The Significance of Julian Assange and His Arrest

On April 11th, the co-founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange was arrested by British Police. Assange spent seven years living in an Ecuadorian consulate compound in London to avoid extradition to Sweden originally, and to the US on conspiracy charges and computer hacking. The conspiracy charges are in conjunction with former Army private and intelligence analysis Bradley Manning, who now goes by the name Chelsea Manning. Assange, who is 47 years old, had originally sought sanctuary over alleged rape charges of two women in Sweden and skipping bail. As it turned out, neither of the women actually filed rape charges, but were attempting locate Assange, whom they claimed knowingly transmitted a STD. However, those charges were dropped long ago and Sweden has shown no interest in reopening them.

Over the years, there's been several attempts to force Assange out, including attempts to kidnap him from the London compound. However, yesterday, Equator withdrew its "invitation" and the London Metropolitan Police were finally successful in "getting their man" just as Ecuador signed a 4.2 billion loan deal with the International Monetary Fund (the IMF). Assange is expected to be extradited back to the US as quickly as possible in order to stand trial. His crime, authorities claim, is collusion with the Russians (yes, them again) using hacked documents, some of which were allegedly classified and secret. Assange has maintained for years that none of the documentation came as a result of Russian espionage and that the documentation had been secretly provided by a third party.

The real "crime" that Julian Assange stands accused of...and for which he is no doubt guilty...is releasing the information he acquired to the public; information which reveals just how corrupt the US and other governments are. His information "leaks" mentions names, dates, places, and amounts. Assange has outed agencies as well as high profile individuals. Obviously, that makes him a dangerous man, and potentially one with a very short life expediency ahead of him.

Julian Assange is not unlike Edward Snowden, who revealed government secrets; mostly about secret surveillance of individuals like you and me by the federal government and made it public. Meanwhile, social platforms like Facebook, collected volumes of confidential information on its users and in turn either gave or sold it the various government intelligence and other agencies. As a result, Edward Snowden was forced to flee to Russia, where he now lives in exile while others, such as Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of Facebook, are hailed as "patriots" by the ruling political elites.

Thus, I have to wonder if it's not the fact that confidential information was compromised, but the fact that information affecting the ruling elites and government agencies, illegal though it may be, is to remain private and out of the public eye, while our information, regardless of how private and personal, is free and readily available to the government or can be sold without out knowledge or consent. Therefore, we have a situation where there is privacy and the veil of secrecy for some, but not for all.

Some would argue that releasing classified government information, regardless of how it's obtained, or information about public officials, even if it involves criminal activity, is somehow different from making available the private information of ordinary citizens who could, after all, could allegedly be plotting some possible terrorist act or other crime-in-the-making. Enter the "thought police" and where you are presumed guilty first. Meanwhile, wars for profit, running illegal arms deals or taking bribes to the tune of millions or even billions by government officials are seen as somehow okay or beyond public scrutiny. So too is using unsecured servers for the receipt and transfer of classified communication pertaining to national security is apparently permissible.

What we have is obviously a double standard. One set of rules and laws for the ruling Oligarchy and political class of plutocrats, and an entirely different set for you and me. Privacy, as we know, has become largely a thing of the past. Something that once existed decades ago, in the time of our grandparents or great grandparents. We are monitored virtually 24/7. Every time we go out to a public venue, there are cameras, be they security cameras on nearly every corner, in stores, or someone videotaping someone else. Overhead satellites are constantly looking down on us. Their sophistication is to the point where they can literally read the text on our cell phone, but of course, every electronic signal we generate, be it a cell phone call, text, email, landline call, computer log on and site search is tagged and monitored. In fact, every electronic message sent anywhere in the world is monitored. Every single one. We know this, in part, thanks to individuals like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and groups like Anonymous, bloggers, and vloggers. They ratted out the rats regardless of the political leanings. For the Oligarchy and ruling political elites, people like Assange and Snowden are every bit as dangerous as Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, and his capture is viewed by them in the same light.

So, what is the significance of Julian Assange's arrest and future trial (assuming he makes it that far)? No doubt that first and foremost, government authorities are going to want to know where...precisely...his information comes from. If it's the Russians or Chinese, they are going to want to know name, dates, and times. They will then conduct an exhaustive internal search for a possible mole. Obviously, this could result in a major international fallout. Alternatively, they will want to know if the information comes from a disgruntled employee or someone seeking a little private revenge for some perceived wrong. Perhaps too, the information comes from someone who feels they are a true patriot and was just serving their country by outing secret crimes against this country. Either way, government prosecutors and intelligence agencies are going to want to know who. That potentially put other lives in danger.

But there's something else at risk here, which is far more important and dangerous, and that's freedom of speech as protected by the 1st Amendment. Julian Assange views himself as a investigative journalist (whereas Edward Snowden was a government employee and Whistle-blower). Journalist have long enjoyed "journalistic privilege" which allows them to protect their sources, regardless of who those sources are or where that information comes from (with the possible exception of information which is potentially libelous). Government authorities will likely argue that Assange is no journalist and that he runs a extortion racket or perhaps even a spy operation whose goal is to spread disinformation.

Just as important, if not more so, is what information Assange is still privy to? What "dirt" is he still sitting on, and on whom or what government agency? The reason they'd want to know is to bury or discredit the information, eliminate any leaks or potential threats (in the literal sense of the word), and ensure that there are no further leaks ever again (if this was a movie, it would be something like "The Empire Strikes Back"). In the parlance of the intelligence community, this is about "identification and clean up". Assange's trial will be public. That much is true, but there will be much the public will not be allowed to see or hear. Behind the scenes, the "empire" will be mobilized to snuff out any "resistance" to the status quo; anything which prevents the expansion of its control, which especially includes keeping secrets from the public.

Fascism, as I've often mentioned, didn't die in 1945 in the ashes and rubble of World War II. It survived. If you strip away the racial and nationalistic ideology, it works because it's very effective. Fascism is a partnership between the government and big business. In the past, government acted essentially as the senior partner. Today, that partnership is much more balanced because they very same people routinely move between senior private and public sector positions. Wealthy corporate CEOs and presidents run for office, getting elected with the help of other wealthy and powerful individuals and groups in and out of politics. They serve for a while, often with the aid of these very same folks. When they retire, they go to work as lobbyists or "consultants", calling on their friends still in office and helping other like minded individuals into office, and so the cycle repeats. Partisanship and ideology doesn't really matter. Government contracts and profit do.

Fascism has generally been viewed as "Right-wing" historically because of its nationalism, although in truth it's a merger of elements from the Left as well as the Right, based on a particular country's history, traditions, values, and political structure. That's why the Fascism of Italy differed from the Fascism of Hungary or Romania, which in turned was different from the fascism of Spain, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, or even Nazi Germany.

As modern Fascism's founder, Benito Mussolini once said, Fascism would be better named as corporatism. America have evolved (or "devolved" would be a better description) into an Oligarchy comprised of these super wealthy individuals and their corporations, alongside a professional political class of plutocrats into a modern Fascist state. Instead of pushing a solely nationalistic agenda, it pushes brand loyalties. Something we, a tribalistic human beings, can belong to, be it a product or a sports team. It's something we can rally around while remaining controlled. That's the point of today's political parties. We fight "wars" against "opponents" and reap a sense of victory or defeat. We defend our victory or revenge the defeat. We humiliate or "assassinate " the other side's leaders.

Of course, the more we can be divided, the easier it is to manipulate and control us; playing each other off the other. The more divided we become, the more focused we are on each other and other differences---real or manufactured---and the less attention we pay to the real changes happening around us; the wars over the control of resources or assets, the loss of freedoms such as free speech and the right to privacy along with the growth of a surveillance state, which is nothing more than a neo-police state.

The last thing the ruling Oligarchy and political class wants is for us to know the truth and to unite. That is what is behind the arrest of Julian Assange and others like him, be it vloggers on different ideological sides like Lauren Southern, Abby Martin, Bill Whittle, Stormcloudsgathering.com, or groups like Anonymous, as well as certain bloggers and local talk radio hosts. Government whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden pose a special threat to them because they are on the inside. The arrest of Julian Assange is also as much a message as anything to those who expose light into places where the ruling class wants darkness. It's as much about government transparency and the right of the public to know what's being done in its name as it is about protecting your personal and financial privacy.



Julian Assange: WikiLeaks co-founder arrested in London

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London, facing possible US extradition

Ecuador inks 42 billion financing deal with IMF-Moreno

The Groups Anonymous Inspired Are More Powerful than Anonymous Ever Was

5 of the most famous federal whistleblowers

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.

Hillary Clinton's "Night of the Long Knives"?

For those of you unfamiliar with World War II history, especially the early years, and the reference in the title, let me give you a brief history lesson so that that we can move on with main subject of this article. The "Night of the Long Knives" was a party and political purge conducted by Hitler and other leading Nazis, including the usual suspects, Goering, Goebbels, Himmler, Hess, and Joseph "Sepp" Dietrich June/July 1934. The purge was against the Nazi paramilitary SA (aka "the Brownshirts") and its leader Ernest Rohm. However, it also included the Left wing members of the Nazi Party, the so-called "Strasserites", led by Gregor and Otto Strasser (Otto survived by leaving the country), former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher, along with other political, business, social and religious leaders who opposed the Hitler Government.

All told, some 85 were either murdered or forced to commit suicide plus the thousands were arrested although officially, only seven were said to have been killed and few dozen held for "questioning". The purge was essentially as the behest of the traditional army leadership and leading industrial and business leaders which feared the SA as well as the popularity of Rohm, by Nazi leadership. Also, they wanted Rohm and other SA leaders gone due to reported incidents of unprovoked assaults and brawls (that is, those that were unsanctioned), heavy drinking, and homosexuality. It was, however, also believed that Rohm had a great deal of dirt on Hitler and other members of the Nazi leadership, including Goebbels and Goering, that was being leaked to the press and Hitler wanted it silenced.

Now, you may be wondering what this has to do with Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton? Well, just this. A lot of people connected in some way to either Hillary or the DNC keep dying, especially under mysterious circumstances. Take for instance 54 year old Clinton researcher and political author Victor Thorne. He was found dead with a "self inflicted" gunshot to his head on August 1, 2016, which also happened to be his birthday and may have involved a gun caliber he didn't own. Then there was attorney Shawn Lucas who filed a class action suit against the Democratic National Committee (or DNC for short) for fraud, resulting from the Hillary email exchanges with then DNC Chairperson Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to fix the nominee process and primaries in order to block Bernie Sanders. Lucas, who was in his mid 20's, was found dead in his bathroom of undetermined causes by his girlfriend on August 2, 2016. Then there was Vincent Fleck. Vincent was believed to be the individual who may have leaked Hillary's medical records which appear to indicate that she may be suffering from dementia. Fleck's death in his swimming pool was caused by a unspecified "event". The death came just 24 hours after Hillary's medical records were leaked to the public. Interestingly, Vincent was the father of Dr. Daniel Fleck, who is Hillary's personal physical therapist. Did he drown? Slipped and hit his head? Who knows?

Let's not forget 27 year old DNC staffer Seth Rich. He was murdered in a park as he allegedly was walking to meet FBI officials with some information he wanted to share about Hillary back in July 2016. Interestingly, the killer or killers took nothing whatsoever from Rich. He was found with his wallet, money, watch, jewelry, and even his cell phone. What makes this even more intriguing is that according to Julian Assuage, the founder and President of WikiLeaks, Rich was one of his informants. That means Seth Rich must have had unique access to specific information regarding Hillary Clinton and DNC, and possibly disgraced former DNC Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Wasserman, as you may recall, was fired just as the DNC Convention was getting under way for conspiring to rig the Primary and nomination process to ensure Bernie Sanders was blocked according to leaked emails, which presumably came from Rich.

There are others such as Joe Montano, age 47, who was beaten and shot shortly after WikiLeaks began publishing excerpts from deleted Clinton and DNC emails. He was also the aide to Hillary's running mate, Tim Kaine (pictured left. John Ashe, former President of the United Nations General Assembly, who was awaiting trial in a bribery matter related to the Clinton Foundation. His cause of death was a crushed windpipe as a result of a barbell being dropped on his throat in June 2016. All told, there has been 67 known deaths tied to the Clintons. I've included a link below for you to look at.

Now, whether or not the Clintons are responsible, either directly or indirectly, with all these deaths, there can be no argument that 67 close associates is a lot of people. There are others who genuinely claim to be afraid that they be next because of what they know or have spoken out about; a few have even left the country. What we do know is that Hillary Clinton has shown a concerted willingness to lie, be it to Congress, the FBI, the corporate media or the public as well as to hide or destroy evidence (her numerous deleted emails as a case in point), her repeated refusals to follow established security procedures which allowed foreign powers to easily eavesdropped in on, which included classified information, which they've publically acknowledged! Russia's Putin even offered to provide the FBI with copies of Hillary's deleted emails during their investigation of her! Seriously! Though to avoid national and even global embarrassment, the FBI declined Putin's offer, they were still able to gather enough information to nail Hillary with 110 potential felony charges, yet still decided not to prosecute. Why?

There is the now public knowledge of her efforts to fix the Democratic Party primaries to keep Bernie Sanders out and then to manipulate convention rules to block Sanders or his supporters. And as if that wasn't enough, the DNC employed "white noise" machines to drown out Sander's supporters and hired individuals off the streets to fill seats and wave Hillary signs after they forced Sander's supporters to leave the convention floor. Finally, there is her complicit involvement with the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three others in Benghazi as a result of illegal gunrunning through third parties to Al-Qaida and ISIS in order to topple the Assad Government. Again, confirmed through the recovery of deleted emails thanks to some very dedicated hackers.

Let's not forget the Clinton Foundation, which has received billions of dollars (and is the recipient of 96% of Bill and Hillary's charitable contributions). Key among these very generous donors were the Who's Who among media moguls, international banks and financial services companies, major drug and agribusiness companies, and so forth. However, what's more of interests is the tens of millions received from Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, as well as from Australia, the Dominican Republic, and Norway, not to mention several wealthy individuals, NGOs, and foundations. But the most interesting part I thought was that most of this came while Hillary was still Secretary of State. Huh. Guess no possible conflict of interests there. Of course, I'm sure their donations were all above board and no favors would be offered or sought.

The deaths mentioned above are far more than a tragedy. They represent beacons of light by which we should examine these individuals who want back in the White House. The other events---the lies, the illegal gunrunning, the deaths, and ease by which treason was committed---highlight her character. I suspect that before November arrives and we go to the voting booths, much more will come out, and there is just as likely to be more "undetermined" deaths and "accidents". Perhaps her failing health will solve the problem for all of us, or perhaps Donald Trump's off the rail rhetoric will. But one thing is for sure, while this appears to be more the politics of ancient Rome, this is certainly not my America and I doubt it's yours either.


Julian Assuage Drops Bombshell Involving Murder on Hillary Clinton (Video)
http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=45927


Anti-Hillary Researcher, DNC Attorney Found Dead
http://ih8hillary.com/2016/08/08/anti-hillary-dnc-attorney-found-dead/


Another One! Father of Doctor Treating Hillary Clinton for Dementia Dies Under Mysterious Circumstances
http://trendingnewsguide.com/2016/08/13/another-one-father-of-doctor-treating-hillary-clinton-for-dementia-dies-under-mysterious-circumstances/


Smoking Gun Docs Show What Hillary Clinton Knew Benghazi All Along
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-smoking-gun-docs-show-hillary-clinton-knew-benghazi-along-whoa/


Benghazi: Gun-running, Murder, Terrorists, Cover-Ups
http://gerarddirect.com/2012/12/13/benghazi-the-story-that-refuses-to-go-away/


Foreign Governments Gave Millions to Foundation While Clinton Was Secretary of State
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html


Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-29/clinton-foundation-failed-to-disclose-1-100-foreign-donations

It's Official: Donald Trump And Hillary Clinton Are The Nominees for President

So, it's official. Our choices for US president are Donald J Trump, representing the Republican Party or Hillary Clinton for the Democrats. On the GOP side, most of the former contenders chose to boycott the convention after discussion of some backroom details to manipulate various bylaws came to nothing, with the exception of Ted Cruz who delivered a non-endorsement speech at the convention after having previously indicated that he would endorse Trump as the Republican nominee. He later give a rant against "the Donald" (some would call it a "baby fit") that is destined to become a newsreel classic and encouraged everyone to "vote their conscience". I guess Cruz failed to note the irony in his statement since Republican voters did just that and that's why he isn't their presidential nominee.

On the Democrat side, Hillary's "coronation" was a foregone conclusion to everyone, including the media, except Bernie Sander's supporters. They put up quite a ruckus with jeers and booing, and getting quite rowdy on the convention floor and out n the halls although the media showed very little of it and seemed to be trying very hard to downplay their disenchantment. Even Fox News, which has shown itself not to be as "fair and balanced" as it self-promotes focused on Hillary supporters and had little to say about the Sanders protestors. I guess if they didn't cover it, it didn't happen right? Eventually, the pro-Sanders forces were moved outside and allowed to chant and wave signs to their socialistic heart's content. God love 'em. However, the media also failed to report on the arrests at the convention. Why was that? Because officially, there were no "arrests" since the police roundups were deemed "detentions" for questioning, and thus, there were no bookings. All this amidst the mass release of incriminating emails by WikiLeaks showing a coordinated collusion to "fix" the nomination process between Hillary Clinton's camp and DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, which comes on the heels of Hillary admonishment by the Director of the FBI, James Comey, of gross mishandling of government emails (some of them classified), the use of unsecured cell phones and servers. What is it with Democrats and emails I wonder?

Anyway, given the number and severity of the charges (110 I believe it was), Hillary should have been fitted for a nice orange and black jumpsuit instead of addressing the Democrat National Convention in a pantsuit. But as author F. Scotts Fitzgerald once said to his friend and drinking buddy, Ernest Hemingway, "the rich are different from you and I". I just prefer to think that some are simply exempt from the law, and it ain't us. As a result, Wasserman was first removed as the opening speaker and then was forced to resign as head of the Democratic Party. She was even booed offstage at her own pre-convention breakfast (tough crowd). But not to fear! As soon as her resignation was announced, Hillary came to the rescue and hired her to work for her campaign going forward. I guess the old adage about keeping your friends close and your accomplices closer still applies (Richard Nixon should have considered this, but then as someone once remarked following the Watergate hearings, when asked what lessons were learned, they answered "don't hired amateurs").

All I can say at this point is that based on Donald Trump's pre and post nomination rhetoric, he can be counted on to do the one thing he is best at, being "the Donald". His comments are often off the cuff and totally unscripted, although I'm not entirely convinced that the reactions to his remarks aren't anticipated. I think his statements are intended to get reactions; the more outrageous the better because it excites his supporters and keeps his opponents off guard. They don't know if he's serious or if so, just how serious. If you think about it, this is a great tool for someone who makes his living by negotiating with other high rollers in the "take no prisoners" world of high dollar real estate deals. I think it could play well when cutting deals with other world leaders...or perhaps Congress.

As for Hillary, we've got to see her through Bill's two terms as president. We got to see her interacting with the media and world leaders as the First Lady, as the principal player in a national healthcare initiative, with promoting programs for childcare, early education, and as a woman who has been humiliated on a global scale by her husband, the President of the United States, in an affair with an intern (one of many as we later learned). We saw her bounced back; reinvent herself and run for US Senator, and then for president. Though she lost, she managed to cut a deal for Secretary of State. No small feat. However, it was here that she seems to have repeatedly stumbled, and it seems each failure was more serious than the previous one.

Perhaps that can be excused, but what could not be excused was her cold and calculated responses before Congress regarding her blatant disregard for an American ambassador that she didn't like according to some reports or for former servicemen working in conjunction with the Embassy and CIA; neither their repeated requests for additional security personnel, for permission to prepare to evacuate due to changing conditions and increasing signs of danger, repeated requests for military assistance while were under attack and the valiant but vain efforts of former Navy Seals trying to hold off overwhelming forces (and the subsequent dismissals of senior military officers on station who were willing and able to rescue them but were repeatedly denied permission). Then there was the attempts at a cover-up (remember the bogus claim about some insignificant movie being the cause issued by her assistant?), improper and possibility illegal destruction of emails, and a serious case of amnesia when questioned by the FBI.

Then came more revelations regarding her repeated earlier refusals to use secured government issued cell phones, or allow to her personal cell phone to be at least routed through secured servers, and then there's there the issue of her total disregard in the disposal of government emails, especially of classified messages (later Russia and China offered to provide investigators with copies of the missing emails since they were able to tap into her unsecured cell phone and copy them). These are serious breaches of national security. Senior military officers, intelligence operatives and professional diplomatic staff have been severely disciplined and even fired for far lesser security violations, yet, despite being severely chastised by FBI Director Comey, nothing happened.

I have to set back and ask myself, which one would I trust in the Oval Office? I'm not talking about running day to day affairs. We've had complete idiots and inexperienced individuals in there and not much happened (I'm talking specifically about George W. Bush and Barak Obama, but there were others). They have professionals around them who can keep things going plus Congress. What I'm talking about is who do I trust to talk with our enemies, our friends, and most importantly, who do I trust in the event of a national emergency and with the "football", which is the briefcase that holds the launch authorization codes for America's nukes. Trump is a born negotiator. It's his strong suit. To be successful, and he's been amazingly successful, he has to be able to correctly read people, their motivations, and know just how far he can go. Sound judgment is essential. It can make the difference between making or losing billions of dollars, and it means the difference between hundreds or thousands of individuals having a job or not.

When I try to visualize Hillary, I don't see that skill. I see indifference. I see her raw arrogance versus Trump's practiced abrasiveness. I see someone making demands without thinking things through. I see temper tantrums and someone who has a complete lack of respect for the military, intelligence agencies, or even the State Department she once headed up, Congress, and yes, for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I also see someone willing to cut corners for expediency (even going back to when she worked for the Watergate Committee, she was fired for lying. The reason most often cited is for expediency; making the evidence fit her definition of the facts). For some reason, when I think of a "President Hillary Clinton", the image which keeps coming to mind is Peter Sellers in " Doctor Strangelove". I can't help it, I do. Trump on the other hand, seems something of a cross between and Andrew Jackson and Harry Truman with a bit of Teddy Roosevelt thrown in. Let's also remember that Trump, while lacking the political experience of Hillary, was born to be a CEO...literally. He knows how to lead and how to do it successfully. But, never fear friends. neither Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton aren't our only choices. There are two other candidates that I think merit a close examination. The first is Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and the other is the Green Party's Jill Stein. Both seem levels above the two main contenders, but we'll take a closer look at both of them shortly.


WikiLeaks Emails Show DNC Favored Hillary Clinton Over Bernie Sanders
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wikileaks-emails-show-dnc-favored-hillary-clinton-over_us_57930be0e4b0e002a3134b05


WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton Email Archives
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/


WikiLeaks Releases Over 1000 Hillary Clinton Iraq War Emails
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/04/wikileaks-releases-clinton-war-emails/