Okay folks, I have
been dealing with my own distraction in trying to make some sense out of why
Trump would bomb Syria and wag the dog at North Korea. And then, right on
Easter Sunday, while everyone is praising the Lord for rising from the dead,
which I always ask, where did he go, this guy decides to kill a few people. But
we only have a real account of one person so where are the other 13 bodies?
Hmmmm, interesting number there, #13.
Then it's the whole
thing about the manhunt.
Of course they knew
where he was, how in the world of mass surveillance can they not find this guy?
They know where me and you are, right?
So now dude is dead.
Kilt himself. Now why did he go and do that? Gambling problem lead him to a
suicide mission of killing some old man walking down the street collecting tin
cans? Hmmm.
Now, I have been
asked to do a reading on it, and I may or may not, cause this so-called
"Threat of Nuclear War" looming over us and no place for my
grandchildren to hide in the bunkers with the fat cats, I ain't too sure if I
will get to it, and besides by the time
I do, we will be looking at some other crazy shit happening in this world.
But after watching
the video of him talking about what he has done, he sure was pretty calm. I
mean, he said he killed 13 people and was about to kill some more?
Questions:
Where are the bodies
of the other 13 people?
Where are the
families? Well we do have the Godwin family but how about the other 12?
Why was that dude so
calm? He looked rather self contained to have just murdered 13 people. In fact
he didn't even look like he "snapped" at all but more like he was
reading a script.
Built in anger? Then
how did he cover that up for 37 years?
If I am not
mistaken, wasn't there another manhunt in Erie or there abouts when that dude
went ballistic and killed a State Policeman while back?
What's with the
woods of that part of the world?
But back to the
video, he is driving and on the phone and recording himself and telling
whomever he is talking to that he loves them and by the way, here's my facebook
profile name. Huh?
Then he goes back to
recording and tells everyone who watches the video his telephone number? He
wanted people to call him while he was killing more people? Now that don't make
sense.
Why would you call
him? Did the police do their job and call him? Why would he, a serial killer,
give out his phone number?
If he wanted to be
tracked down, well, don't he know there are many, many ways these folks can
track you, dang, they probably got a tracker in that car. Which I don't know
how he could drive like that, talk on the phone and record. And did anyone
notice he did not have on a seat belt?? Straight up violation. He should have
been pulled over just for that.
I checked out a few
articles, some saying this others saying that, but for sure, when it gets
blasted all over the news, there is an ulterior motive. One we can ascertain
and one we may never figure out.
With Trump being
against a gun ban, and Obama trying with all his tears to get
one, I wonder if
these killings are going to start that up again. The war against guns,
meanwhile, folks is bombing up folks all over the place and buying guns like
gangbusters on the black market, but I digress. But I do want to mention the
guns and ammunition sales that were transacted between the US and the Rebels,
but yeah, they don't like their government and so they got good reason for the
US to support them with guns, ammunition and a little gas from time to
time. Seems like they should do the same
for the anarchist and patriots here in the US who feel the same way, instead of
taking their guns away from them, but boy was that a digression.
Anyways, I believe
it's a distraction/false flag diversion, it doesn't mean no one is hurt or
killed, but it does serve a purpose.
Some folks were
thinking that since Trump has been in office that the false flags and mass
shooting had subsided. They want to claim that the gun grab agenda of Obama has
gone put the window, however people fail to realize that these false flags are
NOT just for us, but for the President as well.
They have sleeper
cells all over the place. All they have to do is give them the right signal and
the person goes into action. It let's everyone know they can turn the madness
on or turn it off. And if he had a gambling problem, he may have gotten an offer
to be a "crisis" actor and get paid handsomely for participating in
this shooting. Some feel it's a hoax and I really don't know but for sure..
it's a big distraction from the saber rattling of North Korea, China, Russia,
NATO (North Atlantic Terrorist Association) and the US. While people are
running into their basements, manhunting down the whole country, locking down
schools in Philadelphia, the UN will be quietly passing resolutions against
Syria cause you know, they still are saying that Assad gassed his people and
you do know, they will not release the Intel on it, and you do know the Intel
they did release is bogus. But hey, it's Easter Sunday and the show must go on.
Well, it was Easter
Sunday and the show did go on, and folks woke up to horror and were given
another dose of social engineering.
Hmmm, I wonder if
they really woke up.. or if they just took their dose while in a deep sleep.
Some folks were
thinking that since Trump has been in office that the false flags and mass
shooting had subsided. They want to claim that the gun grab agenda of Obama has
gone put the window, however people fail to realize that these false flags are
NOT just for us, but for the President as
well.
They
have sleeper cells all over the place. All they have to do is give them the
right signal and the person goes into action. It let's everyone know they can
turn the madness on or turn it off.
PS did anyone notice
how this guy looks like Christopher Dorner, LL Cool J?
And did anyone
notice the whole "monster" label?
And did anyone think
just for a moment, that here we have more fodder to label Black Men as
dangerous monsters? Like that Blakc man who went ballistic and went all the way
to the school and killed his wife in front of her students?
Hmmm, nice narrative
for all the Trump Supporters who just happened to get galvanized by his racist
vitriol.
The plot thickens
and folks really need to see how manipulated they are being.
Of course they know
where he is, how in the world of mass surveillance can they not find this guy?
They know where me and you are, right?
Since folks want to
say false flag hoax, etc. They will let it go and end dramatically with bombing
the shit out of that guy, or in his case, this lone shooter just kills himself,
and that's the end. No one will ever know what the hell happened and his girlfriend
ain't talking.
I believe it's a
distraction/false flag diversion, it doesn't mean no one is hurt or killed, but
it does serve a purpose. LINKS OF INTEREST:
Manhunt
for Steve Stephens Ends In His Suicide In Erie, PA
Let's start with the incessant look the other way when the US government, its pharmaceuticals, its AMA, its FDA and many other so called health organizations that allow experiments to go on unabated, many times with poor and unsuspecting candidates for the testing.
Some few years ago,
I read a book called "The Outsiders", I believe, it was about deviant
behavior in American society. One of the experiments was to build projects.
They first experimented with rats. Then they took it to the poor, piling them up
in buildings living on top of one another to see what would happen. They also
use colors and landscaping to create a prison like environment to see how folks
would react.
Of course the crime
rate escalated along with various other animalies. Great way to depopulate,
imprison, sicken, and retard a group of people.
Ironically, the mass
of people in one area became a voting block. So they had to tear the buildings
down so they could redistrict the masses.
One of the things
that amazes me about these "so called" experiments is how they really
don't see futuristically nor do they understand human nature.
A large group of
people in one area can bolster the economy of that area as well. Imagine the
economists, the social engineers and the politicians fighting around the table
about what plan to implement next according to who will benefit. So we see the
plan being put in place, dismantled and then re-implemented at various points
in the cycle. However the goal is always the same. Remove the undesirables,
benefit from their destruction and do it all in secret or under the onus of
some kind of illusive humanitarian goal.
What gets me about
these folks who think the US and its allies are their friends when they
constantly turn against them when they don't play ball. Syria is not part of
the World Bank Organization.
Ironically, Syria
was a great friend to the US during the first stages of the Iraq war when it
was using its prisons for so called suspected terrorists. Extraordinary
rendition, remember that? Assad was not president at the time. But their
prisons were used to house these suspects without trial.
And do you remember
when they gave Sadaam Hussein gas to poison the Kurds and to help in his war
against Iran? And do you remember that they were already bombing Iraq and had
severe sanctions on it, even before the so called fear mongering around WMD. Of
course they had them, because the US gave them to them, but they got rid of
them too. But that was old news.
So yeah, folks do
have short memories and that is why folks are so easily lead down the crocked
path to trouble.
If you know anything
about war strategy and if we know anything about 911 and bombing Iraq under a
false pretense, then you know it takes weeks and weeks of planning sometimes
months and maybe even years to actually rain down the bombs.
This stuff was put
into motion and at the ready long before Trump got in there, he is just another
fall guy, another puppet for the globalist agenda. If his supporters don't see
this , we'll they are a party to the same mania the Obamabots had/have. Statism
is a disease that eats away at personal sovereignty.
Did Syria Receive Its Chemical Weapons from Saddam?
For everyone that
keeps arguing that the Government wouldn't secretly poison Black people...
First of all, you must not have heard of the Tuskegee experiment. And second,
have you ever heard of Slavery? That was done by THIS Government you are
defending as well. So was Jim Crow and a thousand other things. But this next
story should make you understand how low they can, will, and DO go. Keep your
guard down if you want to.
NB
Commentary: Oh Lord, complaining about how short this video is???
Folks
don't even watch videos that last longer than 6 minutes, and no way in hell did
he help Muslims considering how many of them got killed by his drones. I do say
he could have done more for the veterans, but we all can. Got a bunch of stuff
you ain't using? Got an empty house that no one is in? Got some food to share?
Go visit a vet in the hospital. Ban all fireworks displays!! Take a vet to
Lunch on a monthly basis.
We can
always find fault, but what are we doing about it?
So,
now we have Trump and we shall see that we are talking about the same coin,
just the flip side, it matters not what puppet is in the White House, it
matters who his handlers/backers/bankers/corporations/shadowgovernment that are
pulling his strings people. Let's get over ourselves, let's stop being divided
down party lines, let's look at the BIG GIANT ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. We are
being lead like sheep to the slaughter, and as we fight among ourselves and
kill each other off in the process, there will be fewer sheep for them to
slaughter.
Wake
UP People, this Ain't Kansas! We Live On A Prison Planet!
Americans
welcome only token numbers of people from countries devastated by U.S. wars of
aggression. Donald Trump’s current ban on travelers affects nations that were
already targeted by President Obama, “a perfect example of the continuity of
U.S. imperial policy in the region.” The memo from State Department
“dissenters” contains “not a word of support for world peace, nor a hint of
respect for the national sovereignty of other peoples.”
If Americans Truly Cared About Muslims, They Would Stop Killing
Them by the Millions
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
“Since 2001, war has been normalized in the U.S.
-- especially war against Muslims.”
In the most dramatic expression of insider opposition to a
sitting administration’s policies in generations, over
1,000 [3] U.S. State Department
employees signed on to a memo protesting President Donald Trump’s temporary
ban on people from seven predominantly Muslim countries setting foot on U.S.
soil. Another recent high point in dissent among the State Department’s 18,000
worldwide employees occurred in June of last year, when 51 diplomats called
for U.S. air strikes [4] against the
Syrian government of President Bashar al Assad.
Neither outburst of dissent was directed against the U.S.
wars and economic sanctions that have killed and displaced millions of people
in the affected countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Rather, the diplomatic “rebellion” of last summer sought to pressure the Obama
administration to join with Hillary Clinton and her “Big Tent” full of war
hawks to confront Russia in the skies over Syria, while the memo
currently making the rounds of State Department employees claims
to uphold [5] “core American and
constitutional values,” preserve “good will towards Americans” and prevent
“potential damage to the U.S. economy from the loss of revenue from foreign
travelers and students.”
In
neither memo is there a word of support for world peace, nor a hint of respect
for the national sovereignty of other peoples -- which is probably
appropriate, since these are not, and never have been, “core American and
constitutional values.”
“The diplomatic ‘rebellion’ of last summer
sought to pressure the Obama administration to join with Hillary Clinton and
her ‘Big Tent’ full of war hawks to confront Russia in the skies over Syria.”
Ironically,
the State Department “dissent channel” was established during one of those
rare moments in U.S. history when “peace” was popular: 1971, when a defeated
U.S. war machine was very reluctantly winding down support for its puppet
regime in South Vietnam. Back then, lots of Americans, including denizens of
the U.S. government, wanted to take credit for the “peace” that was on the
verge of being won by the Vietnamese, at a cost of at least four million
Southeast Asian dead. But, those days are long gone. Since 2001, war has been
normalized in the U.S. -- especially war against Muslims, which now ranks at
the top of actual “core American values.” Indeed, so much American hatred is
directed at Muslims that Democrats and establishment Republicans must struggle
to keep the Russians in the “hate zone” of the American popular psyche. The
two premiere, officially-sanctioned hatreds are, of course, inter-related,
particularly since the Kremlin stands in the way of a U.S. blitzkrieg in
Syria, wrecking Washington’s decades-long strategy to deploy Islamic jihadists
as foot soldiers of U.S. empire.
The United States has always been a project of
empire-building. George Washington called it a “nascent
empire [6],” Thomas Jefferson bought the
Louisiana Territory from France in pursuit of an “extensive
empire [6],” and the real Alexander
Hamilton [7], contrary to the Broadway
version, considered the U.S. to be the “most interesting empire in the world.”
The colonial outpost of two million white settlers (and half a million African
slaves) severed ties with Britain in order to forge its own, limitless
dominion, to rival the other white European empires of the world. Today, the
U.S. is the Mother of All (Neo)Colonialists, under whose armored skirts are
gathered all the aged, shriveled, junior imperialists of the previous era.
“The United States has always been a project of
empire-building.”
In
order to reconcile the massive contradiction between America’s predatory
nature and its mythical self-image, however, the mega-hyper-empire must
masquerade as its opposite: a benevolent, “exceptional” and “indispensible”
bulwark against global barbarism. Barbarians must, therefore, be invented and
nurtured, as did the U.S. and the Saudis in 1980s Afghanistan with their
creation of the world’s first international jihadist network, for subsequent
deployment against the secular “barbarian” states of Libya and Syria.
In modern American bureaucratese, worrisome barbarian
states are referred to as “countries or areas of concern” -- the language used
to designate the seven nations targeted under the Terrorist Travel
Prevention Act of 2015 [8] signed by
President Obama. President Donald Trump used the existing legislation as the
basis for his executive order banning travelers from those states, while
specifically naming only Syria. Thus, the current abomination is a perfect
example of the continuity of U.S. imperial policy in the region, and
emphatically not something new under the sun (a sun that, as with old
Britannia, never sets on U.S. empire).
The
empire preserves itself, and strives relentlessly to expand, through force of
arms and coercive economic sanctions backed up by the threat of annihilation.
It kills people by the millions, while allowing a tiny fraction of its victims
to seek sanctuary within U.S. borders, based on their individual value to the
empire.
“The mega-hyper-empire must masquerade as its
opposite: a benevolent, “exceptional” and “indispensible” bulwark against
global barbarism.”
Donald Trump’s racist executive order directly affects
about 20,000 people [9], according to the
United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees. President Obama killed an
estimated 50,000 Libyans in 2011, although the U.S. officially does not admit
it snuffed out the life of a single civilian. The First Black President is responsible
for each of the half-million Syrians that have died since he launched his
jihadist-based war against that country, the same year. Total casualties
inflicted on the populations of the seven targeted nations since the U.S.
backed Iraq in its 1980s war against Iran number at least four million -- a
bigger holocaust than the U.S. inflicted on Southeast Asia, two generations
ago -- when the U.S. State Department first established its “dissent channel.”
But,
where is the peace movement? Instead of demanding a halt to the carnage that
creates tidal waves of refugees, self-styled “progressives” join in the
macabre ritual of demonizing the “countries of concern” that have been
targeted for attack, a process that U.S. history has color-coded with racism
and Islamophobia. These imperial citizens then congratulate themselves on
being the world’s one and only “exceptional” people, because they deign to
accept the presence of a tiny portion of the populations the U.S. has mauled.
The
rest of humanity, however, sees the real face of America -- and there will be
a reckoning.
NB Commentary: This is a well researched
article with links. A must read for anyone who is interested in what is really
going on with the Selection of Hillary Clinton for the next President of the
US. I have included direct links listed in this article at the bottom along
with pics and videos.
"God
has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand
years for nothing but vain and idle self-contemplation and self-admiration. . .
. He has made us adept in government that we may administer government among
savage and senile peoples.”—
Senator Albert J. Beveridge of Indiana, during the US annexation of the
Philippines, 1898.
A
grotesque power-fest at the Democratic Party Convention in Philadelphia left
me
feeling about Hillary Clinton the way P. G. Wodehouse’s Bertie Wooster felt
about his Aunt Agatha—“the one who chews broken bottles and kills rats with her
teeth.” There is something disquieting and secretively lascivious about her
open-mouthed cackle. She doesn't so much laugh as lusts. She reminded me, too,
of the mythical basilisk in the bestiary at the convention—the queen among the
serpents. The basilisk of legend, wearing a king’s crown on his head, is only
twelve-fingers long, but his venom withers all living plants in his wake. His
gaze is enough to kill, according to Pliny the Elder. Only the droppings of a
weasel have the potent odor to kill him, but it didn't work with this basilisk.
Her weasel endorsed her, embraced her, kissed her. His odor and her venom
neutralized each other and merged into the unity party of the Serpent and the
Weasel.
Her party’s opponent is Charybdis, “a huge bladder of a
creature whose face was all mouth and whose arms and legs were flippers”
according to Jorge Luis Borges’ Book of Imaginary Beings (1957).
As if that were not enough, this Charybdis is reputed to be the troll of a
foreign monster, Mandrake, the Demon in the Kremlin. Neither the basilisk’s
party nor Charybdis’ own party, a sort of mollusk like the Kraken, likes him.
See here and here.
I’m
raving, you say? This is the Age of Empire, and empire breeds monsters. We live
with them now. Imperialism is our political and economic reality. Nothing
material or substantial can be reformed within this colossal juggernaut. Yet,
we continue to pretend that this has no bearing on our lives. In 2003 alone,
the Iraq invasion cost $60 billion, three times the yearly budget for
education, yet, we wonder why schools are starving for funds. When we clamor
for reforms without mentioning imperialism, it is as if we were told we would
be dead in three weeks and reacted by scheduling an appointment for a facelift.
A
facelift is exactly what elections have produced in the last two decades. Bill
Clinton’s Nero, saxophone in lieu of harp; George Bush’s Claudius, malapropisms
for stutters; Obama’s Titus, fortunate son, charm and treachery—they are all
faces of imperialism, exceptionalism, hegemony, capital penetration,
globalization, neoliberal recolonization, “full spectrum dominance,”
“rebalance.” They are the CEOs of international capitalism in the White House.
Their charge is to do away with the sovereignty of nations, economically when
possible, militarily when necessary. They destabilize and destroy whole
countries through open, economic, proxy, or clandestine wars; they organize and
train terrorist organizations; they foment regime change; they privatize the public
wealth; they impose deadly economic reforms on countries they in debt in
perpetuity; they launch economic sanctions, often in tandem or in the run-up to
war. The goal they serve is the domination of the planet to extract resources,
secure markets, and depress wages. In Haiti, workers are paid 62 cents per
hour. Why would any sane investor hire an American worker for $7 per hour when
a Haitian, whose dependent country has stripped him/her of all workers’
protection rights, works for pennies?
We are
the Lotus Eaters, if we don’t know the cost and suffering of imperialism.
In
this predatory process, the masters of the world—the economic elite—have
amassed mountains of money over tree decades, and are desperate for
“opportunities” for investment. They know that money must move, or it dies. At
this stage of disinvestment in industrialization in the capitalist centers
because of diminished returns, money becomes the chief export commodity. To
secure astronomical returns, lands and resources that belong to other people
must be seized and controlled. To achieve this goal, they need a strong,
autocratic, and authoritarian state and an appointed dictator. An imperator, head of the army, whose rule is
characterized by weak legislative and judicial branches.
Ruthless,
ambitious, violent, and conniving, Hillary Clinton’s Roman imperial analog is
Agrippina, Nero’s mother and Claudius’ niece and murderous wife. Her ferocious
chemistry makes her kindred by choice to the ferocity of the empire. The two
are bound by “elective affinities”– Die
Wahlverwandtschaften (1809) of Goethe’s third novel, which examines the
possibility that human passions are ruled by chemical affinities , the
preference of one substance for another. I am convinced that the imperial
candidate with the most affinities with the ruling elite is Hillary Clinton. If
Donald Trump is sincere in saying he wants peace with Russia, he would have to
be a Titan to reverse a centenary robotic American foreign policy by 360
degrees. That would go against all the laws of political motion, including
inertia, which were set down at the birth of the United States. The prize was
always to be fabled Eurasia—“he who controls Eurasia controls the world,” wrote
that other cobra-eyed basilisk, Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinsk, the veteran
Zbiggus Dickus of foreign lunacy at the State Department and the NSA.
And so
this woman, the Agrippina on the Potomac, will sit behind the “grand
chessboard,” playing with human pawns. She will make a good empress, even
though less than 40 percent of the country’s voters consider her “trustworthy.”
But the people’s trust is irrelevant. They are themselves untrustworthy. Having
come out from under the spell of “charming” Obama to realize that he was a
magician’s trick, the people are spinning off center—the “extreme center,” as
Tariq Ali wittily calls it. The people need whipping back into the herd. For
that, a virago will do. She will ride rough-shod with Sin and Death, the moral
allies of the empire, over hurdles of sovereignties and international law. She
will further ravish the already enfeebled Constitution before eating it whole
because the inevitable cost of an expansionist foreign policy is the loss of
economic and political freedom at home.
They all trust her. She has affinities
with them all.
The Financiers
The
financial empire trusts Hillary Clinton. Top mega-financiers and hedge fund
founders and managers who have contributed to her campaign since March 2015
include: George Soros, hedge-fund billionaire, $7 million; Haim Saban, Israeli
hawk and entertainment mogul, $5 million; James Simon, founder, Renaissance
Technologies, hedge fund billionaire and former code-breaker for the military,
$ 3.5 million; Herbert Sandler, founder of Golden West Financial Corporation,
the California savings and loan enterprise; Donald Sussman, hedge-fund manager,
$2.5 million.
There
was no way that the new world order of financial monopoly capitalism would
consider for CEO of the neoliberal empire someone like Bernie Sanders, not
because he was “progressive” but because he was “regressive,” and in their view
no doubt an unrealistic fantasist. The idea of bringing back the New Deal, a
liberal order they had been overthrowing since the 1980s, must have had them
belly-laughing in private, but they saw no harm so long as the senator from
Vermont fed the illusion in the people that capitalism could be reformed and
become a good thing. Ditto for Donald Trump: his regression consists of
offering the people another fantasy, a return to a long gone Fordist America,
the industrial powerhouse of the planet, in which American workers were the
“aristocrats” of labor. At one point in history, Detroit was the capital of
this aristocracy, the best-paid white workers in the world. Thus, both
candidates offer a spectacle to the voters of a quarrel with their respective
parties, but not with their parties’ de-facto bi-partisan pursuit of economic
world supremacy. All the same they were useful. They helped to deflect,
diffuse, confuse, and veil that stark, existential reality that is the cause of
our woes and those of the planet: American economic and military expansion—the
weasel more so than Charybdis.
Hillary
Clinton is not a retro-fantasist, apart from being a fantasist of the
neoliberal order. Her fantasy is their fantasy. Thus they back her.
The Liberal Humanitarian Carnivores
The
liberal humanitarians trust Hillary’s exemplary ability to sell a war crime as
a service to humanity.
The modern idea of “humanitarian war” is as old as
Columbus; as old as the conquistadores. White, civilized Europeans, arriving in the “New
World,” killed “savages” in order to civilize whoever survived. And then worked
them to death and took their lands. In that tradition, the modern liberal
humanitarian must be a flesh-eater. “A liberal society cannot be defended by
herbivores. We need carnivores to save us,” wrote Michael Ignatieff, former
Professor of Human Rights Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, in
a New York Times magazine op-ed piece, May 2, 2004. There is no need to recite
the litany of Hillary Clinton’s bloody deeds since 1990. Gary Leupp covers them
comprehensively in a 2015 CounterPunch article but for carnivorism, who can forget her
maenad-possessed laughter on watching the tearing apart of Qaddafi’s flesh on
video—a scene reminiscent of Euripides’ tragedy, “The Bacchae”?
Bill
Clinton’s administration in the 1990s disemboweled Yugoslavia on humanitarian
grounds, after portraying it as the resurgence of the genocidal Third Reich and
its president, Slobodan Milosevic, as the new Hitler. Milosevic, by the way,
has just been exonerated of all crimes for which Clinton’s kangaroo
International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia had formerly condemned him. In
2003, casting her vote for the invasion of Iraq, Hillary Clinton cited the
persecution of Milosevic as the example to follow for removing Saddam Hussein.
It’s worth listening to her self-assurance in demonizing a man she, and Bill
Clinton’s administration, knew to be innocent of the charges—knew because they trumped them up:
"We and
our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than
a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping
his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we
created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his
being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak."
But
Bill Clinton didn’t just scrap Yugoslavia; he junked international law by
removing from the Security Council the legal monopoly on authorizing war. He
set a precedent in the Kosovo War by claiming Responsibility to Protect (R2P),
which gives humanitarian intervention the pseudo-legal means to overthrow a
sovereign state. The UN Charter specifically disallows humanitarian
intervention for a very good reason: it was that responsibility Hitler’s rogue
regime claimed for invading Poland—the protection of German minorities—to start
WW II.
Never
mind. The Kosovo precedent opened the gates to all the “humanitarian” wars that
followed, including Hillary Clinton’s war on Libya in 2009, consistent with her
approval of her husband’s intervention in Kosovo. During a meeting with Code
Pink on 6 March 2003 at the US Capitol, defending her vote in favor of
attacking Iraq, Senator Clinton applauded her husband’s war in Kosovo, claiming
that he saved Kosovar Albanian from ethnic cleansing—a lie—while commending his
initiative to go it alone, without the “international community’s” consent:
"With
respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not
believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today
that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it
not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about
what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a
Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic
cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it
alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had
agreed to do it through the United Nations — they would not. I’m happy
that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."
She’s
praising here her husband’s international crime, the interference with a
country’s sovereignty for fictional humanitarian reasons. No, the goal of the
war in Kosovo was not ethnic defense (Bill Clinton’s policy throughout the 90s
in the former Yugoslavia was to foment and prey on ethnic anarchy) but the
expansionist penetration of a foreign territory and the construction of one of
the largest military bases in Europe, at Camp Bondsteel, costing the American
people a good chunk of social services—possibly, his welfare “reform,” for
example.
Liberal
humanitarian warmongers peddle the ludicrous claim that “America is the
essential country” (Madeleine Albright) for safeguarding liberal democracy
throughout the world, sublimely indifferent to the evidence that the world
can’t wait to get America’s essentialism off its back. Hillary Clinton’s
belligerent foreign policy is notorious. She has promised to bomb Iran. She has
managed and supervised the destruction of Libya. She has organized the coups in
Paraguay and Honduras. Her neo-con team at the State Department funded and
organized the coup in Ukraine, Nazified its political, military, and cultural
life, triggering a civil war (while calling Putin “Hitler”).
HRC-Syria Policy
There’s no reason to believe that her carnivorous
humanitarian resources have been depleted since then. While Secretary of State
for Obama, she authorized the sale
of weapons to Qatar that she knew would go
to the Libyan rebels to topple Qaddafi and then go to Syria to arm al Qaeda to
overthrow Assad. She denied any involvement under oath. In an exclusive
interview with The Telegraph,
her campaign foreign policy adviser, Jeremy Bash, former Chief of Staff at the
Pentagon and CIA, said that she would work to get President Assad “out of
there”:
Julian Assange says “1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection” proves she sold weapons to ISIS in Syria.
"A Clinton administration will not shrink from making
clear to the world exactly what the Assad regime is. It is a murderous
regime that
violates human rights; that has violated
international law; used chemical weapons against his own people; has killed
hundreds of thousands of people, including tens of thousands of children.
If
Assad is as guilty as she was sure at the time Milosevic was, we’re in for
another international crime."
On Russia, the Council on Foreign Relations reports that
she’s calling for strengthening NATO and “tougher measures against Putin to
punish him for invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea as well as for supporting
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.” “I remain convinced,” they quote her, “that
we need a concerted effort to really up the cost on Russia and, in particular,
on Putin.” She considers that Russia’s intervention in Syria creates “chaos”:
"I
think it’s important too that the United States make it very clear to Putin
that it’s not acceptable for him to be in Syria creating more chaos, bombing
people on behalf of Assad, and we can’t do that if we don’t take more of a
leadership position, which is what I’m advocating."
Russia Today blames
Clinton’s outrageous Russophobia—“Hillary Clinton is the Bachman Turner
Overdrive of US politics”–on Obama’s mistake for allowing the Neo-con
contingent to dominate the State Department:
Obama’s
other mistake was to allow Hillary, as Secretary of State, to retain neocon
holdovers from the Bush administration on her Eastern Europe team. Even more
incredibly, Kerry then inherited them for the second term. “Obama allowed US
officials on the ground (in Ukraine and elsewhere) to pursue a grossly
irresponsible and provocative anti-Russian policy,” Anatol Lieven recently told
the Valdai Club. “What on earth, one may ask, was Victoria Nuland, a
neo-conservative State Department official married to the arch neocon Robert
Kagan, doing in the Obama administration at all, given that her attitudes run
clearly counter to his?”Lieven also pointed out that “figures like Nuland are
still favored by Hillary Clinton (Kagan is now moving into her political camp)
and much of the US foreign and security establishment; and that with regard to
Russia, that establishment is still conditioned to pursue what are in effect
Cold War attitudes.”
The Neo-Cons and “New” Imperialists
Hillary Clinton represents the
personification of rehabilitated imperialism, the overarching geopolitical
focus of American politics. That is why she will be the establishment’s
choice—tested and proven. She will press hard against the political independence
of Russia and the economic rise of China, a pressure that encapsulates American
foreign policy in the foreseeable future.
Neo-con
and neo-liberal promoters of the “new imperialism” are Western regime
intellectuals and historians such as Max Boot, Niall Ferguson, and Michael
Ignatieff.
As a
result, by 2003, the year of the invasion of Iraq, media pundits were busy
domesticating the word “empire.” American propaganda had proscribed the word
for decades on account of there being only one empire, which was “evil”: the
USSR. With the Soviet Union gone, America congratulated itself on being #1, the
sole super-power, the essential country, and, the old standby, the exceptional
country. None of these brands resonated with the force that the scope of
conquering the world required. To make matters worse, critics of the invasion
of Afghanistan and Iraq, were floating the un-American term “imperialism.”
Something had to be done. With the evil empire dead, the good empire could
re-emerge. Max Boot, Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at Council on
Foreign Relations, proposed “an American might to promote American
ideals”–messianic political morality at the point of a gun. He explained.
"In the
early twentieth century, Americans talked of spreading Anglo-Saxon civilization
and taking up the ‘white man’s burden’; today they talk of spreading democracy
and defending human rights. Whatever you call it, this represents an idealistic
impulse that has always been a big part in America’s impetus for going to war."
Soon
after 9/11, 2001, Boot had already invoked this impetuous idealism to respond
to the lament of suffering nations pining for the . . . return of a
British-style imperial ministration.
Afghanistan
and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign
administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith
helmets.
And in 2002, Boot wrote, “Imperialism used to be the
white man’s burden. This gave it a bad reputation. But imperialism doesn’t stop
being necessary because it is politically incorrect” (New York Times Magazine, July 28, 2002). Neoconservative William Kristol, of The Weekly Standard, said more tersely on Fox television at the time, “if
people want to say we’re an imperial power, fine.”If there is a place on earth
that is testy about Western imperialism, that place is China. If there is an
American official who has sorely tested China’s anti-colonial sensibility, that
person is Clinton. As First Lady, she rousingly declared that “women’s rights
are human rights” in Beijing at the UN World Conference on Women in 1995. As
Secretary of State, in 2011, she denounced China’s “deplorable” record of human
rights in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic. Again in 2011, she proposed a US policy toward China as
one “of advancing democracy and human rights” in a Foreign
Policy article, titled “America’s Pacific
Century.”
To Chinese officials’ ear this aggressive insistence on
human rights sounded suspiciously like a systematic call for color revolution
in China. Her hostile intent, had already become apparent in 2010. At the ASEAN
Regional Forum in Hanoi, she confirmed China’s suspicion that she advocated a
US policy of containment by intervening in the territorial disputes of the
South China Sea. Recommending a “rebalance” of power in the disputed
areas, she
asserted that the US had “a national
interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons, and
respect for international law in the South China Sea.”
China’s Foreign Minister at the time, Yang Jiechi, at
first walked out of the meeting, only to return an hour later with theominous
reminderthat “China is a big country and other
countries are small countries, and that’s just a fact.”
On the unpopular Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement, a pact
China correctly perceives as economic containment, she said in her debate with
Bernie Sanders on 4 February 2016 that she now opposes it after having
strenuously and enthusiastically supported it as Obama’s Secretary of State
until 2012 and beyond. Her flip-flops on the TPT are well documented here.
These three affinities—with finance, war, and
imperialism—make Hillary Clinton the perfect mate for president of the
financial-imperial White House. Picture her in jodhpurs and pith helmet astride
the financial bull, taking on the “white woman’s burden,” and riding the
humanitarian “savage wars for peace.” Stop worrying about Donald Trump
“Charybdis” and learn to avoid where the Basilisk treads, which will be
difficult. You can prepare by reviewing her record as “empire-slayer” here.
"I urged him to bomb." - Hillary Clinton
In
choosing between presidential candidates today, it’s best to stick to Bertie
Wooster’s advice about aunts: “It is no use telling me there are bad aunts and
good aunts. At the core, they are all alike. Sooner or later, out pops the
cloven hoof.”
Now, I have been
asked to do a reading on it, and I may or may not, cause this so-called
"Threat of Nuclear War" looming over us and no place for my
grandchildren to hide in the bunkers with the fat cats, I ain't too sure if I
will get to it, and besides by the time
I do, we will be looking at some other crazy shit happening in this world.
one, I wonder if
these killings are going to start that up again. The war against guns,
meanwhile, folks is bombing up folks all over the place and buying guns like
gangbusters on the black market, but I digress. But I do want to mention the
guns and ammunition sales that were transacted between the US and the Rebels,
but yeah, they don't like their government and so they got good reason for the
US to support them with guns, ammunition and a little gas from time to
time. Seems like they should do the same
for the anarchist and patriots here in the US who feel the same way, instead of
taking their guns away from them, but boy was that a digression.
