Hillary Clinton 2016 - Say 'No' To More 'Hard Choices'

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

62 posts / 0 new

Well, it's time to 'hold Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire', as certain 'democrats', excuse me 'independents', excuse me REPUBLICANS like to say.

Here are the 5 main reasons why Hillary Clinton should not be the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2016:

- Dynastic Politics
- Rightwing Foreign Policy
- Rightwing Economic Policy
- Rightwing Supporters
- Integrity and lack thereof (lying)

DYNASTIC POLITICS

The nation does not benefit from these families that hover around the White House for decades. It is also a sign that a) there is no ideological basis for voting for them and b) elite capture - the elites are 'comfortable' with a limited number of politicians that they can control. In the case of John McCain and Hillary Clinton, that's Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild (Hillraiser, No Labels, Americans Elect, etc.). In other words, economic dynasties like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Kochs and Mellon Scaifes are very comfortable with dynastic politicians. It is a sign of political and ideological failure. And of near complete elite capture of the body politic.

RIGHTWING ECONOMIC POLICY

Hillary Clinton supports the Free Trade Agreements like NAFTA (Google: "hillary clinton" free trade), the overthrow of the neoliberal stooge Yanukovich and his replacement by fascists and nazis in Ukraine - (Victoria Nuland worked directly under Hillary Clinton at the US State Department - more on her appointment as State Department spokesperson here), the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy through ZDERA to maintain white minority and Rothschild Bank owned De Beers control of the Zimbabwean people's resources without paying for it. The attack on Zimbabwe and it's rich diamond fields is as much an attack against non-conformation to the New World Order, as it is a protection of Israel, and it's dependence on the diamond industry. This is also why this bill (and his own ZTDERA) was supported by Russ Feingold, who after losing his seat became the State Department's Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region And The DRC, another area crucial to Israel's foreign policy of destabilising countries around the Red Sea, and former diamond monopolist De Beers' desire to control the world's diamond fields. Read more here.

RIGHTWING FOREIGN POLICY

Neocolonialism is the hallmark of the thinking of Hillary Clinton, Susan E. Rice (Trilateral Commission). However her adviser and Jacob Rothschild co-investor Madeleine Albright goes even further, as does Zbigniew Brzezinski (Trilateral Commission co-founder with David Rockefeller of Standard Oil and Chase).

Just a note on Madeleine Albright. Madeleine Albright is a member of the David Rockefeller (think: ExxonMobil, Chevron, JPMorgan Chase) Trilateral Commission. She famously stated on 60 Minutes that starving and depriving half a million of Iraqi women and children was "A very hard choice, but I think, we think the price is worth it". Hillary's new book is called Hard Choices. Coincidence? If Hillary is elected, will one of the 'hard choices' be to go to war with Iran, Syria and Russia? - RC

Read Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard, and his recent Strategic Vision. Their policy is all about he destruction of Russia, China and India, and if that leads to WWIII, great! As long as Lord Rothschild says it's ok, it's ok. Installing fascists in the Ukraine, destroying the Zimbabwean economy worth $42 billion in order to overthrow a non-conformer to the New World Order and replace him with a double digit IQ neoliberal (See this article (HERALD) Morgan, MDC at the deep end, there is also a biography in which he admits not understanding the run-off clause of the Zimbabwe 2004 Electoral Act, Article 110 Clause 3 - a contest in which he himself was running), who wants nothing more than turn Zimbabwe's diamonds over to his former employer, the Rothschild Bank owned De Beers. In the name of 'human rights', of course. Then, there was the destruction of Libya and the murder of col. Ghadaffi. Notice Hillary's reaction to his death. (YOUTUBE We came, we saw, he died.)

Hillary Clinton's Iraq War vote speech.

(YOUTUBE) Hillary Clinton Lies About Iran, Snubs Obama

More on Hillary and Victoria Nuland's handiwork in the Ukraine. The fascists and nazis they helped get into power, wasted little time in doing what nazis and facists do - kill the opposition.

GRAPHIC - DON'T WATCH IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE

They murdered 40 trade union people in the Odessa Massacre, including strangling one heavily pregnant woman to death.

RIGHTWING SUPPORTERS

During the 2008 elections, Hillary Clinton practically campaigned with John McCain. Both John McCain and Hillary Clinton received strong support from Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, wife of sir Evelyn de Rothschild (former director at De Beers and head of NM Rothschild & Sons Ltd), who famously switched her support from Hillary Clinton to John McCain, after Hillary lost the primaries.
Hillary Clinton has close ties to The Family/The Fellowship, the Republican senators and evangelicals like Jim Inhofe, John Ashcroft, Scott Lively, Rick Warren, who are behind the wave of anti-gay legislation around the world - Kansas, Uganda, Nigeria, Russia, and more. Read Jeff Sharlet's C-Street.

(YOUTUBE) Jeff Sharlet on Hillary Clinton's Relationship to "The Family" - 4/5 (In his own words, but poor audio)
(MOTHER JONES) Hillary's Prayer: Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics
—By Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet
| Sat Sep. 1, 2007 12:00 AM PDT

For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. Is she triangulating—or living her faith?

" Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection.

"A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer." "

INTEGRITY

Lying comes natural to Hillary and Bill Clinton, and they made famous the saying "It is better to ask for forgivenes, than to ask for permission". They also made the term 'Triangulation' a household word.
Bill Clinton lied his behind off over Rwanda, which was a US directed and funded operation from start to finish. General Paul Kagame, now generally recognized as a war criminal, was trained in the US, at the Command And General Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth, KS. The objective was to get their hands on the tons of coltan in the Congo DRC, where most 'Rwandan' coltan now comes from.

(GREATREPORTER.COM) Black gold: On the Coltan trail
Jason Parkinson, 23 September 2006

The Rwandan government defended their coltan exports, stating it was extracting 1440 tonnes of coltan per year from its own mines. This contradicted the UN report, which showed official Rwandan government statistics of coltan production were 83 tons per year.

Coltan is used extensively by the military, and was used heavily in the Gulf War.

Then, there was the incident in Yugoslavia, where she allegedly dogded snipers' bullets.

And of course they all lied about the existence of economic sanctions against Zimbabwe, even though their name is on the law as co-sponsors of the sanctions bill, so they should know what is in it - the sanctions are in Section 4C, titled Multilateral Finance Restriction. Perhaps she can ask her fellow Family/Fellowship member Jim Inhofe or clarification.

VOTER INSPIRATION

After the blanket anti-democratic media coverage, including the news, DLC policies do not inspire the base to turn out. They cannot be strung along forever with the claim that 'at least she isn't a Republican'. At some point we have to break with the elites, and give the people and middle class what they want and need. No more 'inclusive capitalism' (Lady Lynn's project), 'trickle down' economics, 'free trade agreements', sending factories overseas for labor arbitrage.

Hillary Clinton, and her Rothschild ties, is not the politician to make that break. She is not, ideologically, FDR. All hope to the contrary is in vain.

Does anyone really think that this economy has until 2020 to wait for change?

For the sake of the country, the economy, the world, democracy itself, the country needs a new ideological direction.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

We have been run by the British and Dutch Crowns' captains of industry, the Rothschild dynasty, the Rockefeller dynasty, and now upstarts like the Koch Brothers. It is their extreme concentration of wealth that is at the core of most of the world's problems. Worse than climate change, is that we are stuck with the oil that they make their billions or trillions off. Worse than war in the Middle East, is that these wars are fought to maintain the supremacy of (oil) trade routes that 'we' control (Saudi Arabia-Israel) vs those 'we' don't (Russia, Iran), just as they did for the last 400 years. This might lead to WWIII if it is not resolved.

We need international recognition of the sovereign ownership of natural resources by the people, and taking those resources without compensation and taxation should be considered theft, and we need an international organisation to patrol international waterways like the Suez Canal, Bab-el-Mandeb and the Strait of Gibraltar.

And Hillary Clinton is too deeply involved with the trillionairs to be that change agent.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

Comments

I agree with you that it is not a good idea to elect someone to a political office merely because their extended family/clan has a political background!

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm

Hillary has a political background of her own. That background, and the voting record accompanying it, are what have me convinced Hillary Clinton is not the candidate for me. Two examples of why I wouldn't vote for Hillary would be her support of Baby Bush's little war in Iraq, and more recently, her expressed willingness to okay the Keystone XL Kochline. There's plenty more examples.

Not just any woman candidate will do. I could make a whole list of male candidates I'd pick in a heartbeat before Hillary. Her husband did enough damage ushering in NAFTA; we don't need any more of that Clinton crap. Enough of the Clintons. Let'em retire in their mcmansion playing patty-cake with their new little grandchild. We need someone who's not afraid to stand up to the oligarchs. - AIW

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland
Joined:
Mar. 10, 2011 9:42 am

Thank you, RogerCasement, now I know what coltan is. Fascinating! Mined in the same way sometimes gold is...panning for coltan out of stream beds. By the way capacitors contain coltan and are used in all electronics, not just cell phones and playstations. I have never heard the term coltan before...short for Columbite-tantalite. I know that there are "tantalum" capacitors but I don't know if they use Columbite-tantalite. Sounds like it, but could be different kind of tantallum.

And I certainly agree that Hillary Clinton is not someone I'd vote for. And in addition to the things that Roger Casement has listed, can you imagine Hillary's husband back in the White House? The Republicans would have a field day. Comedians would love it. More material for laughs.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote wikipedia:Future sources of supply of tantalum, in order of estimated size, are being explored in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Greenland, China, Mozambique, Canada, Australia, the United States, Finland, and Brazil.

It is estimated that there are less than 50 years left of tantalum resources, based on extraction at current rates, demonstrating the need for increased recycling.

According to an October 23, 2003 United Nations report,[39] the smuggling and exportation of coltan has helped fuel the war in the Congo, a crisis that has resulted in approximately 5.4 million deaths since 1998[40] – making it the world’s deadliest documented conflict since World War II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantalum

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

More on Hillary Clinton's colleagues at the State Department, and her subordinate Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State at the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at the US State Department:

(WHIRLED NEWS) The strange appointment of Victoria Nuland as State Department Spokesperson
By Patricia H. Kushlis
Update: 7/12/2013

...

Martin questions whether this has foreign policy implications, in particular the replacement of an anti-torture appointee with someone who served as Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney.

Rogin doesn’t directly raise potential administration policy shifts but does point out that once upon a time Nuland was Strobe Talbott’s Chief of Staff when he was Deputy Secretary of State during the Clinton Administration and that Talbott had thought very highly of her at the time and still does.

Strobe Talbott is a member of the Steering Committee of the Trilateral Commission, and is today head of the Brookings Institute.

Dick Cheney is a former director of the Council on Foreign Relations, another David Rockefeller organisation.

Why?

But why would Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration agree to appoint to this politically sensitive position someone who willingly served such a controversial figure in suppporting and implementing the “war on terror” and all the baggage that comes with it? Furthermore, how reliable is a Talbott reference anyway? After all, I understand that he just helped his friend Robert Kagan, Nuland’s neocon husband, get a job at Brookings and Talbott is also a friend of neocon writer Marc Gerecht, the husband of Diane Zeleny who also just latched onto a likely sweetheart deal sort of appointment as Head of External Relations and Congressional Affairs at the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). Whether Zeleny deserves or is qualified for the position or not.

More on Victoria Nuland here.

Quote Alicinwonderland: Not just any woman candidate will do. I could make a whole list of male candidates I'd pick in a heartbeat before Hillary.
Right - and there is Elizabeth Warren. How about a Warren-Kucinich ticket?

Her husband did enough damage ushering in NAFTA; we don't need any more of that Clinton crap. Enough of the Clintons. Let'em retire in their mcmansion playing patty-cake with their new little grandchild. We need someone who's not afraid to stand up to the oligarchs. - AIW
And not to forget the deregulation of the media - which is a big part of what lost the most recent election, and damped down the extent of previous victories.

And one thing of frustration the DNC democrats - their refusal to talk about electoral fraud, 'because it might suppress turnout'.

Quote Palindromedary:Thank you, RogerCasement, now I know what coltan is. Fascinating! Mined in the same way sometimes gold is...panning for coltan out of stream beds.
There are a lot of things about the Congo DRC that haven't come out and should be haunting the Clintons and Susan E. Rice, if there was justice in this world.

(THOMHARTMANN, BLACK STAR NEWS) Susan Rice's Business Links To Paul Kagame And His M23
Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

Friends, some dark shadow of idiocy will rise to the Right of Hillary, making her lesser evil status real and demonstrating that the alternative to Dem Neocons is full blown Neocon insanity. We will have an amped up culture war as well, and abortion will be the symbolic issue used to slug it out. Yetch.

I would suggest focus on what you can be doing and more acceptance of what we cannot change. I would also suggest that beating up on Hillary is not where our beating instruments should be engaged. If we beat up on what the Empire is doing to the memory of our democracy, I think we pull the rug out from under Right and Center. If we punch out the Center because they are more disappointing than the losers on the Right, it does not get us where we want to go.

Do you think Secretary of State McCain sounds good? OK, go young with Ted Cruz. I don't care how bad the Dems are if we are not willing to take on the Empire and just do party purging. Change the game and see who comes to play.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriends wife will have you all conned and marching to her tune long before the 2016 election. Listen to the radio talking heads already start quacking how she "hopefully" will turn more progressive. Hartmann made it one day before he started spouting that gibberish.

Ever get a backache trying to pick up your turd by the clean end?

The right side of the aisle cannot lose in 2016.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 8:35 am

I have made the personal choice not to vote for any candidate that supports military aggression of any kind, with the obvious exception of true defensive measures. Hillary is ready and willing to get into the Oval office to prove her bona fides as a ruthless war hawk. Is Nadar running 2016?

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 10:31 am

I'm with you, Richard (#9). No war hawks for me either.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland
Joined:
Mar. 10, 2011 9:42 am

From the 'let them eat cake' brigade of "Inclusive Capitalism" - become a plumber:

(CNN MONEY) Billionaire Michael Bloomberg's advice: become a plumber
By Jesse Solomon @JesseSolomon
CNN November 11, 2014: 11:57 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

Former New York City Mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg has some advice for high school seniors: forget college, become a plumber instead.

"Today if your kid wants to go to college or become a plumber, you've got to think long and hard," said Bloomberg Monday at the annual meeting of Wall Street trade group SIFMA.

"If he's not going to go to a great school and he's not super smart academically, but is smart in terms of dealing with people and that sort of thing, being a plumber is a great job because you have pricing power, you have an enormous skill set," he said.

More...

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

Bloomberg can be a Bloomin' Idiot, but this goes a long way to Richie Rich Jerkdom.

"Inclusive Capitalism" my ass! That plumber ain't goin' to be cleaning up anything but waste systems and the fancy entertainment devices in the suites. That the plumber will actually have to know plumbing and be good at it will also set him/her apart from the banksters who apparently don't have to know anything other than how to steal by tweaking bad theory into compound bad theory. How "good" they are at stealing legally and leveraging their too big to jail power remains to be seen. What is clear is that they do not contribute the value to society of a good plumber.

When I see that reality in salaries and stock values, I will believe that Bloomie is not high on his own gigglejuice.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Oh and if anyone noticed, Henry Kissinger throws Hillary Clinton under the bus.

(DER SPIEGEL) Interview with Henry Kissinger: 'Do We Achieve World Order Through Chaos or Insight?'
Interview Conducted By Juliane von Mittelstaedt and Erich Follath

SPIEGEL: The next presidential race will soon begin. Would Hillary Clinton make a good candidate?

Kissinger: I consider Hillary a friend, and I think she's a strong person. So, yes, I think she can do the job. Generally, I think it would be better for the country if there were a change in administration. And I think we Republicans have to get a good candidate.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

Compare and contrast - Morgan Tsvangirai, Robert Mugabe...

(YOUTUBE) Robert Mugabe's Harlem Speech On Land Reform Pt 1 - YouTube

(YOUTUBE) Robert Mugabe's Harlem Speech On Land Reform Pt 2 - YouTube

The result of the British government through Clare Short reneging on their obligation to fund the "land purchase" part of the Willing Buyer, Willing Seller land reform program, and rather than just pay up, fund a multi-billion dollar propaganda campaign, has been to push Zimbabwe closer to China.

Zimbabwe, China mull tobacco processing plant
Zimbabwe, China mull tobacco processing plant
Published: 3 months ago by Staff reporter (464 Views)

Zimbabwe and China are planning to establish a multi-million dollar tobacco processing plant that will see the country exporting more processed tobacco products.

Speaking after receiving a high powered delegation from the Chinese tobacco industry at Harare International Airport on Sunday, Tobacco Industry and Marketing Board (TIMB) chairperson Monica Chinamasa said the visitors would also explore other areas of business co-operation.

She said they also wanted the Chinese to assist Zimbabwe explore new tobacco markets.

The seven member delegation, led by State Tobacco Monopoly Administration (STMA) chief commissioner, Lin Chengxing has since returned to China after its two-day working visit.

- The Herald

This is a direct effect of the success of the land reform program that the US and UK vigorously opposed.

Read more here, from back in 2003:

(GUARDIAN UK) Short denied responsibility to Zimbabwe
Peter Hain's letter
Clare Short's letter
Downing St letter

* Mark Lobel
* The Guardian, Monday 11 August 2003 12.02 BST

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

Back to Hillary Clinton: WalMart Director.

(YOUTUBE) Hillary Clinton and Wal-Mart (2008)

(NYTIMES) As a Director, Clinton Moved Wal-Mart Board, but Only So Far

The photo is priceless. She is hard to recognize, but she is the only girl in the group.

(GLOBALRESEARCH) Clintons Reinstigated the Cold War with Russia – Stop Hillary Clinton
By John V. Walsh
Global Research, July 20, 2014
Dissident Voice 18 July 2014
Region: Russia and FSU, USA
Theme: Culture, Society & History, US NATO War Agenda

Being a diplomat, Mattlock speaks diplomatically of the colossal, damaging shift in U.S. -Russia relations under the Clintons who reversed the approach of Reagan and Bush I. He gets to the point right away in the preface to Superpower Illusions: “The Clinton administration’s decision to expand NATO to the East rather than draw Russia into a cooperative arrangement to ensure European security undermined the prospects of democracy in Russia, made it more difficult to keep peace in the Balkans and slowed the process of nuclear disarmament started by Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev.”

That is a severely damaging condemnation of the Clintons, one of historic dimensions, as we see now as events unfold in Ukraine, with one of Hillary’s protégés, her State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, very much in charge of the U.S. intervention there. Matlock was so appalled by the Clintons that he changed his political affiliation: “After I retired from the Foreign Service, I left the Democratic Party early in the Clinton presidency. I felt that President Clinton… lacked both the vision and the competence to take advantage of the opportunity the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union provided. That opportunity was nothing less than a chance to create a world in which security tasks could be shared, weapons of mass destruction reduced rapidly and barriers to nuclear proliferation raised.”

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

Too bad nobody's ready to pay for peace.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

I vividly remember an interesting anti drug campaign. It begins with a shot zooming in on a caste iron skilled on the flame. Suddenly you hear a voice telling the audience that "this is your brain." Pan to a pair of arms emerging in the frame directly over the frying pan and dropping two eggs onto the already hot surface and the two eggs hitting the pan and frying in seconds. Then another voice over tells its audience, "This is your brain on drugs"

Apt metaphor for your typical Dem Voter who still believes in fairy tales and meme's telling you what you want to hear about Hilary. Keep the image of the frying pan and the eggs alive next time you vote for George Bush Part III.

NMHiker's picture
NMHiker
Joined:
Jun. 22, 2014 3:23 pm

Let's see, is that choice between Hillary and Jeb? Co-Dependence lacks the glamor and excitement of addiction. Covering for the addicts to protect the "family name" is draining. Friends get turned off and stop coming around. But, nobody steps in to intervene, so it just goes on and on.

Who can bring an intervention? It won't happen inside DC unless the whole thing goes blooey. The Green Party is not going to bring it, nice as they are.

This is our brain on co-dependence, and it feels worse than being hooked on PNACrack. What do you do for the Dem voter who has lost all belief in fairy tales but still feels trapped by the horrors of the addiction all around us?

We have so many drug ads now that the egg fry rates as quaint. And, it did not come with a long list of side effects or possible death from having that healthy breakfast. We have had 6 years of Purple Haze, leading to chugging some reds, and we know that is going to make us sick later. Mad Russians are coming back into partytime favor as part of that old Cold War Bar classic drinks revival, and the Shirtless Putin is a great twist. Really, a twist of lemon in straight vodka.

Seriously, I don't find many trying to make Hillary look better than she is even though we all would prefer Warren or just about anyone else. But, the money game we see does not make it easy for merit to trump insider experience and contacts. Souls are bought and sold in public. Some are taken at gunpoint. None are left intact. Noir is not a fairy tale, more like horror, but without all the special effects. Just stripped down despair without the energy to feel it.

Ignoring DC may be psychologically healthy, but it does not make things better. What does? NM is about as outside of America as one can get inside our borders, but I don't see it breaking the frame. Oregon went Blue despite the money, but we are working on rather than "have" the answers. We now have legal pot, so was that two over easy?

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Hillary Clinton on Zimbabwe:

Clinton Presses South Africa On Zimbabwe`s Mugabe
AUGUST 7 2009 14:41h

The United States has no plans either to offer major development aid or to lift sanctions against Mugabe and some of his supporters.

AFRICAN VISIT

"South Africa is very aware of the challenges posed by the political crisis in Zimbabwe because South Africa has 3 million refugees from Zimbabwe," Clinton told a news conference after meeting International Relations and Cooperation Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane. "

Flick out your calculator, and check Table 3.6 of the 2011 Population Census - there are a total of 1.6 million foreign nationals (not only Zimbabweans) in South Africa. The 3 million Zimbabweans fled to South Africa claim was of course never substantiated, but was seized upon by people like Hillary Clinton to make the Zimbabwean government look bad, and create the UN Security Council excuse for illegal invasion, which is that country X is 'causing regional instability through refugee flows'.

It is just another variation on the 'responsibility to protect', which Susan Rice used to bomb the hell out of Libya and destroy that country forever, so it could be completely taken over by the oil companies.

This is how they lie and justify military invasion on behalf of their Rothschild masters. In South Africa, Rothschild Bank funded De Beers in 1887 (the following year, Cecil Rhodes became the Founding Chairman of the board of directors of De Beers in 1888). During the 20th century, De Beers traded 95% of all the diamonds in the world, today that's 40%. Zimbabwe owns the Chiadzwa and Marange diamond fields, which could supply 20% of the world's diamonds every year, tanking the price of diamonds ever if they tried. Israel's biggest single export is finished diamonds, traded in Tel Aviv.

Hillary Clinton on the myth of 'Russian Expansionism', in her book 'Hard Choices', quoted from On The Issues (unfortunately I don't have the original yet, so with that provision...)

On misrepresenting the situation in Eastern Europe, which carries with it the possibility of World War III, on her 'support for NATO' to 'restrain Putin' (how about using NATO to restrain the Rothschild's ambitions and design to take over the planet?):

(ON THE ISSUES)

Eastern Europe in NATO keeps Putin from moving beyond Crimea

In the wake of Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in early 2014, some have argued that NATO expansion either caused or exacerbated Russia's aggression. I disagree with that argument, but the most convincing voices refuting it are those European leaders and people who express their gratitude for NATO membership.

[Those making that argument] should ponder how much more serious the crisis would be--and how much more difficult it would be--to contain further Russian aggression if Eastern and Central European nations were not now NATO allies. The NATO door should remain open, and we should be clear and tough-minded in dealing with Russia.

If Putin is restrained and doesn't push beyond Crimea into eastern Ukraine it will not be because he has lost his appetite for more power, territory and influence.

Source: Hard Choices, by Hillary Clinton, CBS pre-release excerpts , Jun 6, 2014

I am not talking about 'a business', I am strictly talking about global monopolies. Just a reminder of what the Rothschild interests in Eastern European oil and pipelines were, historically.

From the national website:

HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT OF OIL INDUSTRY

Baku-Batumi railway was constructed and commissioned in 1883. This fact played an important role in the export of oil and oil products to European states. Rothschild initiated financial and credit transactions in Baku and engaged in the sales of oil in 1883. The Caspian-Black Sea oil company of Rothschild was established in 1886. The bank of Rothschild controlled 42% of Baku oil export. Azerbaijan produced 11 million tons of oil in 1901 thus accounting for over 50% of the world production of oil.

And...

Azerbaijan's Oil History
A Chronology Leading up to the Soviet Era

by Mir Yusif Mir-Babayev

1883

On May 16 the Rothschild Brothers established the Caspian and Black Sea Oil Industry and Trade Society.

Minister of State Property Michael Ostrovsky arrived in Baku in September accompanied by his brother, the famous playwright Alexander Ostrovsky (1818-1883), to discuss oil problems.

1888

On December 8 and 9, Russian Czar Alexander III (1845-1894) was in Baku with his family. He visited the Nobel Brothers' factory in Baku's "Black City" (Gara Shahar in Azeri) and the oil industries of Rothschild's Caspian-Black Sea Society in Balakhani and Sabunchi.

Could there be a reason why Lord Jacob, 4th Baron Rothschild (great-grandson of Nathaniel Mayer, 1st Baron Rothschild, who funded De Beers and Cecil Rhodes) co-investor Madeleine Albright (also see here) is advising Hillary Clinton to basically go to war with Russia? Does Lord Rothschild want his Caspian pipeline back, the way they want their Chiadzwa and Marange diamond fields back in Zimbabwe, so they can get De Beers back on track to being the global diamond monopolist again?

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

Al From of the DLC's New Democrats, on Barbara Jordan selling out the people, as the African American token to the, I quote, "Southern White Boys Caucus":

(YOUTUBE) Al From "The New Democrats and the Return to Power"

(21:20) In the second year Chuck Robb took over as chairman, and we began the real intellectual work. Chuck, among other things, delivered a bunch of speeches... But the most important speech he made, was a speech that he gave to Hofstra University, at the retrospective on to father in law's presidency, Lyndon Johnson, where he called for a whole new social policy, and suggested that it was time for Americans and Democrats to 'be honest about the pathologies that were going on in the inner city'. That speech got a lot of editorial praise, but it did another thing. It connected Barbara Jordan to the DLC. A couple of months later, we were down at a trip to Texas. At a dinner, Barbara Jordan sat next to me, and said "You know, I've been waiting all my life for a white politician with the courage to address these problems head on."

And from that point on, Barbara Jordan was critical in our equation at the DLC, especially because our friend the late Bob Squire, once called us a Southern White Boys Caucus, and it was hard for us to get past that. But Barbara Jordan, as sick as she was, made the trip to our first Issues Conference in Williamsburg, VA, at the end of 1986, to make the argument, that we needed a policy grounded in opportunity and personal responsibility.

And hence, when the economy is in recession, people get thrown out of their homes because their unemployment runs out.

This is what you get for compromising with republican ideology.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

On how the decisions of the Clintons are behind creating the scene for the present day troubles in the Ukraine. David Stockman was President Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

From the campaign trail on Oct. 22, 1996, two weeks before he defeated Bob Dole for a second term as president, Bill Clinton used NATO enlargement to advertise his assertiveness in foreign policy and America’s status as the “world’s indispensable nation.” Clinton bragged about proposing NATO enlargement at his first NATO summit in 1994, saying it “should enlarge steadily, deliberately, openly.” He never explained why.

The startling thing in hindsight is that many of America’s most respected and experienced cold war thinkers saw the absolute folly of NATO expansion long before a single former member of the Soviet bloc had been added. The father of the “containment” doctrine and the original instigator of Truman’s excessively and unfortunately aggressive anti-Soviet policy, George Kennan, had no doubt about the distilled lessons of half a century:

Clinton made what quintessential Russian specialist Ambassador George Kennan called a “fateful error.” Writing in the New York Times on Feb. 5, 1997, Kennan asserted: “Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”

“Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.

More...

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

Hawkish, much?

HILLARY CLINTON: there are those on the American political scene who are calling for us not to reposition, but to come home. They seek a downsizing of our foreign engagement in favor of our pressing domestic priorities. These impulses are understandable, but they are misguided. Those who say that we can no longer afford to engage with the world have it exactly backward -- we cannot afford not to. From opening new markets for American businesses to curbing nuclear proliferation to keeping the sea lanes free for commerce and navigation, our work abroad holds the key to our prosperity and security at home. For more than six decades, the United States has resisted the gravitational pull of these "come home" debates and the implicit zero-sum logic of these arguments. We must do so again.

(FOREIGN POLICY) America's Pacific Century

The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.
BY HILLARY CLINTON | NOVEMBER 2011

As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in the Asia-Pacific region.

The Asia-Pacific has become a key driver of global politics. Stretching from the Indian subcontinent to the western shores of the Americas, the region spans two oceans -- the Pacific and the Indian -- that are increasingly linked by shipping and strategy. It boasts almost half the world's population. It includes many of the key engines of the global economy, as well as the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. It is home to several of our key allies and important emerging powers like China, India, and Indonesia.

At a time when the region is building a more mature security and economic architecture to promote stability and prosperity, U.S. commitment there is essential. It will help build that architecture and pay dividends for continued American leadership well into this century, just as our post-World War II commitment to building a comprehensive and lasting transatlantic network of institutions and relationships has paid off many times over -- and continues to do so. The time has come for the United States to make similar investments as a Pacific power, a strategic course set by President Barack Obama from the outset of his administration and one that is already yielding benefits.

With Iraq and Afghanistan still in transition and serious economic challenges in our own country, there are those on the American political scene who are calling for us not to reposition, but to come home. They seek a downsizing of our foreign engagement in favor of our pressing domestic priorities. These impulses are understandable, but they are misguided. Those who say that we can no longer afford to engage with the world have it exactly backward -- we cannot afford not to. From opening new markets for American businesses to curbing nuclear proliferation to keeping the sea lanes free for commerce and navigation, our work abroad holds the key to our prosperity and security at home. For more than six decades, the United States has resisted the gravitational pull of these "come home" debates and the implicit zero-sum logic of these arguments. We must do so again.

Beyond our borders, people are also wondering about America's intentions -- our willingness to remain engaged and to lead. In Asia, they ask whether we are really there to stay, whether we are likely to be distracted again by events elsewhere, whether we can make -- and keep -- credible economic and strategic commitments, and whether we can back those commitments with action. The answer is: We can, and we will.

Harnessing Asia's growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology. Our economic recovery at home will depend on exports and the ability of American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia. Strategically, maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is increasingly crucial to global progress, whether through defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, countering the proliferation efforts of North Korea, or ensuring transparency in the military activities of the region's key players.

Just as Asia is critical to America's future, an engaged America is vital to Asia's future. The region is eager for our leadership and our business -- perhaps more so than at any time in modern history. We are the only power with a network of strong alliances in the region, no territorial ambitions, and a long record of providing for the common good. Along with our allies, we have underwritten regional security for decades -- patrolling Asia's sea lanes and preserving stability -- and that in turn has helped create the conditions for growth. We have helped integrate billions of people across the region into the global economy by spurring economic productivity, social empowerment, and greater people-to-people links. We are a major trade and investment partner, a source of innovation that benefits workers and businesses on both sides of the Pacific, a host to 350,000 Asian students every year, a champion of open markets, and an advocate for universal human rights.

President Obama has led a multifaceted and persistent effort to embrace fully our irreplaceable role in the Pacific, spanning the entire U.S. government. It has often been a quiet effort. A lot of our work has not been on the front pages, both because of its nature -- long-term investment is less exciting than immediate crises -- and because of competing headlines in other parts of the world.

As secretary of state, I broke with tradition and embarked on my first official overseas trip to Asia. In my seven trips since, I have had the privilege to see firsthand the rapid transformations taking place in the region, underscoring how much the future of the United States is intimately intertwined with the future of the Asia-Pacific. A strategic turn to the region fits logically into our overall global effort to secure and sustain America's global leadership. The success of this turn requires maintaining and advancing a bipartisan consensus on the importance of the Asia-Pacific to our national interests; we seek to build upon a strong tradition of engagement by presidents and secretaries of state of both parties across many decades. It also requires smart execution of a coherent regional strategy that accounts for the global implications of our choices.

WHAT DOES THAT regional strategy look like? For starters, it calls for a sustained commitment to what I have called "forward-deployed" diplomacy. That means continuing to dispatch the full range of our diplomatic assets -- including our highest-ranking officials, our development experts, our interagency teams, and our permanent assets -- to every country and corner of the Asia-Pacific region. Our strategy will have to keep accounting for and adapting to the rapid and dramatic shifts playing out across Asia. With this in mind, our work will proceed along six key lines of action: strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights.

By virtue of our unique geography, the United States is both an Atlantic and a Pacific power. We are proud of our European partnerships and all that they deliver. Our challenge now is to build a web of partnerships and institutions across the Pacific that is as durable and as consistent with American interests and values as the web we have built across the Atlantic. That is the touchstone of our efforts in all these areas.

Our treaty alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand are the fulcrum for our strategic turn to the Asia-Pacific. They have underwritten regional peace and security for more than half a century, shaping the environment for the region's remarkable economic ascent. They leverage our regional presence and enhance our regional leadership at a time of evolving security challenges.

As successful as these alliances have been, we can't afford simply to sustain them -- we need to update them for a changing world. In this effort, the Obama administration is guided by three core principles. First, we have to maintain political consensus on the core objectives of our alliances. Second, we have to ensure that our alliances are nimble and adaptive so that they can successfully address new challenges and seize new opportunities. Third, we have to guarantee that the defense capabilities and communications infrastructure of our alliances are operationally and materially capable of deterring provocation from the full spectrum of state and nonstate actors.

The alliance with Japan, the cornerstone of peace and stability in the region, demonstrates how the Obama administration is giving these principles life. We share a common vision of a stable regional order with clear rules of the road -- from freedom of navigation to open markets and fair competition. We have agreed to a new arrangement, including a contribution from the Japanese government of more than $5 billion, to ensure the continued enduring presence of American forces in Japan, while expanding joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance activities to deter and react quickly to regional security challenges, as well as information sharing to address cyberthreats. We have concluded an Open Skies agreement that will enhance access for businesses and people-to-people ties, launched a strategic dialogue on the Asia-Pacific, and been working hand in hand as the two largest donor countries in Afghanistan.

Similarly, our alliance with South Korea has become stronger and more operationally integrated, and we continue to develop our combined capabilities to deter and respond to North Korean provocations. We have agreed on a plan to ensure successful transition of operational control during wartime and anticipate successful passage of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. And our alliance has gone global, through our work together in the G-20 and the Nuclear Security Summit and through our common efforts in Haiti and Afghanistan.

We are also expanding our alliance with Australia from a Pacific partnership to an Indo-Pacific one, and indeed a global partnership. From cybersecurity to Afghanistan to the Arab Awakening to strengthening regional architecture in the Asia-Pacific, Australia's counsel and commitment have been indispensable. And in Southeast Asia, we are renewing and strengthening our alliances with the Philippines and Thailand, increasing, for example, the number of ship visits to the Philippines and working to ensure the successful training of Filipino counterterrorism forces through our Joint Special Operations Task Force in Mindanao. In Thailand -- our oldest treaty partner in Asia -- we are working to establish a hub of regional humanitarian and disaster relief efforts in the region.

AS WE UPDATE our alliances for new demands, we are also building new partnerships to help solve shared problems. Our outreach to China, India, Indonesia, Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia, Mongolia, Vietnam, Brunei, and the Pacific Island countries is all part of a broader effort to ensure a more comprehensive approach to American strategy and engagement in the region. We are asking these emerging partners to join us in shaping and participating in a rules-based regional and global order.

One of the most prominent of these emerging partners is, of course, China. Like so many other countries before it, China has prospered as part of the open and rules-based system that the United States helped to build and works to sustain. And today, China represents one of the most challenging and consequential bilateral relationships the United States has ever had to manage. This calls for careful, steady, dynamic stewardship, an approach to China on our part that is grounded in reality, focused on results, and true to our principles and interests.

We all know that fears and misperceptions linger on both sides of the Pacific. Some in our country see China's progress as a threat to the United States; some in China worry that America seeks to constrain China's growth. We reject both those views. The fact is that a thriving America is good for China and a thriving China is good for America. We both have much more to gain from cooperation than from conflict. But you cannot build a relationship on aspirations alone. It is up to both of us to more consistently translate positive words into effective cooperation -- and, crucially, to meet our respective global responsibilities and obligations. These are the things that will determine whether our relationship delivers on its potential in the years to come. We also have to be honest about our differences. We will address them firmly and decisively as we pursue the urgent work we have to do together. And we have to avoid unrealistic expectations.

Over the last two-and-a-half years, one of my top priorities has been to identify and expand areas of common interest, to work with China to build mutual trust, and to encourage China's active efforts in global problem-solving. This is why Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and I launched the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the most intensive and expansive talks ever between our governments, bringing together dozens of agencies from both sides to discuss our most pressing bilateral issues, from security to energy to human rights.

We are also working to increase transparency and reduce the risk of miscalculation or miscues between our militaries. The United States and the international community have watched China's efforts to modernize and expand its military, and we have sought clarity as to its intentions. Both sides would benefit from sustained and substantive military-to-military engagement that increases transparency. So we look to Beijing to overcome its reluctance at times and join us in forging a durable military-to-military dialogue. And we need to work together to strengthen the Strategic Security Dialogue, which brings together military and civilian leaders to discuss sensitive issues like maritime security and cybersecurity.

As we build trust together, we are committed to working with China to address critical regional and global security issues. This is why I have met so frequently -- often in informal settings -- with my Chinese counterparts, State Councilor Dai Bingguo and Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, for candid discussions about important challenges like North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and developments in the South China Sea.

On the economic front, the United States and China need to work together to ensure strong, sustained, and balanced future global growth. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the United States and China worked effectively through the G-20 to help pull the global economy back from the brink. We have to build on that cooperation. U.S. firms want fair opportunities to export to China's growing markets, which can be important sources of jobs here in the United States, as well as assurances that the $50 billion of American capital invested in China will create a strong foundation for new market and investment opportunities that will support global competitiveness. At the same time, Chinese firms want to be able to buy more high-tech products from the United States, make more investments here, and be accorded the same terms of access that market economies enjoy. We can work together on these objectives, but China still needs to take important steps toward reform. In particular, we are working with China to end unfair discrimination against U.S. and other foreign companies or against their innovative technologies, remove preferences for domestic firms, and end measures that disadvantage or appropriate foreign intellectual property. And we look to China to take steps to allow its currency to appreciate more rapidly, both against the dollar and against the currencies of its other major trading partners. Such reforms, we believe, would not only benefit both our countries (indeed, they would support the goals of China's own five-year plan, which calls for more domestic-led growth), but also contribute to global economic balance, predictability, and broader prosperity.

Of course, we have made very clear, publicly and privately, our serious concerns about human rights. And when we see reports of public-interest lawyers, writers, artists, and others who are detained or disappeared, the United States speaks up, both publicly and privately, with our concerns about human rights. We make the case to our Chinese colleagues that a deep respect for international law and a more open political system would provide China with a foundation for far greater stability and growth -- and increase the confidence of China's partners. Without them, China is placing unnecessary limitations on its own development.

At the end of the day, there is no handbook for the evolving U.S.-China relationship. But the stakes are much too high for us to fail. As we proceed, we will continue to embed our relationship with China in a broader regional framework of security alliances, economic networks, and social connections.

Among key emerging powers with which we will work closely are India and Indonesia, two of the most dynamic and significant democratic powers of Asia, and both countries with which the Obama administration has pursued broader, deeper, and more purposeful relationships. The stretch of sea from the Indian Ocean through the Strait of Malacca to the Pacific contains the world's most vibrant trade and energy routes. Together, India and Indonesia already account for almost a quarter of the world's population. They are key drivers of the global economy, important partners for the United States, and increasingly central contributors to peace and security in the region. And their importance is likely to grow in the years ahead.

President Obama told the Indian parliament last year that the relationship between India and America will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century, rooted in common values and interests. There are still obstacles to overcome and questions to answer on both sides, but the United States is making a strategic bet on India's future -- that India's greater role on the world stage will enhance peace and security, that opening India's markets to the world will pave the way to greater regional and global prosperity, that Indian advances in science and technology will improve lives and advance human knowledge everywhere, and that India's vibrant, pluralistic democracy will produce measurable results and improvements for its citizens and inspire others to follow a similar path of openness and tolerance. So the Obama administration has expanded our bilateral partnership; actively supported India's Look East efforts, including through a new trilateral dialogue with India and Japan; and outlined a new vision for a more economically integrated and politically stable South and Central Asia, with India as a linchpin.

We are also forging a new partnership with Indonesia, the world's third-largest democracy, the world's most populous Muslim nation, and a member of the G-20. We have resumed joint training of Indonesian special forces units and signed a number of agreements on health, educational exchanges, science and technology, and defense. And this year, at the invitation of the Indonesian government, President Obama will inaugurate American participation in the East Asia Summit. But there is still some distance to travel -- we have to work together to overcome bureaucratic impediments, lingering historical suspicions, and some gaps in understanding each other's perspectives and interests.

EVEN AS WE strengthen these bilateral relationships, we have emphasized the importance of multilateral cooperation, for we believe that addressing complex transnational challenges of the sort now faced by Asia requires a set of institutions capable of mustering collective action. And a more robust and coherent regional architecture in Asia would reinforce the system of rules and responsibilities, from protecting intellectual property to ensuring freedom of navigation, that form the basis of an effective international order. In multilateral settings, responsible behavior is rewarded with legitimacy and respect, and we can work together to hold accountable those who undermine peace, stability, and prosperity.

So the United States has moved to fully engage the region's multilateral institutions, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, mindful that our work with regional institutions supplements and does not supplant our bilateral ties. There is a demand from the region that America play an active role in the agenda-setting of these institutions -- and it is in our interests as well that they be effective and responsive.

That is why President Obama will participate in the East Asia Summit for the first time in November. To pave the way, the United States has opened a new U.S. Mission to ASEAN in Jakarta and signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with ASEAN. Our focus on developing a more results-oriented agenda has been instrumental in efforts to address disputes in the South China Sea. In 2010, at the ASEAN Regional Forum in Hanoi, the United States helped shape a regionwide effort to protect unfettered access to and passage through the South China Sea, and to uphold the key international rules for defining territorial claims in the South China Sea's waters. Given that half the world's merchant tonnage flows through this body of water, this was a consequential undertaking. And over the past year, we have made strides in protecting our vital interests in stability and freedom of navigation and have paved the way for sustained multilateral diplomacy among the many parties with claims in the South China Sea, seeking to ensure disputes are settled peacefully and in accordance with established principles of international law.

We have also worked to strengthen APEC as a serious leaders-level institution focused on advancing economic integration and trade linkages across the Pacific. After last year's bold call by the group for a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific, President Obama will host the 2011 APEC Leaders' Meeting in Hawaii this November. We are committed to cementing APEC as the Asia-Pacific's premier regional economic institution, setting the economic agenda in a way that brings together advanced and emerging economies to promote open trade and investment, as well as to build capacity and enhance regulatory regimes. APEC and its work help expand U.S. exports and create and support high-quality jobs in the United States, while fostering growth throughout the region. APEC also provides a key vehicle to drive a broad agenda to unlock the economic growth potential that women represent. In this regard, the United States is committed to working with our partners on ambitious steps to accelerate the arrival of the Participation Age, where every individual, regardless of gender or other characteristics, is a contributing and valued member of the global marketplace.

In addition to our commitment to these broader multilateral institutions, we have worked hard to create and launch a number of "minilateral" meetings, small groupings of interested states to tackle specific challenges, such as the Lower Mekong Initiative we launched to support education, health, and environmental programs in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, and the Pacific Islands Forum, where we are working to support its members as they confront challenges from climate change to overfishing to freedom of navigation. We are also starting to pursue new trilateral opportunities with countries as diverse as Mongolia, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, and South Korea. And we are setting our sights as well on enhancing coordination and engagement among the three giants of the Asia-Pacific: China, India, and the United States.

In all these different ways, we are seeking to shape and participate in a responsive, flexible, and effective regional architecture -- and ensure it connects to a broader global architecture that not only protects international stability and commerce but also advances our values.

OUR EMPHASIS ON the economic work of APEC is in keeping with our broader commitment to elevate economic statecraft as a pillar of American foreign policy. Increasingly, economic progress depends on strong diplomatic ties, and diplomatic progress depends on strong economic ties. And naturally, a focus on promoting American prosperity means a greater focus on trade and economic openness in the Asia-Pacific. The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama's goal of doubling exports by 2015, we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia. Last year, American exports to the Pacific Rim totaled $320 billion, supporting 850,000 American jobs. So there is much that favors us as we think through this repositioning.

When I talk to my Asian counterparts, one theme consistently stands out: They still want America to be an engaged and creative partner in the region's flourishing trade and financial interactions. And as I talk with business leaders across our own nation, I hear how important it is for the United States to expand our exports and our investment opportunities in Asia's dynamic markets.

Last March in APEC meetings in Washington, and again in Hong Kong in July, I laid out four attributes that I believe characterize healthy economic competition: open, free, transparent, and fair. Through our engagement in the Asia-Pacific, we are helping to give shape to these principles and showing the world their value.

We are pursuing new cutting-edge trade deals that raise the standards for fair competition even as they open new markets. For instance, the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will eliminate tariffs on 95 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial exports within five years and support an estimated 70,000 American jobs. Its tariff reductions alone could increase exports of American goods by more than $10 billion and help South Korea's economy grow by 6 percent. It will level the playing field for U.S. auto companies and workers. So, whether you are an American manufacturer of machinery or a South Korean chemicals exporter, this deal lowers the barriers that keep you from reaching new customers.

We are also making progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will bring together economies from across the Pacific -- developed and developing alike -- into a single trading community. Our goal is to create not just more growth, but better growth. We believe trade agreements need to include strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation. They should also promote the free flow of information technology and the spread of green technology, as well as the coherence of our regulatory system and the efficiency of supply chains. Ultimately, our progress will be measured by the quality of people's lives -- whether men and women can work in dignity, earn a decent wage, raise healthy families, educate their children, and take hold of the opportunities to improve their own and the next generation's fortunes. Our hope is that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for future agreements -- and grow to serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific.

Achieving balance in our trade relationships requires a two-way commitment. That's the nature of balance -- it can't be unilaterally imposed. So we are working through APEC, the G-20, and our bilateral relationships to advocate for more open markets, fewer restrictions on exports, more transparency, and an overall commitment to fairness. American businesses and workers need to have confidence that they are operating on a level playing field, with predictable rules on everything from intellectual property to indigenous innovation.

ASIA'S REMARKABLE ECONOMIC growth over the past decade and its potential for continued growth in the future depend on the security and stability that has long been guaranteed by the U.S. military, including more than 50,000 American servicemen and servicewomen serving in Japan and South Korea. The challenges of today's rapidly changing region -- from territorial and maritime disputes to new threats to freedom of navigation to the heightened impact of natural disasters -- require that the United States pursue a more geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable force posture.

We are modernizing our basing arrangements with traditional allies in Northeast Asia -- and our commitment on this is rock solid -- while enhancing our presence in Southeast Asia and into the Indian Ocean. For example, the United States will be deploying littoral combat ships to Singapore, and we are examining other ways to increase opportunities for our two militaries to train and operate together. And the United States and Australia agreed this year to explore a greater American military presence in Australia to enhance opportunities for more joint training and exercises. We are also looking at how we can increase our operational access in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean region and deepen our contacts with allies and partners.

How we translate the growing connection between the Indian and Pacific oceans into an operational concept is a question that we need to answer if we are to adapt to new challenges in the region. Against this backdrop, a more broadly distributed military presence across the region will provide vital advantages. The United States will be better positioned to support humanitarian missions; equally important, working with more allies and partners will provide a more robust bulwark against threats or efforts to undermine regional peace and stability.

But even more than our military might or the size of our economy, our most potent asset as a nation is the power of our values -- in particular, our steadfast support for democracy and human rights. This speaks to our deepest national character and is at the heart of our foreign policy, including our strategic turn to the Asia-Pacific region.

As we deepen our engagement with partners with whom we disagree on these issues, we will continue to urge them to embrace reforms that would improve governance, protect human rights, and advance political freedoms. We have made it clear, for example, to Vietnam that our ambition to develop a strategic partnership requires that it take steps to further protect human rights and advance political freedoms. Or consider Burma, where we are determined to seek accountability for human rights violations. We are closely following developments in Nay Pyi Taw and the increasing interactions between Aung San Suu Kyi and the government leadership. We have underscored to the government that it must release political prisoners, advance political freedoms and human rights, and break from the policies of the past. As for North Korea, the regime in Pyongyang has shown persistent disregard for the rights of its people, and we continue to speak out forcefully against the threats it poses to the region and beyond.

We cannot and do not aspire to impose our system on other countries, but we do believe that certain values are universal -- that people in every nation in the world, including in Asia, cherish them -- and that they are intrinsic to stable, peaceful, and prosperous countries. Ultimately, it is up to the people of Asia to pursue their own rights and aspirations, just as we have seen people do all over the world.

IN THE LAST decade, our foreign policy has transitioned from dealing with the post-Cold War peace dividend to demanding commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. As those wars wind down, we will need to accelerate efforts to pivot to new global realities.

We know that these new realities require us to innovate, to compete, and to lead in new ways. Rather than pull back from the world, we need to press forward and renew our leadership. In a time of scarce resources, there's no question that we need to invest them wisely where they will yield the biggest returns, which is why the Asia-Pacific represents such a real 21st-century opportunity for us.

Other regions remain vitally important, of course. Europe, home to most of our traditional allies, is still a partner of first resort, working alongside the United States on nearly every urgent global challenge, and we are investing in updating the structures of our alliance. The people of the Middle East and North Africa are charting a new path that is already having profound global consequences, and the United States is committed to active and sustained partnerships as the region transforms. Africa holds enormous untapped potential for economic and political development in the years ahead. And our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere are not just our biggest export partners; they are also playing a growing role in global political and economic affairs. Each of these regions demands American engagement and leadership.

And we are prepared to lead. Now, I'm well aware that there are those who question our staying power around the world. We've heard this talk before. At the end of the Vietnam War, there was a thriving industry of global commentators promoting the idea that America was in retreat, and it is a theme that repeats itself every few decades. But whenever the United States has experienced setbacks, we've overcome them through reinvention and innovation. Our capacity to come back stronger is unmatched in modern history. It flows from our model of free democracy and free enterprise, a model that remains the most powerful source of prosperity and progress known to humankind. I hear everywhere I go that the world still looks to the United States for leadership. Our military is by far the strongest, and our economy is by far the largest in the world. Our workers are the most productive. Our universities are renowned the world over. So there should be no doubt that America has the capacity to secure and sustain our global leadership in this century as we did in the last.

As we move forward to set the stage for engagement in the Asia-Pacific over the next 60 years, we are mindful of the bipartisan legacy that has shaped our engagement for the past 60. And we are focused on the steps we have to take at home -- increasing our savings, reforming our financial systems, relying less on borrowing, overcoming partisan division -- to secure and sustain our leadership abroad.

This kind of pivot is not easy, but we have paved the way for it over the past two-and-a-half years, and we are committed to seeing it through as among the most important diplomatic efforts of our time.
Save big when you subscribe to FP.

SUBJECTS: U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, STATE DEPARTMENT, SOUTH ASIA, EAST ASIA, SOUTHEAST ASIA

Hillary Clinton is U.S. secretary of state.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

So Bill Clinton paves the way with his relief efforts, and Hillary Clinton's brother Tony Rodham benefits from access to gold mining deposits in Haiti.

Here is an idea, one that will not sit well with the Clintons' Rothschild backers (that's Hillary with Hillraiser and 2008 DNC Platform Committee member Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, wife of sir Evelyn, baron de Rothscild, who at one time was a director of the Rothschild family business De Beers, the world's largest diamond miner - do you think anyone made any phone calls and helped expedite things for Hillary's brother?), but how about we put an end to neoliberal economics, allow the people of Haiti to keep the profits of their own natural resources, and watch them thrive and prosper?

What a thought?

(MINING.COM) Clinton run for presidency swept up in Haitian gold permit affair
Andrew Topf | March 8, 2015

The presidential ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton have become ensnared in an obscure gold-mining project in Haiti, as the Democratic favorite for the presidency begins her second run for the White House.

In a story that suggests cronyism, questionable ethics and a blurring of the lines between charity and profiteering, The Daily Mail reported on Sunday that Clinton's brother, Tony Rodham, sat on the board of VCS Mining when the unlisted, Delaware-based junior was granted a permit to mine gold in Haiti following a massive earthquake on the impoverished island nation in 2010. The permit was the first to be granted in over 50 years, VCS Mining wrote in the press release announcing the awarding of the 5-year exploitation permit.

While Rodham's involvement in the gold project, called Morne Bossa, would normally be of little cause for concern, what has raised eyebrows is the timing of the permit, granted two years after the earthquake that killed over 100,000 people, and the fact that Rodham "was a board member of a North Carolina mining company that enjoyed prime access to Haitian gold deposits in the wake of post-earthquake relief work organized in part by former president Bill Clinton through the Clinton Foundation," according to the Daily Mail. Another VCS board member was Jean-Max Bellerive, noted the Mail, who co-chaired the charitable Interim Haiti Recovery Commission with former US president Bill Clinton.

However the company vigorously defends against the allegation, saying in a press release that Rodham and Bellerive did not become become members of the board of directors until Oct. 27, 2013, almost a year after the final development permit for Morne Bossa was issued.

"We never expected or asked Mr. Rodham for any special treatment and did not receive any. There was no quid pro quo concerning the Clinton Foundation suggested or offered and VCS has not received any financial assistance from any Clinton entity nor has the Company solicited any Clinton entity," the company states.

Still the allegations concerning her brother come at a bad time for Hillary Clinton, who is increasingly in the media spotlight as the frontrunner to become the Democratic presidential nominee. The former secretary of state and first lady came under fire this week when it was discovered she used a private email address, rather than a public, traceable one, while at the State Department. Further questions were raised upon revelations that Scott Gration, the US ambassador to Kenya while Clinton was Secretary of State, was kicked from his post for a similar move to keep emails from public view. The Clinton Foundation has also been criticized recently for accepting donations from countries that Clinton dealt with while Secretary, including the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which could create conflicts of interest with such countries should Clinton become president.

After the earthquake in Haiti, the Clinton Foundation raised around $36 million for disaster relief, while the Obama Administration kicked in $3.6 billion.

From the North Carolina based VCS Mining itself:

VCS Mining Responds to Recent Media Reports
March, 6, 2015
IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE

VCS Mining would like to clarify the circumstances surrounding the issuance of permits for the Morne Bossa project along with the Company's relationship with Mr. Rodham and Mr. Bellerive.

VCS has been attempting to obtain Haitian government approval to develop mineral deposits in Haiti since 2009. One of the first projects of focus for VCS is the Morne Bossa deposit located in Northeast Haiti. After several years of work with the Haitian government and local officials, VCS Mining through its wholly owned subsidiary, Delta Société Minière S.A. obtained its renewal research permit in December 2010 and later submitted a feasibility of the project and received final approval after multiple reviews by the Bureau of Mines for a development permit for Morne Bossa in December of 2012 which the exploitation permit was granted with no involvement from Mr. Rodham Or Mr. Jean Max Bellerive in any part of the process.

Mr. Rodham's and Mr. Bellerive's involvement with VCS began in October 27, 2013. Both parties were added and approved by the Board of Directors at the same time, almost a year after the final development permit for Morne Bossa was issued. At that time they were both asked to join the Company's Board of Advisors.

VCS Management commented: Almost a year later "after obtaining the permits from the Haitian government we were delighted to add Mr. Rodham to our Advisory Board bringing his experience with Gulf Coast in raising capital to help fund the development of Morne Bossa along with the further research on other permitted lands. We never expected or asked Mr. Rodham for any special treatment and did not receive any. There was no quid pro quo concerning the Clinton Foundation suggested or offered and VCS has not received any financial assistance from any Clinton entity nor has the Company solicited any Clinton entity".

At the time of issuance of the Morne Bossa permit in 2012; VCS Management issued the following statement: "The first priority of the Haitian government is to ensure the proper framework for sustainable development of these resources, which include environmental protections and the development of the most valuable asset of this nation, its people. We believe our business practices fulfill all official requirements and we look forward to working with national and local officials to create a meaningful impact on the citizens of Haiti through employment, training, and other social benefits. Our plan is to grow, strengthen, and positively impact local communities and surrounding areas. Under Haitian mining law, an Exploitation Permit is valid for five years, and renewable up to 25 years. If further resources are discovered within the permitted area, the law allows additional renewals for up to 10 years".

VCS is fully compliant with all Haitian mining law and continues to work with the Haitian government on this and other mineral deposits to bring environmentally sound and job creating mining to Haiti.

VCS Management also commented: "We continue to seek partners for the development of this project. We believe we can offer appealing terms to investors interested in developing the natural resource base of Haiti and the additional social and economic benefits that accrue to a sustainable, job creating eco-friendly development of the rich treasures existing in Haiti."

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

On Bill and Hillary Clinton's deep ties to Wall Street:

Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign Is Now Effectively Over. Wall Street Warns Democrats Not to Choose Senator Elizabeth Warren
By Eric Zuesse
Global Research, March 29, 2015
Region: USA
Theme: Global Economy

Hillary Clinton’s unannounced campaign for the U.S. Presidency has already failed. Her arrogance (or else stupidity) in having wiped clean the hard drive of the private server she had used for her emails while she was the U.S. Secretary of State adds insult to the injury already done to her incipient campaign by the earlier revelation that she had evaded the State Department’s record-keeping system and had used her private server for all of her State Department emails and not only for her personal emails. (The NYT had headlined March 2nd: “Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules.”)

CNN, early Saturday morning, March 28th, bannered the big follow-up, “Hillary Clinton deleted all email from personal server,” and reported that, “Hillary Clinton permanently deleted all the emails on the private server she used to do official business as secretary of state.” Ms. Clinton immediately responded to reporters’ questions by saying that nothing of importance to, or concerning, her State Department business, was on that server, and that she had recently sent to the investigator who is looking into this matter “roughly 30,000 emails” that related to State Department business. However, the public, and prosecutors, will now not be able to see the other emails (which she says were approximately 32,000), because she then had that server wiped clean. She says she had had this done because “no one wants their personal emails made public.”

In other words: the public would just have to trust her assertion that nothing related to government business was in those “personal emails.”

Private letters from Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and other American leaders, are published in books; but Hillary Clinton does not think that the American public should ever have access to hers. Today’s emails are like paper-and-ink letters in that bygone era; but she has, in effect, burned them. Historians won’t get to see them; neither will the public.

Even the earlier revelation had caused her ratio of unfavorable-to-favorable ratings in polls to soar.

On March 19th, Reuters headlined, “Many Democrats want independent Clinton email probe: Reuters/Ipsos poll,” and reported: “Support for Clinton’s candidacy has dropped about 15 percentage points since mid-February among Democrats, with as few as 45 percent saying they would support her in the last week.”

In the CBS News poll, taken March 21-24, Hillary’s Favorable rating was 26%, Not Favorable was 37%; this had last been polled by CBS on September 12-16 of 2008: 51% Favorable, 35% Unfavorable. Her Favorable is down from 51% to 26%, almost half, since then. The latest Gallup poll on that question was March 2-4 (this year): 50% Favorable, 39% Unfavorable. Assuming comparability of the Gallup and the CBS polls, her figures went from 50% Favorable and 39% Unfavorable just as the first news of this email scandal broke, down to 26% Favorable and 37% Unfavorable just before the latest revelation — the revelation that she had wiped her server clean — and it’s likely to go even lower now, after that second blow.

Wall Street has banked on Hillary’s becoming President. Her husband gave them what they wanted (the end of the Glass-Steagall Act); and during the past year she has been collecting millions of dollars in ‘speaking fees’ for meeting with them in private.

According to all accounts of the collections by her nascent campaign organization, money has been flowing into it by the millions.

And Wall Street is already panicking at the news-reports of her email scandal.

On Friday March 27th, Britain’s Guardian headlined, “Elizabeth Warren: Banks Could Halt Donations in Protest at Senator’s Plans,” and reported that, “Big Wall Street banks are so upset with Elizabeth Warren’s call for them to be broken up that some have discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest, sources familiar with the discussions said. Representatives from Citigroup, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America have met to discuss ways to urge Democrats, including Warren and Ohio senator Sherrod Brown, to soften their party’s tone toward Wall Street, sources familiar with the discussions said this week.”

On 19 April 2014, the Guardian had headlined “Wall Street deregulation pushed by Clinton advisers, documents reveal” and reported that, “Throughout the documents, which are among 7,000 pages released by the Clinton library on Friday, there is little discussion of internal opposition to repealing Glass-Steagall,” which was the FDR law, passed in response to the 1929 economic crash, that (up till 2000) blocked banks from ever again gambling with depositors’ money and from their leaving the Federal Government holding the bag (bank “bailouts”) when such bank-gambles produce losses, as occurred again in 2008. Senator Warren wants to reinstate those protections for depositors and taxpayers, and the megabanks are terrified against that possibility.

Naturally, then, on 21 May 2014, Mother Jones bannered, “Hillary Clinton’s Speaking Circuit Payday: $5 Million (and Counting),” and listed some of the companies that were forking over $200,000 apiece to have private sessions with her (’speaking fees’) while she was “considering” to gear up for a Presidential campaign: Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs, the Carlyle Group, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, the National Association of Realtors, etc. Her donors’ list is rich; and it’s all ‘private,’ perhaps just like the emails that she destroyed.

The only Democrats who will be voting for Hillary Clinton are the ones who are satisfied for Wall Street to own Main Street.

And Republicans will vote against her because she’s not nominally “Republican.”

End of story. End of Presidential chance. (But, likely, not end of Presidential campaign. More likely, just the start for other Democrats to enter the race.)

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity

Articles by: Eric Zuesse
About the author:
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

William Engdahl, on the Clintons' installation of a dictatorship in Haiti, their relation to the world's richest individual, NY Times shareholder Carlos Slim:

(NEW EASTERN OUTLOOK) Hillary: The New York Times Will Never Tell Us This
20.03.2015 Author: F. William Engdahl

Martelly, known in Haiti by his musician name, Michel ‘Sweet Micky’ Martelly, backed the CIA-created right-wing paramilitary Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti and proposed to re-instate the Armed Forces of Haiti, which were disbanded by former Haitian President Aristide in 1995 because they were the terror arm of deposed dictator ‘Baby Doc’ Duvalier. The CIA ousted the popular Haitian nationalist, democratically-elected Aristide, and forced him into South African exile. According to Ezili Dantò, Hillary and Bill Clinton engineered the Presidency of Martelly, a cocaine-loving rock keyboard musician, to cover up their corruption.

She adds, “The quake monies benefited Clintons’ cronies, the Clinton Foundation big business donors, the Clintons’ luxury spa resort and hotel partners, the military industrial/intelligence complex and the usual Washington beltway bandits, like Chemonics. The holocaust for Haiti continued. What’s worst was the Clintons’ use of shock and trauma-the cataclysmic 2010 earthquake and 2010 UN-imported cholera traumas-to push the 2010 doctored elections down the Haitian people’s throats to outright dictatorship.

It’s beginning to look like Hillary Rodham Clinton faces far more scrutiny for her dealings than she hoped for. But one thing is certain. The New York Times, formerly America’s most respected newspaper of record, will never tell us this about Hillary’s murky dealings in Haiti. Why? Look no further than Carlos Slim, that paper’s second largest stockowner and long-time business partner of Hillary’s foundation in Haiti.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

(YOUTUBE, NOAM CHOMSKY VIDEOS) Chris Hedges on "Hillary Clinton And The 2016 Elections"

Chris Hedges, on Hillary Clinton, elite capture and the end of empires.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

More on Tony Rodham's use of the Clinton Global Initiative to do business deals in Haiti.

Tony Rodham met VCS Mining’s chief executive, Angelo Viard, in 2012 at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), part of the Clinton Foundation, where Hillary serves on the Board of Directors.

(THE NATION, INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES) Advice for Hillary Clinton on Her Brother’s Bad Judgment
Tony Rodham’s involvement in a gold mining operation in Haiti is under scrutiny.
By John Cavanagh, March 26, 2015.

Originally in The Nation.

The Washington Post reported on Saturday that Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, is on the advisory board of a company that is trying to mine gold in Haiti. No one should be judged based on decisions made by family members, but here is why Hillary Clinton is in the middle of this story and needs to act quickly.

Tony Rodham met VCS Mining’s chief executive, Angelo Viard, in 2012 at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), part of the Clinton Foundation, where Hillary serves on the Board of Directors. Viard admitted to the Post that he paid the $20,000 entry fee to the Initiative because he thought he could drum up business deals. It’s not clear from the Post story whether Tony Rodham also paid an entry fee for himself, but the meeting between the two delivered a potential financial bonanza for Rodham. As a board member, he holds stock options that will become extremely valuable if the mine comes on line.

There are two problems here. The first is that the Clinton Global Initiative’s integrity is tarnished when some corporate executives are drawn to it out of profit motives rather than charitable ones. Viard told the Post he attended as “a pure marketing operation.”

And here is the other problem. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton seem to genuinely care about Haiti. Indeed, Haiti is a major focus of the Clinton Foundation. But gold mining is one of the worst choices Haiti could make given the environmental nightmares it breeds.

Industrial mining uses vast quantities of water, which Haiti no longer has. Mining firms also use cyanide to separate gold from the surrounding rock, which can escape into the surrounding soil and water during earthquakes or storms and wreak havoc. (Remember Haiti and earthquakes?) And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of environmental and social and human rights problems that come with gold mining.

Haiti and El Salvador share the distinction of being the most environmentally compromised countries in the hemisphere. Communities in gold country in El Salvador have risen up to oppose mining and have persuaded their government to stop issuing mining permits for close to a decade. Opposition to gold mining is also spreading in Haiti, which has a long history with gold. Recall that Christopher Columbus’s thugs cut off the hands of the original inhabitants of Haiti over 500 years ago when they didn’t bring in their required quota of gold. Today’s equivalent of getting your hand cut off is to be poisoned by cyanide.

This would be my advice to the presidential hopeful: State clearly that you understand gold mining is environmentally destructive and that you understand it would be a disaster in Haiti. The Haitian Senate has opposed this project, so you can simply support their statements.

Second, state that as president you will oppose trade agreements that allow mining companies to sue governments that are putting checks on gold mining. The big trade agreements that President Obama is negotiating with Pacific nations and with Europe contain chapters that allow corporations to file claims against governments over actions—including health, safety and environmental measures and regulations—that reduce the value of their investment. Tragically, right now, gold mining firms (Oceana Gold and Infinito Gold) are suing the governments of El Salvador and Costa Rica for hundreds of millions of dollars for putting checks on gold mining.

When Hillary Clinton had to issue a statement on the last kerfuffle—the one over her personal email account—she chose the UN Security Council as the venue. The UN would be a good place to try to clear up this controversy as well. But, unlike the last PR flop, this time she shouldn’t wait a week to speak out.

John Cavanagh is the Director of the Institute for Policy Studies.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

There is a substantial difference between Hillary and any Republican contender for the White House. She has a (D) after her name instead of an (R).

(D) stands for "lessor of two evils". A nuclear war isn't as evil under a Dem as it is under a Repugnant...though you'll be just as dead.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Your criminal is better than their crminal, right?

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Acually, I don't vote for the "criminals" of either party. I haven't voted Dem or Repugnant for many, many years...not since the 70's.

The state of the nation over the past 40 years or so isn't my doing. Rather than supporting the decline in purchasing power, our official and unofficial wars, policies leading to financial meltdowns, etc,. I objected to the nonsense.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Bilderberg chooses Hillary Clinton for 2016?By Intellihub NewsGlobal Research, June 10, 2015D.C. Clothesline 9 June 2015Region: Theme: , , , ,

Image: A Bilderberg attendee arrives at the 2012 Bilderberg conference in Virginia – photo credit: Shepard Ambellas

The “official” Bilderberg Group website has released a list of participants for this years upcoming conference. The website also released a list of bullet points that they claim is the agenda for the secretive globalist confab.

In the past, Intellihub News and others have confirmed that while the list released by the Bilderberg website does include many who will be there, it also leaves out those that would rather not have their name released to the public.

It is also well-known that whatever agenda is discussed at Bilderberg will have repercussions for the entire world for years to come. (past attendees have claimed that the idea for the Euro was first discussed at Bilderberg)

Perhaps the biggest piece of news coming out of Austria and Bilderberg 2015 so far is the fact that a major Hillary Clinton advisor is on the list and set to attend.

Longtime Clinton friend and ally Jim Messina of The Messina Group will be attending the globalist conference where the globalist favorite for United States 2016 election will surely be decided. This news indicates that the powers that be have most likely decided to back Clinton for President.

Key topics listed in the official press release include:

  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Cybersecurity
  • Chemical Weapons Threats
  • Current Economic Issue
  • European Strategy
  • Globalisation
  • Greece
  • Iran
  • Middle East
  • NATO
  • Russia
  • Terrorism
  • United Kingdom
  • USA
  • US Elections

FINAL LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Chairman

Castries, Henri deChairman and CEO, AXA GroupFRA Achleitner, Paul M.

Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG

DEUAgius, MarcusNon-Executive Chairman, PA Consulting GroupGBRAhrenkiel, ThomasDirector, Danish Intelligence Service (DDIS)DNKAllen, John R.Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, US Department of StateUSAAltman, Roger C.Executive Chairman, EvercoreUSAApplebaum, AnneDirector of Transitions Forum, Legatum InstitutePOLApunen, MattiDirector, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVAFINBaird, ZoëCEO and President, Markle FoundationUSABalls, Edward M.Former Shadow Chancellor of the ExchequerGBRBalsemão, Francisco PintoChairman, Impresa SGPSPRTBarroso, José M. DurãoFormer President of the European CommissionPRTBaverez, NicolasPartner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPFRABenko, RenéFounder, SIGNA Holding GmbHAUTBernabè, FrancoChairman, FB Group SRLITABeurden, Ben vanCEO, Royal Dutch Shell plcNLDBigorgne, LaurentDirector, Institut MontaigneFRABoone, LaurenceSpecial Adviser on Financial and Economic Affairs to the PresidentFRABotín, Ana P.Chairman, Banco SantanderESPBrandtzæg, Svein RichardPresident and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASANORBronner, OscarPublisher, Standard VerlagsgesellschaftAUTBurns, WilliamPresident, Carnegie Endowment for International PeaceUSACalvar, PatrickDirector General, DGSIFRACastries, Henri deChairman, Bilderberg Meetings; Chairman and CEO, AXA GroupFRACebrián, Juan LuisExecutive Chairman, Grupo PRISAESP

Clark

, W. Edmund

Retired Executive, TD Bank GroupCANCoeuré, BenoîtMember of the Executive Board, European Central BankINTCoyne, AndrewEditor, Editorials and Comment, National PostCANDamberg, Mikael L.Minister for Enterprise and InnovationSWEDe Gucht, KarelFormer EU Trade Commissioner, State MinisterBELDijsselbloem, JeroenMinister of FinanceNLDDonilon, Thomas E.Former U.S. National Security Advisor; Partner and Vice Chair, O’Melveny & Myers LLPUSADöpfner, MathiasCEO, Axel Springer SEDEUDowling, AnnPresident, Royal Academy of EngineeringGBRDugan, ReginaVice President for Engineering, Advanced Technology and Projects, GoogleUSAEilertsen, TrinePolitical Editor, AftenpostenNOREldrup, MereteCEO, TV 2 Danmark A/SDNKElkann, JohnChairman and CEO, EXOR; Chairman, Fiat Chrysler AutomobilesITAEnders, ThomasCEO, Airbus GroupDEUErdoes, Mary

CEO, JP Morgan

Asset

Management

USAFairhead, RonaChairman, BBC TrustGBRFederspiel, UlrikExecutive Vice President, Haldor Topsøe A/SDNKFeldstein, Martin S.President Emeritus, NBER; Professor of Economics, Harvard UniversityUSAFerguson, NiallProfessor of History, Harvard University, Gunzberg Center for European StudiesUSAFischer, HeinzFederal PresidentAUTFlint, Douglas J.Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plcGBRFranz, ChristophChairman of the Board, F. Hoffmann-La Roche LtdCHEFresco, Louise O.President and Chairman Executive Board, Wageningen University and Research CentreNLDGriffin, KennethFounder and CEO, Citadel Investment Group, LLCUSAGruber, Lilli

Executive Editor and

Anchor

“Otto e mezzo”, La7 TV

ITAGuriev, Sergei

Professor of Economics,

Sciences

Po

RUSGürkaynak, GönençManaging Partner, ELIG Law FirmTURGusenbauer, AlfredFormer Chancellor of the Republic of AustriaAUTHalberstadt, VictorProfessor of Economics, Leiden UniversityNLDHampel, ErichChairman, UniCredit Bank Austria AGAUTHassabis, DemisVice President of Engineering, Google DeepMindGBRHesoun, WolfgangCEO, Siemens AustriaAUTHildebrand, PhilippVice Chairman, BlackRock Inc.CHEHoffman, ReidCo-Founder and Executive Chairman, LinkedInUSAIschinger, WolfgangChairman, Munich Security ConferenceINTJacobs, Kenneth M.Chairman and CEO, LazardUSAJäkel, JuliaCEO, Gruner + JahrDEUJohnson, James A.

Chairman, Johnson

Capital

Partners

USAJuppé, AlainMayor of Bordeaux, Former Prime MinisterFRAKaeser, JoePresident and CEO, Siemens AGDEUKarp, AlexCEO, Palantir TechnologiesUSAKepel, GillesUniversity Professor, Sciences PoFRAKerr, JohnDeputy Chairman, Scottish PowerGBRKesici, IlhanMP, Turkish ParliamentTURKissinger, Henry A.Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.USAKleinfeld, KlausChairman and CEO, AlcoaUSAKnot, Klaas H.W.President, De Nederlandsche BankNLDKoç, Mustafa V.Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.TURKogler, KonradDirector General, Directorate General for Public SecurityAUTKravis, Henry R.Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.USAKravis, Marie-JoséeSenior Fellow and Vice Chair, Hudson InstituteUSAKudelski, AndréChairman and CEO, Kudelski GroupCHELauk, KurtPresident, Globe Capital PartnersDEULemne, CarolaCEO, The Confederation of Swedish EnterpriseSWELevey, StuartChief Legal Officer, HSBC Holdings plcUSALeyen, Ursula von derMinister of DefenceDEULeysen, ThomasChairman of the Board of Directors, KBC GroupBELMaher, ShirazSenior Research Fellow, ICSR, King’s College LondonGBRMarkus Lassen, ChristinaHead of Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Security Policy and StabilisationDNK

Mathews,

Jessica

T.

Distinguished Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International PeaceUSAMattis, JamesDistinguished Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford UniversityUSAMaudet, PierreVice-President of the State Council, Department of Security, Police and the Economy of GenevaCHEMcKay, David I.President and CEO, Royal Bank of CanadaCANMert, Nuray

Columnist, Professor of Political

Science

, Istanbul University

TURMessina, JimCEO, The Messina GroupUSAMichel, CharlesPrime MinisterBELMicklethwait, JohnEditor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LPUSAMinton Beddoes, ZannyEditor-in-Chief, The EconomistGBRMonti, MarioSenator-for-life; President, Bocconi UniversityITAMörttinen, LeenaExecutive Director, The Finnish Family Firms AssociationFINMundie, Craig J.Principal, Mundie & AssociatesUSAMunroe-Blum, HeatherChairperson, Canada Pension Plan Investment BoardCANNetherlands, H.R.H. Princess Beatrix of theNLDO’Leary, MichaelCEO, Ryanair PlcIRLOsborne, GeorgeFirst Secretary of State and Chancellor of the ExchequerGBRÖzel, SoliColumnist, Haberturk Newspaper; Senior Lecturer, Kadir Has UniversityTURPapalexopoulos, DimitriGroup CEO, Titan Cement Co.GRCPégard, CatherinePresident, Public Establishment of the Palace, Museum and National Estate of VersaillesFRAPerle, Richard N.Resident Fellow, American Enterprise InstituteUSAPetraeus, David H.Chairman, KKR Global InstituteUSAPikrammenos, PanagiotisHonorary President of The Hellenic Council of StateGRCReisman, Heather M.Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.CANRocca, GianfeliceChairman, Techint GroupITARoiss, GerhardCEO, OMV AustriaAUTRubin, Robert E.Co Chair, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the TreasuryUSARutte, MarkPrime MinisterNLDSadjadpour, KarimSenior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International PeaceUSASánchez Pérez-Castejón, PedroLeader, Partido Socialista Obrero Español PSOEESPSawers, JohnChairman and Partner, Macro Advisory PartnersGBRSayek Böke, SelinVice President, Republican People’s PartyTURSchmidt, Eric E.Executive Chairman, Google Inc.USAScholten, RudolfCEO, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AGAUTSenard, Jean-DominiqueCEO, Michelin GroupFRASevelda, KarlCEO, Raiffeisen Bank International AGAUTStoltenberg, JensSecretary General, NATOINTStubb, AlexanderPrime MinisterFINSuder, KatrinDeputy Minister of DefenseDEUSutherland, Peter D.UN Special Representative; Chairman, Goldman Sachs InternationalIRLSvanberg, Carl-HenricChairman, BP plc; Chairman, AB VolvoSWESvarva, OlaugCEO, The Government Pension Fund NorwayNORThiel, Peter A.President, Thiel CapitalUSATsoukalis, LoukasPresident, Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign PolicyGRCÜzümcü, AhmetDirector-General, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical WeaponsINTVitorino, António M.Partner, Cuetrecasas, Concalves Pereira, RLPRTWallenberg, JacobChairman, Investor ABSWEWeber, VinPartner, Mercury LLCUSAWolf, Martin H.Chief Economics Commentator, The Financial TimesGBRWolfensohn, James D.Chairman and CEO, Wolfensohn and CompanyUSAZoellick, Robert B.Chairman, Board of International Advisors, The Goldman Sachs GroupUSA

Intellihub News is a leading independent news agency covering a wide range of issues including globalism, the increasing police state, and the control of media by a small number of corrupt corporations.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, you decide.

(Washington Post) Seven big things to know about Hillary Clinton’s new plan for the economy

Bernie Sanders - free education, free healthcare, investment in infrastructure, publicly funded elections

Hillary Clinton - tax reform, raising "median incomes", a "higher" minimum wage

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

#BLACKLIVESMATTER is a Clinton Political Stunt

They are using these jerks at the top of their organisation to try and paint Bernie Sanders tone deaf to the African American community. This from the Clintons, who gave us NAFTA, reforming welfare as we know it, and the continued War On Drugs, as well as Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

They rudely interrupted Bernie Sanders and were not interested at all in waiting for the question and answer session afterwards. They wanted to interrupt and harass Bernie Sanders, and possibly O'Malley too. However, it is extremely telling that Hillary Clinton herself did not show up. She knew what was going to happen.

This is just another Clinton dirty trick. Like getting Randi Rhodes fired for her comedy routine.

#blacklivesmatter 'Co-founder' Alicia Garza is the Special Projects Director for the National Domestic Workers Alliance or NDWA. That's Bill Clinton on their front page.

And here Hillary's substutites are pushing this shallow narrative, including in the Washington Post:

(WASHINGTON POST) Hillary Clinton said it. Black lives matter. No hedge.
By Janell Ross July 20 at 5:17 PM

She said it. She really did. Actually she typed it. But still, there was no hedge.

In a live Facebook Q&A set up primarily for average people interested in asking Hillary Clinton questions, some reporters popped in too. Ok, a lot of reporters popped in, since Clinton hasn't exactly been too open about taking questions from reporters. Among the online attendees was the Post's own, Wesley Lowery. Lowery asked Clinton this question and got this response:

"Black lives matter." With those three little words, Clinton acknowledged that there are myriad ways that race continues to shape life in America that have almost no relationship to pocketbooks, educational credentials or class. There's ample evidence that income, education and the like do not deliver the same results in black lives that they do in others.

After three successive summers filled with news about the nation's rocky racial landscape, it's probably fair to say that at least some of the people running for office in 2016 expect questions about the way the police do their work and how the country responds when something goes wrong.

But for a group of activists who first organized loosely online under the hashtag #blacklivesmatter in the hours after a jury acquitted George Zimmerman on all charges in the death of unarmed, black teen, Trayvon Martin, just getting someone in the 2016 field -- especially the heavy favorite to be the Democratic nominee -- to acknowledge that black lives are in particular peril is pretty huge.

Of course, the journey from point A to point B has not been anything close to easy.

The Clinton camp insists that Clinton has been supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement with her earliest public comments indicating this coming before she was a declared candidate in December 2014. (The key section begins around 8:32 in the video below.) And there was this essay published days after she announced her plan to run.

More than a few activists and supporters of this cause disagree with the campaign's characterization of Clinton as a full and long-term ally. And some of Clinton's more recent choices haven't helped.

In June, Clinton went to a Missouri forum, held in a church not far from the place where another unarmed black teen was shot and killed by a police officer whom a grand jury later opted not to indict. At the time, she said this while connecting the struggles of young black Americans and her own mother's deeply difficult upbringing : "All lives matter.”

It was, whether intentional or not, the phrase to which opponents of the Black Lives Matter movement have most often turned. And that's the kind of equivocation that can, to some ears, sound a lot like minimization or worse, outright rejection.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has offered up his own assessment of the singular way that race shapes policing in the United States and the relationship between economic isolation and continued racial inequality.

But Sanders has also used that same phrase, "All lives matter," when pressed. And, this weekend, when activists in Phoenix deeply concerned with the way that police do their work in communities of color stormed into a liberal gathering, Sanders wasn't as forceful on the issue as Clinton.

"Black lives of course matter," he said. "But I've spent 50 years of my life fighting for civil rights. If you don't want me to be here, that's okay."

His I'll-just-take-my-ball-and-go-home comment, his irritated body language and decision to speak over protesters didn't do him any favors. And Sanders never seemed to really pivot to his ideas around police or criminal justice reforms.Apparently, all that wasn't enough to encourage former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley to shift course on stage. He did manage to listen and to contain most outward signs of frustration. Then, O'Malley said this at that same Phoenix gathering: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter." He later apologized. He did manage to listen and to contain most outward signs of frustration.

Clinton, as has been widely reported, skipped Netroots this year due to a scheduling conflict. Plus, she probably didn't have much fun there in 2007 when she was booed during her previous presidential bid.

So late Monday, Hillary Clinton, habitual avoider of direct contact with reporters has said on the record: "Black lives matter." She didn't add qualifiers. She didn't hedge. She didn't find a way to connect, compare or somehow associate the systemic and wide-spread challenges that black and Latino communities face with policing right now to difficult circumstances in individual white lives in the past. That is indeed a moment worth noting.

And, perhaps that's a moment that came in the nick of time. Black Lives Matter groups from around the country are set to convene in Cleveland this weekend to talk tactics, platform and strategy. Critique what you will, but Black Lives Matter has certainly evolved beyond a hashtag.

This is how much Hillary Clinton disrespects real activists. They just hijack the head of the organisation and pull a stunt to use them against their political opponents.

This is going to blow Hillary Clinton out of the water, because it shows the world exactly who she is and what she is all about.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

Enter George Soros

Alicia Garza is the Special Projects Director of the NDWA. That's Bill Clinton on their front page.

Ai-jen Poo is the Director of the NDWA. She is also a recipient of the Open Society Institute Community Fellowship.

The Open Society foundations were founded and chaired by George Soros.

The purpose of the Open Society organisations around the world is Regime Change, through 'Democracy Promotion'.

Instead of Democracy Promotion, they could be described as Democracy Interruption, because they are always singing the song of their donors.

SOFT POWER AND DEMOCRACY PROMOTION

A backgrounder on democracy promotion worldwide from the formerly David Rockefeller chaired Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

(CFR) Soft Power: Democracy-Promotion and U.S. NGOs
Author: Alexandra Silver
March 17, 2006
This publication is now archived.

What is the value of independent organizations promoting democracy?

NGOs "think differently and have a different perspective and different analysis from the State Department," says Thomas O. Melia, deputy executive director of Freedom House and author of the report, "The Democracy Bureaucracy: The Infrastructure of American Democracy Promotion." While their work often overlaps, the organizations offer different methods and programs around the world, and Melia suggests pluralism in this field is helpful.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

(CONSORTIUM NEWS) Hillary Clinton’s Leftward Flip-FlopsJuly 22, 2015

Faced with a populist surge in favor of Sen. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton has tacked strongly to the left and – in so doing – is leaving in her wake many long-held positions on crime, trade, same-sex marriage, etc., to such a degree that it’s hard to know what she’d do as president, says Evan Popp.

By Evan Popp

As a strong challenge from the Left emerges in the form of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, who was once thought to be headed for a coronation in the Democratic presidential primary, has tried to recast herself as a progressive champion. However, in her mad dash to the left, Clinton cannot escape her history of supporting, as the First Lady and then as a senator, the decidedly centrist and corporate-friendly policies of her husband, President Bill Clinton.

The contrast in views espoused by First Lady/ Sen. Clinton, versus 2008, and to a greater extent, 2016 presidential candidate Clinton, could emerge as a major problem for her campaign. Although Clinton has been extremely close-lipped to the media thus far in her latest bid for the Democratic nomination, by attempting to portray herself in speeches as a progressive during a time in which the political winds of the millennial generation are blowing left, Clinton has unwittingly shown herself to be a consummate flip-flopper who takes the positions that are most likely to return her to the White House.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

A run-through on a litany of issues important to progressives reveals a candidate in Clinton who once held decidedly anti-progressive views on many of the important questions of the day.

Same-Sex Marriage

Few issues in recent memory have prompted as great a reversal of public opinion in as short a time as same-sex marriage. Between 2003 and 2013, the proportion of Americans supporting marriage equality rose 21 points nationwide, from 32 percent to 53 percent. As recently as May 2015, before the historic Supreme Court ruling that made same-sex marriage legal across the country, 57 percent of Americans were supportive of marriage equality.

Clinton came out in favor of marriage equality in 2013, after a majority of Americans had already indicated their support. To be fair, she was not the only prominent politician to withhold their approval until it was clear public opinion had shifted. President Barack Obama waited until 2012 to come out in favor of marriage equality, following Vice President Joe Biden’s comments supporting same-sex marriage.

But it is telling what Clinton’s views on the issue were back in 2000 when the electorate was still squarely against marriage equality. Clinton stated gay couples had no place in the institution of marriage, and said she would have voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

“Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman,” Clinton said in 2000.

Even as recently as 2014, despite having come out in favor of same-sex marriage the year before, Clinton was hesitant to endorse efforts for nationwide marriage equality, hiding behind the favorite Republican Party talking point of states’ rights.

“Marriage had always been a matter left to the states. And in many of the conversations that I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists who work state-by-state,” she said.

But just a year later, with an ever increasing number of people supportive of establishing nationwide equality for same-sex couples, Clinton changed her tune. She advocated that the Supreme Court rule in favor of same-sex couples, in a clear contrast with her states-based approach from the previous year.

Clinton will say she, like many politicians, has evolved on the issue of marriage equality. But the evolution of her views very conveniently follows the change in public opinion on the issue and falls in line with her overall move to the left to combat the appeal of Sanders — who was one of a minority of members of Congress to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act — to progressive Democrats. And it’s not the only issue she has surreptitiously “evolved” on.

Trade

One of Clinton’s most conspicuous and recent flip-flops is on the issue of “free trade.” As President Obama sought fast track authority from Congress to pursue the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal — TPP — Clinton was pressured by Sanders to take a stance on the deal, one that Sanders and many progressive activists and labor groups are vehemently opposed to.

In a move consistent with her attempt to portray herself as progressive, Clinton said she had doubts about the trade deal and stated if she were voting, she would most likely not have supported the trade package moving through Congress at the time, which gave Obama fast track trade authority to negotiate the deal.

“At this point, probably not,” she said when asked if she would have voted to give Obama fast track authority. However, in 2012, while serving as Secretary of State, Clinton spoke about the TPP in much more glowing terms.

“We need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP,” Clinton said “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.”

With the TPP coming under intense scrutiny from progressives and potentially representing a dividing issue between her and Sanders, Clinton flipped her script on the trade deal by stating she probably wouldn’t vote for it, just three years after expressing strong support for the TPP.

And it’s not the first time Clinton has flip-flopped on the issue of free trade agreements. While First Lady, she was a supporter of the North American Free Trade Agreement — NAFTA — which was championed by President Bill Clinton. Speaking about NAFTA in 1996, Hillary Clinton said, “I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth.”

Later she discussed NAFTA in a 2003 memoir, writing “Creating a free trade zone in North America — the largest free trade zone in the world — would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal.”

By 2007, however, Clinton’s views on NAFTA had changed. In a 2007 debate during the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton contrasted her previous statements, saying in the debate NAFTA was the wrong course of action.

“NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would, and that’s why I call for a trade timeout,” she said.

On trade, as with many other issues, Clinton has demonstrated a startling propensity to change her mind, most recently flip-flopping in the direction of progressive advocates on an issue she has spoken quite clearly in favor of in the past.

Iraq War

Clinton, and to be fair many Democrats, flip-flopped on the Iraq War, but her change of view is indicative of her tendency to take the politically popular view of the time. In 2002, when Clinton voted to give President George W. Bush the authorization to use military force in Iraq, public opinion was still squarely in support of the war.

In a 2002 speech on the floor of the Senate, Clinton said she supported the measure to authorize force because of Iraq’s dictatorial ruler Saddam Hussein.

“Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members,” Clinton said.

Clinton went on to say in her Senate floor speech that if left unchecked Hussein would “continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

In a meeting with CODEPINK in 2003, Clinton also furthered the since debunked storyline that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

“There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm and I have absolutely no belief that he will,” Clinton said. “The very difficult question for all of us is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction?”

However, by 2007, as public sentiment cooled on the Iraq War, Clinton’s view of her vote to authorize the use of force had shifted. In September 2007, in the midst of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton said of her war vote, “Obviously, if I had known then what I know now about what the President would do with the authority that was given him, I would not have voted the way that I did.”

Then in her 2014 memoir Hard Choices with the war in Iraq increasingly remembered as a colossal foreign policy blunder, Clinton went even further in her opposition to the war. “I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had,” Clinton said of her Iraq vote. “And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.”

Clinton is right to say she got it wrong, as the war in Iraq represented a dark chapter in American foreign policy. But the trouble arises with the fact that she supported the war when it was popular with the American people and only expressed her opposition to it once public opinion turned against the conflict. On this, and these other issues highlighted, it appears that Clinton is much more concerned with pandering to the widest swath of voters than to upholding any personal beliefs.

Crime

Crime is another policy area in which Clinton’s rhetoric has changed dramatically from her days in Bill Clinton’s White House. In fact, Clinton has made a new approach to dealing with those who commit crimes a central part of her campaign, calling for an “end to the era of mass incarceration.”

During her latest campaign, Clinton has been an outspoken critic of the current criminal justice system. “We have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance, and these recent tragedies should galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again,” Clinton said.

Clinton is right, the current criminal justice system and approach to dealing with crime is inherently counterproductive. But she hasn’t always felt that way. Back when the more popular political school of thought was to be “tough on crime,” Clinton displayed a much more aggressive approach to punishing those who commit crimes.

During Bill Clinton’s presidency, Hillary Clinton supported his tough on crime policies and a 1994 law “that among other things, has increased untold numbers of prison sentences by encouraging states to drastically reduce or eliminate parole and early release.”

In 1994, Hillary Clinton’s quotes about crime sound very different from her 2016 campaign when she talks about the problem of mass incarceration. “We need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders,” she said in 1994. “We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets.”

Candidates are allowed to change their minds and it is possible that Clinton’s perspective on crime and these other issues has indeed shifted. However, the sheer volume of issues that Clinton has flip-flopped on, and the progressive territory she is trying to stake out with these switches as a mechanism for stemming Sanders’ momentum, tells a story of a candidate willing to say whatever it takes to win the presidency.

Driver’s Licenses for Undocumented Immigrants

A clear and recent example of a Clinton flip-flop is her stance on providing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. During her quest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton generated headlines when she said she would not support a proposal put forward by then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer to provide driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants that pass a driving test. This came after criticism that her position on the issue was not clear.

When Spitzer eventually abandoned the driver’s license proposal, Clinton praised the decision. “I support Governor Spitzer’s decision today to withdraw his proposal,” she said in a statement. “As President, I will not support driver’s licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration, including border security and fixing our broken system.”

This put her in clear contrast with then Sen. Barack Obama, who was supportive of the idea of providing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants who passed a driver’s test. However, in her second bid for the Democratic nomination, Clinton has done a 180 on the issue. Clinton indicated the change in her position through a campaign spokesperson who said “Hillary supports state policies to provide driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. This is consistent with her support for the president’s executive action.”

Clinton didn’t say what prompted her to switch her position on the issue, but in a primary where she is running in a full sprint to the left, it isn’t surprising that she has changed her tune in a way that appeals to progressives.

Ethanol

Perhaps the most egregious Clinton flip-flop came on an issue that’s not on most of the country’s radar screen: ethanol. However, this issue tends to come up time and time again in presidential primaries/caucuses because of its importance in Iowa and the sway that state holds in the presidential primary process.

An examination of Clinton’s rhetoric on ethanol indicates her support for the controversial fuel source has changed at politically convenient times. An article by The Daily Beast explored Clinton’s position on ethanol and examined how, and likely why, she flipped so dramatically on the issue.

“In 2002, Clinton opposed the mandated use of just two billion gallons of ethanol per year,” the article stated. “But a mere five years later, after seeing that she had to go through Iowa — which produces more ethanol than any other state — to return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, she was advocating the use of 18 times that quantity of biofuel.”

Additional proof of her anti-ethanol history is Clinton’s participation in writing a 2002 letter about mandates in ethanol use. The letter stated that an ethanol mandate would add “an astonishing new anti-consumer government mandate — that every US refiner must use an ever-increasing volume of ethanol.” The Daily Beast also reported that while serving in the Senate, Clinton voted against measures supportive of ethanol 17 times.

Fast forward to 2007, when Clinton was seeking the Democratic nomination for President, and as her first step in that journey, a win in the Iowa caucuses. While on a campaign stop in Iowa, Clinton stressed the importance of the corn-based energy product, saying the U.S. needed to work on “limiting our dependence on foreign oil. And we have a perfect example right here in Iowa about how it can work with all of the ethanol that’s being produced here.”

The fact that Clinton flip-flopped on ethanol while campaigning for President in Iowa after she had consistently voted against ethanol related measures as a senator is telling of her tendency to take the politically convenient stance, rather than uphold any convictions. It shows that her predominate interest is getting elected, rather than adhering to principle.

Conclusions

So what do all these flip-flops say about Hillary Clinton? The takeaway message is that while she is angling to appeal to the more liberal wing of the Democratic party, progressives should not trust Clinton to follow through if she is elected President, as she has a history of changing her mind on issues at politically convenient times.

I’m not saying that politicians should never be allowed to change their mind, of course political figures’ views are allowed to evolve and shift. But the problem comes when a politician changes their mind so frequently that it becomes difficult to trust them to follow through on what they’re campaigning on.

Such is the case with Hillary Clinton. She may cast herself as a progressive, but her prior history and propensity to flip-flop say otherwise.

Evan Popp is a journalism student at Ithaca College currently interning at the Institute for Public Accuracy.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

CLINTON FOUNDATION DONORS

Major Hillary Clinton Donors:

Frank Eychaner is the Chairman of Newsweb Corporation, which owns WCPT. I wonder what WCPT's editorial policy is going to be during the primaries.

--

These are the donors that gave over $25 million, it doesn't say how much over $25 million.

> $25 million

Donation Amount
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 records.

Donor name

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation *

Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) *

Fred Eychaner *

Frank Giustra, The Radcliffe Foundation

Nationale Postcode Loterij *

The Children's Investment Fund Foundation

UNITAID

Frank Eychaner, Chairman of Newsweb Corporation, which owns WCPT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweb_Corporation#Radio
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/meet-fred-eychaner-the-most-myst...

" It's not just journalists who are kept at bay. Even some political friends who once had a direct line of access to Eychaner told me he has become less and less accessible in recent years. Almost everyone now gets routed through Dave Horwich, a former advance staffer for Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation who is currently vice president of Eychaner's printing and media company, Newsweb. "

(NATIONAL JOURNAL) Meet Fred Eychaner, the Most Mysterious Figure in Democratic Party Politics
Tracking down Fred Eychaner, one of the most reclusive—and powerful—donors in Democratic politics, was no easy task.
By Daniel Libit

*******************************************************************

$5 MILLION - $10 MILLION

State of Kuwait
The Coca-Cola Company *
The Rockefeller Foundation

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors

Donation Amount
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 records.

Donor name

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation *

Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) *

Fred Eychaner *

Frank Giustra, The Radcliffe Foundation

Nationale Postcode Loterij *

The Children's Investment Fund Foundation

UNITAID

Donation Amount 5 MILLION TO 10 MILLION

Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 records.

Donor name

S. Daniel Abraham

Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi
http://www.forbes.com/profile/mohammed-al-amoudi/

Susie Tompkins Buell Fund of the Marin Community Foundation *

C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Inc. *

Commonwealth of Australia ** *

Elton John AIDS Foundation

Government of the Netherlands **

Irish Aid **

J.B. and M.K. Pritzker Family Foundation *

John D. Mackay

Denis J. O'Brien *

Michael Schumacher

State of Kuwait

The Coca-Cola Company *

The Rockefeller Foundation

The Swedish Postcode Lottery *

The Wasserman Foundation *

* Indicates a contribution was made by this donor in 2014.

** Government Grants

http://www.forbes.com/profile/mohammed-al-amoudi/

#116 Mohammed Al Amoudi
Follow (219)
Real Time Net Worth As of 7/25/15
$11 Billion

Age 69

Source Of Wealth oil, diversified, Self Made

Residence Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Citizenship Saudi Arabia

Marital Status Married

Children 8

Mohammed Al Amoudi on Forbes Lists

#116 Billionaires (2015)
#2 in Saudi Arabia
#61 in 2014

Son of a Saudi father and Ethiopian mother, Mohammed Al Amoudi has accumulated a portfolio of construction, agricultural, and energy companies across Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia since the 1970s. He made his initial fortune in construction in Saudi Arabia, and continues to build complexes from hospital centers to university buildings. In Ethiopia he has invested in sectors including agriculture, cement production and gold mining. His Saudi Star has cultivated thousands of acres of land for fruits, vegetables, cereals, coffee, tea, flowers and most recently rice fields for customers in Ethiopia and abroad - he exports coffee beans to Starbucks and tea leaves to Lipton. In 2015 he will open the African Union Grand Hotel in Addis Ababa. Forbes estimated a lower net worth for Al Amoudi in 2015 compared to a year ago primarily due to the drop in oil prices. He owns oil company Svenska and refinery Preem. An active philanthropist, Al Amoudi works with the Clinton Global Initiative on fighting AIDS in Africa.

$1 million to $5 million

Donor name

100 Women in Hedgefunds
Absolute Return for Kids (ARK)
Jay Alix
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa
Nasser Al-Rashid
American Federation of Teachers *
Angelopoulos Foundation *
Gianna Angelopoulos
Anheuser-Busch Foundation
Smith and Elizabeth Bagley *
Barclays Capital
Mary Bing and Doug Ellis
Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund *
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina *
Richard Blum and Blum Family Foundation *
Booz Allen Hamilton *
The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation *
The Sherwood Foundation *
Richard and Jackie Caring *
Gilbert R. Chagoury
Christy and John Mack Foundation *
Cisco *
Citi Foundation

The Clinton Family Foundation *
Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund
Stephen J. Cloobeck *
Roy E. Cockrum *
Victor P. Dahdaleh & The Victor Phillip Dahdaleh Charitable Foundation
The ERANDA Foundation *
Robert Disbrow
Dubai Foundation
Duke Energy Corporation
Entergy
ExxonMobil *
Issam M. Fares & The Wedge Foundation *
Joseph T. Ford
Wallace W. Fowler
Friends of Saudi Arabia
Fundacion Telmex
Mala Gaonkar Haarman
GEMS Education *
Ariadne Getty *
GIZ - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale ** *
The James R. Greenbaum, Jr. Family Foundation
Vin Gupta *
Worldwide Support for Development *
Hewlett-Packard Company *
Hult International Business School *
Humana Inc. *
ICAP Services North America *

PAGE 2

Inter-American Development Bank *
Sanela D. Jenkins
Robert L. Johnson *
Walid Juffali
Dave Katragadda
Kessler Family Foundation
Michael and Jena King
Laureate International Universities
Lukas Lundin
MAC AIDS Fund
The Marc Haas Foundation *
Microsoft *
Lakshmi N. Mittal
James R. Murdoch
Norad (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation) ** *
NRG Energy, Inc. *
OAS S.A.
OCP Corporation
Open Society Institute
Jonathan M. Orszag *
Peter G. Peterson Foundation *

Pfizer Inc *
PGA Tour, Inc. *
Presidential Inaugural Committee
Princess Diana Memorial Fund
Procter & Gamble *
Stewart Rahr
Paul D. Reynolds
Robertson Foundation
Newsmax Media Inc. *
Salida Capital Foundation
Donald L. Saunders *
Joachim Schoss
Bernard L. Schwartz
Walter H. Shorenstein
Arnold H. Simon
Bren Simon *
Amar Singh
Carlos Slim Helú & Fundación Carlos Slim
Michael Smurfit *
Harold Snyder
Sol Goldman Charitable Trust *
Steven Spielberg
Standard Chartered Bank *
Starkey Hearing Foundation *
Starkey Hearing Technologies, Inc. *
State of Qatar
Sterling Stamos Capital Management, LP
The Streisand Foundation *
Suzlon Energy Ltd.

PAGE 3

Swedish Postcode Foundation
Swiss Reinsurance Company *

Nima Taghavi *
Tenet Healthcare Corporation *
The Annenberg Foundation
The Boeing Company
The Dow Chemical Company *
The ELMA Philanthropies Services (U.S.) Inc.
The Ford Foundation *
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. *
The Government of Brunei Darussalam

The Howard Gilman Foundation
The New York Community Trust *
The Roy and Christine Sturgis Charitable & Educational Trust
The Sidney E. Frank Foundation
The Sultanate of Oman *
The Walmart Foundation
The Zayed Family
Thomson Reuters
Torres-Picón Foundation *
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. *
Tracfone Wireless, Inc. *
T.G. Holdings
U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) *
UK Department for International Development (DFID)
United Arab Emirates *
Verein Aids Life
The Walton Family Foundation *
Rilin Enterprises *
Gerardo Werthein
Frank White *
The Wyss Foundation *
YPY Holding Limited *

That is a lot of money from the oligarchs, and from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

Frank Giustra, one of the > $25,000,000 contributors, is a merchant banker who funds and the mining industry, specifically gold miner Endeavor Mining, a company that specializes in dragging gold out of Africa, specifically Ghana (formerly Gold Coast), Mali, Burkina Faso, and Côte d'Ivoire.

That is interesting, because Hillary Clinton's brother Tony Rodham is on the board of gold mining company in Haiti. See articles above in this thread. From Wikipedia:

Internationally, the Radcliffe Foundation helps to fund a number of organizations with a common interest in enhancing understanding and empowering people. In June 2007, Giustra launched the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership with U.S. President Bill Clinton, an innovative partnership between William J. Clinton Foundation, the private sector, governments, local communities, and other NGOs to increase the scope, scale, impact, and sustainability of social and economic development efforts in areas where poverty is widespread.[4] CGSGI aims to alleviate poverty in the developing world in partnership with the global mining community. Along with Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, these two prominent philanthropists have pledged a minimum of $100 million each toward the effort.

On June 17, 2010, Mr. Giustra teamed up again with Carlos Slim and President Clinton to create a $20 million fund that will finance small businesses in earthquake-ravaged Haiti.[5]

The Radcliffe Foundation has contributed $30 million towards the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI), which works with governments and other partners to increase access to high-quality care and treatment for HIV-positive people.

In 2005, the Radcliffe Foundation began supporting the International Crisis Group,[6] an independent organization working to prevent and resolve deadly conflict on five continents through analysis and high-level advocacy. Mr. Giustra's philanthropic motives and connects to President Bill Clinton have been questioned. A New York Times article published January 31, 201: highlighted a trip made by Mr. Giustra and the former US President to Khazakistan where they dined with Khazakistan President Nursultan A. Naarbayev, who is known for his poor human rights record and facilitating rigged elections. Following the meeting Mr. Giustra's company signed an agreement to buy the rights to several uranium projects from a state-owned uranium industry. Shortly after, Mr. Giustra gave Clinton's charitable foundation a $31.4 million gift.[7]

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

I am wondering if Thom even reads this forum. I am watching him now and he seems to be ratcheting up this adulation of Hillary. He is becoming like Stephanie Miller who is on the verge of orgasm every time she speaks of Hillary. Hillary is trying to con every progressive out there. All of a sudden she has become a socialist in the past month. Give me a break! No more corporate Dem march towards a slow death!

fudgemeister's picture
fudgemeister
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2015 5:11 pm

Frank Giustra, the big time Hillary Clinton donor, is also on the International Crisis Group, with... Larry Summers, Louise Arbour, General Wesley Clark, Mo Ibrahim, Olympia Snow, Senator George Mitchell, Albright Stonebridge Group co-Chair Samuel Berger, and Senior Advisors like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Prince Turki al-Faisal (Saudi intelligence), Cyril Ramaphosa (ANC, SABMiller, Anglo-American Corporation spinoff Mondi) and more.

Frank Giustra*
President & CEO, Fiore Financial Corporation

* Ex officio, and member of Board of Directors.

Meaning, that Frank Giustra is a member of the Board of Directors of the International Crisis Group (ICG).

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am
Quote fudgemeister:

I am wondering if Thom even reads this forum. I am watching him now and he seems to be ratcheting up this adulation of Hillary. He is becoming like Stephanie Miller who is on the verge of orgasm every time she speaks of Hillary. Hillary is trying to con every progressive out there. All of a sudden she has become a socialist in the past month. Give me a break! No more corporate Dem march towards a slow death!

Thom is trying to be fair to Hillary Clinton, because he realizes if Bernie Sanders doesn't get the Democratic nomination.... we progressives will be stuck with her !

I wouldn't call it a "circular firing squad". Both Thom and Bernie have been gentlemen in addressing Hillary's shortcomings. But for the past 10 years that occasional Friday segment has been called "Brunch with BERNIE" and not "Brunch with Hillary". Think about it !

Executive
Joined:
Apr. 24, 2015 4:12 am
Quote Executive:
Quote fudgemeister:

I am wondering if Thom even reads this forum. I am watching him now and he seems to be ratcheting up this adulation of Hillary. He is becoming like Stephanie Miller who is on the verge of orgasm every time she speaks of Hillary. Hillary is trying to con every progressive out there. All of a sudden she has become a socialist in the past month. Give me a break! No more corporate Dem march towards a slow death!

Thom is trying to be fair to Hillary Clinton, because he realizes if Bernie Sanders doesn't get the Democratic nomination.... we progressives will be stuck with her !

I wouldn't call it a "circular firing squad". Both Thom and Bernie have been gentlemen in addressing Hillary's shortcomings. But for the past 10 years that occasional Friday segment has been called "Brunch with BERNIE" and not "Brunch with Hillary". Think about it !

This is one progressive who will not be stuck with her. No more slow death for me. Thom thinks she could be FDR...I will not buy into that.

fudgemeister's picture
fudgemeister
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2015 5:11 pm

I hope that Bernie Sanders will be the President that Huey Long would have been. I haven't heard Thom talk about Huey Long yet.

Imagine what the country and the world would have looked like when Huey Long had been president instead of FDR. More on his programs and especially Share Our Wealth:

Share Our Wealth
(a.k.a. Share the Wealth)

In a national radio address on February 23, 1934, Huey Long unveiled his “Share Our Wealth” plan (also known as Huey Long's "Share the Wealth" plan), a program designed to provide a decent standard of living to all Americans by spreading the nation’s wealth among the people. Long proposed capping personal fortunes at $50 million each (roughly $600 million in today's dollars) through a restructured, progressive federal tax code and sharing the resulting revenue with the public through government benefits and public works. In subsequent speeches and writings, he revised his graduated tax levy on wealth over $1 million to cap fortunes at $5 - $8 million (or $60 - $96 million today).

Share Our Wealth Proposal

  • Cap personal fortunes at $50 million each — equivalent to about $600 million today (later reduced to $5 - $8 million, or $60 - $96 million today)
  • Limit annual income to one million dollars each (about $12 million today)
  • Limit inheritances to five million dollars each (about $60 million today)
  • Guarantee every family an annual income of $2,000 (or one-third the national average)
  • Free college education and vocational training
  • Old-age pensions for all persons over 60
  • Veterans benefits and healthcare
  • A 30 hour work week
  • A four week vacation for every worker
  • Greater regulation of commodity production to stabilize prices

Long advocated free higher education and vocational training, pensions for the elderly, veterans benefits and health care, and a yearly stipend for all families earning less than one-third the national average income – enough for a home, an automobile, a radio, and the ordinary conveniences. Long also proposed shortening the work week and giving employees a month vacation to boost employment, along with greater government regulation of economic activity and production controls. He later proposed a debt moratorium to give struggling families time to pay their mortgages and other debts before losing their property to creditors.

Long charged that the nation’s economic collapse was the result of the vast disparity between the super-rich and everyone else. A recovery was impossible while 95% of the nation’s wealth was held by only 15% of the population. In Long’s view, this concentration of money among a handful of wealthy bankers and industrialists restricted its availability for average citizens, who were already struggling with debt and the effects of a shrinking economy. Because no one could afford to buy goods and services, businesses were forced to cut their workforces, thus deepening the economic crisis through a devastating ripple effect.

“Our present plan is that we will allow no one man to own more than $50 million,” Long told the radio audience of millions. "It may be necessary, in working out the plans that no man's fortune would be more than $10 or $15 million. But be that as it may, it will still be more than any one man, or any one man and his children and their children, will be able to spend in their lifetimes; and it is not necessary or reasonable to have wealth piled up beyond the point where we cannot prevent poverty among the masses.”

Long believed that it was morally wrong for the government to allow millions of Americans to suffer in abject poverty when there existed a surplus of food, clothing, and shelter. He blamed the mass suffering on a capitalist system run amok and feared that impending civil unrest threatened the democracy. By 1934, nearly half of all American families lived in poverty, earning less than $1,250 annually.

Reality Check

A Roadmap for the Future

Huey Long never received credit for the government reforms that resulted from his Share Our Wealth movement. The Great Depression persisted for six years after Long’s death, and the federal government gradually adopted policies to regulate the economy and provide for the public good. Many of today’s federal programs address causes championed by Huey Long:

  • Social Security
  • Veterans Benefits
  • College Financial Aid
  • National public works
  • FDIC bank insurance
  • Labor rights, minimum wage and 40-hour work week standards
  • Farm assistance
  • Public utility regulation
  • Graduated Income Tax and Inheritance Tax
  • Medicare and Medicaid
  • Food Stamps
  • Housing Assistance

“The same mill that grinds out the extra rich is the same mill that will grind out the extra poor, because, in order that the extra rich can become so affluent, they must necessarily take more of what ordinarily would belong to the average man,” said Long.

To build grassroots support for his program, Long announced the formation of the Share Our Wealth Society with the slogan "Every Man a King", and he encouraged the public to write to him to learn more. Long’s message struck a chord with a public desperate for relief. By April 1935, his Senate office received an average of 60,000 letters a week.

To organize a network of Share Our Wealth clubs around the country, Long enlisted the help of Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith, a charismatic minister from Shreveport with a gift for public speaking. Smith traveled the nation, drawing huge crowds in support of Long’s program, and by the end of 1934, the movement already had three million members.

By the summer of 1935, there were more than 27,000 Share Our Wealth clubs with a membership of more than 7.5 million. Loyal followers met every week to discuss Long’s ideas and spread the message. There were no dues, just fellowship and discussion, and membership was open to all races. White supremacists charged that Long was attempting to organize blacks to vote. Long countered that Share Our Wealth was meant to help all poor people, and black people were welcome to participate since they were the poorest people in the country – a radical inclusion for a deeply segregated society.

Meanwhile, the conservative national media dismissed Long’s program, lampooning Long as a "hick", "buffoon", "communist", "socialist" and "fascist dictator". Long countered that the national newspapers were the pawns of the wealthy Wall Street financiers who were threatened by his program. Liberal journalists alleged that a prominent Wall Street bank hired a public relations firm to plant negative stories about Long in the media.

Long by-passed the negative press by distributing his own newspaper, The American Progress, and he spoke directly to a national audience through radio speeches and speaking engagements. After addressing a crowd of 15,000 in Pittsburgh, a local official estimated that Long could easily win 250,000 votes in his district if he ran for President. By 1935, Long was the third-most photographed man in America, after President Roosevelt and celebrity aviator Charles Lindburgh.

A political poll by the Roosevelt re-election team, the first national poll of its kind, revealed that Long was siphoning key Democratic support from FDR's campaign. Democratic National Committee Chairman James Farley estimated that Huey could draw up to 6 million popular votes in the 1936 election. According to aides, Roosevelt hoped to “steal Long’s thunder” by embracing some of his causes.

Long’s rapid rise in national popularity is credited with Roosevelt’s Second New Deal of 1935, a more liberal version of his New Deal agenda, which included proposals for Social Security (old age pensions), the Works Progress Administration (public works projects), the National Youth Administration (financial aid and employment for students), the National Labor Relations Board (rights of unions to organize, minimum wage and 40-hour work week), the Public Utility Holding Company Act (regulation of public utilities), the Farm Security Administration (assistance to farmers), and the Wealth Tax Act (graduated income and inheritance taxes).

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am
This is one progressive who will not be stuck with her. No more slow death for me. Thom thinks she could be FDR...I will not buy into that.

Hillary....the next Eleanor Roosevelt ? Ha ha! Well, I have heard the FDR comparison used by Thom for Barack Obama early on, and of course that turned out to be anything but. Now it's Bernie Sanders getting that label, and he certainly will deserve it ... providing he can get elected and then get the Republicans in Congress in line. Executive Orders may turn out to be his only option in that case.

Executive
Joined:
Apr. 24, 2015 4:12 am

I would sooner take a close left-handed ISIS shave than vote for Hitlary Clinton! It's Sanders or ISIS, baby!

Sanders or ISIS!

peterwexler's picture
peterwexler
Joined:
May. 16, 2010 2:16 pm

On how George Soros goes about Democracy Promotion within the USA (did anyone really think they wouldn't study the Arab Spring and similar organisations around teh world, and eventually apply the same democracy manipulation within the west?

A rightwing and subjective article, very disappointing from someone with a masters degree in journalism, however useful for the organisations Kelly Riddell mentions:

(WASHINGTON POST) George Soros funds Ferguson protests, hopes to spur civil action
Liberal billionaire gave at least $33 million in one year to groups that emboldened activists

Demonstrators march on Pennsylvania Avenue toward Capitol Hill in Washington, Saturday, Dec. 13, 2014, during the Justice for All march. More than 10,000 protesters are converging on Washington in an effort to bring attention to the deaths of unarmed black ... more
By Kelly Riddell -

The Washington Times -

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

There’s a solitary man at the financial center of the Ferguson protest movement. No, it’s not victim Michael Brown or Officer Darren Wilson. It’s not even the Rev. Al Sharpton, despite his ubiquitous campaign on TV and the streets.

Rather, it’s liberal billionaire George Soros, who has built a business empire that dominates across the ocean in Europe while forging a political machine powered by nonprofit foundations that impacts American politics and policy, not unlike what he did with MoveOn.org.

Mr. Soros spurred the Ferguson protest movement through years of funding and mobilizing groups across the U.S., according to interviews with key players and financial records reviewed by The Washington Times.

In all, Mr. Soros gave at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups that emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson, according to the most recent tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations.

The financial tether from Mr. Soros to the activist groups gave rise to a combustible protest movement that transformed a one-day criminal event in Missouri into a 24-hour-a-day national cause celebre.

“Our DNA includes a belief that having people participate in government is indispensable to living in a more just, inclusive, democratic society,” said Kenneth Zimmerman, director of Mr. Soros‘ Open Society Foundations’ U.S. programs, in an interview with The Washington Times. “Helping groups combine policy, research [and] data collection with community organizing feels very much the way our society becomes more accountable.”

PHOTOS: George Soros funds Ferguson protests, hopes to spur civil action

No strings attached

Mr. Zimmerman said OSF has been giving to these types of groups since its inception in the early ‘90s, and that, although groups involved in the protests have been recipients of Mr. Soros‘ grants, they were in no way directed to protest at the behest of Open Society.

“The incidents, whether in Staten Island, Cleveland or Ferguson, were spontaneous protests — we don’t have the ability to control or dictate what others say or choose to say,” Mr. Zimmerman said. “But these circumstances focused people’s attention — and it became increasingly evident to the social justice groups involved that what a particular incident like Ferguson represents is a lack of accountability and a lack of democratic participation.”

Soros-sponsored organizations helped mobilize protests in Ferguson, building grass-roots coalitions on the ground backed by a nationwide online and social media campaign.

Other Soros-funded groups made it their job to remotely monitor and exploit anything related to the incident that they could portray as a conservative misstep, and to develop academic research and editorials to disseminate to the news media to keep the story alive.

The plethora of organizations involved not only shared Mr. Soros‘ funding, but they also fed off each other, using content and buzzwords developed by one organization on another’s website, referencing each other’s news columns and by creating a social media echo chamber of Facebook “likes” and Twitter hashtags that dominated the mainstream media and personal online newsfeeds.

Buses of activists from the Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference in Chicago; from the Drug Policy Alliance, Make the Road New York and Equal Justice USA from New York; from Sojourners, the Advancement Project and Center for Community Change in Washington; and networks from the Gamaliel Foundation — all funded in part by Mr. Soros — descended on Ferguson starting in August and later organized protests and gatherings in the city until late last month.

Broaden issue focus

All were aimed at keeping the media’s attention on the city and to widen the scope of the incident to focus on interrelated causes — not just the overpolicing and racial discrimination narratives that were highlighted by the news media in August.

“I went to Ferguson in a quest to be in solidarity and stand with the young organizers and affirm their leadership,” said Kassandra Frederique, policy manager at the Drug Policy Alliance, which was founded by Mr. Soros, and which receives $4 million annually from his foundation. She traveled to Ferguson in October.

“We recognized this movement is similar to the work we’re doing at DPA,” said Ms. Frederique. “The war on drugs has always been to operationalize, institutionalize and criminalize people of color. Protecting personal sovereignty is a cornerstone of the work we do and what this movement is all about.”

Ms. Frederique works with Opal Tometi, co-creator of #BlackLivesMatter — a hashtag that was developed after the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida — and helped promote it on DPA’s news feeds. Ms. Tometi runs the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, a group to which Mr. Soros gave $100,000 in 2011, according to the most recent of his foundation’s tax filings.

“I think #BlackLivesMatter’s success is because of organizing. This was created after Trayvon Martin, and there has been sustained organizing and conversations about police violence since then,” said Ms. Frederique. “Its explosion into the mainstream recently is because it connects all the dots at a time when everyone was lost for words. ‘Black Lives Matter’ is liberating, unapologetic and leaves no room for confusion.”

#BlackLivesMatter

With the backing of national civil rights organizations and Mr. Soros‘ funding, “Black Lives Matter” grew from a hashtag into a social media phenomenon, including a #BlackLivesMatter bus tour and march in September.

“More than 500 of us have traveled from Boston, Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Nashville, Portland, Tucson, Washington, D.C., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and other cities to support the people of Ferguson and help turn a local moment into a national movement,” wrote Akiba Solomon, a journalist at Colorlines, describing the event.

Colorlines is an online news site that focuses on race issues and is published by Race Forward, a group that received $200,000 from Mr. Soros’s foundation in 2011. Colorlines has published tirelessly on the activities in Ferguson and heavily promoted the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag and activities.

At the end of the #BlackLivesMatter march, organizers met with civil rights groups like the Organization for Black Struggle and Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment to strategize their operations moving forward, Ms. Solomon wrote. OBS and MORE are also funded by Mr. Soros.

Mr. Soros gave $5.4 million to Ferguson and Staten Island grass-roots efforts last year to help “further police reform, accountability and public transparency,” the Open Society Foundations said in a blog post in December. About half of those funds were earmarked to Ferguson, with the money primarily going to OBS and MORE, the foundation said.

OBS and MORE, along with the Dream Defenders, established the “Hands Up Coalition” — another so-called “grass-roots” organization in Missouri, whose name was based on now-known-to-be-false claims that Brown had his hands up before being shot. The Defenders were built to rally support and awareness for the Trayvon Martin case and were funded by the Tides Foundation, another recipient of Soros cash.

Hands Up Coalition has made it its mission to recruit and organize youth nationwide to start local events in their communities — trying to take Ferguson nationwide.

Years and weekends of ‘resistance’

Hands Up Coalition has dubbed 2015 as “The Year of Resistance,” and its outreach program strongly resembles how President Obama’s political action committee — Organizing for Action — rallies youth for its causes, complete with a similarly designed Web page and call to action.

Mr. Soros, who made his fortune betting against the British pound during the currency crisis in the early ‘90s, is a well-known supporter of progressive-liberal causes and is a political donor to Mr. Obama’s campaigns. He committed $1 million to Mr. Obama’s super PAC in 2012.

Mr. Soros‘ two largest foundations manage almost $3 billion in assets per year, according to their most recent respective tax returns. The Foundation to Promote Open Society managed $2.2 billion in assets in 2011, and his Open Society Institute managed $685.9 million in 2012.

In comparison, David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers whom liberals often call a threat to democracy — and worse — for their conservative influence, had $308 million tied up in their foundation and institute in 2011.

One of the organizations that Mr. Soros funds, and which fueled the demonstrations in Ferguson, is the Gamaliel Foundation, a network of grass-roots, interreligious and interracial organizations. Mr. Obama started his career as a community organizer at a Gamaliel affiliate in Chicago.

The Rev. Traci Blackmon of Christ the King United Church of Christ in Florissant, Missouri, which is part of the Gamaliel network, said in one of the group’s webinars that clergy involved with Gamaliel must be “protectors of the narrative” of what happened in Ferguson.

The Gamaliel affiliate in St. Louis — Metropolitan Congregations United — organized the “Weekend of Resistance” in October, in which clergy members from around the nation were called to come to Ferguson to protest.

Clergy involvement

Representatives of Sojourners, a national evangelical Christian organization committed “to faith in action for social justice,” attended the weekend. The group received $150,000 from Mr. Soros in 2011.

Clergy representatives from the Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference, where the Rev. Jeremiah Wright serves as a trustee, also showed up. Mr. Wright was Mr. Obama’s pastor in Chicago before some of his racially charged sermons, including the phrase “God damn America,” forced Mr. Obama to distance himself. SDPC received $250,000 from Mr. Soros in 2011.

During Gamaliel’s weekend protest event, Sunday was deemed “Hands Up Sabbath,” where clergy were asked to speak out about racial issues, using packets and talking points prepared for them by another religion-based community organizing group, PICO.

PICO is also supported by the Open Society Foundations, according to its website.

The weekend concluded Monday, when clergy members were asked to lead in acts of civil disobedience, prompting many of them to go to jail in the hopes of gaining media attention.

It worked, as imagery of clergy members down on their hands and knees in front of police dominated the mainstream news cycle that day — two months after Brown’s shooting.

“After the initial shooting, we were all hit in the face with how blatant racism really is,” said the Rev. Susan Sneed, a Gamaliel organizer who helped stage the October weekend event. “We began quickly hearing from our other affiliates offering support.”

At the end of August, Gamaliel had a large organizational meeting to discuss its Ferguson strategy, Ms. Sneed said.

It had its affiliates in New York and California handling the St. Louis Twitter feed and Facebook page, helped in correcting any inaccurate stories in the press and promoted their events, she said.

“When we started marching down the street, saying, ‘hands up, don’t shoot,’ those images reached all over the world,” said Ms. Sneed, referring to the moment she realized Ferguson was going to become a movement. “The Twitter images, Facebook posts of burning buildings — it’s everywhere, and the imagery is powerful. And the youth — the youth is so engaged. They’ve found a voice in Ferguson.”

National activists descend

Larry Fellows III, 29, a Missouri native, did find his voice in the chaos of Ferguson with the help of outside assistance backed by Mr. Soros.

Mr. Fellows is co-founder of the Millennial Activists United, a key source of video and stories developed in Ferguson by youth activists used to inspire other groups nationally.

Mr. Fellows explained how he started his organization in an interview with the American Civil Liberties Union (another Soros-backed entity that sent national representatives to Missouri) in November.

“Initially, it would just be that we would show up for protests, and the next day we’d clean up the streets. A lot of the same people were out at the protests and going out to lunch and talking about what was happening. That became a cycle until a lot of us figured out we needed to have a strategy,” Mr. Fellows explained to the ACLU, which posted the interview in its blog.

“Then a lot of organizers from across the country started to come in to help us do the planning and do the strategizing. That helped us start doing it on our own and planning out actions and what our narratives were going to be,” he said.

MAU has listed on its website that it has partnered with Gamaliel network churches. They’ve also received training on civil disobedience from the Advancement Project — which was given a $500,000 grant from Mr. Soros in 2013 “to build a fair and just, multi-racial democracy in America through litigation, community organizing support, public policy reform, and strategic communications,” according to the Foundation’s website.

The Advancement Project, based in Washington, also arranged the meeting between community organizers in Ferguson and Mr. Obama last month to brief him on the situation in Ferguson and to set up a task force that examines trust between police and minority communities.

In addition, the Advancement Project has also dedicated some of its staff to lead organizations in Ferguson, like the Don’t Shoot Coalition, another grass-roots group that preaches the same message, links to the same Facebook posts and “likes” the same articles as DPA, ACLU, Hands Up Coalition, OBS, MORE and others.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

The formerly David Rockefeller chaired Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which was later chaired by Peter G. Peterson, and then Robert Rubin. On Democracy Promotion through non-government organisations, like the NDWA or National Domestic Workes Alliance, which sounds like a union, but is more like the also George Soros funded Anti-Poverty Alliance.

(CFR) Soft Power: Democracy-Promotion and U.S. NGOs

Author: Alexandra Silver
March 17, 2006
This publication is now archived.

Open Society Institute (OSI) and the Soros foundations network. The Open Society Institute does not see itself as a democracy-promoting organization, but does pursue activities that contribute to this goal. The only completely privately funded institution on this list, OSI is financed by George Soros and by trusts established by the Soros family. The lack of government funds provides OSI with a degree of autonomy and the organization says George Soros' personal politics are not a factor in OSI. The organization operates as a network of foundations in various countries, where the boards and employees are nationals, focusing on human rights and public health, as well as election-monitoring and advocating government accountability and transparency.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

More on the BLM - NDWA - Mujeres Unitas y Activas funding:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/08/blm-disrupts-bernie-again#comm...

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

Thom just said, "Hillary is her own woman, more so than her husband Bill."

Thom-what has happened to you?????

fudgemeister's picture
fudgemeister
Joined:
Jul. 23, 2015 5:11 pm

I suspect he is getting paid by the DNC. Nobody is this blind to the criminality that is Hillary Clinton.

hollygolightly's picture
hollygolightly
Joined:
Jul. 28, 2015 5:49 am

The NDWA's Irene Jor entered the NDWA as Special Assistant to the Director, after a fellowship at the International Labor Organisation (ILO) in Thailand.

The ILO has a workshop called the Fair Recruitment Initiative, which has the following donors:

Donors: UK DFID, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), US Department of Labor (USDOL), US State Department (J/TIP), Humanity United, Soros Foundation, Mc Arthur Foundation.

Odd funding for a labor organisation.

Why aren't any of these persons grassroots activists?

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

The NDWA at the Clinton Global Initiative America:

Press Releases

>CARE.COM, NDWA & HAND IN HAND ANNOUNCE NEW COMMITMENT TO ACTION AT CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE AMERICA (CGI AMERICA)

Introduction of Fair Care Pledge Strengthens Family and Caregiver Community

Denver, CO – June 10, 2015 – In a critical step toward the commitment to quality care and quality jobs for families and caregivers, the Fair Care Pledge was unveiled today at 2015 CGI America meeting by Care.com Founder, Chairwoman and CEO Sheila Lirio Marcelo and National Domestic Workers Alliance Director and Macarthur “Genius” Ai-jen Poo. An initiative between the growing domestic worker social movement and the world’s largest online family care marketplace, the Pledge is one of CGI America’s featured Commitments to Action.

Families often struggle with their role as domestic employers and lack clear guidelines for fair wages and other workplace issues. In response, the Pledge offers a new way for families to affirm that they will do their best to be fair and respectful employers when they hire someone to work in their home as a childcare provider, housecleaner, or home attendant.

“We believe that care jobs will be the jobs of the future. It’s in all of our interest to ensure that the quality of these jobs reflects the value and importance of the work. Fairness and quality care go hand-in-hand and we’re thrilled to be able to work with Care.com to promote these values,” said Ai-jen Poo, Director of National Domestic Workers Alliance.

Over the coming months, Care.com anticipates that hundreds of thousands of Care.com members and visitors to the site will be invited to take the Pledge, recognizing that their home is someone’s workplace. The Pledge asks families to commit to three practices of fair employment: Fair Pay, Clear Expectations and Paid Time Off, providing a simple and practical framework for figuring out the basics, from calculating wages and paid overtime, to tips for clear communication in the home, and standards for paid sick days and holidays.

“Just as care impacts families, enterprise, policy and government in various ways, so must all those groups be involved in the solution,” said Sheila Lirio Marcelo, Founder, Chairwoman and CEO of Care.com. “One key to driving real change is the professionalization of the caregiver industry. We believe it’s critical to attract and retain skilled caregivers. Families who employ full-time domestic workers should pay fair and legal wages, and provide vacation, overtime, and other critical protections that every professional deserves.”

The care workforce has often been left in the shadows, making it hard to create consistent workplace standards for this essential industry. Since launching in 2007, Care.com has fundamentally changed the way family care services can be accessed, building the largest comprehensive marketplace for people looking for support and services in the home, while helping create employment and career opportunities for caregivers.

“As a member of the ‘sandwich generation,’ I’ve relied on a slew of caregivers to help me juggle caretaking of my mother and two daughters, while also pursuing my legal career,”said Julie Kay, a Hand in Hand leader. “I’m so appreciative of the work these women do, and The Fair Care Pledge provides me with the guidance I’ve been looking for to ensure I’m doing right by them.”

The Pledge comes at a time when debates about the role of workplace standards are increasingly prevalent. By providing a clear set of guidelines to help families manage their relationships with their household employees, the Pledge aims to increase the quality and sustainability of jobs in the family care sector, along with the quality of care. Pledge signers will receive periodic surveys throughout the year to see how they are implementing the pledge and what kind of additional services they need. Future plans include an online badge or seal for pledge takers to add to their profile, allowing care providers to identify future “fair care” employers.

To take the Fair Care Pledge or to find out more, visit www.care.com/faircarepledge.

###

About Care.com

Since launching in 2007, Care.com (NYSE: CRCM) has been committed to solving the complex care challenges that impact families, caregivers, employers, and care service companies. Today, Care.com is the world’s largest online destination for finding and managing family care, with 15.2 million member consumers* across 16 countries, including the US, UK, Canada and parts of Western Europe, and approximately half a million employees of corporate clients having access to our services. Spanning child care to senior care, pet care, housekeeping and more, Care.com provides a sweeping array of services for families and caregivers to find, manage and pay for care or find employment. These include: a comprehensive suite of safety tools and resources members may use to help make more informed hiring decisions – such as third-party background check services, monitored messaging, and tips on hiring best practices; easy ways for caregivers to be paid online or via mobile app; and household payroll and tax services provided by Care.com HomePay. Care.com builds employers customized benefits packages covering child care, back up care and senior care consulting services through its Global Workplace Solutions, and serves care businesses with marketing and recruiting support. To further connect families, Care.com has expanded its consumer service with its 2014 acquisition of Citrus Lane, the leading social commerce site for moms, and its 2013 acquisition of Big Tent. Headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts, Care.com has offices in Berlin, Austin, New York City and Silicon Valley.

*As of March 2015

About Hand in Hand

Hand in Hand is a national network of employers of nannies, housecleaners and home attendants working for dignified and respectful working conditions that benefit the employer and worker alike. The Fair Care Pledge was piloted in New York City in 2014 by Hand in Hand, with public endorsements from leading New York City Officials including Public Advocate Letitia “Tish” James, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, and City Councilor Brad Lander.

About NDWA

Founded in 2007, the National Domestic Worker Alliance (NDWA) organizes women whose workplace is someone else’s home for dignity and respect, passing domestic worker bill of rights in New York, California, Hawaii and Massachusetts. In 2014, NDWA launched the Fair Care Labs directed by Palak Shah, to partner with business and create market-based interventions to raise standards for domestic workers and in the home care industry.

CGI America
The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, convenes global leaders to create and implement solutions to the world’s most pressing challenges. Established in June 2011 by President Bill Clinton, the Clinton Global Initiative America (CGI America) addresses economic recovery in the United States. CGI America brings together leaders in business, government, and civil society to generate and implement commitments to create jobs, stimulate economic growth, foster innovation, and support workforce development in the United States. Since its first meeting, CGI America participants have made more than 400 commitments, which have improved the lives of nearly 1.4 million people.

CGI also convenes an Annual Meeting, which brings together global leaders to take action and create positive social change, CGI University (CGI U), which brings together undergraduate and graduate students to address pressing challenges in their community or around the world, and, this year, CGI will also convene CGI Middle East & Africa, which will bring together leaders across sectors to take action on pressing social, economic, and environmental challenges. For more information, visitclintonglobalinitiative.organd follow us on Twitter@ClintonGlobaland Facebook atfacebook.com/clintonglobalinitiative.

Contact:

Blair FitzGibbon, 202-503-6141 (NDWA)

Nancy Bushkin (781) 642-5919 (Care.com)

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

What Else Are We missing? Impeachment Should Include All of Trump's Crimes

Thom plus logo Donald Trump has threatened the fate and future of human civilization by joining with fossil fuel industry billionaires in denying climate change.
-- He has threatened world peace by upending our alliances with other democratic nations and aligning himself with dictators, murderers and autocrats.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system