary becomes US President. Unlike previous administrations, it will not be a matter of selling the president on neoconservative policy or even allowing high-level neocons in government to dominate policy. When Clinton takes office, she will be leading the neoconservatives, not following their recommendations.

In the election, she is likely to benefit from crossover votes from disaffected Republicans while assuming that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party will have little choice but to vote for her. She has a history of cooperation with Republican foreign policy neoconservatives, and may choose to move closer to their positions during the remainder of the campaign, in order to attract their support. “I would say all Republican foreign-policy professionals are anti-Trump,” leading neoconservative Robert Kagan said at a “foreign-policy professionals for Hillary” fundraiser. “I would say that a majority of people in my circle will vote for Hillary.”

Former GOP candidates Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Lindsay Graham and Jeb Bush have refused to back Trump, as have George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Brent Scowcroft, Tom Ridge and other Republican leaders. With their support, Clinton may be able to craft a stable bipartisan majority in Congress for her neoconservative agenda, even if substantial elements in both parties oppose it.

This would enable her and her fellow neocons to pursue the most dangerous and aggressive foreign policy in US history. If we extrapolate from the two previous administrations, we should expect at least a million people to die in US-sponsored foreign wars, and ten million to become refugees. And if plans go forward to further challenge the security of Russia and China, we could see a nuclear crisis rivaling or surpassing the Cuban missile crisis, with potentially more disastrous results.

There are many career professionals in the US State Department, intelligence community and the Pentagon who believe that the neocon agenda is foolish and destructive, and that perpetual warfare has too many unintended consequences to be an effective means of national policy. They believe that diplomacy is a better way, and point to examples like the de-escalation of the imminent US bombing of Syria in September, 2013 through a Russian-brokered agreement for Syria to give up its entire chemical weapons arsenal.

Unfortunately, this is not the plan of Hillary Clinton and her neoconservative partners. For one thing, diplomacy diminishes the value of Israel as a strategic asset, and so the Israel lobby will be opposed. In addition, however, the neoconservatives view diplomacy as the way of the weak and the timid. If they are allowed to prevail, perhaps only another catastrophic world war will cause a new generation to re-learn the lesson of those who survived WWII and vowed to find a better way. If we survive.

Paul Larudee is one of the founders of the Free Gaza and Free Palestine Movements and an organizer in the International Solidarity Movement.

August 31, 2016 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton speaks on America’s place in the world

RT | August 31, 2016

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is making the case for American “exceptionalism” and US leadership around the world, speaking to the national convention of the American Legion in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The veterans group invited Clinton to speak on Wednesday. Her rival for the White House, Republican nominee Donald Trump, is scheduled to address the convention Thursday.

Clinton began her speech talking about American exceptionalism, which means  “America’s unique ability to be a force for peace and progress.”

“We are the indispensable nation. People all over the world look to us and follow our lead,” she said. “When America fails to lead, we leave a vacuum that either leaves chaos, or other countries rush in to fill the void.”

Through her speech Clinton often criticized the words of her major opponent Donald Trump who was skeptical about American foreign police and called the situation with its military “disaster.”

Clinton brought in the Bin Laden raid as an example of US foreign policy successes and touted her participation in advising President Obama.

She also noted that she enjoys “bipartisan support” several times.

She brought up the letter of 50 Republicans who said they won’t vote for Trump, because he’d be “most reckless president in American history.”

Clinton said she’s honored to have so many retired military leaders and these Republican experts on board.
“They know I believe in a bipartisan foreign policy,” she said.

August 31, 2016 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Some Important Things That Really Do Matter About Hillary Clinton

By Peter Van Buren | We Meant Well | August 31, 2016

hillary-300x200Even if everyone does it, that does not make it right. That excuse did not work for you in 6th grade when you were caught smoking in the girl’s room and it should not be accepted from a presidential candidate or her supporters in the media.

Many politicians do crappy things. That is not an excuse for you to also do them. See above.

“Well, at least I wasn’t indicted” is not a very high standard for the presidency.

“There is no proof of quid pro quo.” What do you mean by proof? A notarized statement “This guy gave us money, so let’s sell him weapons?” Reality doesn’t work that way so spare us the strawman argument. Phone calls are made. Conversations happen. Minions learn quickly what their boss wants. People at the Clintons’ level rarely leave paper trails behind and when they do, they delete them before the FBI arrives to pick up the server.

If someone offers you millions of dollars for essentially no work (i.e., a speech) they are going to want something in return. If you want more money, you will need to give something to them.

“All they wanted was a meeting with the secretary to offer their views.” Sure, maybe. But in Washington the currency is closeness to power. For a wealthy person, buying just material things loses its charm after awhile. They buy access, they buy the appearance of power, they buy chances to take those photos of themselves with prominent world leaders all rich people have on their walls. You look like a sap, arm candy in return for cash. Quid pro quo can mean a meeting, a visa issued, an arms deal made.

Follow the money. Always follow the money.

If the secretary of state’s name is Clinton and the foundation receiving the money is named Clinton, they are part of the same thing.

If you put classified material on an unclassified server, that is wrong. It exposes that material to America’s adversaries. Presidents should simply not do that. No one else in government has ever knowingly been allowed to do that.

There is such a thing inside the U.S. government called retroactive classification. You may not like it, and you may have convinced sops in the media to pretend with you it does not exist, but it is real. I’ll Google it for you, here, and here. Someone please call CNN and pass them those links.

The Clinton Foundation as a charity has done some good deeds. But do not conflate those with its role as a money laundering tool. The two are very separate functions of the same organization. And you can have the first without the second. In fact, that’s how good charities work.

Avoiding even the appearance of unethical behavior is important. Persons throughout the government watch what their senior leaders do as signals as to what they can get away with. Leadership matters, and that means staying clean and making sure everyone sees that you are clean. You lead by example, one way or the other.

When global leaders come to wonder if you can be bought off for some “donations,” they will either lose respect for you, or want to buy you off themselves. They will not simply ignore it.

Putin could really not give a sh*t which assclown is elected president. He’ll go on acting in his country’s best interests no matter who is in the White House, as he has done through multiple administrations already. Get over yourself.

Hiding from the press and not holding press conferences seems like the behavior of a petulant six-year-old.

It is not leadership nor is it presidential to be caught as a liar and a prevaricator on a regular basis. People do not trust you; not voters, not the Congresspeople you will need to work with, not other world leaders you will have to negotiate with.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. Why do you want to knowingly vote for evil?

 

August 31, 2016 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , | Leave a comment

Why Hillary is the perfect person to secure Obama’s legacy

2d3104f5355f500855ebfa7893f2ccc7

By John Chuckman | Aletho News | August 30, 2016

I read a piece that said Hillary, with her speech about racism and extremists taking over the Republican Party, was making a play for a one-party state. That seems rather an exaggeration, but it does contain an important bit of truth. I do indeed believe Hillary thinks along the lines of a one-party state as suggested, but without ever saying so directly, and she is not focused on the particular political party with which she is now associated.

Hillary stands for the establishment, and her views appear to include the idea that anyone without attachment to that establishment is to be designated as a kind of “plebe,” as in 1984, or even “untouchable,” as in the old Indian caste system. That’s the approach that she took in her “racism” speech. It is, if you will, very much a one-party approach to politics as well as an implicitly anti-democratic one.

And, of course, it represents a truly super-arrogant attitude.

But isn’t that the natural inclination of all tyrant temperaments? And there is every indication in Hillary’s past acts and words of a tyrant’s temperament.

Her views on the military and on a long history of events from the FBI Waco massacre (she advocated for aggressive FBI action to get the event out of the headlines) and the bombing of Belgrade (which she advocated privately to her husband) to the invasion of Iraq (which she supported as a Senator) and the death of Libya’s Gadhafi (there’s her infamous, “We came, we saw, he died. Ha, ha, ha,” quote as Secretary of State) to the employment of paid terrorists and poison gas in Syria (an operation she oversaw as Secretary of State), could provide a good working definition of a tyrant’s temperament.

And just look at her close friends and associates in, or formerly in, government, people like Victoria Nuland or Madeleine Albright, extreme Neocon advocates for violence and America’s right to dictate how others should live. Madelaine Albright is best remembered for answering a journalist in an interview, when questioned about tens of thousands of Iraqi children dying in America’s embargo, “We think it’s worth it.” She is also remembered for her dirty, behind-the-scenes work in dumping as Secretary General of the UN, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a highly intelligent, fair-minded, and decent man who just happened to disagree with the United States once too often. Victoria Nuland’s claims to fame include being recorded talking about America’s spending $5 billion to create the coup in Ukraine. There is also her wonderfully diplomatic quote, “Fuck Europe,” and a seemingly endless stream of photos of her scowling into cameras.

And the same temperament is revealed in her record of ‘I know better than the expert’ when it comes to matters such as a Secretary of State’s protocols around computer security. Again, her record as First Lady with the Secret Service agents assigned to her protection was so unpleasantly arrogant that there is a residual of ill will still towards her in the Secret Service, enough to cause a number of past agents to tell tales out of school to journalists and in books.

Hillary likes to use language in public speeches which puts her ‘on the side of the angels’ where various social issues are concerned, but it is entirely an advertising campaign of no substance, much resembling the big, clown-like or grimacing smiles she puts on at public events. Many mistakenly associate her with the historic traditions of the liberal left in the older Democratic Party, the kind of traditions Bernie Sanders brought momentarily flickering back to life, although they are in reality now virtually dead in the Democratic Party. Her actual record of behavior, as opposed to her sound bites and slogans, just cannot support that view of her as a liberal or progressive light.

Just to start, Hillary conducted the most corrupt campaign against Bernie Sanders I can recall in my adult lifetime. It included an inappropriate insider relationship with the Chairman of the Party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who used every opportunity with the press and other means to disadvantage Bernie Sanders. It included voter suppression in a number of states as well as outright vote fraud in a number of others. Academic statistical analysis of the primaries’ data suggests that Bernie Sanders in fact won the nomination.

Search as you might, you will not find a history of Hillary actually being involved, beyond uttering slogans every so often, with social issues. She has no record at all. But her history does very much include such acts as being fired from her early job as a Watergate Committee lawyer for unethical behavior (the man who fired the young lawyer still has his contemporary notes of the event) and, in an early volunteer case, grinding down a 12-year old rape victim about fanaticizing over older men and getting her brutal 42-year old attacker freed, smiling in an interview later that she in fact knew he was guilty.

There is literally a line of women who were her predator husband’s lovers at one time or another who say that Hillary afterwards approached them with threats about keeping their mouths shut. And, perhaps her single clearest achievement on social issues, is her record of enabling her husband to carry on with a convicted pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, who lives on a private island and keeps a stable of underage girls for the use of visitors. He is a very wealthy man with wealthy friends and arranges large political contributions, so he receives visitors such as Bill. Epstein actually once claimed he co-founded the Clinton Foundation, and he and associates have made large donations, tens of millions. We have a documented record of 28 trips to the island by Bill, and there is no way on earth Hillary wouldn’t know about them. Just as there is no way she could not know about important developments with the Clinton Foundation. She implicitly approved of the relationship with her often seen money-before-morals attitude.

Her husband’s office-leaving pardon of Marc Rich is often regarded as corrupt and having been paid for by Mr. Rich’s family and friends who donated large and continuing sums over time. Mr. Rich had been indicted in New York for tax evasion and fraud, but perhaps the outstanding aspect of his career, as it relates to Hillary and her slogans about social issues, is the way he made a considerable part of his fortune. He smuggled oil to the apartheid government of South Africa over time against international sanctions, and he is said to have made $2 billion doing so. Well, it does seem more than a little hypocritical to have supported a pardon for this man and then today to be giving speeches on someone else’s purported racism, and even to have been photographed, with toe-scrunching smarminess, eating fried chicken with a group of black voters.

We also have the fact of her talking, quite fiercely and recorded on video, about black “super-predators” when she was First Lady. Her husband signed legislation which likely put more young black males in prison than any other piece of legislation. Bill also bragged, as he signed another bill, of ending “welfare as we know it,” again legislation which hit poor black people hard. And, in all these acts, we know he had Hillary’s support. By a great many reports, Bill Clinton never dared do anything major of which his wife disapproved. With his years of flagrant sexual adventures and his need, on more than one political occasion, for her public lies of support when he was caught out, she had a virtual hammer over his head. Besides, Hillary has always regarded herself as having considerable acumen in such policy matters, and hers is a personality type you do not comfortably ignore.

In terms of pure competence, despite her assuming a public air of swaggering competence, her record is simply meagre to poor. We can return to that early instance, her dismissal from the Watergate Investigation for what her boss called unethical conduct and lying. Later, as First Lady, she took over the healthcare portfolio from her husband, the President, with unprecedented arrogance for an unelected person and one holding no formal appointment to office, and she failed badly in the complicated task.

As a Senator from New York, her eight-year record is remarkably undistinguished. Only three bills she sponsored became law, a bill to rename a highway, a bill to re-name a post office building, and a bill to designate a house as a national historic site. As Secretary of State, she of course ran the Benghazi operation which saw an American Ambassador and others killed, and her handling of the families of the dead afterwards, as the bodies were returned, echoes to this day with insensitivity and even brutality. She is deeply resented by family members and accused of lying.

I do believe it would be a difficult task to come up with a more fitting candidate than Hillary Clinton for carrying on the Obama legacy, a legacy of killing in a half dozen lands on behalf of America’s establishment, lying daily, and leaving your own people, the people who elected you with great hopes more than seven years ago, with nothing.

August 30, 2016 Posted by | Corruption | , , | Leave a comment

Hillary and the Clinton Foundation: Exemplars of America’s Political Rot

By Eric Draitser | CounterPunch | August 29, 2016

Hillary Clinton may be enjoying a comfortable lead in national polls, but she is far from enjoying a comfortable night’s sleep given the ever-widening maelstrom of scandals engulfing her presidential bid.  And while Clinton delights in bloviating about a decades-long “vast, right wing conspiracy” against her, the fact is that it’s the Clinton political machine’s long and storied track record of criminality, duplicity, and corruption that haunts her like Lincoln’s ghost silently skulking through White House bedrooms.

The latest in a string of embarrassing scandals is centered on the powerful Clinton Foundation, and the obvious impropriety of its acceptance of large donations from foreign governments (and wealthy individuals connected to them), especially those governments universally recognized as oppressive dictatorships whose foreign policy orientation places them squarely in the US orbit.

Of particular note are the Gulf monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar whose massive donations belie the fact that their oppression of women runs contradictory to Clinton’s self-styled ‘feminism’ and belief “that the rights of women and girls is the unfinished business of the 21st Century.” Is collaborating with feudal monarchies whose subjugation of women is the stuff of infamy really Clinton’s idea of feminism? Or, is it rather that Clinton merely uses issues such as women’s rights as a dog whistle for loyal liberals while groveling before the high councilors of the imperial priesthood?

What the Clinton Foundation hullabaloo really demonstrates is that Clinton’s will to power is single-minded, entirely simpatico with the corruption of the military-industrial-financial-surveillance complex; that she is a handmaiden for, and member of, the ruling establishment; that Clinton represents the marriage of all the worst aspects of the political class. In short, Clinton is more than just corrupt, she is corruption personified.

Clinton’s Dirty Dealing and Even Dirtier Laundry

In a hilariously pig-headed, but rather telling, statement, former President Bill Clinton responded to allegations of impropriety with the Clinton Foundation by saying, “We’re trying to do good things… If there’s something wrong with creating jobs and saving lives, I don’t know what it is. The people who gave the money knew exactly what they were doing. I have nothing to say about it except that I’m really proud.”

Leaving aside the fact that such an arrogant comment demonstrates Bill Clinton’s complete contempt for ethics and the basic standards of proper conduct, the salient point is that the argument from the Clintons is that the foundation is inherently good, that it helps people around the world, and that, as such, it can’t possibly be corrupt and unethical. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire – except when it comes to the Clintons who stand proudly enveloped in billowing clouds of smoke swearing up and down that not only is there no fire, but anyone who mentions the existence of flames is both a sexist and Trump-loving Putin stooge.

But indeed there is a fire, and it is raging on the American political scene.  And nowhere is the heat more palpable than in the deserts of the Middle East where wealthy benefactors write massive checks for access to America’s 21st Century Queen of Mean (apologies to Leona Helmsley).

Consider the 2011 sale of $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, a gargantuan deal that made the feudal monarchy into an overnight air power.  Were there any doubts as to the uses of the hardware, look no further than the humanitarian nightmare that is Yemen, a country under relentless air war carried out by the Saudis. And, lo and behold, the Saudis had been major contributors to the Clinton Foundation in the years leading up to the sale. And it should be equally unsurprising that just weeks before the deal was finalized, Boeing, the manufacturer of the F-15 jets that were the centerpiece of the massive arms deal, donated $900,000 to the Foundation.

Of course, according to Bubba and Hil, it’s all conspiracy theory to suggest that the Clinton Foundation is essentially a pay-for-play scheme in which large sums of money translate into access to the uppermost echelons of state power in the US. As the International Business Times noted:

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire… Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation… That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

Additionally, as Glenn Greenwald explained earlier this year,

The Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with donations coming as late as 2014, as she prepared her presidential run. A group called “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” co-founded “by a Saudi Prince,” gave an additional amount between $1 million and $5 million. The Clinton Foundation says that between $1 million and $5 million was also donated by “the State of Qatar,” the United Arab Emirates, and the government of Brunei. “The State of Kuwait” has donated between $5 million and $10 million.

The sheer dollar amounts are staggering. Perhaps then it comes as no surprise just why nearly every single influential figure in the military-industrial-financial-surveillance complex – from General John Allen to death squad coordinator extraordinaire John Negroponte, from neocon tapeworms such as Max Boot, Robert Kagan, and Eliot Cohen to billionaire barbarocrats like the Koch Brothers, George Soros, and Warren Buffett – is backing Hillary Clinton. Not only is she good for Empire, she’s good for business. And ultimately, that’s what this is all about, isn’t it?

But of course, Hillary’s devotion to the oil oligarchs of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf goes much deeper than simply an exchange of money for weapons. In fact, Hillary is deeply committed to the Saudi royal family’s foreign policy outlook and tactics, in particular the weaponization of terrorism as a means of achieving strategic objectives.

Libya provides perhaps the paragon of Clintonian-Saudi strategy: regime change by terrorism.  Using terror groups linked to Al Qaeda and backed by Saudi Arabia, Clinton’s State Department and the Obama Administration managed to topple the government of Muammar Gaddafi, thereby throwing the former “jewel of Africa” into turmoil and political, economic, and social devastation. To be fair, it was not the Saudis alone involved in fomenting war in Libya, as Hillary’s brothers-from-other-mothers in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were also directly involved in sowing the seeds of the current chaos in the country.

And of course, this strategic partnership between Clinton and the Gangsters of the Gulf extends far beyond Libya. In Syria, Clinton’s stated policies of regime change and war are aligned with those of Riyadh, Doha, and Abu Dhabi. And, of course, it was during Clinton’s tenure at the State Department that US intelligence was involved in funneling weapons and fighters into Syria in hopes of doing to Syria what had already been done to Libya.

Huma Abedin: Clinton’s Woman in Riyadh

Just in case all the political and financial ties between Clinton and the Gulf monarchies wasn’t enough to make people stop being #WithHer, perhaps the role of her closest adviser might do the trick. Huma Abedin, Clinton’s campaign chief of staff, has long-standing ties to Saudi Arabia, the country where Huma spent her childhood from the age of two. As a Vanity Fair exposé revealed earlier this year:

When Abedin was two years old, the family moved to Jidda, Saudi Arabia, where, with the backing of Abdullah Omar Nasseef, then the president of King Abdulaziz University, her father founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a think tank, and became the first editor of its Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs… After [Abedin’s father] Syed died, in 1993, his wife succeeded him as director of the institute and editor of the Journal, positions she still holds… Abdullah Omar Nasseef, the man who set up the Abedins in Jidda… is a high-ranking insider in the Saudi government and sits on the king’s Shura Council, there are claims that Nasseef once had ties to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda—a charge that he has denied through a spokesman—and that he remains a “major” figure in the Muslim Brotherhood. In his early years as the patron of the Abedins’ journal, Nasseef was the secretary-general of the Muslim World League, which Andrew McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the “Blind Sheik,” Omar Abdel Rahman, in the wake of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, claims “has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.”

Consider the implications of this information: Clinton’s closest adviser comes from a family connected at the highest levels with the Saudi royal family as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. While right wing pundits portray the Muslim Brotherhood as some sort of straightforward international terror organization, the reality is much more complex as the Brotherhood is more an international political movement whose tentacles stretch into nearly every corner of the Muslim world. Its vast reserves of cash and political influence, backed by Gulf monarchies such as Qatar, allows the Brotherhood to peddle influence throughout the West, while also being connected to more radical salafist elements. An obvious two-for-one for Clinton.

In effect then, Abedin represents a bridge connecting Hillary with both the ruling elites in Riyadh, as well as influential clerics, businesspeople, and political leaders throughout the Middle East. Perhaps then it makes sense why Abedin, in contravention of every standard of ethics, was employed by Teneo Holdings – a pro-Clinton consultancy founded by former Clinton aide Doug Band – while also working for the State Department. Such ethical violations are as instinctive for Hillary as breathing, or calling children superpredators.

Trump, Assange, Putin, and Clinton’s Sleight of Hand

Despite being embroiled in multiple scandals, any one of which being enough to sink the campaign of most other candidates, Clinton and her army of fawning corporate media sycophants, have attempted to deflect attention away from her own misdeeds, corruption, and nefarious ties by instead portraying everyone who opposes them as puppets, stooges, and useful idiots.

Let’s begin with Republican nominee and gasbag deluxe, Donald Trump, who Clinton trolls have attempted to portray as a stooge of Russian President Putin. While it’s indeed quite likely that the Kremlin sees Trump as far less of a threat to Russia’s interests than Clinton – just look at Clinton’s roster of neocon psychopath supporters to see that Putin has a point – the notion that Trump is somehow a creation of Putin, or at the very least is working for him is utterly absurd.

And the “evidence”? Trump’s connections with wealthy Russian oligarchs. I suppose those who have made their homes under rocks these last 25 years might not know this, but nearly every billionaire investor has gone to Russia in that time, forged ties with influential Russians, and attempted to make money by stripping clean the bones of what was once the Soviet Union. Sorry Naomi Klein, I guess the Clintonistas expect no one to have read Shock Doctrine which details the sort of disaster capitalism run amok that took place in Russia in the 1990s.

And then, of course, there’s that great confabulator Julian Assange who has also been smeared as a Putin puppet by the #ImWithHer media somnambulists. I guess the lords of corporate capital didn’t like the fact that Assange and WikiLeaks have managed to expose countless dirty deeds by Clinton’s Tammany Hall of the 21stCentury. From using the DNC as a political appendage of the Clinton campaign (as revealed by the WikiLeaks dump of DNC emails) to his recent promise to make public the “most interesting and serious” dirt on Hillary, Assange has become a thorn in the side – or thumb in the eye, as it were – for Hillary.

And what would a rundown of the specters haunting Clinton’s dreams be without mention of the rabid bear of Russia, big bad Vlad? Clinton recently referred to Putin as the “grand godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism.” Leaving aside the asinine phraseology, Clinton’s attacks on Putin reveal the weakness of the Democratic nominee, the hollowness of her arguments, and the unmitigated gall of a hypocrite for whom casting stones in glass houses is second nature.

For, at the very moment that she takes rhetorical swipes at Putin, Clinton herself is implicated in a worldwide network of extremism that promotes terrorism, rains death and destruction on millions of innocent civilians, and moves the world closer to global conflict. If Putin represents the éminence grise of a “global brand of extreme nationalism,” then Clinton is the fairy godmother of global extremism and terror. It’s a good thing she has access to the best personal grooming products Goldman Sachs money can buy as it is not easy to wash decades-worth of blood off your hands.

And so, the quadrennial danse macabre that is the US presidential election has turned into an embarrassing sideshow of dull-witted infantilism. But amid the idiocy there is wanton criminality and corruption to be exposed before the world. For while Trump is undoubtedly the bearded lady of America’s freak show, Hillary is the carnival barker.

She knows the ring toss and other games are rigged, but she coaxes the feeble-minded to play nonetheless. She knows the carnies are drunk and reckless, but she urges the children to pay for another ride anyway. She understands that her job is to sell a rigged game, and to call security when someone challenges her lies. And, unfortunately, whether you want it or not, the Hillary Roadshow is coming to a town, or country, near you.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. You can reach him at ericdraitser@gmail.com.

August 29, 2016 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , , , , | Leave a comment