An Email From Lynn Forester de Rothschild to Hillary Clinton, Against Elizabeth Warren

Eric Zuesse

[message from Lynn Forester de Rothschild (who controls many corporations and whose husband Sir Evelyn de Rothschild allegedly owns $20 billion), to Hillary Clinton, via Cheryl Mills, on how “to craft the economic message for Hillary” and warning Hillary’s campaign-staff that Elizabeth Warren deceives voters. It’s signed affectionately “Xoxo Lynn.” Lady Rothschild attacks Elizabeth Warren’s having criticized America’s rigged-by-and-for-the-rich system. Rothschild implicitly praises Bill & Hillary as heroes championing the system, and she says — using the ‘reporting’ by the Wall Street Journal instead of her own words (since she can’t supply analysis of her own) — that Elizabeth Warren is deceiving voters in order to run for the White House against Hillary. This is Lady Rothschild trying to help her friend Queen Clinton, even while having nothing really to say, other than to paste in ‘reporting’ by Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal, demeaning Warren as, in effect, a dishonest demagog.]

———- Forwarded message ————— 

From: Lynn Forester de Rothschild 


Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 7:15 PM 

Subject: FW: Elizabeth Warren To: “Cheryl Mills (<>)” 


I think this blog overstates what Warren was doing, but we need to craft the economic message for Hillary so that Warren’s common inaccurate conclusions are addressed.

Xoxo Lynn  

[] [Rothschild is simply pasting in excerpts from that WSJ article here:]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren professes that she is not running for president, but her Wednesday speech to a major labor conference is loaded with not-terribly-veiled references to Hillary Clinton and attacks on Bill Clinton’s record as president.  The Massachusetts Democrat’s prepared remarks to the AFL-CIO’s National Summit on Wages in Washington are a lesson in progressive economic theory. In this retelling, landmark free trade deals and banking deregulation boost the fortunes of the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class [this being the WSJ’s characterization of what Warren’s message to voters is].  Criticism of the Clintons is threaded throughout Ms. Warren’s remarks. Most comes in the form of a liberal critique of Mr. Clinton’s economic record, but there is one significant shot at Mrs. Clinton as well.  Of course, Ms. Warren has insisted she isn’t running for president but has couched it in the present tense, most recently last month when she refused to rule out a run during an interview with NPR 



Washington Wire found at least four instances in Ms. Warren’s Wednesday speech in which she takes political shots at the Clintons.  The Wal-Mart 

<> WMT +1.48%


dog-whistle [the WSJ report here, again pasting in from Rothschild’s first-linked-to article, is characterizing Warren as a hate-monger who uses ‘dog-whistle’ messages to stir hatred against the rich, and de Rothschild simply is pasting that in as representing the way that Hillary should characterize Warren to be — a demagog]: 

“Corporate profits and GDP are up. But if you work at Wal-Mart, and you are paid so little that you still need food stamps to put groceries on the table, what does more money in stockholders’ pockets and an uptick in GDP do for you?”  [That Warren statement is bigotry, according to WSJ, and de Rothschild obviously views it that way too.]

Wal-Mart is a regular bogeyman for Big Labor, but it is also a particularly tough attack for Mrs. Clinton to echo, since she served on the retailer’s board of directors for six years when her husband was the Arkansas governor. The tie was regularly brought up by supporters of Mrs. Clinton’s opponents during the 2008 presidential primary campaign and remains well remembered in Iowa, where several Democrats raised it unprompted during interviews last week



[but then, right after presenting that URL, Rothschild inexplicably pastes in actually yet another passage from her first-linked-to WSJ article:]

“Even though they don’t exist anymore, her connections to Wal-Mart, those don’t sit well,” said Jennifer Herrington, the Democratic Party chairwoman in Page County. “People still talk about it. The sense is that not much has really changed.”  Bill Clinton was just as bad as the Republicans: “Pretty much the whole Republican Party – and, if we’re going to be honest, too many Democrats – talked about the evils of ‘big government’ and called for deregulation. It sounded good, but it was really about tying the hands of regulators and turning loose big banks and giant international corporations to do whatever they wanted to do.”  Part of the Hillary Clinton argument is that her husband’s presidency presided over the economic growth of the 1990s. But here Ms. Warren takes direct aim at Mr. Clinton’s record on deregulation and harkens back to his 1996 State of the Union address and its signature line


“The era of big government is over.”  

[De Rothschild now quotes yet again from her first-linked-to WSJ article, where it quotes from Warren’s speech to the AFL-CIO on 7 January 2015:]

NAFTA was a bad deal: “Look at the choices Washington has made, the choices that have left America’s middle class in a deep hole… The choice to sign trade pacts and tax deals that let subsidized manufacturers around the globe sell here in America while good American jobs get shipped overseas.” Labor has long been sour on free-trade agreements, and Mr. Obama during the 2008 campaign said he would renegotiate it, though that never happened. Mrs. Clinton at the time also said she would seek a better NAFTA deal with Canada and Mexico


[that article, which she links to, is also here:]

[and now, Rothschild picks up yet again quoting from the first-linked-to WSJ article:]

but it becomes politically difficult for her to offer substantive critiques of her husband’s White House record.  Mr. Clinton wasn’t good for the middle class: 

“So who got the increase in income over the last 32 years? One hundred percent of it went to the top 1%. All of the new money earned in this economy over the past generation — all that growth in the GDP — went to the top. All of it.”  

Here Ms. Warren makes a potent argument that Mr. Clinton – and by association, Mrs. Clinton – had the same results for the middle class as Republican presidents. By tying the records of the Reagan, Clinton, Obama and two Bush administrations together, Ms. Warren paints herself as the outside-the-system crusader her supporters want her to be.

[All of that was actually clipped from the first-linked-to WSJ article, which reported about Warren’s speech to the AFL-CIO, both of which documents were dated 7 January 2015. None of the other URLs that Rothschild pasted into her email were actually quoted-from in her email. This email was actually obsessed with that one article, which attacked Warren’s 7 January 2015 speech to the AFL-CIO. Lynn de Forest Rothschild is apparently rabid against labor unions. This email closes with the WSJ’s snide derogation of Warren as being “someone who paints herself as the outside-the-system crusader,” and the subordinate theme is implicit there, that Warren’s supporters are the kind of people who “want her to be” that way. The WSJ drips with its monied elitism. And Rothschild’s entire email quotes only from that article, though it also provides other URLs, all of which are likewise from that one far-right, pro-aristocracy, newspaper. Rothschild thus comes across as the very personification and negative sterotype of the aristocracy.]

That’s all of the email. Here, then, is some of its context:

The New York Times reported on 22 March 2015 that Chelsea Clinton’s husband started in 2011 a hedge fund Eaglevale Partners whose “investors include hedge fund managers like Marc Lasry and James Leitner; an overseas money management firm connected to the Rothschild family; and people from Goldman Sachs, including the chief executive, Lloyd C. Blankfein. Some of the investors in Eaglevale have contributed campaign money to the former president and Mrs. Clinton, who is widely expected to run for president again in 2016. Some have also contributed to the family’s foundation. … In 2012, Eaglevale raised $15 million from an investment vehicle in the domain of Jacob Rothschild, who with members of his far-flung family has donated to the Clinton Foundation. The investment, financial records show, came before President Clinton spoke at a conference in Oxford that was sponsored by the Rothschild Foundation, of which Mr. Rothschild is chairman.”

Furthermore, Harper’s Bazaar’s 12 May 2014 “Portrait of a Lady: Lynn Forester de Rothschild” makes clear that Lynn and Hillary are very close, and that “Lynn’s commitment to her friend is so absolute that when Hillary dropped out of her own race for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, Lynn jumped ship to support the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain of Arizona,” rather than to support someone (Obama) who had campaigned against Hillary. Clearly, Lynn loves Hillary not only because of shared values, but because of a personal; and even a familial, bonding. And, by the same token, it is understandable that Elizabeth Warren (and Bernie Sanders, and anyone else who would encourage the public to resist the system, which so advantages people such as themselves) would be loathsome to them.


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

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Halloween Is Coming, Vladimir Putin Isn’t

By David Swanson, originally published by the Fairbanks Alaska Daily Miner

I would not rank Vladimir Putin high on a list of leaders. If I lived in Russia I’d be working for major reforms in my government, just as I’m doing where I do live, in the United States. I regularly go on Russian media and criticize the Russian government. Russia is illegally and immorally bombing people in Syria, just as the United States is doing in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

But there are Putin Halloween masks for sale in U.S. stores. Time magazine has Putin on the cover accusing him of trying to damage U.S. elections. A Google search for “Hitler Putin” brings back 11 million results. This demonization of a foreign leader should frighten us more than that leader himself.

Wars do not only kill, if they kill at all, a foreign leader. But they do kill large numbers of children, grandparents, mothers, and fathers. They enrage people, endanger us, damage the natural environment, justify the removal of our rights, and divert unfathomable resources from areas where they could have done a world of good.

The actual Adolph Hitler had no plans or ability to invade the United States and was defeated primarily by Russians who lost at least 27 million lives in the process. For over 70 years, since the end of World War II, the United States has bombed dozens of nations, and in every case that I am aware of U.S. officials have labeled a targeted individual “Hitler.”

In May the Politico newspaper reported on Pentagon testimony in Congress to the effect that Russia had a superior and threatening military, but followed that with this: “‘This is the “Chicken-Little, sky-is-falling” set in the Army,’ the senior Pentagon officer said. ‘These guys want us to believe the Russians are 10 feet tall. There’s a simpler explanation: The Army is looking for a purpose, and a bigger chunk of the budget. And the best way to get that is to paint the Russians as being able to land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. What a crock.”

Politico then cited a less-than-credible “study” of Russian military superiority and aggression and added: “While the reporting about the Army study made headlines in the major media, a large number in the military’s influential retired community, including former senior Army officers, rolled their eyes.”

The United States has overseen the expansion of NATO to Russia’s border. The buffer zone of the last Cold War is gone. U.S./NATO missile bases are now in Romania and being built in Poland. The U.S. has organized in Eastern Europe the largest military exercises seen there since World War II. The U.S. role in supporting a violent coup that created an anti-Russian government in Ukraine was exposed before the coup. When the people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia, the U.S. media characterized Russian actions that resulted in total casualties of zero as “an invasion of Ukraine.”

Without presenting us with any evidence, the U.S. government has accused Russia of shooting down an airplane, of exposing the corruption within the Democratic National Committee (shouldn’t we be grateful?), and of somehow sabotaging the upcoming U.S. election. Every atrocity committed by Russia or Syria in Syria is big news. Every U.S. atrocity there is a yawn.

The stakes are high every time the United States overthrows a government. The disasters of Iraq and Libya have fueled the current catastrophes in those countries and Syria and around the region. But the stakes are higher when the United States and Russia confront each other. These are nuclear nations. Russia has announced that it is considering re-opening a base in Cuba. The Cuban Missile Crisis, in case anyone has forgotten, was one of the many times since the creation of nuclear weapons that humanity has come close to intentionally or accidentally destroying itself.

The nukes are of far greater strength now. And our understanding has grown of how a limited nuclear war anywhere on earth would create a crop-destroying nuclear winter followed by mass starvation. We don’t need to take this sort of risk. To avoid it we need to turn away from war. And that means we need to stop using human rights abuses by targeted governments as excuses to bomb people.

We should protect human rights through leadership by example and consistent application of the rule of law. Doing so would then open the United States up to the possibility of opposing human rights abuses by some of the nasty governments that it props up and sells or gives weapons to, beginning perhaps with Saudi Arabia, a monarchy that makes Vladimir Putin look like Mohandas Gandhi.

David Swanson is speaking at the University of Alaska Schaible Auditorium at 7 p.m. on October 22nd. His books include War Is A Lie and War Is Never Just. He is a 2015 and 2016 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.

Posted in General | 3 Comments

Lake Baratan, Bali

The temple and surrounding area at Lake Baratan, Bali:

img_0881 img_0883 img_0885 img_0888img_0899img_0913 Double-click for large images:

img_0892img_0897Copyright © 2016 George Washington,  Washington’s Blog.  All Rights Reserved.

See also Travels Around Bali, Rice Terraces, Taman Kertha Gosa, Tirta Empul, Besakih, Monkey Forest Lake Batur and Tanah Lot.

Posted in General | 3 Comments

Clinton Promises to Increase Social Security Tax

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at

During the final Presidential candidates’ debate, on October 19th, Hillary Clinton said that workers’ “social security payroll contribution will go up” if she becomes President, and she went on to add, “as will Donald’s — assuming he can’t figure out how to get out of it.”

The “Social Security payroll contribution” is the phrase (a euphemism, actually) policymakers customarily use to refer to what ordinary people refer to simply as (and which is, in fact) “the Social Security tax,” which is currently 6.2% of the employee’s wages, and an additional 6.2% of the employer’s payment of those wages, thus amounting to 12.4% of total payroll (wages) that are paid by the employer.

Trump ignored what she had just said there, and responded simply with “Such a nasty woman” — referring to her demeaning reference to himself: he utterly failed to indicate what he would do as President in order to, as Clinton had stated her reason for hiking those taxes: “replenish the Social Security Trust Fund.”

The way that the former candidate Bernie Sanders had proposed to deal with this problem was to eliminate the Social Security payroll cap, which is $118,500, above which amount any income is received free of any Social Security tax — on either the worker or the employer

Trump has never, on any occasion, said what his policy on this matter would be, other than a vague “It’s my intention to leave Social Security the way it is. Not increase the age and to leave it as is.” In other words: he has no proposal to address the long-term problem of Social Security.

So: Hillary Clinton has already said that she will raise Social Security taxes on people who make less than $118,500 per year, but Donald Trump has not indicated whether he will impose Social Security taxes on income above $118,500 per year.

Other proposals that have been pushed in order to “replenish the Social Security Trust Fund” — or to achieve the long-term stability of the Social Security system — mainly focus on three approaches: 

One is privatizing Social Security, as Wall Street wants, and which proposal is based on private gambles that the assets that are purchased by the Wall Street firm for the individual investor will continually increase in value, never plunge, and never be reduced by annual charges to pay Wall Street’s fees for management and for transactions, throughout the worker’s career until retirement. 

Another approach is gradually reducing the inflation-adjuster for benefits, the inflation-adjusted value of the benefits that Social Security recipients will be receiving. President Obama had been trying to get congressional Republicans to agree with him to do that (which some call “the boiling-frog approach” because it’s applied so gradually), but they continued to hold out for privatizing Social Security, and thus nothing was done. 

And the third option is to increase the retirement-age, as Obama also wanted to do (and which is really just another form of “boiling-frog approach”), but also couldn’t get congressional Republicans to accept that. (Trump’s comment to “Not increase the age and to leave it as it is” is a clear repudiation by him of this approach. And his promise to not increase taxes would, if taken seriously, also prohibit him from endorsing Hillary Clinton’s approach.)

Consequently, if Trump is a traditional Republican, then his policy would be to privatize the Social Security system, but if he is a Bernie Sanders progressive — someone in the pre-Bill-Clinton, FDR Democratic Party, mold — then his policy would instead be to eliminate the Social Security payroll cap. Those two are really his only major policy-options.

Trump had the opportunity during the debate to make clear what his own policy would be on this important matter, and whether (and presumably that) it would be different from Clinton’s, and if so, how and why it would be different; but, instead, he ignored what she had said her policy as President will be on this matter, and he responded only to her demeaning personal reference against himself. He could have gone in for the policy-kill against her proposal on this, but instead took her personalizing bait and merely insulted her personally right back — and then the issue was finished.

That was one of the two major opportunities Trump had in this debate to attack Ms. Clinton’s positions on the issues. The other was when she said, “I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone” in Syria. She has stated this position consistently throughout her campaign, and it would mean that she would warn both the Syrian government and the Russian government that unless they halt, by some specified date, their bomber-flights over Syrian territory, the United States will shoot those planes out of the sky, and the U.S. will then be at war against both Syria and Russia, over Syrian territory — a U.S. invasion. This does not necessarily mean that the war there would escalate to nuclear conflict, but it does mean that in order to avoid such World War III, either the U.S. or else both Syria and Russia would need to capitulate to the opponent (U.S. capitulate to Russia and Syria, or else Russia and Syria capitulate to U.S.) — which is highly unlikely to occur (probably less likely than nuclear war would be). 

In other words: Trump also missed his opportunity — which he has had many times throughout his campaign against her — to point out that, if Ms. Clinton becomes the U.S. President, then nuclear war, WW III, will be the likely outcome of her election.

Instead, the main issue that likely will determine the outcome of this Presidential election is rape — the personal charges that have been alleged against (this time not Bill Clinton, but) Donald Trump. The fate of our planet, within just a year or two, might depend upon whether the U.S. electorate focus mainly on that issue, in 2016. Consequently: the long-term problem of Social Security might actually be a moot point, anyway.


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

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Clinton Repackages Her Syrian ‘No-Fly’ Plan

By Robert Parry, the investigative reporter who many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. Originally published at Parry’s Consortium News (republished with permission).

While the major news media focused on Donald Trump’s agnostic response about whether he would respect the results of the Nov. 8 election, Hillary Clinton slipped in a little-noticed but important revision to her call for a “no-fly zone” in Syria, suggesting that it would be negotiated with Russia and Syria.

“This would not be done just on the first day,” Clinton replied to a question about the military cost and human toll that imposing a no-fly zone would require. “This would take a lot of negotiation. And it would also take making it clear to the Russians and the Syrians that our purpose here was to provide safe zones on the ground.”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix, Arizona, March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally in Phoenix, Arizona, March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Before Wednesday night, Clinton had left the impression that the U.S. military would unilaterally impose a “no-fly zone” on Syria, a military action that not only would violate international law but would require a major commitment of U.S. forces to destroy Syrian air defenses and to shoot down planes from the Syrian and possibly the Russian air forces.

President Obama and the U.S. military high command have resisted pressure to implement Clinton’s suggestion because of the potential for killing large numbers of civilians and dragging the United States into a wider war, potentially a clash with nuclear-armed Russia.

Debate moderator Chris Wallace noted, “General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says you impose a no-fly zone, chances are you’re going to get into a war – his words — with Syria and Russia. So the question I have is, if you impose a no-fly zone — first of all, how do you respond to their concerns? Secondly, if you impose a no-fly zone and a Russian plane violates that, does President Clinton shoot that plane down?”

Breaking from her usual belligerent tone, Clinton repackaged her idea as something quite different, a diplomatic initiative to persuade the Syrian and Russian governments that they should allow the creation of a “safe zone” so Syrians fleeing the fighting could have a place to live inside Syria.

Clinton said: “We’ve had millions of people leave Syria and those millions of people inside Syria who have been dislocated. So I think we could strike a deal and make it very clear to the Russians and the Syrians that this was something that we believe was in the best interests of the people on the ground in Syria, it would help us with our fight against ISIS.”

Whether the Syrian leadership and the Russian government would accept such a plan is doubtful, since it would amount to inviting the U.S. or NATO military to establish a beachhead inside Syria from which rebels, terrorists and other insurgents could operate beyond the reach of military retaliation.

Distrusting Clinton

The Syrians and the Russians are also well aware of the duplicity of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2011 when she led the effort to persuade the United Nations Security Council to authorize an emergency program to protect Libyan civilians around Benghazi from an offensive by the Libyan army seeking to root out Al Qaeda-connected terror groups

Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.

Once the Security Council agreed (with Russia abstaining rather than vetoing the plan), U.S.-coordinated airstrikes decimated the Libyan government’s forces. Next, NATO military advisers began assisting the rebels on the ground, with the “humanitarian” mission quickly morphing into a “regime change” operation, with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi driven from power, captured, tortured and murdered.

After Gaddafi’s death on Oct. 20, 2011, Clinton exulted in a TV interview, “We came; we saw; he died.”

So, a President Clinton isn’t likely to get the benefit of the doubt again, especially since she has made clear that her desire is to see Syrian President Bashar al-Assad suffer a fate similar to Gaddafi’s. Clinton’s open hostility toward Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom she’s compared to Hitler, also is not likely to make Russia eager for concessions.

But Clinton’s repackaged “no-fly zone” – as a negotiated undertaking, rather than a unilateral act of war – suggests that the Democratic presidential nominee is at least trying to present a less warmongering face to the American voters, especially to peace-oriented Democrats. Whether the American people have any more faith in Clinton’s words than the Syrians and Russians do is another question.

Posted in Politics / World News | 8 Comments

Trump Unchained

By Mike Whitney. Originally published at CounterPunch (republished with permission of the author).

Photo by Evan Guest | CC BY 2.0

Photo by Evan Guest | CC BY 2.0


“For any minimally conscious American citizen, it is absolutely evident that Donald Trump is not only facing the mammoth Clinton political machine, but, also the combined forces of the viciously dishonest Mainstream Media.”

-Boyd D. Cathey, “The Tape, the Conspiracy, and the Death of the Old Politics”, Unz Review

“The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary.”

-Donald Trump, Twitter

When was the last time the media threw 100% of its support behind one party’s presidential candidate? What does that say about the media?

Do you feel comfortable with the idea that a handful of TV and print-news executives are inserting themselves into the process and choosing our leaders for us? Is that the way democracy is supposed to work?

Check out this blurb from The Hill:

“The broadcast evening news programs ABC, NBC and CBS covered allegations against Trump by several women who claim he sexually assaulted them for more than 23 minutes on Thursday night. But revelations in the WikiLeaks dump of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta which included…sympathy for Wall Street, advocation for open borders and blatant examples of media collusion ….got a whole 1 minute and 7 seconds combined.”

Ratio of negative coverage of Trump to Clinton: 23:1

In print on Thursday, it was no better. The New York Times had 11 negative stories on Trump…But zero on Clinton/WikiLeaks.

Ratio: 11:0.” (Media and Trump bias; Not even trying to hide it anymore, The Hill)

The article in The Hill also refers to a survey by the Washington Post and ABC News that asks participants six questions about allegations of sexual misconduct by Trump, but zero questions about Podesta’s incriminating emails.

Is that what you call “balance”?

I should state out-front, that I don’t plan to vote for either candidate, Trump or Clinton, so my claims of “bias” are not grounded in support for one candidate or the other. I am simply ticked-off by the fact that the media honchos have pulled out all the stops and are inserting themselves in the process to produce the outcome they want.

That’s what you call “rigging” an election. When you turn on Washington Week (Gwen Ifil) on public TV and see an assembled panel of six pundits–three conservatives and three liberals–and all six turn out to love Hillary and hate Trump; you can be reasonably certain that the election is rigged, because that’s what rigging is. Rather than providing background information about the candidate’s position on the issues so voters can make an informed decision, the media uses opinionmakers to heap praise on one candidate while savagely denigrating the other. The obvious goal is to shape public opinion in the way that best suits the interests of the people who own the media and who belong to the establishment of rich and powerful elites who run the country, the 1 percent. In this case, the ruling class unanimously backs Hillary Clinton, that much is obvious.

Fortunately, the tide is turning on the mainstream media as people look to other, more reliable sources for their information. It should come as no surprise that people are more distrustful of media than ever before and that that a great many feel that the media is conducting a brutal class war against ordinary working people. Surely, anyone who has followed economic developments at all in the last seven years, knows that the policies of the Fed have created a yawning chasm between rich and poor that is only getting worse as long as the levers of power stay in the hands of establishment politicians. Hillary Clinton is certainly the worst of these establishment politicos. Aside from being the most widely-reviled candidate the Democrats have ever nominated, she is the embodiment of political corruption and cronyism. How is it, you may ask, that someone like Clinton was able to nab “upwards of $225,000 per speech” from Goldman Sachs if she wasn’t influence peddling?

Does it really matter what she said in these speeches?

Not to me. The huge sums of money prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Clinton is selling access, tacitly agreeing to “go easy” on the big Wall Street investment banks provided they keep her foundation’s coffers overflowing. What other possible explanation could there be?

Do as many Americans know about Hillary’s sordid dealings with Wall Street as know about Trump’s “alleged” sexual dalliances?

Of course not. It’s not even close.

Do they know that Clinton was the driving force behind the intervention in Libya and Syria, where hundreds of thousands of civilians have died and seven million have been internally displaced? Do they know she was involved in the toppling of a democratically-elected government in Honduras or that a number of prominent neocons, who dragged the US into war in Iraq based on WMD lies, now support her?


Do people know that Hillary had proof that ISIS –America’s arch enemy– was being funded and supported by our allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar and, yet, she never reported the news to the American people??

Here’s a damning clip from one of the Podesta emails:

“We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region.”

Remember when George W. Bush said that ‘We will treat the terrorists and the people who support the terrorists the same”?

Hillary must not have gotten that memo or we would have bombed Riyadh by now.

Do people know that there has never been a war that Hillary didn’t support, a job-killing “free trade” bill she didn’t back, or a civil liberties-eviscerating piece of legislation (Clinton voted for the original USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, as well as the revised version in 2006.) she wasn’t eager to sign?

Oh, but she does support “women’s reproductive rights” which makes her a big champion of personal freedom among her narrow demographic of successful, educated, white women. Excuse me, for not doing handstands.

Here’s another short clip from the WSWS:

“Hillary and Bill Clinton have accumulated a total of $153 million in speaking fees since Bill Clinton left the White House. Only the very naïve could believe that these vast sums were paid for the speeches themselves. They were payment for services rendered to the American financial aristocracy over a protracted period.” (In secret Goldman Sachs speeches, Clinton explains why the rich should rule, World socialist Web Site)

Get the picture? Hillary Clinton isn’t a candidate, she’s a franchise, a walking ATM machine. And her shady Foundation is nothing more than a vast recycling bin for illicit funds that pour into the political sausage-making machine in the form of contributions and magically transform themselves into special favors for the billionaire class.

Is the system rigged?

You’re damn right it is! Check this out from Zero Hedge under the heading of “73% Of Republicans Say Election Could Be “Stolen” As Trump Slams “Rigged Elections”:

“A Politico/Morning Consult Poll found that 41% of registered voters say that the election cold be stolen from Trump while 73% of Republicans fear the same.

The American electorate has turned deeply skeptical about the integrity of the nation’s election apparatus, with 41 percent of voters saying November’s election could be “stolen” from Donald Trump due to widespread voter fraud.

The new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll — conducted among 1,999 registered voters Oct. 13 through Oct. 15 — shows that Trump’s repeated warnings about a “rigged” election are having effect: 73 percent of Republicans think the election could be swiped from him. Just 17 percent of Democrats agree with the prospect of massive fraud at the ballot box.” (Zero Hedge)

Should we be worried about the election being rigged? Should we be concerned that a significant number of Americans no longer trust the “integrity of the electoral process”?

And how are these allegations (that the election was stolen) going to impact Hillary’s ability to govern?

It’s going to impact it dramatically, in fact, it could stop her dead in her tracks. It could even precipitate a Constitutional crisis. And that’s where all this is headed, isn’t it?

Consider this: Maybe Trump isn’t really trying to win any more. Maybe he knows he can’t overcome a 12 point deficit this late in the game, so he’s going to pull a Samson. He’s going to shake the pillars and bring the whole rotten temple crashing down around him. He’s going use all his influence to discredit this fake democratic system the elites have painstakingly put together to control the public, he’s going to grow his throng of angry supporters into a small army, and he’s going to spearhead a (mainly) right wing populist movement that is going impose gridlock on Washington, deepen the political divisions, acrimony and polarization across the country, and make Clinton’s tenure as president a living hell.

That’s the gameplan. He’s going to marshal enough grassroots support that Clinton will spend her entire four years bogged down in endless investigations, fending off charges of criminal misconduct, and leap-frogging from one seedy scandal to the next.

No, Trump isn’t planning on winning. He doesn’t want to be president. He wants to be a modern-day Braveheart leading the peasants into battle against a thoroughly-corrupt and heinous ruling class establishment. That’s what he wants, and that’s why political has-beens like Gingrich and Giuliani have attached themselves to him like the plague. They see an opening for resurrecting their own dismal careers.

In any event, Hillary’s going to win the election, that’s for sure. But don’t count Trump out just yet. He’s just getting warmed up.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at

Posted in Politics / World News | 10 Comments

1 in 4 Young Americans Prefer a Giant Meteor to Trump or Clinton as President


Can’t really blame them, can you.

Reuters reports:

Young Americans are so dissatisfied with their choices in this presidential election that nearly one in four told an opinion poll they would rather have a giant meteor destroy the Earth than see Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in the White House.

The tongue-in-cheek question was intended to gauge young Americans’ level of unhappiness about their choices in the Nov. 8 election, said Joshua Dyck, co-director of UMass Lowell’s Center for Public Opinion, which conducted the poll alongside Odyssey Millennials.

The choice alluded to the Twitter hashtag “#GiantMeteor2016,” a reference to an imaginary presidential candidate used to express frustration about this year’s election choices.

Some 53 percent of the 1,247 people aged 18 to 35 said they would prefer to see a meteor destroy the world than have Republican New York real estate developer Trump in the Oval Office, with some 34 percent preferring planetary annihilation to seeing the Democratic former Secretary of State win.

Some 23 percent, nearly one in four, preferred the giant meteor outcome to either Trump or Clinton.

“Obviously we don’t think that they’re serious,” Dyck said in a phone interview on Tuesday. “The fact that one in four of our young people pick ‘Giant Meteor’ tells you something about the political disaffection that is being shown by American youth.”

That contrasts with the surge of participation by young voters that helped propel Obama into the White House for his first term in the 2008 election.

Posted in Politics / World News | 4 Comments