Gee, Obama Not A Progressive? We're Shocked! Shocked! That Gambling's Been Going On! (They Tell US the Stories (And We Gasp and Believe Them?)) ZOMBIES Amuck!

You can't trick karma (Confidence - Ed Burns).

Although you can try.

The real trick is keeping the downtrodden, despairing millions serenely tricked.

That takes real confidence.

The last comment below mirrors that confidence game.

To our lasting grief.

Or:

There is a club.

And you are not invited.

There Is No Meritocracy: It’s Just the 1 Percent, and the Game Is Rigged

The game is rigged: We elected Obama to hold the 1 percent accountable. So why are they still running everything?

Thomas Frank

The big news after President Obama’s State of the Union address in January was that he didn’t really talk about the issues of inequality that everyone expected him to talk about.

Instead, he shifted the “conversation,” as we call it, toward the subject of opportunity. He shied away from the extremely disturbing fact that when you work these days only your boss prospers, and brought us back to the infinitely less disturbing fact that sometimes poor people do get ahead despite it all.

In a clever oratorical maneuver, Obama illustrated this comforting idea by referencing the success stories of both himself — “the son of a single mom” — and his arch-foe, Republican House Speaker John Boehner — “the son of a barkeep.” He spoke of building “new ladders of opportunity into the middle class,” a phrase that has become a trademark for his administration.

The problem, as Obama summed it up, is that Americans have ceased to believe they can rise from the ranks. “Opportunity is who we are,” he said. “And the defining project of our generation must be to restore that promise.”

The switcheroo was subtle, but if you’ve been paying attention you couldn’t miss it: These were almost precisely the words Obama had used the month before (“The defining challenge of our time”) to describe inequality itself.

Well, the Democratic apparat heard it, and as one body did they sway and swoon. This was a move of statesmanlike genius, they said. “Opportunity” and social mobility are what Americans have always liked to hear about, they declared; “inequality” sounds like a demand for entitlements — or something much worse. “What you want to do is focus on the aspirational side of this,” said Paul Begala in a typical remark, “lifting people up, not on just complaining about a lack of fairness or inequality.”

If you’re in the right mood, you might well agree with him. In the distant past, “opportunity” used to be something of a liberal buzzword, a way of selling welfare-state inventions of every description. The reason was simple: true equality of opportunity is not possible without achieving, well, greater equality, period. If we’re really serious about opportunity — if we’re going to ensure that every poor kid has a chance in life that is the equal of every rich kid — it’s going to require a gigantic investment in public schools, in housing, in food stamps, in infrastructure, in public projects of every description.

It will necessarily mean taking on the broader problem of the One Percent along the way.

But that was what the word meant long ago. It’s different today. When people talk about opportunity nowadays, they’re often not trying to refine the debate over inequality, they’re trying to negate it.

The social function of mobility-talk is usually to excuse inequality, not to change it; to persuade us that the system we have now is fair and even natural — or that it can be made so with a few more charter schools or student loans or something.

Because everyone has a chance at making it into the One Percent, this version of “opportunity” tells us, there’s nothing wrong with letting the One Percent hog every dish at the banquet.

The well-known libertarian economist Tyler Cowen, for example, writes in his new book Average is Over that we increasingly inhabit a “hyper-meritocracy” in which “top earners” take home more than ever before because, duh, they’ve got the right skills and hence they deserve to take home more than top earners ever have before.

The future might look bleak for less-than-top people like you, but if you fall off the ladder of opportunity there’s only one answer: Get used to it.

2.

But let’s put all that aside for now. Let’s assume, for a moment, that a real meritocracy would be an awesome thing to have; that giving every person a chance to run the Race to the Top is a worthy goal of government policy.

Even with those assumptions it’s not so simple. Why should Americans work to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to join the ruling class, if the great principle of that ruling class is unfairness? Why should Americans compete on the level if what we’re trying to win is admission to a fraternity of thieves?

Let me explain. A meritocracy requires more than simply making it possible for people at the bottom to climb the ladder of opportunity. It also involves chutes of accountability for those at the top. These are two sides of the same coin: the skilled must be able to rise, but grandees caught with their snouts in the trough must also come tumbling down. “We cannot have a just society that applies the principle of accountability to the powerless and the principle of the forgiveness to the powerful,” writes Chris Hayes in his sweeping meditation on meritocracy, “Twilight of the Elites.” And yet: “This is the America in which we currently reside.”

Is it ever. Recall for a moment the situation in which Barack Obama was inaugurated in 2009. During the preceding decade, we had endured a tech bubble and a housing bubble; our accounting industry had been suborned in all sorts of ways; our prize stock analysts had been suborned in all sorts of different ways; our leaders and foreign-policy pundits had sold us a war in Iraq using completely bogus reasoning; our investment houses specialized in cooking up poisoned investments; our ratings agencies specialized in hanging blue ribbons on them; and the executives of our financial industry specialized in helping themselves to stupendous bonuses even as they lost billions—even as they blasted holes in the economy of the world.

What Americans understood when we looked over this panorama of fraud and incompetence and self-dealing was that expert authority had been corrupted at every point where it was exposed to organized money. The meritocracy was obviously broken.

Public revulsion against this incredible state of affairs is what delivered Barack Obama to the presidency, and we rightfully expected him to address the problem. His resounding failure to do so outweighs all his noble statements about studying hard and climbing ladders of opportunity.

The distressing fact is that Obama had perhaps the greatest chance of any president in recent years to smash the barriers that keep the talented from climbing the ladder, and he chose to do nothing. The sledgehammer was in the president’s hands, the nation was cheering for him to start pounding — and he walked away from the job.

Oh, he is ready to hold kids and teachers accountable, all right — to make sure they all take some Big Test and are sorted accordingly. There have been a few other bright spots as well. The people he has put in charge of the EPA and the Labor Department no longer try to subvert their own agencies, as they did in the Bush years. He appointed the capable Janet Yellen to run the Fed. And: He meted out a satisfying ass-kicking to upper-class twit Mitt Romney.

The other side of the ledger? Well. Obama continued virtually unchanged the Bush Administration’s bailout of the banks that were — let us never forget — the culprits in running up the housing bubble and vectoring its toxins into the economic flesh of the world. He declined to put obviously failed banks into receivership, as the standard practice has always been, and he didn’t remove incompetent bank management in any numbers, as was common with bank bailouts during the Roosevelt Administration.

On the contrary, his officials seemed to forget how to negotiate when negotiating might turn out to be costly to bankers. They twisted themselves into pretzels to avoid wielding their ownership stakes in the various financial companies they rescued. In one infamous instance Obama’s team did the exact opposite of accountability, making sure that bonuses went out as scheduled to the AIG division responsible for the instruments that wrecked the company, thus rewarding the fuckups. After that they fanned out to the talk shows to insist on the sanctity of contract — a inviolability they find it easy to violate when it is autoworkers or homeowners on the other side of the table.

There was a mysterious inability to get “excessive pay” under control at bailed-out banks, and so few prosecutions of the banksters who did all this to us that Obama’s Justice Department made George W. Bush’s Justice Department look like an Everest of moral virtue.

In a 2012 speech, the head of Obama’s Criminal Division even announced in a public speech that he was sometimes persuaded when banks and corporations asked him not to prosecute because that might cause the company in question to fail and thus hurt the economy — a courtesy that American prosecutors extend to no other group of professionals and that, by its nature, makes a joke of the idea of equality before the law.

Obama can hand out full college scholarships to every single toddler deemed worthy, and he will never recover the faith in fair play that one speech destroyed.

It goes on to this day, even as the Wall Street bonuses mount to ever more dizzying heights. In a report issued last month, a Senate subcommittee tried to persuade the Justice Department to get off its ass and take action against American clients of certain Swiss banks, nearly six years after newspapers first reported that those banks had helped those ultra-wealthy clients to evade taxes. But it seems the Justice Department is just not that into the idea of getting tough with banks. Here is the first sentence of a story in Friday’s New York Times:

Four years after President Obama promised to crack down on mortgage fraud, his administration has quietly made the crime its lowest priority and has closed hundreds of cases after little or no investigation, the Justice Department’s internal watchdog said on Thursday.

And that’s the age of Obama: The standardized tests are for real, but the stress tests are often for show. Accountability for thee, but not for me.

3.

In a 1984 book on the problem of inequality, the journalist Thomas Edsall wrote that one of the Democratic Party’s historical contributions to equality was its practice of promoting members of outsider groups to positions of political authority.
He meant this as a description of the distant past and, indeed, I don’t know of any other commentator on the subject who mentions the practice at all. It is completely forgotten.

Well, it is worth thinking about again. Not because Democrats should revive the politicized hiring practices of one hundred years ago, but as a way of assessing Barack Obama’s record as a champion of opportunity.

If the president truly believes that careers should be open to talent — the central idea of meritocracy — then surely he has always taken pains to apply that philosophy when choosing his own team. Surely he sought out the very best people for the momentous job at hand.

I confess here that believing Obama would act in this way was one of my reasons for supporting him back in 2008 — the hope that this thoughtful and talented man would bring a completely new crowd to D.C. and break the grip of the Clinton-era centrists on the Democratic Party.

After all, they were the ones who deregulated the banks in the first place — who did everything they could to get NAFTA passed, to cheer for the New Economy, to “reinvent government,” and so many other noxious things.

Surely, with the world prostrate and gasping after a dose of their medicine, they would not simply be invited back to write another prescription.

I will also confess that Obama’s subsequent failure to follow these meritocratic rules astonished me in a way that we cynical types don’t like to be astonished. When Obama won, I figured it was opportunity time — let’s see who climbs the ladder. Instead, he brought Clinton Administration Treasury Secretary Larry Summers back as his chief economic adviser. Clinton enforcer Rahm Emanuel became Obama’s Chief of Staff. Timothy Geithner, architect of the disastrous AIG bailout, became the new Treasury Secretary. Clinton veteran Jack Lew eventually succeeded him. Gene Sperling came back too, to run the National Economic Council.

Five years later, I am now quite convinced that it doesn’t matter what the needs of the moment are; the personnel in this town will always be the same. Change the subject to inequality, or to poverty, even, and still — thanks to the magic of D.C. — the same crowd of former bankers and arch deregulators will emerge as the go-to guys.

You’ll get Larry Summers, again! Robert Rubin — one more time! Hell, you could even announce an initiative on getting new people and new ideas into the federal government and when the music stopped it would turn out to be their protégés sitting in the distinguished chairs.

Another thing about this cozy crew: Many of them have worked in the banking sector for long enough to make them intimate members of the nation’s topmost class. Chris Hayes mentions this charming aspect of the Obama bunch in a memorable passage of Twilight of the Elites:

“Consider the routine staffing changes in the Obama administration as it reached the midway point of its first term. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel left his position to run for mayor of Chicago. Emanuel got his start as a fund-raiser for Mayor Daley, moved to the Clinton White House, where he lasted nearly the entire eight years, eventually becoming a senior adviser to the President.

After serving in the Clinton administration, at the age of thirty-nine he left to become an investment banker, spending two and a half years at Wasserstein Perella, where he amassed a fortune of more than $18 million. He then ran for Congress, became White House Chief of Staff, and left to run successfully for mayor of Chicago.

“To replace the multimillionaire Rahm Emanuel, the multimillionaire president Barack Obama . . . named multimillionaire William Daley, the brother of the mayor that Emanuel was hoping to replace.

Daley’s resume included stints as commerce secretary in the Clinton administration and as campaign manager for Al Gore’s 2000 campaign, but at the time he was named chief of staff, he was Midwest chairman at JPMorgan Chase, making $8.7 million a year. . . .

When Bill Daley later left his post as chief of staff in January 2012, he was replaced by Jack Lew, who spent four years at Citigroup and received a bonus of $950,000 in 2009, even after it was disclosed that his division made high-stakes bets on the housing market.”

What makes this infuriating is that Barack Obama seemed to have different ideas once. He was going to “Close the Revolving Door on Former and Future Employers,” declared his 2008 campaign website, Change-dot-gov. (It also promised — be still, my grinding teeth — to “Protect Whistleblowers.”)

It is even more infuriating to realize that the correct answers to the test have been available to Professor Obama all along. Back in September of 2008, when the financial crisis was gathering speed, I was writing a column for the Wall Street Journal; in my efforts to comprehend the disaster, I learned that the nation’s foremost authority on the type of fraud that had wrecked the economy was a former S&L regulator named Bill Black.

I went on to ask Bill Black’s opinion probably dozens of times; as the years passed and the crisis deepened, Bill Black went on to be quoted by just about everyone and to become probably the most famous former S&L regulator in the world. His doctrine of “control fraud” is today familiar to anyone trying to understand what went wrong in 2008.

Another group that sought out my friend Bill Black during the crisis year was the Obama campaign. For them he narrated a twelve-minute campaign video, describing at length the involvement of Republican candidate John McCain in the Keating Five scandal, and faulting McCain for choosing a zealous deregulator as his chief economic adviser—“he’s picked the worst possible source of advice.” (You can watch the video here.)

When Obama won the presidency, I assumed that Bill Black would soon be moving to Washington to usher prominent bankers through their perp walks. That’s what opportunity and meritocracy meant, after all. You bring in the guy who understands the problem.

Of course it never happened. His phone never rang. There was no ladder of opportunity for him or anyone like him, precisely because they represented accountability. And Barack Obama, champion of meritocracy, went on instead to pick the second-worst-possible source of advice.

When I ask Bill Black now what these last few years tell us about fairness and meritocracy, he refers me to Gresham’s law. “If you gain a competitive advantage by cheating,” he says, “then you won’t get a meritocracy, you’ll get a system where cheaters prosper and bad ethics drive good ethics out of the market.”

Is that what kept him out of Washington, I ask? Yes, in part. It’s “the international race to the bottom, which the administration has largely adopted.

‘We can’t crack down [on the banks, the administration thinks,] they’ll all move to the City of London. We need to have the JOBS bill,’ a godsend to fraudsters, ‘because too many IPOs are being done in China instead of the United States.’ ”

“People like me were moved out long ago,” Black concludes. To a government “trying to signal continuity and friendliness to the banks,” his presence would have been, he supposes, more than a little discordant.

So our generation gets to rediscover that “the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill.” Because politics happeneth to them all. Or to the poor and the unconnected, anyway.

Comments:

Lenny Pepperidge 1 hour ago

@AndyS
Well put. Ted Kennedy once famously said on the floor of the senate, "where does the greed end?" If Wall Street and the corporatists controlling both parties refuse to allow it to be ended by the ballot, the inevitable outcome is for it to be ended by the rifle and guillotine.

What is so mind numbing about them is that their hubris and narcissism really leads them to believe that they can create an economic banana republic in the United States and somehow escape the violent social upheaval that such conditions have inevitably led to all over the world.

Mr. Pister
The president's thoughts are as follows: "Amazing...morale seems to be improving despite the continued beatings. That's what my advisors tell me and that's all I need."

We have developed, or fallen into, a societal sociopathy. Lying, cheating, stealing....all the behaviors known to be antisocial, are commonplace. Not only that, but extolled as virtues; of signs of wisdom. In other words, in an Orwellian twist duplicity is honesty.

Obama NEVER intended to keep any campaign promises. He neither changed Washington nor did Washington change him. He is what he is, and five years of this should convince even ardent supporters that his electoral fraudulence is real. His supporters believe in Obama's promise, and I respect that to the extent that hope springs eternal.

We are, sadly, experiencing another middle ages, whereby the serfs serve the nobles. Except the serfs now have voting machines. Like that makes a difference.

J.C. Miller 3 hours ago

Once again, Mr. Frank's interests are impeccable and his exposition illuminating. A more succinct way to provide explanation for his observations might be: from the criminally disordered personality naturally spring antisocial thoughts and behaviors.

A comparison has at times been noted between the President and his named mentor Ronald Reagan. It may be worth noting that Reagan, who may be fairly characterized as having been free of any burden of substance or interest in issues like social justice versus the interests of himself and his class, was also a highly skilled orator whose use of body language, inspirational bromide, and prosody was generally enough to form a connection to star struck supporters.

Also like the President, Mr. Reagan can be characterized by particular interest and engagement in two forms of sublimation of male aggression, dominance and ascension to power: organized sport and direct involvement in the conception, planning and/or execution of military actions. This seems to have been an effective mentorship.

Lenny Pepperidge

@oregoncharles @AndyS
I believe that most corporations understood that average Americans needed a certain level of living standards up until about 15 to 20 years ago. What changed? China! I believe that they truly believe that all those dreamed of Chinese consumers will make up for the fact that Americans can no longer afford to consume. I see modern American corporations as akin to parasites. They're sucking the last bit of life out of their long time host before moving onto their newer, bigger and healthier host.

The great irony (tragedy) in all of this is that the Chinese intend on cutting them in on that pie in no way whatsoever. Once they're done milking their Western "partners" for all of the patents, technology and know-how, they will cast them aside as unneeded pawns.

AndyS

The sad thing is by hook or by crook, change IS coming. If the banksters escaped without even a slap on the wrist for 2008, they will not escape true justice for the next meltdown. And because of the Obama administration's and the two parties' various failures, not only did the banksters escape, but the practices they used to destroy the world economy largely continue. The next financial disaster IS coming, and because they do not know how to control themselves, plutocrats and their party enablers continue the greedy behavior that led the country and the whole world to ruin. Because they paid no price, they madly believe that they can continue their massive abuses and that they will get bailed out yet again. Until the next domino falls, and the next, and the next.

What FDR did, he did to prevent still greater revolution. But Obama did not learn the message of history, nor did apparently any of his Congressional apparatchiks. And now what we have to look forward to is Hillary, the next great enabler of corporate plutocratic excess. The people who actually coined the term triangulation will be back in the White House. Because people think that *effective* one party rule is acceptable in a nation with one party of lunatics and another party of corporatists. And she will protect these people, the same way Obama has. Until the bankster/hedge fund manager class create ruin one more time. Only this time, the American people won't be so nice about it and if anyone gets in their way of exacting justice for the next meltdown - which is INEVITABLE at this point, they will be swept away no matter what it takes.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

harley

Corporate feudalism is the name of the game, and the road to serfdom is paved with willful ignorance, and misplaced patriotism. Here we are.
It can all change in an instant. Wake up.

kepetr59

This article and this thread is fascinating. Right wing commenters rehashing their Obama is a socialist with a lambs coat clothing. Progressives gnashing their teeth in buyers remorse about a candidate they mostly voted for in droves and who basically ran a centrist campaign and administration from the start. If you didn't know in 2008 you have no excuse for 2012. if you made the lesser of two evils choice in 2012, a completely rational decision, then you can't honestly be surprised with the results.

Rather then concentrate on after the fact breakdowns of the past 8 years, progressives, if they ever want to actually change things, should be pressing with all their strength to field a progressive candidate to run for the Democrat primary in 2016. If you are waiting for a guaranteed winner you are in for a long wait. If Elizabeth Warren is your progressive favorite, everything I read shows this to be the case, then you should be flooding her with requests to run, and money so she can right now. If you don't field a candidate, even a losing candidate, you cede the field to those people who are in the game and you carry no influence. Whine and complain about how unfair things are or field candidates who share your outlook.

craigbhill

The answer which answers every conundrum about Obama for liberals is thus: He was raised in the family business, which he joined and thrived in all the way to the WH: The CIA. His mother worked for AID, the educational front for the CIA, in the American embassy in Jakarta Indonesia when it was a Commie hotspot in the mid/late '60s, teaching English, officially. Then she and Barack, then known by his passport as Barry Soetero (his stepfather), on which it stated he was born there, moved to Pakistan where she again "taught English" for AID in the American embassy. Barack's maternal grandfather, his mother's white Kansan paterfamilias, who Barack perfectly resembles but for skin color, was a station chief for a long time with CIA. When Barack was recognized as a gifted speaker with a beautiful voice and no trace of an American black accent, his bio was completely scrubbed- many in the colleges he attended have no memory of his existence, including in their yearbooks - he was prepped to work his way up thru the political system, at breakneck speed, with poor-to-no competition, until he was deemed ready to enter high office, spending a mere four years in the Senate before graduating to president, an unheard-of rise in American politics, so he would continue, post-neocon Bush, to make the world safe for the CIA: Voila, the Obama Administration.

Oh, and he lied throughout his first campaign just to get the suckers on board who would never believe, and still don't, that a black "liberal" could possibly lie about anything, ever. IF you look at his policies in office, they grease the skids in every way you can imagine to achieve CIA policy, and the concomitant rightwing foreign policy, right down to CIA orchestrations of "springs" of coups in any country they can, from Egypt to most recently Ukraine, just like the CIA did it to Iran and Guatemala during the Eisenhower administration. Which will continue to work until it doesn't, which means many more such coups in simillar geopolitical hotspots, where Barack learned the craft on his mommy's knee.

Obama's mentor in politics is as has been for over 30 years Zbignieuw Bzrezinski, who will not rest until Russia is surrounded by offensive NATO and American bases (check!) and defeated in war (not quite yet), the nearly 7 decade-long wetdream of the Pentagon and its longtime associates, the CIA. One of the hallmarks of Bzrezinski's grand scheme is to eliminate, if possible, any influence by Israel in US foreign policy, as seen by Obama's successful muzzling of the Zionists by refusing to allow them to bomb Iran, within which Obama seeks an eventual offensive military base as close to Russia as possible, and includes the remaking of Iran as an ally to divert its oil by treaty away from Russia and China and toward the US. All of this has been in the works for several years, and will continue as described.

Speaking of plots going on for many years, we now learn that our high-tech toys like radar and satellites don't actually work when needed to identify nation-threatening events.

As if.

The super duper stealth jetliner narrative has taken hold kinda like that phantom North Korean torpedo that sunk the Cheonan or the supernatural office fires that brought down Building 7 at free-fall acceleration.

Right.

No wonder no one on the street (or watching TV) believes that science has any validity.

It doesn't.

Unless you're the party formulating the fraudulent stories.

And then everything that doesn't make sense.

Does.

Unless, of course, they just dropped the ball.

But that's hard to believe with all the hardware involved.

According to these very suspicious guys (from American Everyman):

Flight 370: Search in South China Sea Called Off – The Story of the Immaculate Aviation Takes Shape

Posted on March 15, 2014 by willyloman

by Scott Creighton

UPDATE: Di$info Jone$ and Mike Adams are already busily helping spread the “Iran has the plane and fitting it with nukes” story. That should tell you a lot about this narrative.

At the same time, the “vanished” Boeing 777 may also be in a hanger in Iran right now, being retrofitted with nuclear weapons and turned into a suicide bomb to be deployed over a major city in the Middle East. This possibility is discussed in detail, below, with supporting evidence.

————

For the first time in aviation history, an airliner crash will go undiscovered. In an age where they can read the time from your wristwatch from a satellite in low earth orbit and planes have more tracking systems than ever before, they are going to let Flight 370 go undiscovered because frankly, it serves their interests to do so.

It’s a sickening feeling.

An eyewitness, the oil rig worker who immediately shared his best information with the world having seen what he believed to be Flight 370 burning in the sky and going down somewhere near his location in the South China Sea, is being completely ignored even though his report fit perfectly with the last transponder fix from that flight.

Malaysia Prime Minister Najib Razak declared on Saturday that “deliberate” actions were likely taken by someone on the missing Malaysia Airlines jet. He informed the press that authorities are confident the plane’s transponder was disabled.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 left Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, for Beijing, China, at 12:40 a.m.on March 8 with 239 people on board.

Evidence is “consistent with the deliberate action of someone on the plane,” Razak said, adding that the investigation is “entering a new phase,” with search operations ending in the South China Sea. Huffington Post

They have now completely abandoned all search efforts in the area where logic and witnesses suggest Flight 370 went down. The Malaysian government, fearing the consequences of accidentally shooting down a civilian aircraft and then deliberately covering it up, ha(s) decided to accept the U.S. crafted narrative that the plane was hijacked and simply disappeared off the face of the earth till it can be resurrected for the next 9/11.

The super duper stealth jetliner narrative has taken hold kinda like that phantom North Korean torpedo that sunk the Cheonan or the supernatural office fires that brought down Building 7 at free-fall acceleration.

No one in the complicit media raise any questions about how one guy supposedly took out the tracking systems on the flight without the other crew members or the passengers for that matter having anything to say about it. They seem to forget the plane was equipped with seat back phones and the fact that the plane could easily have been tracked by any of about 10 radar systems (public and private) if it actually flew away into the night.

None of that seems to matter. The new narrative is about as logically sound as watching the Twin Towers demoed on national television and thinking gravity was responsible for it all.

The tragedy here is two-fold: The first is the families of the victims who will never put their loved ones or their memories to rest. And the second is that of those who are already targeted in the next 9/11 which is almost a certainty at this point. The only question that remains now, is “where?”

What happened is clear. The blip that was tracked by the Malaysian military was used by their defense minister to distract the search from the very beginning. Distract it away from the site of the wreckage. That blip was whatever took out the plane in the first place. That’s why it made a bee-line for the Butterworth Air Force Base.

Its very possible that either our search teams or those of the Malaysian military found the wreckage early on in the shallow waters of the South China Sea and turned off the pinging device that serves as a locator in such cases. Any future searcher would have to physically see the wreckage after that… and it is a big search area.

The opportunists who spend their lives crafting narratives from one crisis after the next immediately began postulating the hijacking story early on in this case. They knew the plan was too never find Flight 370 and so they understood that meant it would be ghost flight which could literally turn up any where in the world in a couple of months or weeks or days…. all they had to do was make damn sure the wreckage was never found. And they have. It’s a sad day when you come to understand that creatures like these not only exist, but seem to rule our managed democracy from behind the scenes. Always planning, always scheming some dirty little trick, some bloody little plan.

But they are there and . . . so invites the “conspiracy theorist” label. Well, so be it. Today is a banner day for them and a sad day for us.

They will surely be livid today on the MSM talking heads shows making one unsubstantiated libelous accusation after another targeting any and all passengers and crew they can implicate. The miraculous nature of the airliner with the Klingon cloaking device will of course be completely ignored. The scurrilous nature of the “evidence’ of the plane continuing on it’s flight will be completely ignored.

Why do I make a connection between this and 9/11? Well that is simple. For the first time ever a commercial airliner crash will go undiscovered. For the first time ever on 9/11, three skyscrappers collapsed into their own footprints at near free-fall acceleration due to office fires. For the first time ever 4 hijacked airliners were able to fly around the country without being intercepted by fighter jets. For the first time ever, the U.S. entered into an endless and boundless 100 year war of aggression against basically anyone anywhere in the world.

That’s the connection and that’s what unquestioning support of any official narrative will get you. Any official narrative no matter how intrinsically stupid it is.

For the families of those passengers on Flight 370 I can only say I am deeply sorry for your loss. But don’t expect satisfaction from the guilty and the complicit. The suffering of your loved ones is over. Ours is just beginning. They are truly in a better place no matter what religion you choose to believe.

Religion.

Is it making you feel better yet?

Forgiving of all sins?

Oh, come on!

Try harder.

I'm not giving up yet, but I think Brad Pitt was on to something.

Zombies have completely taken over if they think we believe Hillary Clinton is a serious progressive candidate.