Archive for the ‘Pretentious People’ Category

Family Dysfunction Persisted

March 21, 2017

As you may have heard by now, noted literary lion Chelsea Clinton has published a new book.
With a speed of hand that would shame Mickey Spillane or Edgar Wallace, the Great Weird Hope of the Clinton dynasty got a book deal (the favored corporate method for bribing people in political life) and in doing so she inadvertently shows us how untreated child-abuse travels through the generations.

The book bears the name SHE PERSISTED, a PR phrase coined to promote another book deal – that one for the already wealthy Senator Elizabeth Warren.

In the Clinton Clan, persisting has a perverse history.

By now, who doesn’t know the story of Hillary as a 4 year-old getting thrown out of the house by her abusive mother? The child had endured taunting from bullies in the park, as most children do, and so she ran home to her mother for comfort and succor. What did this FOUR YEAR-OLD CHILD get instead? As Hillary compulsively relates it over and over again, even 65 years later, her mother had the love and foresight and compassion to… throw her out of the house.
Mother Rodham blamed little Hillary for the situation, said she “gave up” and called her daughter a coward who she would not welcome in the home until THE BABY dealt with the tormentors.
Slam went the door. Does anyone, other than Hillary, really believe this callous treatment had a salubrious effect on the child?

Hillary Clinton has, for the past 65 years, related that story with pride. She says it shaped her character. Well, yes, it did. But not the way she seems to think. To Hillary Clinton, giving up means losing mother’s love and – more to the point – getting kicked out of the house. One can only imagine the depths of fear and anxiety – Separation Anxiety – this “loving mother” sparked in her infant child.

As Dr. Gabor Maté notes: “In an anecdote related by the former Secretary of State herself as an example of salutary character building, four-year-old Hillary runs into her home to escape neighbourhood bullies. ‘There is no room for cowards in this house,’ says her mother, sending the child out into the street to face her tormentors. The real message was: ‘Do not feel or show your pain. You are on your own.’ Over six decades later the candidate hides her pneumonia even from her doctor and from those closest to her. Repeatedly she has overlooked her husband’s outlandish infidelities, defending him against disgrace— no doubt suppressing her own emotional turmoil in the process.”
(Emphasis added)

Hillary Clinton has never received treatment for this early-childhood trauma – and to me, every single time she relates the story she presents a 4 year-old’s repressed cry for help. To this day, Clinton shows an irrational view of the world as a place populated by “bullies” who she, and she alone, MUST stop. She even cited this as her Raison D’être for seeking the Presidency upon receiving the democratic nomination.

And then, in her own words, spoken in her first speech after losing the election, Hillary Clinton had one strong message:

For Mrs. Clinton, 65 years after her mother terrorized her by throwing her out of the only home she knew, giving up – no matter how useless the fight may be – means the loss of love and home.
Sheer stubbornness has become a virtue in Hillary-Land. What manner of person NEVER concedes loss? Or error? Or understands the pragmatic need for a strategic concession to an opponent? I’ll tell you what manner of person: A DANGEROUS PERSON.

Untreated family abuse wends its way down through the ensuing generations. So it came as no surprise to me to see that Chelsea Clinton, an adult-child who owes everything she ever got to her parents, also carries this mania. And in the aftermath of her mother’s embarrassing election loss to a known “bully” and TV game-show host, it falls upon the adult-child to become the mother Hillary wanted but never had. Thus the topic of Chelsea’s new book fits right into mommy’s mania – as the cover makes crystal clear:

The child taking care of the needs of the mother perverts the natural flow of life. Yet this child – at age 35 – has made a career of just that. Making speeches for mother (and in a subtle way sabotaging her in the process – displaying resentment) and even talking of entering politics herself – a clear attempt by a chile to vindicate the family after repeated losses and scandals. I mean, let’s face it, after seeing the sheer hell that BOTH her parents underwent, what child would say “THAT’S the career for me!”? Would Chuck Wepner, Jr. ever consider boxing? Hell, even the NIXON off-spring knew better…

Does Chelsea really see stubbornness as a virtue? Or has she taken up the call simply to soothe her wounded mother? And for god sake WHY peddle this swill to CHILDREN? Can this adult-child not relate her feelings to grown people? I see it as bad enough when family abuse gets passed on through the generations. But to deliberately pass it on to children one does not even know becomes a form of mass abuse. All to justify a mother who has long had the time and ample financial resources to GET THERAPY and change the warped view of the world she brags about carrying… ONE speech to Wall Street would have paid for Hillary’s therapy and then some.

Upon seeing the announcement of this book, I got hit with a wave of sadness. I hoped that Chelsea’s children don’t face similar horrendous abuse. Considering that the abuse has gotten mythologized as “character building,” will Chelsea take the chance to throw her own children out of the house at age 4? Will she do as her grandmother did, and make a mother’s love conditional

If Chelsea sees the delusion of stubbornness as a virtue, and sees it as good enough to spread to countless unknown children through her book – I wonder how she sees her own children? And their children after her? Where does it end. When she has a son, will she name him SUE?

Well, that comprises the problem which the Clintons must one day face. OUR problem, I see as more alarming: We as a nation must learn to stop electing to positions of power those damaged people who still suffer under the weight of untreated childhood abuse. But because of the alarming rate of abuse in America, such wounded and deluded people resonate with the bulk of our neighbors. Possibly even you… or me.

Seeing Danger Everywhere

March 9, 2017
—–
Last year former CIA head Leon Panetta found himself drowned out at the Democratic convention with shouts of NO MORE WAR:

Just a few days ago, the 78 year-old Panetta told CBS news that Trump’s tweeting weakens the presidency and  (GASP!) prevents him from starting wars. This… is a disappointment to him?

“I think, I think that is raising the most serious danger with regards to the ability of this president to relate to a very dangerous world,” Panetta said.

Dangerous world…

One of the key components of the far right-wing mindset is the firm belief that we live in a dangerous world which must be subdued and conquered through strength.

Rudy Giuliani is a case in point.
I remember seeing Giuliani give a speech to the GOP convention back when he was considered relevant. Like many conservatives he sees threats everywhere. After that, he spoke about this almost every time he delivered a speech. He insists that the world is a dangerous place, filled with people who want to kill us.

How does this happen to a person?

As with many fear-based people, Giuliani suffered early-childhood abuse at the hands of his parents and he now labels that very abuse as the best thing that ever happened to him. 
Giuliani – even today at age 72 – tells the story of being a 3 year-old in Brooklyn where the other kids worshiped, as children are often wont to do, the Brooklyn Dodgers, their local baseball team.
At that time, Giuliani’s father – for reasons unknown, other than the fact that his record shows him to be a sadistic thug (of the type Giuliani later make a career out of prosecuting) – would dress little Rudy in a NY Yankees uniform and send him out of the house. For wearing the uniform of the Brnox team in Brooklyn, Rudy would get beaten up. Every day. And his old man did nothing to help. In fact, he just kept sending Rudy out in that uniform – which all the other kids hated.
Sounds pretty grim, right?
But Giuliani says that what his father did helped build character. Well, yeah, a WARPED character.
From the NY Times in 1989:
When Mr. Giuliani was about 3 years old, his father, a dedicated Yankees fan, bought his son a Yankees uniform and cap. Mr. Giuliani’s mother dressed him in the uniform and sent him out to play in Flatbush. He was pounced on by a group of boys almost immediately. They were Dodger fans.
”They took the hat and threw it in the mud,” Mr. Giuliani recalled. ”They threw me in the mud, too, and probably whacked me around a little bit. I ran upstairs and either my mother or father said, ‘Well, now you’re going to be a Yankee fan.’
”So,” he continued, ”I kept wearing that Yankee uniform, and I kept getting thrown in the mud.”
He is still a Yankee fan.
Note the repression: the kids PROBABLY whacked him around. He doesn’t know? He cannot tell if his mother or father gave him dubious advice that he still obeys, yet he QUOTES that advice?
He was THREE YEARS OLD at the time and was still relating this tale of woe at age 45.
At over 70 he continues.
These are signs that a person suffered greatly and still carries it about in a repressed/mythologized way. Is the brutality Rudy suffered at the hands of the kids at a truly formative age, and his family’s indifference to his suffering, the reason for his seeing the world as a dangerous place? For him, at the time it was dangerous! Whatever the cause – and this is the alarming part – Giuliani STILL insists on wearing a Yankee uniform whenever he can. He sends out SIGNED pictures of himself this way. As an old man, Giuliani is still reacting to a situation that happened in 1947…
Compare Giuliani’s story with the story of Hillary Clinton’s mother having thrown her out of the house at age 4 – and her need to repeat the tale over and over and over while insisting that it was an act of motherly love and character building. Hillary’s mother did this because Hillary was abused by bullies and she came home crying. Clearly what the mother did – rejecting a child in pain – was worse than anything the other kids did. A 4 year-old RELIES on the parent. But her mother punished her in a most horrible way that without doubt set off a crisis of separation anxiety. And this too NEVER left Mrs. Clinton. Even as an elder, she still needs to please her dead mother:
People with untreated/unresolved childhood trauma are not “crazy” nor are they necessarily “bad” people. They are damaged people. These people suffer deeply yet they will never acknowledge it. After 60 years of living like this, it becomes not a part of who they are but who they are in their entirety. And putting such people in positions of power is dangerous. Lethal. Ask the surviving citizens of Libya and Honduras – where Hillary “stood up to bullies” – how they liked having her help…
Clearly, there exists in such damaged people a stubbornness that makes them adhere to the self-created mythology of their brutal childhood – while projecting it onto the world. They still say, to dead parents, It’s NOT my fault, Mommy/Daddy! The WORLD is DANGEROUS! Don’t blame ME!
In my work as a Tarot Consultant I regularly hear from people who have undergone the most horrible things that life can throw at a person. Yet they sought out help and coped with the problems in a productive way. They all have in common a willingness – a desire! – to face the issue and resolve it so they may not be dominated by dead fears.
None of us grew up unscathed. But many of us got help in dealing with these things rather than allow them to fester to the point where we compulsively live our lives in reaction to a situation that no longer exists.
On a personal note: For years I have told people that I had a childhood only Charles Dickens could have written. I can never undo it – but I don’t have to mythologize it. The physical torture I endured and the mental abuse – these are part of who I am and always will be, but they do not RULE or DEFINE who I am.
Because I got help.
The last thing I can imagine about myself is that at age 70+ I will be standing in front of people I don’t know, repeating day after day stories of early childhood abuse and praising my parents for inflicting this damage on me.
Looking at Hillary Clinton and Giuliani, I have to wonder what happened to Panetta so many, many years ago that now, at age 78, he can face a crowd of THOUSANDS saying to him NO MORE WARS and have it mean absolutely nothing to him. He SMILED at this! I would certainly question myself if I underwent that experience. Judging from his subsequent comments, Panetta only saw that as confirmation that the world is dangerous – meaning, the world is against him personally.
Do we really want such people in charge of our society?
Really?

1955’s TRIAL… Nothing New Under The Sun

February 18, 2017

trialtc

This post concerns a rarely seen film. A powerful film; which may explain why it rarely got shown since its release in 1955. New to home video, it dealt with a topical subject when made. And, sadly, the raw ugly truth it conveys about American life remains topical over 60 years later.

triallc41

As noted thousands of years ago “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” Specific issues may change, but society always remains the same, explosive powder keg awaiting a match, often applied by the very people who trick us into believing they want to help us or lead us. Left and Right will mean nothing if the powder keg blows up. And someone always profits from the blast.

In the film TRIAL, each extreme gets revealed as equally deadly when a town becomes a pressure cooker of conflict over a seeming murder.

triallc3

The story seems deceptively simple: A sheltered law professor with no experience beyond a classroom gets caught up in the real world – and learns that he knows almost nothing about the real practice of law.  If you think America today with its political opportunists who say one thing but do another, who spread racism for profit in new – this film from 1955 (though set in 1947) will show you that nothing has changed. Including those “tolerant liberals” who, inside, harbor just as much prejudice as any klansman.

All sorts of people get involved in a racially charged murder case for all manner of personal profit. We gradually discover that each character has a personal axe to grind: Holding on to a law professor job. Running for governor. Keeping real estate values high. Remaining police chief. Proving himself above racism. And, most deadly, changing society at any cost. As the story unfolds, each character willingly – eagerly! – turns up the heat under the pressure cooker to further his own needs.

trialstill2

This tension creates a crackling, powerful film about extremists of all sorts. Some elements in the film will seem quaint now, but substitute modern groups like the DNC – who want their way regardless of the consequences – and it still works. What kind of a group will gladly cause horrific damage just so they can proclaim “WE TOLD YOU SO” in order to raise money for themselves?
See what I mean? Still works today.

Opportunists willing to destroy everything and anyone to promote themselves have always operated freely among us. Sometimes they win. Sometimes they get opposed successfully. But first we must know them when we encounter them; something not always so easy to see.  When our passions get roused, when we believe that we can clearly tell the “good” people from the “bad,” then we make ourselves ripe for the picking. We blindly give those with ulterior motives the power to manipulate us.

As the lead character says early on: “I learned a long time ago that when someone says ‘decide right now’ that that’s the time to take your time.” He knows this. Does he do it?

Fundamentally, this film presents a cautionary tale about the difference between knowing the right thing and doing the right thing. Passion and certainty cloud the mind. Whether in the courtroom or the bedroom. This film could easily get set in today’s America, using any “populist” movement in place of that shown from the 1940s. As one character slyly notes, “never trust anyone”. Especially those you consider leaders. You may not really know what goals they have dedicated themselves to.

angel_blake_jail

Little wonder TRIAL never made it to home video till 2014. It says things which even today most people just refuse to hear.

Over the years, Mark Robson proved himself a serious film director and the novelist/screenwriter Don Mankiewicz, son of Herman, had solid credentials as well. Mankiewicz lived a long life, till 2015, so he must have seen the situations in his story played out over and over and over.

TRAIL deceives. This film looks like one thing (another courtroom drama, though an excellent, realistic one) yet, like the events depicted, TRIAL really shows another thing. Glenn Ford performs at his best here as the Ivory Tower lawyer who gets, reluctantly, a taste of the real world. Katy Jurado again plays her patented “suffering Mexican mother,” Rafael Campos appears as the young man who might have… or perhaps not…
Of particular note to me: The cinematography of Robert Surtees. It heightens the proceedings with some genuine surprises. Juano Hernandez as the judge performs up to his usual high standards and excels as a man who faces heat from all sides. Arthur Kennedy snared an Oscar® nomination for playing the smartest man in the room. Perhaps too damn smart…

trial_feb-18-2017-3-31-28-pm

I consider TRIAL worth seeing to understand much of today’s events, for it presents a warning against extremism when it comes cloaked in virtue. Don’t all extremists believe they alone know the “truth”?

Always question. Always look deeper. Never call anything true for no other reason than it comforts you or reinforces your beliefs.

Do so, and you likely don’t know any more than the people who pull the strings on the puppets want you to know. Consider instead the very real possibility that you, yourself, represent the main puppet.

Keep your eye on the prize and you’ll always lose sight of everything else.

 

Don’t Follow Blindly!

December 3, 2016
Much of the world hails Fidel Castro as a hero of freedom.
Here, he is reviled.
Much of the world considers Barack Obama to be a mad bomber – destroyer of people and nations.
But here he is considered a wonderful, intellectual progressive.
See how experience guides decisions?
What if Mr. Obama droned YOUR town?
What if Cuba sent much needed doctors into your town?
Nothing is as cut and dried as it appears on the surface. Or on a bumper sticker.
When American officials and the news media denounced Nelson Mandela as a bloodthirsty communist terrorist, the African continent knew who their friends were.
Cuban President Fidel Castro, right, and African leader Nelson Mandela gesture during the celebration of the

Cuban President Fidel Castro, right, and African leader Nelson Mandela gesture during the celebration of the “Day of the Revolution” in Matanzas Saturday, July 27, 1991. Cubans celebrate 38th anniversary of the revolution. (AP Photo/Alejandro Balaguer)

———–
News used to be called “The First Draft of History.”

Now? News is mostly thought-control which gets spoon-fed to us by multimillionaires on corporate payrolls. People like this, as many have now come to realize:

screen-shot-2015-06-05-at-8-42-18-am-1280x811

Do you seriously believe that someone who gets paid $30,000 PER DAY (yes, PER DAY) has even the slightest interest in telling us the truth?
Never forget the old adage:

“Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.”

If an informed opinion differs from my own, I try to find out why.

THAT is why all through the election I posted my objections to electing Hillary Clinton and BEGGED her supporters to correct me. I did this time and again. I even offered to vote for Hillary if anyone could overcome HALF of my objections.

None so much as tried. In place of discussing my objections they merely insulted me in the most vile ways. Then the flew off into the Oppression Olympics, saying a person whom they glibly perceived as a well-off white male can NEVER “understand.” A convenient cop-out. And these are the self-described LIBERALS!

In 1964 humorist Jean Shepherd defined a SLOB as any person who doesn’t know the difference between thinking and believing. Shepherd wisely predicted that in the future such people will shut out all thoughts that do not conform to their beliefs. This is a perfect description of BIGOTRY.  The day which Shepherd predicted has indeed arrived. Political partisans have devolved into fundamentalist religious nuts. When I opposed Hillary, I was treated like a heretic who was charged with spitting on the Holy Books. The Ignorati have discovered politics and now bigotry reigns. You are either with them or you are EVIL.

Rev. Eliot’s Law #4:
Don’t believe what you are told to believe.

The End of the Neoliberal DLC! Or… Is It?

November 18, 2016

As the Withers (I Am With HER!) scramble to assign blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss, pointing out a new villain every day, I encountered one article that truly attempts to show what happened and why.

Who is to blame?

The Democratic Leadership Council is to blame.

Gone now, after the election, but as with Greek tragedy the ending was implicit in the beginning.

The DLC was conceived by Southern Democrats as a way to attract the Reagan Republicans to the failing democratic party. Screw traditional Democratic values, these people only wanted to WIN. At any cost.

So the DLC hijacked the names Democrat and Liberal to advance a decidedly conservative agenda. Hence NEOLIBERAL (an older term) being applied to them.

screen-shot-2016-11-18-at-2-59-41-pm

This article, CLICK HERE, looks at the arc of history and rightly concludes: “Despite being a historically weak candidate, Hillary Clinton’s demise wasn’t just about Hillary Clinton. Clinton was the final lifeline to a neoliberal bubble built by the Clintons and many others — that finally popped on November 8th, 2016.”

Yes, it took decades to demolish this rightist movement but The People finally saw through it. Running Hillary – a candidate who links right back to the core of the conservative Bill Clinton agenda – was their first mistake and it was a humdinger. Running Hillary gave us a reason to look backwards and reassess the Clinton years. They should have run someone younger, but the DLC neoliberals only have oldsters. And Hillary, as Christopher Hitchens once noted, needed to run for therapeutic reasons of her own (mostly relating to her abusive parents and, well, MONICA). Had the DLC even one YOUNGER candidate, and ran that person, they may possibly have won.
Hillary’s candidacy opened a can of worms and she knew it, which is why she didn’t hold a full press conference in almost a year. 
She was not willing to have the past (meaning HISTORY) on trial. Even while touting her “achievements,” she showed dread of the past.

So while the Withers scramble for a patsy, the article I link to in this post shows who was to blame for her loss.  Unlike the drivel emerging from the keening of grief-stricken Withers, this article does not seek a convenient scapegoat. It shows the history of the neoliberal DLC movement.

Clearly, running the WIFE of one of the DLC founders was an act of hubris. It was the old people leaping from the grave. It reminded me of Christopher Lee’s Dracula, yanking the stake from his heart in one more doomed effort to live forever. Greek tragedy…

I suspect the Clintons are not going to give up. After all, Hilary prides herself on never quitting – the direct result of an abusive mother throwing her out of the house at age FOUR –  so there will likely be a 4th Act for the Clintons, even after the rest of the DLC sublimates and vanishes, like a sickly sweet AirWick canister.

For a number of reasons, I suspect they will try to use their clinging daughter as an arm of their ego, and promote her as the NEW! YOUNG! face of neoliberalism. There is too much money at stake what with all the various Clinton Foundations. Their whole influence-peddling, pay-to-play racket crumbles when there isn’t a Clinton in office somewhere…
screen-shot-2016-11-18-at-3-20-25-pmSo odds are it will be their daughter who now has to carry the load of her parents’ ambition. Putting ones’ needs ahead of the needs of the offspring is the very definition of an abusive parent. But can’t you hear them?
“Well, kid. It is up to you now….”

And then they will oh-so-gently remind Chelsea of all that they did for her, and all that she has. This is the bargain she made with them in exchange for EVERYTHING she ever got in life. Chelsea’s string of high paying jobs, delivered to her because of who her parents are, was more than crony-capitalism. It was the Faustian Bargain by which this person sold her life away. Now she is hooked. She OWES them. And they will collect even if it kills their only child.

Look for more appearances by Chelsea. The Foundations will give her a more visible part to play. And her parents will market Chelsea as though she is the New COKE… but remember what happened to that.

Waaaaaahhhh!

November 10, 2016

crybaby

I DON’T LIKE THE RESULTS SO… ELIMINATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

I DON’T LIKE THE CANDIDATE SO… ELIMINATE THE PRIMARY SYSTEM!

I DON’T LIKE THE RULING SO… ELIMINATE THE SUPREME COURT!

I DON’T LIKE THAT OPINION SO… ELIMINATE FOX NEWS!

I DON’T LIKE THE NEWS SO… FIRE THAT ANCHOR!

I DON’T LIKE THE LAW SO… ELIMINATE THE LEGISLATURE!

I DON’T LIKE THE RESULTS SO… I WILL LEAVE AMERICA!

And these are… THE LIBERALS! The broadminded, tolerant, DIVERSE liberals…

Ok… 

To the Withers talking about leaving the country:

People who will leave because their choice lost an election should go and stay the hell out.
I, on the other hand, will continue to fight for what is right and not leave just to save the effort.
When we win and beat back the regressive tide – and these people did nothing to help because the left – let them stay where they are. Great help THEY would have been in 1776.
A little inconvenience and suddenly they want to become political refugees. 

And these are the people who called me PRIVILEGED for not supporting a neoliberal war-hawk.

“I just HATE this election! I’ll be siping Campari on the Riviera for the next 4 years…”

15027472_10202509165008188_7838359094561268875_n

Once again we see the truth in the words of Phil Ochs:  “Liberals are 10º to the left of center in good times but 10º to the right of center when it affects them personally.”

 

Never Trust a “Cold-War Liberal”

October 7, 2016

14611160_10202360169643397_7715071107652487310_n

Never trust a “Cold-War Liberal”
They are war-happy.
You can spot them by the repeated warnings they issue about Russia and China.
Mostly Russia.
Cold-War Liberals live in the past.
In a dangerous past.
But to them, in their old age, in their dotage, it is a glorious past.
They are elderly now and the past is all they have left.
It is who they are, because it is who they were.
They cannot look forward.
This is not a game.
The world needs new ideas and new plans.
The end result of the vaunted “thirty years of experience” Withers cite for their candidate is where we are right now.
The people who put us here, right here, where we are right now, did so deliberately and they will not change things.
Unless we got here by accident, in which case, that “thirty years of experience” means absolutely nothing.
And if you want to see change: YOU ARE A SOCIALIST TOOL OF PUTIN AND CHINA!!!!
You know you have heard this empty imprecation again and again.
So how can you expect change from someone who denounces change?
See how cold-war senility works?
They got away with that garbage in the 50s and 60s.
They saw their dead parents doing it.
So the Cold-War Liberals need to relive their youth.
But their youth has evanesced.
It is no more.
It is gone.
Elect a Cold-War Liberal aching to recreate her or his heyday of youth and potency, and there will be war, misery, and blood.
The day of the Cold-War Liberal is over.
THIS is what the exemplary Cold-War Liberal had to say about war:
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge–and more.”
That means regime change.
That means war.
That is from a liberal hero.
55 years ago.
We step back to those days at our own peril.
The world is different now. We cannot attack with impunity.
People hit back.
Remember that:
People hit back.

UPDATE:

Now the NY Times reports that Hillary Clinton, in a secret speech revealed by WikiLeaks, has announced her passion for SECRET WARS (click here).
She touts the joys of “covert-intervention,” to use the NY Times euphemism.
Covert-Actions. 
CoIntelPro was covert action
Installing the Shah as dictator of Iran was covert action
Killing Salvador Allende was covert action
Overthrowing Guatemala was covert action
The Bay of Pigs was covert action
The bloodthirsty School of the Americas was covert action
LBJ’s Operation Chaos was covert action
Sabotaging the Democratic Primary was TYPICAL covert action
Henry Kissinger is covert action personified
And Mrs. Clinton LIKES THIS?
Wants MORE of it?
Is she insane?
The Times writes: “Mrs. Clinton gave a tough-minded, realpolitik answer to the question of how to handle a problem like Syria. If the best chance of success was to act secretly inside that country, she made clear, she had no problem doing that.”
Oh… She has no problem doing that?
Unfortunately THE WORLD HAS A PROBLEM WITH YOU DOING THAT, you war-crazy maniac!
Mission Impossible was FANTASY.
I will not vote for more wars.
Especially secret wars. You know, like NIXON IN CAMBODIA which led to this:

1971
This is a democracy, despite what this Cold War Neoliberal thinks.
As to the Times: saying her call to secret war is “tough-minded, realpolitik” is not journalism, it is editorializing. You are putting lipstick on that pig.

How much more NIXONIAN will Clinton reveal herself to be?
She may well take the White House, this bloodthirsty Cold War Neoliberal, but not with my consent.

new-nixon

FURTHER UPDATE:

Late in October, Tim Kaine CONFIRMED that Hillary’s first action will be to ask Congress for unlimited war powers.
As with all neocons, which the Cold War Liberals have spawned, Hillary actually believes that in wartime the nation will unite. She is a big step into the past. Cold War Liberals are in their dotage now and should just take the gold watch then go home to their republican grandchildren.
screen-shot-2016-10-28-at-2-35-00-pm

Voter Intimidation Means WE ARE WINNING!

September 28, 2016

Those of us who will not vote for either of the media-selected elderly, unemployed millionaires have taken a lot of attacking for sticking to principles. But we ARE WINNING! Look at this from the President of the United States:

“If you vote for a 3rd party candidate that’s a vote for Trump,” Obama said during an interview on Steve Harvey’s radio show.

Third-Party Voters: THIS IS THE FIRST BIG SIGN THAT WE ARE SUCCESSFUL!

Look how frightened the neoliberals are!
If our “insignificant protest vote” is meaningless, then this would not matter to the President.
With this comment, Obama is saying is HE IS POWERLESS AND THAT WE HAVE THE POWER!

Here is what a republican says:
“So let me be clear: a vote for anyone other than Donald Trump in November is a vote for Hillary Clinton.” – Scott Walker

Isn’t it delicious that Mr. Obama is so frightened of you that he has sunk to the level of SCOTT WALKER?
They are both reduced to SCARE TACTICS because of YOU AND ME saying we will vote our conscience.
They both cannot be right… but they both can most certainly be wrong.

Keep it up, friends! If our votes didn’t matter Obama would never have said this.

And don’t let anyone smugly call your vote “a protest vote” as the Withers do. Voting for a candidate who is on the ballot is NOT a protest, it is a well-reasoned choice. Remember the freedom to choose? I thought “liberals” were big on that. Again, we see the wisdom of Phil Ochs, who sagely observed: 

“Liberals are 10º to the left of center in good times but 10º to the right of center when it affects them personally.”

Friends, the condescending dismissal of a rational, thoughtful vote as “protest” is odious on many levels. Not least of which is that America was founded on protest.
Protest is enshrined in our Bill of Rights. The Withers reveal their fascist, anti-American attitude every time they denounce protest. In short: screw ’em. They are not what America is about.

maxresdefault

The Last VP Who Took Gifts As Governor…

July 23, 2016

Washington, DC: Vice President Agnew, left, held a last-minute meeting with President Nixon at the White House, September 10, just before departing on a week-long, six-state swing to campaign on behalf of the Republican candidates. Agnew's trip is regarded as the first part of an intensive campaign, which should keep the vice president on the road frequently until election time, in a Republican effort to capture the Senate and House and retain control of the state capitols. --- Image by © Bettmann/CORBIS

Why Does Hillary Need Sanders To Quit?

June 12, 2016

     Despite the media spin, after his meeting a few days ago with President Obama, Bernie Sanders clearly stated that he is in this race through to the convention. The video is barely 5 minutes long. See it if you have not seen it yet.
Sanders’ insistence that he will continue irritates the hell out of the Clinton contingent.
Why?
Sanders is talking democracy, and the Clinton crowd calls it sexist, egomania, insanity…
It is democracy. And even Pres. Obama, through his press secretary, said that Sanders has “earned the right” to make his own decision on whether or not to stay in.
So why is this a problem for the Clinton wing of the Democratic party?

Why, if Mrs. Clinton is the “official” Democratic nominee, does she even need Sanders to drop out?

What difference could his staying or going possibly make? This begs examination.

     Simply put, If Clinton has the required number of delegates, as she claims she has, then what’s the fuss?  All that will happen is that the convention will hold ONE public round of voting and she will be the nominee.

Cue the deluge of Red, White, and Blue balloons!

🎵 🎵 Happy Days Are Here Again! 🎵 🎵

Blow those horns! Shout! Scream! Cop a feel from the delegate nearest you!

     But if this is what will happen, because Clinton has it locked up (right?)… why must Sanders drop out? Isn’t it worth it to the furious “Withers” to humiliate Sanders by making the grumpy sexist egomaniac sit through the whole Megillah, festooned with Clinton’s victory balloons? Does he not have this coming?

     Let’s try to find out what is really back of this bizarre demand that a person who has lost… should quit. To that end, I will entertain an exercise in ratiocination.

What is it that is looming in the near future that Sanders will be involved with but that worries Clinton?

Certainly not the DC primary on June 14th. Piffle!

Is it the final California count, which is inching to a close?

No.
These are minor things.

It simply has to have something to do with… the convention.

Something about the convention isn’t quite going “With Her”… What is it?
Let’s Examine the options.

THE CONVENTION PLAYS OUT
Let us say that – as was the case with candidates in the past – Mrs. Clinton, thoroughly convinced that she will be the next president, views the televised convention as the first big, splashy public moment in that presidency – rather than the simple insider nominating process it actually is.

     In this case, the convention would assume a larger place in her mind than such a routine process actually holds. It will become crucial as part of  a larger plan.

Clinton, clearly, sees an urgency in stage-managing the convention to salve her own needs, not the needs of the party and not the needs of the system.

     A well-oiled coronation will provide Clinton with a Niagara of adoring video clips and sound bites for the coming general election, which in her mind she also has locked up, just like she locked up the nomination. But slick advertising will always be needed – and what is better than images of a cheering, weeping-for-joy throng at the convention?

     So what, as things stand now, will the Democratic convention look like?
     The delegates from the 50 states and the several territories will place names into nomination and then pledged delegates will be given alphabetically, state by state, territory by territory. You know the drill:

Each state/territory will have its moment in the sun, on national television:

“The great state of Wyoming, gateway to… Wyoming. Home of… Wyominganians… The state that Milt Kamen said does not really exist, DOES exist and casts its delegates – CLINTON 43 (cheers) SANDERS 55, (sustained cheers)!”

Oops. That doesn’t look so good on TV for Clinton, does it.

And on it will go. State by state, territory by territory.

A DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS
SANDERS! SANDERS! SANDERS! SANDERS!
will ring out time and again, from each delegation because the democrats didn’t have a “winner take all” primary system (which you can bet the farm they WILL have by 2020).

At three minutes for each geographic location and its delegates, plus interstitial applause and spontaneous cheering, this first round of voting should take no less than three hours. On TV.

SANDERS! SANDERS! SANDERS! SANDERS! will be repeated over and over, as will the spontaneous peals of BERNIE! from the crowd.

For Hillary, who has already claimed the nomination and treats it as a fait accompli, this democratic process will not be just poor optics, it will be the death by a thousand cuts – even if she wins. But she won’t win because:

One by one, the states and territories will mete out delegates and after all that time – Clinton will have gathered more than enough pledged delegates to be declared, under the DNC rules, a “WEAK FRONT-RUNNER.”
Not the nominee. But a “WEAK FRONT-RUNNER.”

Yes, after the first ballot, Hillary Clinton will go down in the history books as the first American woman to ever be declared, by a “Major” Party… a WEAK FRONT-RUNNER.

Swell…

More than three hours of this on international television, beamed around the world and even up to the International Space Station, and at the end of the voting Hillary Clinton, “presumptive” nominee will not have won.

No Balloons… and Happy Days Are not quite here yet.

At this point, Clinton’s claim to have the nomination all sewn up will evanesce, as it is revealed to be premature, at best – and arrogant for sure, since Hillary Clinton arrogated the convention’s responsibility by assuming the mantle of nominee, as though it were a $12,500 Armani coat.

And then following that first round of votes… but after an interminable break for talking heads all over the TV spectrum to say over and over what lousy optics this is for Clinton and how un-leaderly it seems – another round of votes will ensue.

Only, not right away.

More time. A meal break, during which Clinton will avoid the media – something at which she excels considering that as I write this in June of 2016 she has not had an open press conference since December 4, 2015. She will chew on a burger, and chew out her staff in one of her notorious fits of anger. You know what it is like if you saw Clinton bite the head off a Greenpeace representative who asked her a simple question.

    For at this stage of the process, after the first vote and with no nominee selected, the Super Delegates we have heard so much about will vote. This is their moment. This is what Super Delegates were created for: To reevaluate the qualities that led the front-runner to be such a weak front-runner that the nomination is could not be given out on the first ballot.

These Super Delegates, there to protect the party from a weak candidate who only manages to scrape together a small majority, have the power to vote for whomever they deem strongest against the Republicans – and you can be sure that the cheering and demonstrations for each candidate seen during the initial vote will influence the process. It is meant to. That is participatory democracy at its finest. Liberals LOVE democracy and free speech right? Right?

And now, the arm twisting and horse-trading will commence. None of this will look good for the “presumed” nominee around the globe – or in outer space – ON TELEVISION.

Clinton may emerge as the nominee at this point, but only after floor fights and demonstrations and maybe with a smaller margin than she had imagined possible given her “inevitable” status.  But get this part perfectly straight: if there is any screwing around with the process all hell will break loose, as it damn well should. Remember, despite unbelievable obstacles, Bernie Sanders has won the support of HALF OF THE DEMOCRATS. The other half loses sight of that at their own peril.

But the convention process – an open and democratic process – apparently does not assuage Clinton’s personal need to seem inevitable, a need so clearly evinced since last year when the DNC named Hillary and Hillary alone as their choice.

Long before a party nominee is selected, the process will show Clinton for exactly what she is: A WEAK FRONT-RUNNER.

UNLESS…
Unless, DRUMROLL, Sanders retreats. Throws in the towel. Capitulates. If he does, then the convention becomes the Hillary Show, unfettered by democracy and untainted by the opinions, beliefs, and principles of half the Democratic party. Good luck with that in November. Keeping Sanders in may be bad for Hillary’s grandiose vision of her place in the world, but it is good for democracy and will be needed to maintain the goodwill of half the party.

And the hypocrisy is…  after quashing democracy (if Sanders quits) or having failed to quash it (as seems the way it is going for her) and going the long way around, Clinton will speak of unity as though she were a Great Healer (the speech is already written, you better believe)

This is why, to Hillary, Sanders has to go. And why, to America, Sanders has to stay.

Hillary’s optics, arrogance, ego, neediness will do her in sooner or later.

For her, it is not enough to win. Everyone else has to be wiped out. Now, where have I heard that before?