Wednesday, August 3, 2016

(Vote NO to Rule by Aristocrats Demanding Tax-Paying Serfs)  If You Understand that No One Donates Millions Without Expecting Big Returns It All Becomes Clear  (DemExit?) A Stampede (Jane Speaks)  Real Election Fraud Hillarybots Results  (Trump Leads - Good Job DNC!)  Yeah, But Will Computers Outdumb Us?  (Afterthought:  Are There Any Mathematicians Observing These Crazy Results?) Happy Birthday, Jerry!

The real Trumped?

Someday, someone will write a history of the U.S. national security state in the twenty-first century and, if the first decade and a half are any yardstick, it will be called something like State of Failure.  After all, almost 15 years after the U.S. invaded the Taliban’s Afghanistan, launching the second American Afghan War of the past half-century, U.S. troops are still there, their “withdrawal” halted, their rules of engagement once again widened to allow American troops and air power to accompany allied Afghan forces into battle, and the Taliban on the rise, having taken more territory (and briefly one northern provincial capital) than at any time since that movement was crushed in the invasion of 2001.
Thirteen years after George W. Bush and his top officials, dreaming of controlling the oil heartlands, launched the invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (the second Iraq War of our era), Washington is now in the third iteration of the same, with 6,000 troops (and thousands of private contractors) back in that country and a vast air campaign underway to destroy the Islamic State.  With modest numbers of special operations troops on the ground and another major air campaign, Washington is also now enmeshed in a complex and so far disastrous war in Syria.  And if you haven’t been counting, that’s three wars gone wrong.
Then, of course, there was the American (and NATO) intervention in Libya in 2011, which cracked that autocratic country open and made way for the rise of Islamic extremist movements there, as well as the most powerful Islamic State franchise outside Syria and Iraq.  Today, plans are evidently being drawn up for yet more air strikes, special operations raids, and the like there.  Toss in as well Washington’s never-ending drone war in Pakistan’s tribal borderlands, its disastrous attempt to corral al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen (leading to a grim and horrifying Saudi-led, American-supported internecine conflict in that country), and the unending attempt to destroy al-Shabaab in Somalia, and you have at least seven wars and conflicts in the Greater Middle East, all about to be handed on by President Obama to the next president with no end in sight, no real successes, nothing.  In these same years Islamic terror movements have only spread and grown stronger under the pressure of the American war machine. - Nick Turse
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

In England,

In 1647, the Levellers, hoping to remedy this small defect, drafted “An Agreement of the People,” with the idea that every freeman would assent to it, granting to his representatives the power to represent him. That never quite came to pass, but when, between 1649 and 1660, England had no king, and became a commonwealth, it got a little easier to pretend that there existed such a thing as the People, and that they were the sovereign rulers of . . . themselves. This seed, planted in American soil, under an American sun, sprouted and flourished, fields of wheat, milled to grain, the daily bread. (“The fiction that replaced the divine right of kings is our fiction,” Morgan wrote, “and it accordingly seems less fictional to us.”) When Parliament then said, “We, the People, have decided to tax you,” the colonists, meeting in their own assemblies, answered, “No, we’re the People.” By 1776, what began as make-believe had become self-evident; by 1787, it had become the American creed.
We the people are, apparently, grievously vexed. Around the corner from Don King, NBC News was running a promotional stunt called Election Confessions (“Tell us what you really think”), asking passersby to write on colored sticky notes and shove them in a ballot box; the confessions were displayed, anonymously, on a wall monitor. Blue:  “I can’t believe it got this far.” Orange:  “I get to vote for the first time, and now I don’t want to.” Green:  “THESE ARE OUR CHOICES?”

I wandered down an aisle and sat next to Johnny Shull, a delegate from North Carolina who used to teach economics at the Charles Koch Institute and helps run a conservative talk-radio hour, “The Chad Adams Show.” Sitting beside him was Susan Phillips, a warm and friendly woman who was a guest that day on the show. I told Shull what Wick had said, about the end of America. “That’s silly,” he said. Shull had originally supported Rand Paul and was now a Trump delegate. He thinks America is resilient and will bounce back, no matter who wins. Phillips agrees with Wick. She loves Trump because he says all the things she wants to say and can’t; because he speaks her thoughts about the half of America that’s living off the other half, and about the coming lawlessness. (Mitt Romney’s “forty-seven per cent,” which is the same figure that the Nixon campaign complained about in 1972, has very lately risen, in the populist imagination, to forty-nine per cent.) I asked Phillips what happens if Trump loses. She said, “Then we’ve got to build our compounds, get our guns ready, and prepare for the worst.” Half of the people believe that they know how the other half lives, and deem them enemies.

The more things change . . .

Computers May One Day Be Able to Reason Exactly As Humans Do, But Will They Ever Be As Dumb? (Artificial Unintelligence)

The scientists, who were young guys of the sort you would expect, talked among themselves in low, smug voices. I hung around, pretending to look at my phone, and eavesdropped. Oh, how pleased these guys were with the way their new program had performed! Already that evening, the computer had forgotten to call home and tell its “wife” — another computer, apparently — that it would be late, and then had inadvertently sent “her” embarrassing flirtatious e-mails intended for another computer at the office. Can everything I do, everything I am, be translated so easily into code? I felt myself descending further into despair.
No, damn it! I am a human being! Our species does poorly thought-out things, and we must not take a back seat to any machine on that. Remember when I saw Bev at the Shelbys’ New Year’s Eve party and blurted out, in front of everybody, “Bev, how fabulous! You’re pregnant!,” when she had only put on a lot of weight? I defy any mere mass of circuitry to duplicate this deeply human feat. As I recalled the horror on Bev’s face, and on everybody else’s, my entire body contorted in a wince of shame and — I’ll be honest — a certain species-specific pride. Top that, techno-wizards! Other un-smart stunts came back to me:  No computer will ever amass enough mainframe cluelessness to cut a big patch from the pair of bluejeans that it is mending rather than from the old bluejeans that it uses for patches. Nor will it ever finish filling out its income-tax return and then mail it, along with the check for the I.R.S., to a distant relative it hasn’t seen in years. You need to be a living, breathing, flesh-and-blood creature to achieve such things.
I calmed myself down, proceeded to the platform, got on the wrong train, and did not notice my mistake until Trenton. The train back to Penn Station would not leave for another hour and a half. I never expect to be as smart as a computer, but, by God, I can be dumber. A hard rain began to fall, and I left the station so I could practice not knowing enough to come in out of it.

Funny? Yes. In a morbid way.

And quite newsworthy for those who can handle the truth that humans, who are sometimes not very smart, are handing over the tools that maintain life to robots.

Not to worry about for whom to vote.

The voting machines (robots) will do it for you. (And this is probably what we've contributed to the DNC for.) Even Donald Trump has noticed.

On a very side note:  you know if strange events didn't keep occurring no one would ever be accused of being a "conspiracist."

I rest my case.

From Radscal at Reader Supported News:

HRC and DNC blaming the leaks on Russia and/or Trump also permits the corporate media to avoid looking further into the murder of Seth Rich.

He was the DNC computer nerd whose job was running their database.

First, if the earlier NGP-VAN firewall breeches did permit HRC's team to get the info on Sanders' supporters (and the source of what Mayor de Blasio called the "targeted" voter roll striping in NYC, and across the nation), Seth would have known where those bodies are buried.

Second, he could be the actual source of the leak.

But he was shot to death in the wee hours of the morning, mid-way between DNC admitting the leak and the Convention in what the police are trying to call a robbery even though NOTHING was taken from him. Not his wallet. Not his watch. Not even his cell phone.
# Anonymot 2016-08-01 07:06
Getting rid of Goldilocks is just fine, but like Eichman, she was just following orders. Her orders came directly from her employer, Hillary Clinton. Hillary's foreign policy orders came from Deep State which is the agglomerated thinking of the CIA/FBI/MIC/Wall Street and enunciated by John Brennan of the CIA to Hillary - note that she and Bill are and have been Deep State members.)
Domestic policy is their own research from MIC, primarily big oil, Wall St., and defense industry individuals' interests.
If one looks carefully behind the curtains it becomes clear that contrary to the general public's belief, we are already living Germany - about 1934 - and there may no longer be any way to unwind it or to escape it. Our government is thoroughly embedded in a form of democratic fascism where we vote (as did the Germans), but between the female in pants (sort of Eva Braun for President) and crazy Donald as the choice, the discovery may have come too late.
The Clinton killings seem to have started in Arkansas, but most likely were only Bill following orders as he was groomed by Deep State as a compliant successor to the Don of the Bush family who were no doubt involved in the disposal of the Kennedys. (Remember the chronology:  cocaine left the iniate circle to become big business in the 'late '60s/early '70s.) Ten/fifteen years later the CIA Director becomes Pres. America, thereafter, was owned, by slick new-generation mafiosos. 
# economagic 2016-08-01 08:19
Conspiracy theory? Absolutely, and while we can "prove" very little of it the circumstantial evidence of something of the sort is enormous, and the more we do learn, the more consistent the picture becomes. The deceptions and other skull-duggery of the US government go back a long way.
In 2002-2003 I was posing the following question:  "If some people in Germany, in particular some Jewish people, had realized in, say, 1934, 'My god, they mean to kill us all,' could they have done anything to avert the catastrophe?" The analogy is certainly not perfect, but very few people took me seriously enough to think it through.
# RMDC 2016-07-31 16:18
Yes, good. The DemExit movement will grow. This is a huge problem for Hillary. She'll lose a lot of democratic or left leaning independent voters. Her only choice is to go after the Bush republicans who can't stand Trump. The Bush republicans are really Hillary's natural base, anyway, but that will make her lose more democrat votes.

Trump and Hillary are both terrible candidates. They just have nothing to offer. Their appeal is to a very small and limited group.

# economagic 2016-08-01 07:44

"The Bush republicans are really Hillary's natural base, anyway, but that will make her lose more democrat votes."

No doubt Bill is triangulating the odds even as we read this.
# RMDC 2016-08-01 06:50

This is good. Also copy the national media and use the term DemExit. A very big exodus from the democrat party might actually make the news. Of course, the Hillarybots will say you are handing the election to Trump. In reality, as commentators on this board have said over and over, it is the DNC that handed the election to Trump by running a bad candidate.

If people remain in the democratic party and act as if none of this corruption of democracy did not happen, they will get more of it. There must be consequences to election rigging and lying to voters.
# Lucretius 2016-07-31 23:35

The DNC is actually Hillary's organization. Her victory fund pays for the DNC according to my understanding and that of 33 state democratic parties according to two articles by Margot Kidder. The ultimate blame for the DNC rejecting the clear people's candidate lies on first Hillary, then the DNC and all the 33 state democratic operations who were bought off. Plus the superdelegates who were bought too. And all those democratic officials who endorsed her. The ENTIRE Democratic Party is implicated.
# Blackjack 2016-08-01 07:52
Well, AMEN! What's more the DNC tactics reach down into the very depths of some state party apparatus. For years, at the county level, I have served in many capacities attempting to influence party politics in a more progressive way. The party leadership would have none of it, though I did manage to have some influence on a small group of Dems in one part of our bluest county. After 10 years, though, I gave up in disgust when at a meeting of the county board, on which I served, the head party person (not an elected position, but personal friends of the Clintons) came in unexpectedly and literally took over the meeting, dictating policy and structure. Subsequently, at a large county organizational meeting, she kicked out a precinct captain who had served in that capacity for years, replacing him with someone of her choosing so that the entire county board could be replaced with those of her choosing. I resigned my position because I knew my chances of progressive reform were quashed at the county level. This state has been dictated to by this once state party chair and member of the DNC Board and her husband, former state party chair and DNC chair, for longer than I have lived in the county. No one dares buck them. They decide how party politics plays out in this state and you can like it or get out. I can only wonder if the DNC honchos have this kind of influence in other states, as well. The DNC is corrupt and Sanders had the nerve to challenge it!
# economagic 2016-08-01 08:25
I have a friend, a lifelong Democrat whose mother was something of a firebrand in NOLA political circles, who had a similar experience here in NC.

And, as reported here, I saw a Hillarybot come in and take over my local Bernie group.

And no one in NC ever heard about Bernie's schedule again.

Political success! (They're pretty good at it.)

# Patriot 2016-08-01 02:34

"Our man" lost because the election returns were fraudulent!


Election Fraud:  The 2016 Democratic Primaries 

Bernie Sanders is leading 50.4-49.6% based on the unweighted average of all 34 caucuses and primaries. Let’s accept the reasonable premise that the primaries have been fraudulent and Sanders won in MO, MA, AZ, OH,IL, IA, and NV.  Electoral votes are directly proportional to state voting population.  Clinton has won 11 RED states with 160 EV. Sanders won the other 23 states with 188 EV. Vote the tables below were created by Ted Soraes
Based on late exit polls (which had yet to be adjusted to match the recorded vote), Sanders is leading by an unweighted 52.4-47.0%.  The lead must be even greater since votes were stolen from Bernie in the RED states. Proof? Check the average 8.7% exit poll margin discrepancy from the recorded votes in the Democratic Primaries spread sheet.

Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in n= 17 of N= 18 primaries. The probability P=0.000072 or 1 in 13,797. The spreadsheet function is P= 1-BINOMDIST(n-1,N,0.5,true). There is a 99.9% probability that this anomaly was not due to chance and must have been the result of election fraud.
Bernie was a 56-44% winner in the caucus, yet Hillary won 11 of 18 delegates! In 12 counties, 54% of Clinton’s votes were surrogates (mail-in), representing 74% of the delegates. Just 27% of Sander’s votes were surrogates. Contrast this to  the Nebraska caucus, where 20% of Clinton’s votes were mail-in.
From CNN:  “A Clinton campaign aide said their ‘secret sauce’ in Wyoming was the state’s onerous vote-by-mail rules that required anyone voting by mail to have voted as a Democrat in the 2014 midterms.”  But there is no evidence of such a rule.  The aide was not named.
Bernie Sanders had 563,127 votes (56.5%) and Hillary Clinton 429.738 (43.1%). But the early exit poll indicates that Bernie most likely  did even better.  At 4pm, the exit poll indicated that Sanders had 68% of white vote.  Whites comprise 88% of  WI voters. Assuming Sanders had just 40% of the non-white vote, he won the election by an estimated 64.6-35.4% (2-party).
The final adjusted exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote. It indicates that whites comprised just 83% of the vote and Sanders had just 59% of them. Blacks  comprised 10% – and Sanders had just 31% . These numbers are not  plausible. A pre-election poll from Public Policy Polling (PPP)  indicated that Sanders was winning black voters by 51-40%.
Arizona is the latest poster child of election fraud, along with Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. Sanders won Utah (a bordering state) and Idaho primaries with nearly 80% of the vote. But he lost in Arizona by 60-38%. Who believes it?
The National Exit Pool (NEP) of six major media conglomerates funds exit pollster Edison Research. The NEP decided not to poll AZ.  It’s as if they knew they would have to match the unadjusted poll to a bogus recorded vote; the massive discrepancies would be too obvious. But  the networks called it for Hillary  with less than 1% of the votes in. How did they know this if they did not exit poll? Luckily the Yavapai County Daily Courier did an exit poll – and Bernie led by 63-37%. Hillary won the county by 54-43% - an impossible 37% difference in margin. But the evidence of fraud goes much further than this one poll.

Of the 15 Arizona counties, Maricopa (Phoenix) is by far the largest with nearly 60% of the vote. Pima County (Tucson)  is second with 16%. In the 2008 primary, Maricopa voter turnout was  54.3%. In the other 14 counties, there was a 47.2% turnout. In 2016, 13 counties had higher voter turnout rates than in 2008. The 4.1% decline (17,000 votes) in Maricopa 2016 turnout (50.2%) from 2008 is counter-intuitive. Voter turnout in the other 14 AZ counties increased by 8.8% to 56.0%.
Based on the overall trend, Maricopa should have had an approximate 63.1% turnout. It is  a powerful indicator of  voter suppression. The  probability of the 12.9% difference (160,000 votes) between Maricopa’s projected 62.1% voter turnout and the actual 50.2% turnout is approximately 1 in  90 trillion.
The probability of the 5.8% difference in voter turnout between 14 AZ counties (56.0%) and Maricopa (50.2%) is approximately 1 in 13,000).

More of the above here.

Is anybody out there a mathematician?

No wonder they don't want people to get good educations anymore.

I remember when I heard that Hillary won six coin tosses out of six I thought that everybody would know they had to be cheating. It was a probability impossibility.

And not a hair was turned by those TV news-reading robots (who got all the new jobs).

Click here for more election madness.

 All kidding aside. Who's a conspiracist now?

We just gotta love those fair and free (as in democracy-loving free) election choices, don't we?

Maybe we can talk Jimmy Carter's international election-auditing group to drop in at some point.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

One final note here on the Trump candidacy's truths: *‘Make America great again?’ Ok, Trump:  end lie-started illegal Wars of Aggression, arrest Left and Right .01% War Criminals and banksters, enact monetary reform and public banking for $1,000,000 per US household benefits. If not, you’ll join the arrested* A “great” America has at least these three *required policies*:  1. End lie-started and unlawful Wars of Aggression. 2. Arrest Left and Right .01% War Criminals and .01% trillions-looting banksters. 3. Enact monetary reform and public banking for ~$1,000,000 per US household benefits. B... more »

And from the Hillary camp (armed camp, it seems) we learn:

. . . but on foreign policy, Hillary is still an utter nightmare for anyone looking for a peace candidate. No one has any idea where Trump would be on foreign policy issues - no doubt, including Trump, although we have good reason to fear the worst. We do know where Hillary is - and it isn't good. She's way to the right of Obama, let alone actual doves, when it comes to foreign policy. The foreign policy "experts" she closest with are already planning the wars they want to fight other peoples' kids to fight. First comes comes Syria. One of her top prospects for Secretary of Defense, Michele Flournoy, is calling for strikes against Assad, proving, beyond doubt, no one has learned anything about the regime-change screw-up in Libya. Why not just make it official and have Netanyahu be Secretary of State?
Rana Khalek, writing for "The Intercept" a couple of days ago looked at some of the better known Republicans who are backing Clinton, hardcore neocons, not anyone she would be clueless enough to trot out on the stage.
“I would say all Republican foreign policy professionals are anti-Trump,” leading neoconservative Robert Kagan told a group gathered around him, groupie-style, at a “foreign policy professionals for Hillary” fundraiser I attended last week. “I would say that a majority of people in my circle will vote for Hillary.”
As the co-founder of the neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century, Kagan played a leading role in pushing for America’s unilateral invasion of Iraq and insisted for years afterward that it had turned out great.
Despite the catastrophic effects of that war, Kagan insisted at last week’s fundraiser that U.S. foreign policy over the last 25 years has been “an extraordinary success.”

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s know-nothing isolationism has led many neocons to flee the Republican ticket. And some, like Kagan, are actively helping Clinton, whose hawkishness in many ways resembles their own.

. . . The way they described Clinton’s foreign policy vision suggested that if elected president in November, she will escalate tensions with Russia, double down on military belligerence in the Middle East, and generally ignore the American public’s growing hostility to intervention.  
Sloat, the former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, boasted that Clinton will be “more interventionist and forward-leaning than Obama’s been” in Syria. . . .

“Nothing that [Clinton] did was more clear than the NATO coalition that she built to defend civilians in Libya,” said Sloat, referencing the Obama administration’s overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
That policy, spearheaded by Clinton, has transformed a once-stable state into a lawless haven for extremist groups from across the region, including ISIS. 
. . . Smith told the audience that unlike Trump, Clinton “understands the importance of deterring Russian aggression,” which is why “I’ll sleep better with her in the chair.” She is a former deputy national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.

Smith left the government to become senior vice president of Beacon Global Strategies, a high-powered bipartisan consulting group founded by former high-ranking national security officials. 

When Robbie Martin, a filmmaker who recently produced a three-part documentary on the neoconservative movement, asked how Clinton plans to deal with Ukraine, Kagan responded enthusiastically.

“I know Hillary cares more about Ukraine than the current president does,” Kagan replied. “[Obama] said to me [that he wouldn’t arm Ukraine because] he doesn’t want a nuclear war with Russia,” he added, rolling his eyes dismissively. “I don’t think Obama cares about Putin anymore at all. I think he’s hopeless.”

Kagan is married to Victoria Nuland, the Obama administration’s hardline assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs. Nuland, who would likely serve in a senior position in a Clinton administration, supports shipping weapons to Ukraine despite major opposition from European countries and concerns about the neo-Nazi elements those weapons would empower.

Another thing neoconservatives and liberal hawks have in common is confidence that the foreign policy establishment is right, and the growing populist hostility to military intervention is naïve and uninformed.

Also that their income depends on it.

And if that's not head turning enough, how about the "democratic efforts" required to understand the following (I never thought much of this type of reporting before, but the more I learn about the Rahmbo (a nickname only evoking smiles from the financially-connected) Emanuel division within this country (and its overseas branches) . . . ):

*Seizing power covertly in 1913 is one thing, but holding * *on to it after you are **exposed for doing unimaginable * *evil, **such as on 9-11-2001, is another thing **and becomes * *increasingly **difficult as the public learns the facts.* And make no mistake about it the Perps who did 9-11-01 are the same folks that run the American Establishment, including its private Federal Reserve System, the USG and almost every single American institution. 
Insiders refer to this bunch as the Khazarian Mafia (KM)  which just happens to be the world’s largest organized crime syndicate which is empowered and aligned with the Rothschild City of London Banking System and the Old Black Nobility that infiltrated and now run the Vatican, the Jesuits and their worldwide occult network of secret societies.
After the KM established a foothold in America in 1913, they were able to print and issue all the money they needed to buy, bribe or infiltrate and seize control of almost every single elected and appointed USG official and almost every single major American corporation.
But like any tyrants in history, once they reach a level of almost total control over their targeted society they have infiltrated and hijacked, they tend to become fat, lazy, overly cocky and drift into incompetency, much like the “Peter Principle”.
And as their various mechanisms designed to keep their illegitimate hijacking of America secret forever break down, they are now starting to becoming very, very nervous and fearful of being exposed and brought to justice and final judgment.
Yes, the Select Few wrinkled up old KM Kingpins that control the KM Hierarchy in America, aka the US Establishment are now becoming quite concerned that their days of control are now being brought to an end. 
 Some known US hierarchy participants. Colby was Opus Dei; Casey and Feulner Knights of Malta. Brzezinski worked closely with the Knights in Americares, and like Kissinger, is close to the Rockefeller interests
Some known current and former US hierarchy participants are pictured here; Colby was Opus Dei; Casey and Feulner Knights of Malta; Brzezinski worked closely with the Knights in America, and like Kissinger, close to the Rockefeller interests
Their fears of ever being exposed and brought to justice have always led them to take extreme measures to prevent that, including generating major American civil strife and conflict and major, undeclared, unwinnable, perpetual foreign wars for profit and to help attain their age-old Greater Israel KM Zionist plan.
Thus, it’s no coincidence that we now have Homeland Security, a Stasi-style secret police state army in America set up to oppress and tyrannize us, to stage fake terror attacks and to set up dumbed-down Somali terror patsies.
Yes, DHS is all part of a well-organized, taxpayer-financed process to consolidate control over all American Law Enforcement, Alphabets and Intel under one master agency, DHS in order for the KM to be able to avoid being brought to justice and final judgment.
Donald (dad) Victoria, Robert and Fred Kagan
Donald (dad) Victoria, Robert and Fred Kagan

More of the PNAC Gang

More of the PNAC Gang


As the KM struggles to maintain power, their only option left is to characterize all American dissent as Domestic Terror; and then to bring the full force of DHS, the US Military and local militarized police departments against dissenters and political activists, or anyone who attempts to use their Free Speech right. This Right is supposed to be guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Lots more of this craziness documented at the links above.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _


If this doesn't remind you of last season's (or the last four seasons) NCIS plots then I don't know what will.

Yeah. The above reporting is in the whoo-whoo world, or is what happened below really the whoo-whoo world?

It's pretty whoo-whoo when you realize that Bernie Sanders actually won the pledged delegates competition of the Democratic Convention. Right. It's a fact that no one at the offical level of the DNC is able to speak to with integrity.

And the candidacy of the Sanders' platform is beyond whoo-whoo for real America patriots.But not even in the realm of possibility for the DNC! DNC! DNC!!!!

Jane Sanders proved herself over and over again during the Convention that she also would be a great choice for political office. A compelling voice of integrity with the courage to speak out on the important issues.

A year and a half ago, what would you have never expected?
I would never have expected that he would have won the vast majority of people who voted in the Democratic primary under age 45. Blacks, Latinos, Asians, whites, it didn't matter:  he won the vast majority of people under 45. I was surprised at how fast they knew him on a gut level. Vermonters know him that way. They know they can trust him implicitly. They know what he says is what he means, and that is what he does, and he come from a core of strong values. I was surprised at how quickly the nation got to know that. The last two years he's been voted the most trusted United States senator — number one. So people have been watching him, but I was surprised by that. I was surprised to see stadiums of 28,000 people. That was kind of shocking, and it's also been gratifying to watch.

Electoral Calculus Points to a Trump Landslide Victory

July 29, 2016 by State of the Nation
Clinton Can Only ‘Win’ By Stealing The Election
No matter how you slice and dice the electoral vote or the popular vote, Donald Trump is destined for an unprecedented landslide victory.
Trump will beat Clinton by ‘landslide proportions’
Shock poll:  Nate Silver’s election forecast now has Trump winning

Has Clinton Actually Won Anything? The Theft of Election 2016

State of the Nation
July 29, 2016
Election Update:  Why Our Model Is Bullish On Trump, For Now
NATE SILVER:  Donald Trump would most likely win the election if it were held today

Margot Kidder has a slightly different opinion from that of the masses viewing the Democratic Convention.

I just got back from a rather fierce walk beside the Yellowstone River here in Montana, trying to let the mountains in the distance reconnect me to some place of goodness in my soul, but I couldn’t find it. The scenery was as exquisite as ever, but it just couldn’t touch the rage in my heart. The visions of all the dead children in Syria that Hillary Clinton helped to kill; the children bombed to bits in Afghanistan and Pakistan from Obama’s drones, the grisly chaos of of Libya, the utter wasteland of Iraq, the death and destruction everywhere caused by American military intervention. The Ukraine, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, you name it — your country has bombed it or destroyed its civilian life in some basic way.
When I heard all the Americans cheering for the military and the pronouncements of might coming from the speakers in the Wells Fargo Centre, I loathed you. I loathed every single one of you. I knew in my gut that what I was taught as a child was true, which is that YOU are the enemy. YOU are the country to be feared. YOU are the country to be disgusted by. YOU are ignorant. And your greed and self-satisfaction and unearned pride knows no bounds.
I am not an American tonight. I reject my Puritan ancestors who landed in this country in 1648. I reject the words I voiced at my citizenship ceremony. I reject every moment of thrilling discovery I ever had in this country.
You people have no idea what it is like for people from other countries to hear you boast and cheer for your guns and your bombs and your soldiers and your murderous military leaders and your war criminals and your murdering and conscienceless Commander in Chief. All those soaring words are received by the rest of us, by us non-Americans, by all the cells in our body, as absolutely repugnant and obscene.
And there you all are tonight, glued to your TVs and your computers, your hearts swelled with pride because you belong to the strongest country on Earth, cheering on your Murderer President. Ignorant of the entire world’s repulsion. You kill and you kill and you kill, and still you remain proud.
We are fools.
Margot Kidder is an actress and activist in Montana.

Elizabeth · 2 days ago
I am elderly but have deep concerns about my grand children and great grandchildren growing up in this country Even more concerned that the citizens don't get it.
Montesquieu, French lawyer and political philosopher who died in 1775 said, “It is not chance that rules the world. Ask the Romans, who had a continuous sequence of successes when they were guided by a certain plan, and an uninterrupted sequence of reverses when they followed another....” It appears Montesquieu saw the big picture, what we fail to see in our history. Our country, founded on ideals, had a continuous sequence of successes in the past. Now the actions conceived by our secret government - promoting coups, making regime changes, neglecting its citizens’ needs to support criminal dictators for benefit of the few has brought us, as well as the world, serious consequences with millions of deaths worldwide and decay at home.

Our uninterrupted sequences of reverses may indicate, ahead, a giant empire headed toward collapse unless there is a real change and under, truthfully, the selected Hillary (my humble opinion there can be no change.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Pity the nation whose people are sheep, and whose shepherds mislead them.
Pity the nation whose leaders are liars, whose sages are silenced, and whose bigots haunt the airwaves.
Pity the nation that raises not its voice, except to praise conquerors and acclaim the bully as hero and aims to rule the world with force and by torture.

Pity the nation that knows no other language but its own and no other culture but its own.
Pity the nation whose breath is money and sleeps the sleep of the too well fed.
Pity the nation–oh, pity the people who allow their rights to erode and their freedoms to be washed away.
My country, tears of thee, sweet land of liberty.

Lawrence Ferlinghetti

Happy Birthday, Jerry!

Long may your words wave.

From Robert Hunter, poet extraordinaire:

If some part of that music
is heard in deepest dream,
or on some breeze of Summer
a snatch of golden theme,
we'll know you live inside us
with love that never parts
our good old Jack O'Diamonds
become the King of Hearts.
- Robert Hunter


(As some of my copy disappeared right before I published it I can only surmise that an NSA bug is loose in my computer. Please inform me if anyone else has noticed this problem with Blogger. Or their computers. It could help me to be less paranoid.)


falken751 said...

Great column, really. You brought up everything I was thinking about Hillary and the DNC. And you know the way Obama likes killing civilians with his drones, I wouldn't put it past him to have people murdered.

And thank You for the birthday wish


Cirze said...


I'm just trying to bring all the issues into focus (and you know how difficult that is with the breaking news challenging our beliefs constantly) and helping my readers to be as informed as possible.

I don't think Obama enjoys killing at all, but he is a believer as are both Hillary and Trump in the Madeleine Albright doctrine:

Television interview, “60 Minutes”, May 12, 1996:

Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?”

Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it."

. . . Albright in Guatemala, talking to a group of impoverished children: “Why would [ I ] and the United States care about what is happening here? The reason is we are all one family and when one part of our family is not happy or suffers, we all suffer.”

Thus speaketh the leading foreign policy officer of the country directly responsible for bringing more than 40 years of poverty, torture, death squads, massacres and disappeared people to Guatemala, without even a hint of apology or restitution, ever.

The Albright Doctrine did not originate with her, and although I don't want to get into a political argument about it here, I do want to illuminate the history of it and its logical outcome (which I think our world of drone bombing wars does).

Thanks for reading.

Cirze said...


I forgot to include the link for that quote.

It's from William Blum: