Karma: It Can Be A Bitch You Know (Especially in Politics)

You know, they say that Karma is bitch, which I have often seen proven true. There's also a saying by the great Chinese military and political strategist, Sun Tzu, which say that "if you wait by a river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by". Perhaps is this no better applied than in the world of politics. Not long ago, many pundits were predicting about the decline and fall of the Republican Party. The Reagan Revolution had come and gone. George H.W. Bush had liberated Exxon and BP...uh...I mean Kuwait.. from the evil clutches of our regional Iranian counterweight...I mean that ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein.

Meanwhile our national economy was sputtering, and right on queue came an unknown governor from Hope Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton, better known to all simply as "Bill" and his "barely concealed" Machiavellian wife, Hillary. Well, those eight years proved to be a lot of fun didn't they? The economy bounced backed; there were some pretty positive initiatives passed, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Violence Against Women Act and Megan's Law, along with a few goofs like NAFTA and expanding NATO into Eastern Europe.

We got ourselves involved in a few civil wars, such as Mogadishu and in former Yugoslavia, and his failure to kill and/or capture Osama bin Laden at Kandahar when he had the chance. Of course, we can't forget the impeachment hearings and his lying to Congress (which apparently hinged on what the definition of "is" is). However, most people simply didn't care. They felt that was between Bill, Hillary, and his "victim-of-the-month". After all, the economy was doing great and that was all that mattered. By the time Clinton left office, the Democratic Party was doing pretty well, while the GOP was busy trying to redefine itself and remain relevant after their 1994 "Contract With America" turned out to be more of a "Contract On America" and blew up in the collective faces.

So, then came George "Dubya" Bush, aka "Shrub". I think what most people liked about Shrub...err...George was his laidback easygoing attitude. It seems everyone had an uncle like George locked away somewhere. He proved that anyone with a "D+" grade point average; who was unsuccessful as a businessman, a poor military record, a recovering alcoholic, but had lots of family money and connections could still become president, thus proving the "American Dream" was still alive.

Then again, it could be that voters just couldn't stand elitist Al Gore. Here was a man who just couldn't connect with the American People. He was "insider royalty". He was so elitist that his attempts to fit in with ordinary American's was comical. Then came the presidential debates and Gore's attempts to bully or intimidate Bush (which Bush just laughed off, along with the rest of America on national television).

Now, here was a guy born in the Heart of America, Washington DC (if you're the Tin Man); the son of wealthy and powerful Senator, Albert "Al" Gore Sr, who represented the flyover state of Tennessee. The future VP attended Harvard and Vanderbilt, and volunteered to go to Vietnam as an ordinary private, where he served with the 20th Engineer Brigade as a journalist. He would go on to serve in Congress from 1977 to 1993, when he was selected to run as Clinton's choice of VP. Regardless, Gore just couldn't connect with the American People.

Much to the surprise of the Democrats, who were still riding the Clinton high, "Dubya" won the election. As first, he seen as something of a joke: the proverbial class clown who somehow managed to steal the prom queen from the school jock. Even many Republicans started to shake their heads in embarrassed wonderment. Thankfully, there was some old hands of his dad (and the Establishment) to steer his Ship of State along the dangerous narrows; individuals like VP Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, AG John Ashcroft, Reich Secur...uh...I mean...Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. There Elaine Chao, the wife of Senator Mitch McConnell, who headed up the Department of Labor, as well as two excellent Secretaries of State, Former General Colin Powell and later, Condoleezza "Condi" Rice.

Nevertheless, it was one event which sealed Bush's presidential legacy more than any other, and that was September 11, 2001; better known simply as "9/11". It was the one event which has come to symbolize the early 21st Century. It was the day where America was deliberately attacked by an enemy most Americans didn't even know existed, from a country that some would have trouble finding on a map, and by a group the majority of Americans had never heard of...Al Qaeda.

However, there were some who had heard of its leader....Osama bin Laden; the same bin Laden whom Bill Clinton's Administration failed to kill years earlier (and the same individual whom the CIA picked out as potential leader decades before), after Russia invaded Afghanistan during the final months of the Carter Administrations and the beginning of Reagan's (under "Operation Cyclone", the CIA provided military aid, intelligence reports, training, and logistics to Afghani rebels known as the "Mujahideen", of which bin Laden was one).

This cowardly attack has often compared to the Japanese sneak attack on December 7, 1941 on Pearl Harbor, of course led to US and some allied troops to put boots on the ground in Afghanistan, and indirectly, led to the US and some Coalition troops to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein; apparently his usefulness had run out, and then again, maybe he knew too many secrets. The excuse this time was "weapons of mass destruction" or "WMDs", which we were repeatedly assured not only existed, but that Saddam was about to unleash on the world! Of course, as we were to learn later, they didn't exist. However, for Saddam and his cronies, he didn't matter. Only the perception that he did mattered. The outcome was a foregone conclusion...he and most of his ministers were executed.

Since then, efforts to rebuild both Afghanistan and Iraq have proved to be much more difficult than originally predicted and has led to a quagmire which we're still dealing with today. Meanwhile, "Dubya" exited the stage with the public's opinion of his administration pretty low (he has the unique distinction of having both the highest and lowest approval ratings, 51% and 25% respectively). At this juncture, the Democrats were feeling a bit more confident about the prospects for the upcoming presidential and Congressional elections. What nobody expected was a political "nobody" coming to the forefront...Barack Hussein Obama.

Barack Obama was unique in several ways. First, he was bi-racial---black on his father's side and white on his mother's. Second, there wasn't much know about his formative years for sure. There were (and remain) many questions over his place of birth; his education in Indonesia and apparently Muslim upbringing; his education in Hawaii, as well as family and personal friends with far Left or Communist sympathies, including former 60's radical and member of the Weathermen, Bill Ayers. Barack Obama was pretty much an unknown at college, despite his claims to contrary. While he claimed to be a law professor, he was in fact actually an adjunct instructor who taught just a handful of courses. In terms of having any real political experience, he was a neighborhood organizer for ACORN. He ultimately managed to fill an empty seat in the Illinois Senate and amassed no memorable record (voting mostly "here" or "present"). He was later, in 2005, that he was elected to fill an empty US Senate seat. It was as "Junior" Senator, with no national or even regional name recognition, that he decided to run for president (a highly unusual and risky political move).

What made the move that much more risky was that he would face the odds on favorite, Senator Hillary Clinton (she had changed her residency to New York to run for Bobby Kennedy's old seat, thus creating a link between the Clinton's and the Kennedy's (Bill Clinton met JFK as young man and has remained a lifelong admirer). Ultimately, Clinton lost in a highly contested campaign to the Junior Senator. Obama would go on to face Senior Senator John McCain, a disabled Vietnam War veteran, former POW, and a highly distinguished Naval pilot who came from a long line of Naval officers.

John McCain, who first rose to national prominence while he was a prisoner of war, held in the infamous "Hanoi Hilton". He later became a US Senator in 1987, after having served as member of the House of Representatives. McCain quickly earned a reputation for being outspoken and frequently disagreed with GOP party bosses. He was seen by many as a moderate or a more "traditional" conservative. Given McCain's reputation and name recognition, it was presumed that he would easily beat the Illinois upstart. However, that wasn't to be the case.

Barack Obama used his youth, bi-racial status, and charismatic speaking ability to attract the emerging Millennials, who are the largest voting demographic, while McCain's appealed mainly to the aging Babyboomers. There was also a notable difference between the two campaigns. McCain's campaign conformed primarily to the more tradition format (with the novelty of selecting an unknown for VP, non-conformist Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, to attract the more conservative elements of the GOP. Ironically, Palin would prove to be more popular among Tea Parties and some other conservatives than McCain). Obama's campaign was based more on the use of social media, including his use of the internet to raise money. In the end, McCain was outspent 4 to 1, and Obama won with 53% of the vote compared to McCain's 46%. Obama's first term, however, did light a spark under the Democrats, though the numbers were pretty much average with his accomplishments (except golf outings. There Obama wins hands down with 113). Immediately after becoming president, Obama was also roundly booed by public opinion for being "awarded" the "Nobel Peace Prize", an honor he didn't earn, and as a result, tarnished the award for all future recipients. However, it would be his second term which would become most noteworthy. First though, he had to defeat the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts.

Rome had its Crassus. The Democratic Party has its Al Gore. The Republicans have Mitt Romney. Romney, like Al Gore, comes from a prominent political family. Both of his parents, George and Lenore were very active in politics (his mother even ran for office), while his father went to work for the Nixon Administration as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and then, later, as Governor of Michigan. In addition to coming from a established political family, they were also Mormon. Mitt also made a fortune while working for Bain Capital (and ultimately as CEO) through leveraged buyouts. His net worth is estimated to be $250 million (his wife, the daughter of heavy construction equipment co-founder Jared Industries, Edward and Lois Davies, is worth some $50 million).

Like McCain, Mitt Romney just didn't connect with ordinary Americans. He had no real understanding of their issues, and certainly didn't share their working class values. He came across as arrogant and pandering. When the dust settled, Obama had won his second term with just over 51% compared to Romney's 47.21%. What hurt Obama in this election was the lower return of Millennials, who, while strongly disapproving of Romney, were disappointed in Obama's first term performance.

Obama's second term proved to be controversial, from de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants (and a questionable lawsuit against Arizona for enforcing federal immigration laws), to the illegal sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels, the "Obamacare" healthcare law (which was unconstitutionally altered by the Supreme Court. In addition, prior promises by Obama, such as keeping healthcare providers, existing insurance, all turned out to be false). Perhaps worse of all, was the lies surrounding the Benghazi attack and the murders of Ambassador Stevens and three former special forces/CIA operatives amid illegal arms shipments to Syria and the same terrorists were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq (except in Syria, where we suddenly called them "freedom fighters", since they opposed Russia's longtime regional ally). But, what difference did that matter?

The situation in the Middle East failed to improve as did his attempts at expanding gun control to ban "assault" weapons. IRS official Lois Lerner testified that conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status had been targeted by the IRS. Obama also pressed for a land invasion of Syria which was met with absolute rejection by the American People. Obama's Secretary of the Veteran Affairs, Eric Shenski, was forced to resign over charges of mistreatment, misreporting, and prolonged delays resulting in appointment backlogs and preventable veteran deaths. On the plus, Navy SEALs did find and kill Osama Bin Laden, despite delay's by the Obama Administration.

Obama, like Clinton's NAFTA, signed TransPacific Partnership, again selling out unions. We also had "Citizens United" upheld, which gave corporations the same rights as humans, except when it came to political contributions, where they were permitted near unlimited "free speech" (as donations were euphemistically called), while it remained limited for ordinary flesh and blood types. Without question, Obama's second term didn't live up to expectations, by Obama, his administration, or the American People. His approval rating for his second term only averaged 47.9% while the public's confidence in government slumped to a mere 30%.

So, there you have it. All the "static" about Trump's success or failures so soon into his first term is just that...static. Each political party has its ups and down. The big difference in Trump's case, is the open season by the corporate managed media. Trump was the "unexpected" candidate; he was the anti-establishment candidate that didn't come with strings attached. The media and political establishment----both corporate owned parties, the "K" Street lobbyists, the "princesses and snowflakes", and all those with dirty hands---already had Hillary crowned and enthroned. They were wrong. The public knew her record and they rejected it. Perhaps...just perhaps...Americans have finally had enough. We can only hope.



Obama's first term: By the number


Republicans for Obama


Obama's second term: A timeline


Americans Losing Confidence in All Branches of Government

Hillary's New Book "Stronger Together": A Would-be Caesar in a Pantsuit?

Not that I am a particular fan of Hillary Clinton, but the former First Lady and Secretary of State released a new book recently entitled "Stronger Together"; a fanciful trip down "what if" she had won the election and some of her policy decisions would have been . While she really needed to get over the fact that she didn't win and politics is not a static sport, so much of her statements are strictly speculative. Nevertheless, Hillary does go after her Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, pretty hard even though she helped rig the Primary to ensure that she handily beat the self-defined "democratic socialist".

In addition, even after securing the Primary victory, Clinton and the head of the Democratic National Committee (the DNC, like its counterpart, the RNC, runs the internal party machine), Deborah Wasserman-Schultz worked to keep Sanders' supporters from having any input into the party platform or from voicing their anger over procedures (Wasserman was fired from her position but was immediately hired by the Clinton camp). Ironically, her replacement, Donna Brazile, would be fired too. She was accused of feeding Hillary debate questions prior to a debate with Trump. Although the Sanders' camp would file a class action lawsuit, Federal judge William Zloch, would latter rule that the party could do as it pleased with respect to the primary; even rigging the outcome.

Think about that for just a moment. Let that statement simmer in your mind for just a minute. Bernie Sanders, a duly filed Democrat candidate filed to run in the Democratic Primary. He campaigned hard throughout the United States. Whether you liked his proposed platform or not (and many Millennials did), was denied a fair shot so scared was the Clinton camp and her supporters within the DNC that they were willing to rig specific primaries to ensure that Hillary won, and won big. The hope, of course, was that Sanders would get discouraged and drop out. Sanders didn't, and in fact, his message hit a cord with voters, especially younger voters. Meanwhile, Hillary's camp was hoping (to say the least) that one of the pre-vetted and pre-scripted Republican candidates would finally take out "the circus clown", Donald Trump.

The actions by the DNC, and reaffirmed by a federal judge, is that our votes aren't all that important. The party ultimately decides who it wants and then gets behind that individual. In this case, it was Hillary. In the case of the RNC, they clearly didn't want Trump. However, "The Donald" was clearly the strongest candidate based on his ability to attract crowds to speaking engagements and generate voter turnout. Although the RNC did entertain the idea of throwing out a Trump Primary victory and selecting a candidate through its executive committee (some of you will recall that Mitt Romney offered his "services" while this was being discussed), the RNC decided to hold its nose and allow Trump to become their nominee. Why? Because the Trump camp had dropped several not-so-subtle hints that their candidate would run as third party if the RNC pulled any shenanigans. The RNC knew that given Trump's popularity and ability to self-finance, they simply didn't have a candidate strong enough beat Trump. Besides, a divided conservative ticket would all but guarantee a Clinton victory in November.

It would also convey the message which the Democrats were struggling with, namely, that what the voters wanted didn't count. Both parties had sought to protect the illusion that voters still mattered, even though both parties include the provision in their by-laws to ignore the voting results and select a candidate of their own through the executive committee. Given the mood of the country, this may attract even more support for Trump, while on the Democrat side, they were hoping this would be downplayed. It wasn't, and accordingly, Sander's camp filed suit only to lose as stated before.

On a related matter, one that's sure to play a central role in any story about or by Hillary, is Benghazi. I'm sure everyone knows the story of Benghazi by now. Benghazi has gone down as one the worse attacks on the United States, not because of the number killed (there were four individuals who lost their lives), but because it was one of those situations which should not have happened, both before and the shameful cover-up by the Obama Administration, and especially by the State Department, afterwards. The official line was that it was a unplanned random attack by a small group of Libyans on the American Embassy in Benghazi. What, we were told, raised their ere was an obscure film with a anti-Islamic message. Of course, this was a complete fabrication created by Hillary's staff.

Over time, through bits and pieces, as well as the occasional admission, the public was able to piece together what really happened, despite the efforts of the Obama Administration. We now know for instance, the Hillary had (illegally) authorized gun running through the embassy, which was also done without the knowledge of Ambassador Stevens. The guns, as well as military intelligence reports, were run under the cover of the embassy to aid rebels in Syria and possibly, on to other groups in Afghanistan and perhaps elsewhere. We've also learned that the presence of radicalized Muslim fighters had been increasing over the preceding weeks. We learned that the security forces recruited locally were of dubious loyalty and that US personal were unarmed (weapons and ammo were available, however, they had been locked away in a secure vault). Repeated requests for additional security personal were largely ignored or declined by the State Department, as were requested for US personnel to be armed. As for the "obscure movie", it was so obscure that it hadn't even been shown yet. In fact, it had been produced by an independent producer who was strapped for money and was unable to finish the project.

During the attack itself, which lasted approximately seven hours, repeated requests for assistance were denied, including permission to evacuate US embassy personal to a more secure area or to the nearby airport where a charted plane was prepped and ready for takeoff. US military forces were monitoring the situation as well, and despite repeated requests to come to the aid of Ambassador Stevens and other members of his staff, were instructed to stand-down. We've learned since that the Navy had fighter planes fueled and armed and only an hour or less out from Sigonella Italy, as well at bases in Avlano Italy (U.S. Air Force and NATO) and Souda Bay Crete (US Navy).

The Army too had fighters fueled and armed sitting on the runway waiting for permission to launch. At the time of attack, we learned that two CIA operatives at nearby communications station within the embassy did had some light firepower to hold off the attackers briefly. Meanwhile, one of the individuals was "painting" targets in anticipation of a rescue which never came. We have since learned that flying in the vicinity was an AC-130 returning from a mission (an AC-130 is an ultra modern version of what we used to called "Puff the Magic Dragon" AC-47). The pilot had also been monitoring the situation and requested permission to lay down suppression fire until the cavalry came. He too was ordered to leave. In addition, the US had drones flying overhead during the attack. In the end, Ambassador Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods were left to die. Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, Commander of Carrier Strike Group 3 and US Army General Carter Ham, Commander of United States African Command, were both relieved of command by President Obama for their insistence on sending a relief operation to the embassy on the recommendation of Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense.

There was obviously so much more to Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State and, of course, to run for President. However, even when taken as a whole, her record isn't great. Something happened to Hillary Clinton since the days when she was a bright idealist; one filled with passion for women's and children's issues; of when she served as an aide on the House Judiciary Committee's Impeach Inquiry Staff during the Watergate Hearings. Somewhere along the way, she was corrupted by the very system she, and other of our generation, sought to change. Her idealism became cynicism and ultimately, perhaps the end really did justifies the means. Perhaps the hand of History will write that Hillary Clinton was another reminder of Lord Acton's maxim that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" . I think her book, and any that follows, will be her attempts to rewrite history in order to justify her actions or perhaps her lack of actions not just for posterity's sake as much as for herself. I believe too that it shows how far government has strayed from the ideals of our Founding Fathers.


Sales of Hillary Clinton's New Book Are Off To A Slow Start



Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders



Benghazi: Military Commanders "Relieved of Duty"


Contractors say Clinton State Department silenced them on Benghazi security lapses

Should Hate Be A part of Our Political Rhetoric?

Most people would describe me as laid-back or easygoing, which I guess is mostly true. I tend take most everything with a grain or two of salt. I can listen to someone, with whom I may completely disagree, and walk away friends, or at least not enemies. In some cases, I may even change my opinion based on new facts (which is why I dislike political parties and their rigid dogma. Facts just seem to get in the way). Perhaps that's a reflection of my generation---the Babyboomers. My generation had a more or less "collective" philosophy by which we tended to follow which was "I may not agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". This basically meant that you and I may disagree on something, but we'll respect each other's right to our own opinion and right to express that opinion (we had another similar saying which said "your opinion stops at the top of my nose", which, as you might guess, meant that neither of us had the right to violently stop someone from expressing their opinion). Of course, all this created an atmosphere for some pretty lively political and social discussion!

While obviously not all of our social/political debates were civil and devoid of fisticuffs, we at least tended to be open minded. College and university campuses were bastions of free expression, critical thinking and where the application rational logic were encouraged regardless of one's political leanings. Now, I don't mean to sound like everything was wine and roses. It wasn't. My generation was the generation of rebellion; of sit-ins and protests, be it for or against the Vietnam War, Civil Rights, Women's equality, LGBT Pride and equality, a cleaner environment, humane treatment of animals, better treatment for seniors, working conditions, improved housing, and so forth. For every cause, there were those who opposed it for some reason. However, I can't think of a single instance where anyone was prevented from speaking their mind or being attacked for doing so. Sadly, we can't say that today.

It's often said that each generation resents its parent's generation while romanticizing its grandparent's generation. I suppose that's true. During the Roaring Twenties, that generation rejected the values and morals of their parents while embracing the attitude of the grandparents who were in their youth during the "Gay Nineties" . The youth of the 60's and 70's tended to look back to their grandparent's youth of the 20's and 30's. Perhaps it's always been so. Today's youth, the Millennials, seem to be trying to embrace the 60's and 70's with their anti-authoritarianism, which includes rejection of organized religion, political parties, and embrace ad hoc work and social groups, devotion to causes or issues, and so forth. However, where they've failed has been their rejection of open discourse.

Today's 30ish and under crowd seem to have adopted an attitude which refuses to accept differing opinions or ideas. They have embraced the "echo chamber" mentality. For those of you unfamiliar with that term, an "echo chamber mentality" essentially means listening to one line of thought to the complete or near complete exclusion of all others. In doing so, they come to convince themselves that there is only one truth or reality. To see or hear anything which challenges that position actually seems to throw them into a form of mental overload. As a result, they tend to revert to a "flight or fight" defense. This is why some run away to seek the shelter of a "safe space", which supposedly offers them some protection from a competing truth or alternative reality. Others, however, react by attacking the message by attacking the messenger in some form. We've seen ample examples of both over the years, but especially since the election of Donald Trump as President. To compound matters, we also see some fighting via the safety of social media. Let's face it, the vast majority of folks wouldn't say the hateful or violent things they do if they were face to face with the other person. Social media provides a sense of protection and the ability to act rudely without facing any repercussions (for the most part).

To add to this violable mix is the fact that we've allowed a toxic environment to be created, primarily by the corporate owned media. The reason, as most people already know, is that what was supposed to be a preordained event---the election of Hillary Clinton----didn't happen despite the blatant promotion by the media at the behest of the Oligarchy which, as I'm sure you know, now rules over America and owns 96% of ALL media in this country. Donald Trump was pictured by the corporate owned media as a "clown" or a "distraction". He wasn't to be taken seriously (candidate Ted Cruz even referred to Trump's campaign as "circus" as did Marco Rubio). However, as the status quo candidates put forth by the Republican Party dropped out, the more frantic the Oligarchy became, which was reflected in the media's treatment of the Trump campaign. After all, Trump was not one of their pre-approved candidate. Meanwhile, despite reports of corruption, treason, health problems, abuse of power ("pay to play") stories kept leaking out despite the corporate media's efforts to ignore or downplay them, Hillary Clinton's march to her coronation as America's first female President rolled on.

By the time the election was over, a stunned and grossly embarrassed corporate media went on the offensive to try and justify the loss. At first there were claims of voter fraud, election rigging, followed by demands to do away with the Electoral College, and then assertions that, somehow, the Russians were able to manipulate the entire US election process and throw the election to Trump. Well, as it turned out, there was some merit to these claims, but the results weren't quite what they were hoping for. It seems there was voter fraud---illegal immigrants and dead people voting---but for Hillary, not Trump. In addition, there was election rigging, but again, this was done by Hillary's Campaign with the help of the DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. The victim, however, wasn't Trump. It was fellow Democrat Bernie Sanders. Some of the outcomes were rigged, plus Sander's supporters were kept out of the Convention's nomination process. As a result, Ms. Wasserman was removed as Chairwoman of the DNC and replaced by Donna Brazile (but not to fear. After being fired, Ms. Wasserman went to work for the Hillary Campaign the very next day). Then, we learned that Hillary was provided with a list of questions she was to be asked at the last Presidential "debate". Want to guess who provided her with the list of questions? Yelp, Donna Brazile, the newly appointed DNC Chairwoman.

Of course, while we're still listening to claims of Russian involvement in the election, it seems that their only involvement was monitoring Hillary Clinton's use of the her unsecured server which she used at her repeated insistence. In fact, when Hillary lied under oath before Congress during the Benghazi hearings, she claimed not to have certain key emails (when in fact she did) and that all available emails had been turned over (they weren't) to the FBI. When State Department said that because she used an unsecured and private server, they didn't have any records, Russia's Vladimir Putin confirmed that Russian intelligence had monitored her emails, offered to provide the Senate with copies--free gratis. Naturally, the Senate declined and both the FBI and State Department slinked away. Since the hearings, thousands of these emails have been leaked, included many which were classified in some degree. Nevertheless, the corporate media is continuing to play the Russian card although the American People aren't buying it. I suppose that once you commit to the lie, you have to play it out, or as the saying goes "A big enough lie told often enough will eventually be accepted as the truth", which reminds me of an old Scottish saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

Meanwhile, the corporate owned media still seems to begin and end every broadcast with a negative Trump story. Syndicated talk shows have their anti-Trump/Conservative segments (sometimes, entire shows). So-called "celebrities" like to spout off anti-Trump comments just to get the applause light to come on. Some are calling for disobeying any and all bills passed by Trump. Many are demanding Trump's impeachment for imagined crimes. Some, like Kathy Griffin, posing with a bloody decapitated head of Trump. A few are trying to incite protests and violence, which coupled with the "echo chamber" mentality of a large segment of the under 30 folks, almost ensures that someone is going to get killed, hurt or some property is destroyed (don't forget too that many are already disillusioned because the corporate media had all but promised them that Hillary couldn't lose while others who were Bernie supporters were shocked to see how their candidate was cheated out of a better showing and having an impact on the creating the DNC campaign planks). We can add to this mix efforts by social media platforms to control political and social content by censoring or eliminating anything with a conservative slant while organizations on the Left do whatever they can to stoke the fire.

Finally, we have some actors and even elected or appointed officials either calling for Trump's assassination or the murder of Republicans (case in point being the recent statement made by actor Johnny Depp about an actor assassinating a president, implying apparently that an actor should kill Trump). Of course, we have the recent shooting at the ballpark outside Washington in which the shooter, James T. Hodgkinson III, was gunning for any Republicans there (he also had a list in his pocket of Republicans he intended to murder). There can be no doubt that Hodgkinson was, at least partially, motivated by this toxic political environment we've allowed to develop. So asinine statements like Depp's and others will do nothing but encourage others to step up and attempt to kill Trump and/or others. Can you imagine how this behavior would have been handled had it been directed at Obama or Hillary? Frankly, it wouldn't have. The media and Hollywood would have stopped it immediately.

So, there we are. We've created a political environment where disagreement is not tolerated, especially by the one demographic which should be most open minded--- Millennials---and especially those on colleges campuses where open and rational discussion should be promoted. Instead, we've allowed a large segment of our largest population segment to live in a bubble where "safe rooms", intolerance, self inflicted guilt over race, reverse racism, and a sense of entitlement are not just allowed, but encouraged. In addition, we've permitted the corporate own media and Hollywood to egg it on. We laugh at hateful "jokes" much like many Germans laughed at Jewish jokes in prewar cabarets. We've lost our willingness to say "no" at our growing sense of self-loathing. Once, we had a society which, despite our disagreements, believed in freedom of expression and open civil debate. What happened? Where did that go? There was a time too when we were proud of being Americans regardless of our race, religion, gender, or ethnic origin. Now, we seem to be divided by these and other manufactured differences. Then again, a divided population is easier to distract and control isn't it?



35 Celebrities Who Have Gone Public About The Dangers of a Donald Trump Presidency

12,000 Tweets Call for Trump's Assassination



15 Times Celebrities Envisioned Violence Against Trump and The GOP


Anti-Trump Media: 91% of coverage negative, 96% of donations to Hillary

Generations

My generation, the Babyboomers, began with the idealism of John F. Kennedy. Granted, Kennedy wasn't a great president. Some would argue that he wasn't even a good president. Some make the claim that Kennedy was only starting to hit his stride and it would have taken a second term to test his true potential for greatness. But, of course, we will never know. When he was murdered in Dallas on that November day in 1963, the man died and the legend, or rather, the myth of Camelot began to take shape. His brother, Bobby, did much to create that myth. His death too added to it. It was a traumatic time, with the death of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, the Civil Rights movement, the "Freedom Riders" and the murder of three young men in Mississippi, the Watts riot (and countless others), not to mention the war in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and our government's efforts to "contain communism" through not just wars and insurrections, but manufactured coups and assassinations.

Of course, like to many wars, the one which began in Vietnam was started on the basis of a manufactured event; a lie. "The Tonkin Gulf Incident" as it was called. The story, as it was originally told, was that a US ship was in international waters when it was deliberately attacked by ships from those nasty godless Communists, the North Vietnamese. In really, there was no attack. We were told too that we were "protecting" the Vietnamese People from Communism. In truth, this was a Civil War which had its beginnings in the 1920's against the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and finally, us. We installed the Vietnamese president (after approving the overthrow and assassination on his predecessor) and continued to prop him up throughout the war. We were lied to about the progress of the war, and the determination of our enemy that our soldiers, sailors, and airmen faced daily.

Sadly for my generation, we witnessed soldiers murdering college students at a university in Ohio named Kent State. My generation gave birth to Hippies, Yippies, and Flower Children; the SDS--Students for a Democratic Society, the Gray Panthers which sought to treat seniors with dignity, and more militant groups like the Weathermen, the Black Panthers with Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver, and the Symbionese Liberation Army or SLA which was made famous by heiress Patty Heart. We endured America's first defeat, not on the battlefield, but in the halls of Congress, the Office of the President, and at the negotiation table. We also witnessed governmental betrayal again with Watergate. We also saw the rise and later perversion of the "Feminist Movement", the Gay Pride Movement, Cesar Chavez and the Migrant Workers Movement for better wages and work conditions, the Ecology Movement and legislation to reduce pollution, the "Back to Nature" and the Commune Movement, the American Indian Movement (AIM) and efforts to right centuries old wrongs. We worked to bring more equality in the workplace between gender in terms of wage equality and breaking through the "glass ceiling". It should also be pointed out that we were the most materially spoiled and richest generation in history in terms of disposable income. We would go on to produce self-adsorbed materialistic Yuppies and "Soccer Moms". We became what we loathed the most.

orld stage. We have gone from the John and Bobby Kennedy, MLK, Chavez to the likes of Bill "Cigar" Clinton, George W Bush, with Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush filling in the highs and lows in between. Finally, we capped it all off with Hillary Clinton. My how we've fallen. In many respects, Hillary represents the ideals of my generation. First and foremost, she was the first woman to run for president...of a major party (there have been others, most notably Shirley Chisholm who was also black). She served as Secretary of State (but, again, she wasn't the first, and, again, most notably and more successfully, was Condoleezza Rice...and she was also black). She was the first wife of a former president to run for office, although one could make a serious argument for Eleanor Roosevelt serving as a co-President or for Woodrow Wilson's wife, Edith, serving as the defacto President following Wilson's stroke during the latter part of his second term.

There's no questioning Hillary's public persona. She comes across as someone who cares about families, women, and social justice. However, the private Hillary---as revealed by the testimonies of those close to her---plus the thousands of private emails, as shown her to be just as hard drinking, hot tempered, and foul-mouthed as any of her male colleagues, and such as conniving. There are still unanswered questions regarding illegal gunrunning deals, use of unsecured cell phones and the release of classified information, possible acts of treason, repeatedly lying to Congress, the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi which resulting in the murder of four Americans, including the ambassador, the "pay-to-play" channeling of millions to the Clinton Foundation while she was the SoS, not to mention the curious coincidences of deaths associated with the Clintons going back decades.

Hillary Clinton claims that if the election had been held on October 27th, before the FBI Director James Comey's press conference regarding her emails, she would be president today. I beg to differ. Hillary lost because she proved to a poor candidate. She showed that, as a person, she is hollow. It wasn't one particular email or instance which did Hillary in. It was the culmination of numerous instances; of numerous emails; of numerous questionable behavior that couldn't be hidden. Not every actor can maintain their mask for long. Hers repeatedly slipped when examined closely. The American People, despite her cheerleading supporters in the corporate controlled media, weren't fools after all.

The Millennials, however, are the new generation on the block. Theirs is the largest generation in terms of numbers since the Babyboomers. They are new to the political game. They haven't learned to become cynical yet. Their first taste of politics came with Barack Obama. They bought the act. They thought they had the whole political game figured out, just as we did back in the early 60's. If they were disappointed with Obama's first term, they were stunned by his second. Perhaps that's why most Millennials have turned their backs on party politics in the first place. Most are Independents (which is America's largest political "party"), followed by Democrats and trailing in third place, Republican. They are predisposed to focus on issues and move on. Perhaps that explains their disillusionment with the outcome of the election, and their (for lack of a better term), temper tantrum. They saw Hillary Clinton as perhaps the "New Hope" to borrow from Star Wars. Another chance to do what Obama couldn't or wouldn't do. Maybe it was the sense of history and electing America's first woman as president.

So, what we've seen is a generation behaving badly. They show up at events intent on destroying property and picking fights. Whereas universities and colleges were once the bastions of free speech (thanks in part to groups like the SDS), people who may disagree with them are boycotted, shouted down, harassed, while the school's administration finds itself threatened. We find some of the Millennials demanding "safe places" where they cry in seclusion. It reminds me of spoiled kindergartners or first graders. There is an old saying which goes like this, "What the grandparent seeks to overcome, the child seeks to forget, and grandchild seeks to learn". If these Millennials are seeking to imitate us, their Babyboomer grandparents, with their militant-esque behavior, they are doing a sorry job of it. Instead of trying to run away from what they dislike (or are afraid of), or trying to bully individuals or institutions into silence, they need to examine what it is that they don't like, and that means looking at the facts of each issue, which is something that Millennials are suppose to be good at; ignoring the BS and getting to the core issue, then solving the problem.

Meanwhile, we have the corporate media not wasting a single opportunity to take a swipe at Trump or his administration. It's like the first piece on every newscast or the lead article in every newspaper has to be a concocted piece designed to discredit Trump and Company in some way. We see former Republican presidents chumming it up with their former Democrat "rivals" in bashing Trump, which only goes to show how phony the party divide really is, as if we didn't already know. I have no doubt that it's intentional. It's specifically aimed at delegitimizing Trump and to set the stage to ensure "The Donald" is a one term president, and, perhaps, to prepare Americans for an Obama third term featuring Chelsea Clinton in some capacity. After all, she is the heir apparent.

So, where do we go from here? For all our faults (and there were many), my generation of Babyboomers were (and are) idealists. To paraphrase Kennedy, we saw wrongs and sought to right them however we could. But we didn't deny people the opportunity to speak, even if we disagreed with them. We did question and challenge the system. We fought for equality...for everyone, not just one or two groups. We opposed conformity, but understood too that wherever we came from or however we got here, we were Americans, and that meant speaking a commonly understood language, English, if we were to function as a society. Racism has become a bigger issue now than it was in the 70's, and it's largely not coming from whites. We sought new ways of doing things. Perhaps we went too far in some matters and not far enough in others.

However, I think there needs to be a new emphasis on education, especially trade schools, to overcome poverty, discrimination, crime, violence, and incarceration. People should be hired and promoted based on their abilities, not on a quota system. Unfortunately, education was a key area where my generation failed. It dumbed down the quality of our education out of fear of hurting feelings along with an overemphasis on "group equality" while forgetting the individual. A well educated population would have solved many of our problems then and will solve many of our problems now. Besides, it's what the political class and the Oligarchs who control them fear the most, so it has to be a good thing right? These are things the Millennials, our successors, will need to figure out.

My 2016 Review Which Didn't Go As Planned

I had originally thought about writing a nice summary of the year's event; you know, kind of a wrap up for 2016. However, whenever I started to sit down and get started, something else would catch my attention, usually relating to this, for lack of a better expression, systematic shock by the Left that Donald Trump won and Hillary Clinton, despite the near foregone conclusion that she would crowned as the first female American President, lost and the subsequent trauma which has ensued beginning with denial and then quickly into the anger stage. Now, we seem to be well into the blame stage where, in an effort to find some reason---no matter how absurd or illogical---how America was denied its "queen", how "The Donald" won (never mind the mood of the country for the last eight or even 16 years with Establishment politics), the open takeover of the country by the Oligarchy not to mention international embarrassments--American officials don't bow damn it---and apology tours, a never-ending wars complete with illegal gun deals, the murder of an ambassador as well as open borders for illegals and potential terrorists and so on and so on.

So, now, in a quest to ignore the obvious and distract Americans (again) from the reality of what's actually happening, the DNC and members of the Democratic Party Establishment have, at Hillary's urging, started to fix the blame for Hillary's loss (and there has to be somebody to blame other than the candidate herself) on the Russians. Apparently, according to the current narrative, Russian President Vladimir Putin personally directly Russian intelligence agencies to find ways to "rig" the election against Hillary (you know, like she and Debbie Wasserman did against Bernie Sanders) and to find ways to discredit her (like her failure to use secured servers and cell phones, using the office of Secretary of State to garner "pay-to-play" donations to the Clinton Foundation, attempts to cover-up unauthorized arms deals, failure to come to the assistance of a US Ambassador in Benghazi resulting in his death, the death of three other high value Embassy individuals and destruction of the Embassy itself and the subsequent cover-up, and literally thousands and thousands of pages of other "trivial points" in her words).

The story the current Regime is trying to sell to us via the corporate media, Russian intelligence operatives were able to bypass the National Security Agency, which is the largest and most powerful global communications monitoring network on the planet bar none and can literally monitor, record, and analyze every piece of electronic communication on in near real time; they broke through the communications net of the FBI, Homeland Security, the Defense Intelligence Agency and its electronic monitoring capabilities, as well as the internal security features of the DNC, the US State Department (Hillary's repeated refusal to use secure cell phones or servers surely didn't help). Of course, let's not forget that most of what was released was from the very fingers of Hillary, her campaign staff, her SoS staff, the DNC, and so forth. In other words, what repeatedly damn them was their own words from their own sites, not manufactured emails or other electronic communications---but themselves. Yet, their complaint has been that someone else sabotaged Hillary's chances. Their arrogance is simply amazing, and then to demand an Congressional investigation and enlist the help of the aforementioned intelligence agencies to help find a scapegoat, and who better to blame than the one world leader who saw through both Obama and Hillary than Vladimir Putin.

According to Mr. Putin, he was less than disappointed that Hillary Clinton lost, especially given her oft repeated promises of continuing with President Obama's foreign policies, which has seen a refreeze of relations between Russia and the US, especially in the Middle East where Obama has repeatedly pushed for "boots on the ground" against Russia long standing regional ally, Syria. In addition, Russia has proven to be very successful with the efforts to target and remove terrorists operations, namely ISIS and Al Qaeda, in Syria while the US regards them as "allies" and refers to them as "rebels" since they are opposing President Assad's government and continued to arm and equipment them while outside Syria these same groups are the our enemies. Trump has expressed a willingness to work with Putin in eliminating these individuals wherever they are located or under whatever name they are currently using.

Nevertheless, Putin has repeatedly stated that neither he nor Russian intelligence was involved in rigging the US Presidential Election. Besides, if Russia could bypass our national intelligence network to this degree, I think our priorities need to be reexamined and we need to be more concerned how we could have a failure of this proporation than Hillary's loss. Next, we have Julian Assange, the Founder of WikiLeaks who, you know, actually leaked the information in question. According to Mr. Assange, Russian was not involved in any way in helping WikiLeaks in obtaining any of the volumes of emails and other documents which they've been making available to the public. Mr. Assange has stated, however, that most of his sources have been disillusioned staffers at the DNC, former Clinton associates and campaign volunteers, as well as former Bernie Sanders supporters. Huh. So, here we have a organization with the history of obtaining and releasing information and its presidents admitting to the leaks but this isn't acceptable to Hillary, the DNC, and the Political Establishment? I always thought that the keys to solve any crime were "motive, means, and opportunity", which WikiLeaks has, and here we have a public confession too but that's somehow not acceptable? Could it be that Hillary Clinton was ultimately responsible for her own failure?

Lastly, we now have what I'm calling the "Revenge of the Talking Heads". From early on in the presidential race, it became more than clear that this was going to be about the two Establishment parties going through the formulated campaign with all the usual sound bites, glad-handing and scripted speeches as one cardboard candidate pretended to get indignant with the other cardboard candidate, and in the end you and I got to go vote for the one which sounded like they cared the most but didn't. You know, "the illusion of choice" which is American Politics these days. In this case, it was corporate owned Democrat Hillary Clinton vs. whoever the Pretender-to-the-Throne the other side would present. In the end, Hillary would emerge victorious after a "hard fought" but "honorable" race and call for the country to "come together" behind her administration and policy...blah, blah, blah. Well, it didn't work out that way did it?

Instead, we had a political outsider who the Establishment called a "clown", "the circus", and "didn't deserve to be there". Interesting. I thought anyone could run for President and it was up to us---the People---to decide who "deserved" to be there or not, but perhaps I'm mistaken. That must have been a cartoon from my youth. Throughout the campaign, the corporate media and its "talking heads" couldn't have been more non-transparent in their contempt for the non-establishment candidate or in the foregone conclusion that this "formality" of the election process was just the prelude to Hillary's coronation. No one, and I mean no one was any more dumbfounded than the camera perfect heads on NBC, CBS, FOX, MSNBS, CNN, and the rest of the corporate owned media outlets, but of those who were actually listening to the American People---the non-traditional media (including yours truly), we weren't surprised at all. In fact, most of us had been saying so all along!

Now, we the corporate media with its image and credibility irrevocably tarnished, has launched an all out campaign to shut down sites it regards as promoting "fake news". This includes not only trying to ignore them but removing them from sites like Facebook and YouTube because, well, you know, you can trust them with telling the "truth" not independent bloggers, writers, talk shows and other alternative news sites. Of course, to be sure, there are more than a few news sites, etc who put "questionable" stories out there---some of which sounding quite legit---but then so has and does the corporate media. Kettle meet pot, although I think those of us in the alternative media are more honest since we aren't often beholden to a paycheck and making some corporate powerbroker happy or necessarily towing some party line.

Regardless, I find it dangerous that the very same media outlets, 96% of which who are controlled by just six corporations---yes six---and beholden to corporate interests just like the two primary corporate political parties are should be allowed to "police" those who are trying to do an honest job and provide real news which they aren't even trying to report. To me, and I admit that I'm obviously biased on this point, but it reminds me of when the old Fascist and Communist regimes began imposing their propaganda machine on the countries, be it Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, Stalin's Russia, Tojo's Japan or more recent dictatorships in Libya, Iraq or some of the countries in Latin America. As I think everyone knows by now, America isn't the Constitutional or democratic Republic it once was. It's an Oligarchy, and like most oligarchies, it's neo-fascist in its political ideology though it really doesn't care as long as they obtain and maintain control, be it the economy, the government, the military (which it uses as its enforcer), or control over our lives and, ultimately, our thoughts---our opinions and values---because as long as this illusion of choice continues, they still need to go through the formality of elections. It's, of course, much easier if they can predict our behavior triggers on certain issues and channel that in a certain direction to get the "official" results they wanted in the first place.

By the way, there's also another shift taking place which most Americans may be unaware of. In addition to this "witch hunt" against alternative media, there is a subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) attempt to delegitimize Trump and his incoming Administration underway; innuendos, understated questions, backhanded slurs against certain individuals, attempts to place doubts and undercut public trust going on by the corporate media. It's "as if" they are trying to plant in the mind of Americans that somehow the Presidential election was "stolen" or wasn't "legitimate" and that Trump isn't the "real" President. Some have started campaigns using the slogan "Not my President" and encouraging members of Congress, the military, the political bureaucracy to ignore Trump, his polices, and Executive Orders; a kind of passive aggressive resistance. Even Obama has been doing his best to undercut Trump by taking steps, especially in regards to foreign policy and immigration, that will hamper the new administration. Traditionally, the outgoing President didn't do much of anything as a courtesy to the incoming President, knowing firsthand how difficult it is hitting the ground running. It's part of the "peaceful transition" of administrations that we were known for. It appears those days are gone and we're witnessing yet another attempt by the Obama Regime to divide and disrupt America.

So, instead of looking back at the year, I decided that taking a closer look at how it ended was an excellent coda to the year and look forward toward 2017, and perhaps beyond. Of course, if we were to look back, I might suggest something more appropriate...like 1984. Have a healthy and safe 2017 everyone.