What the DNC and RNC Don't Want You To Know (Presstitutes Finally Exposed? Dream On!)

Our best election reporting (Surprise! Surprise! Sergeant) may be from Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert, who are London-based, but internationally focused. And not paid-to-play (not by Soros or the Deplorables).

If you wondered how our "enemies" came to be, we've learned (painfully) that both Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Foundation have been funding ISIS. And how about the 95 million USA USA USA citizens who are still looking for a decent job? (In addition to learning about this fact, Stacy tells us how she doubted her own eyes when she saw only Trump signs in NC, but understood after election day.) Gary Johnson, the Libertarian (ex-Republican Governor of NM) candidate, won 3.3 million votes, the most for any 3rd-party candidate since 1996. And, yes, these were NOT votes going to go to Hillary! They hurt Trump. So hush up about the independents being so mean . . . . Trump probably would have won the popular vote without Gary Johnson running, you know.

Jill Stein's voters still did not reach the magic number of 5%, so we will never hear about the Green Party's platform during the debates in 2018 and 2020.

Aren't you thrilled?

Featured are Professor Michael Hudson, Mitch Feierstein, Chris Whalen and Randy Voller - remember him?, who is always quite informative.

Posted on November 12, 2016 by Stacy Herbert 

We discuss the gruesome Gaddafi like death to a political career. We also look at the role of Obamacare premium increases in middle income voter discontentment with the Democratic Party. In the second half, Max interviews Dr. Michael Hudson about what went wrong for Hillary.

Keiser Report:  Winners & Losers (US Election Day special) 

Posted on November 11, 2016 by Stacy Herbert

In this special US Election Day episode of the Keiser Report from New York City, Max and Stacy report from outside the Javits Center, where Hillary Clinton took the stage at the event that she and most pollsters and media thought would celebrate her victory. What went wrong? Former North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Randy Voller tells Keiser Report that Hillary failed to bring in the working class vote. Author and former banker Mitch Feierstein suggests it was her alleged corruption. And credit analyst and Trump supporter Chris Whalen says that, in the end, Hillary just didn’t have the message that resonated with voters and it was Trump who had momentum and message.

Thom Hartmann interviews Katrina vanden Heuvel and Ralph Nader who might surprise you with their intelligent insights on the last few years' content-less TV, radio and newspaper reporting.

Will Hillary Clinton have to seek asylum in Riyadh?

Lots of promises (and debts) are outstanding.

Who will collect?

And how?

Peter LaVelle is not a Russian or working for the Russians.

Although many on the Clinton team hope you'll think so.

Watch the "Cross Talk" video below and start applauding for a real convocation of political experts:

And as for the FBI's infamous control of events?

We learn about it from the most insidery of the best sources:

Russell Brand shares his unique standard of reporting excellence and personal outrage:

Finally (although it could have happened much much sooner), John Pilger (our own personal economic hitman) reveals everyone's secret.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _


And, oh, whatever happened to our dear dear dear "paper of record?"

No more.

And a lot less.

Veteran Reporter Exposes The New York Times’ Arrogant, Disconnected, Agenda Driven Perspective

Michael Krieger | Posted Friday Nov 11, 2016

Yesterday, Michael Cieply, a 12-year veteran of the "New York Times" who left this past July, wrote a phenomenal article at "Deadline Hollywood" titled, Stunned By Trump, The New York Times Finds Time For Some Soul-Searching. Before highlighting some key excerpts, let’s set the stage.

The New York Times’ coverage of the 2016 Presidential election was an abysmal disgrace. I first became aware of the extent of the paper’s shady and compromised reporting, when the editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary over Bernie Sanders without making an intelligible or coherent argument to justify the stance. This outraged me to such an extent, I wrote a post titled, A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton, which you should reread in full.

Here’s how I began the piece:

The New York Times’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary consists of an unreadable, illogical piece of fiction. In this post, I will critique the paper’s position in detail, but first I want to take a step back and explain to people what I think is going on in the bigger picture.

In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such a sloppy job I can’t help but think it may have done permanent damage to its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong. Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.

One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.

With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on substance when it comes to fighting difficult battles in the public interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the current paradigm, the paper doesn’t want to rock the boat. What the New York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American establishment as any government institution.

After the paper successfully helped to dispose of Senator Sanders, it continued to commit egregious errors as a result of its blinded, fanatical support of Hillary Clinton. I highlighted an example of this behavior in the August post:  New York Times Fails to Disclose Op-Ed Writer’s Ties to Hillary Clinton’s ‘Principal Gatekeeper’.

Fast forward to just one week before the election, when I discovered a tweet in my stream from the paper with such an absurd forecast I immediately flagged it with the following tweet: 

I didn’t find the Times’  tweet absurd because I was some ardent Trump supporter (I wasn’t). Rather, I was able to recognize it as absurd because it was absurd. So why was I, a nobody blogger, able to see the ridiculousness of this forecast so clearly when the New York Times couldn’t? Because The New York Times had a predetermined agenda, and this agenda blinded it to reality.

With that out of the way, let’s dig into how things work at The New York Times according to Michael Cieply, and why its election coverage was so, for lack of a better word, deplorable.

My woman.

Oh yeah.

Me neither.

Hard to believe the DNC was thwarted.

Now to get to work organizing for the future.