H/t Will Shanley
H/t Will Shanley
After spending months presenting himself as an anti-establishment crusader against the superwealthy 1%, today Bernie Sanders reveals who he really is by 100% endorsing superwealthy, one-percenter Hillary Clinton who, as the wife of a former president and herself a former U.S. senator and former secretary of state, is the epitomy of the Establishment.
Below are exerpts of phony Bernie’s endorsement speech (words colored teal are mine):
“Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process, and I congratulate her for that. She will be the Democratic nominee for president and I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States.
I have come here today […] to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president. […] This campaign is about the needs of the American people and addressing the very serious crises that we face. And there is no doubt in my mind that, as we head into November, [I’m a brown-noser who will lie about anything — that] Hillary Clinton is far and away the best candidate to do that. […]
Hillary Clinton understands that we must fix an economy in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new wealth and income to the top one percent [– an exclusive club of which she and Bill are members]. […]
This campaign is about moving the United States toward universal health care and reducing the number of people who are uninsured or under-insured [because Obamacare has worked so well — not!]. Hillary Clinton wants to see that all Americans have the right to choose a public option in their health care exchange, which will lower the cost of health care [just like Obama had
promisedlied!]. She also believes that anyone 55 years or older should be able to opt in to Medicare and she wants to see millions more Americans gain access to primary health care, dental care, mental health counseling and low-cost prescription drugs through a major expansion of community health centers throughout this country [and greatly adding to America’s multi-trillion-dollar national debt]. Hillary is committed to seeing thousands of young doctors, nurses, psychologists, dentists and other medical professionals practice in underserved areas as we follow through on President Obama’s idea of tripling funding for the National Health Service Corps [– the money for which will come from thin air]. […]
This election is about the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality that currently exists, the worst it has been since 1928. Hillary Clinton knows that something is very wrong when the very rich [like her and her Wall St. funders like Goldman Sachs] become richer [….]
This election is about the thousands of young people I have met who have left college deeply in debt, the many others who cannot afford to go to college and the need for this country to have the best educated workforce in the world if we are to compete effectively in a highly competitive global economy. Hillary Clinton believes that we must substantially lower student debt, and that we must make public colleges and universities tuition free for the middle class and working families of this country [–the money for which will also come from thin air]. […]
I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her as a great first lady [who accomplished nothing as first lady] who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care [which was a complete failure]. I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children [by
abortingkilling millions of children in their mothers’ wombs].
Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today.”
Source: The Hill
Hey, Bernie supporters!
It must suck to be gullible suckers like you.
On June 23, 2016, a political earthquake took place in the United Kingdom, the reverberations of which continue to shake up financial markets and power elites across the world.
On that day, Britons went to the polls to decide for themselves whether their country would leave or stay in the European Union (EU).
The result was clear. Despite threats, dire warnings of financial doom, and trashing of nationalism from Obama, UK Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and assorted bankers, the British people voted 52%-48% for independence and to leave the EU.
Already, there are machinations to reverse the will of the people. The media are trumpeting that millions have signed a petition to redo the referendum. But what they haven’t and won’t tell you is that the petition is fake. See here.
There is at least one thing the Brexit referendum has achieved: It has stripped away the mask from the faces of one-world global elites — for whom nationalism is a dirty word and, with their accomplices in the MSM, do their utmost to paint nationalists as extremist Nazi “nativists” — revealing them as the arrogant narcissists that they are, who think they alone have the right answers, with only contempt for us “ordinary” people.
First, President of the European Parliament Martin Schultz high-handedly dismissed the referendum. According to a reputable Italian financial analyst and trader, Schultz said, “The British have violated the rules. It is not the EU philosophy that the crowd can decide his fate.”
Schultz’s sentiments are echoed by James Traub — an East coast elite, Harvard graduate, journalist and author, contributing editor of the influential Foreign Policy journal, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a liberal Jew. (Wikipedia says Traub’s father, Marvin Traub, former chairman of Bloomingdale’s, “was born to a Jewish family…in New York City.”)
I will let James Traub’s own words be his indictment.
Below is Traub’s op/ed, “It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses,” published in Foreign Policy on June 28, 2016, in its entirety. You’ll read for yourself his insufferable grandiosity, convinced that global elites like him and Hillary Clinton alone clearly see “reality” and have the answers, while the unwashed “masses” who disagree with him are atavistic, “ignorant,” knuckle-dragging, stupid, neo-Nazi (“far right”) “nativists,” as if loving one’s country — one’s native land — is a bad thing. I added the red bold highlighting.
I was born in 1954, and until now I would have said that the late 1960s was the greatest period of political convulsion I have lived through. Yet for all that the Vietnam War and the civil rights struggle changed American culture and reshaped political parties, in retrospect those wild storms look like the normal oscillations of a relatively stable political system. The present moment is different. Today’s citizen revolt — in the United States, Britain, and Europe — may upend politics as nothing else has in my lifetime.
In the late 1960s, elites were in disarray, as they are now — but back then they were fleeing from kids rebelling against their parents’ world; now the elites are fleeing from the parents. Extremism has gone mainstream. One of the most brazen features of the Brexit vote was the utter repudiation of the bankers and economists and Western heads of state who warned voters against the dangers of a split with the European Union. British Prime Minister David Cameron thought that voters would defer to the near-universal opinion of experts; that only shows how utterly he misjudged his own people.
Both the Conservative and the Labour parties in Britain are now in crisis. The British have had their day of reckoning; the American one looms. If Donald Trump loses, and loses badly (forgive me my reckless optimism, but I believe he will) the Republican Party may endure a historic split between its know-nothing base and its K Street/Chamber of Commerce leadership class. The Socialist government of France may face a similar fiasco in national elections next spring: Polls indicate that President François Hollande would not even make it to the final round of voting. Right-wing parties all over Europe are clamoring for an exit vote of their own.
Yes, it’s possible that all the political pieces will fly up into the air and settle down more or less where they were before, but the Brexit vote shows that shocking change isn’t very shocking anymore. Where, then, could those pieces end up? Europe is already pointing in one direction. In much of Europe, far-right nativist parties lead in the polls. So far, none has mustered a majority, though last month Norbert Hofer, the leader of Austria’s far-right Freedom Party, which traffics in Nazi symbolism, came within a hair of winning election as president. Mainstream parties of the left and right may increasingly combine forces to keep out the nationalists. This has already happened in Sweden, where a right-of-center party serves as the minority partner to the left-of-center government. If the Socialists in France do in fact lose the first round, they will almost certainly support the conservative Republicans against the far-right National Front.
Perhaps these informal coalitions can survive until the fever breaks. But the imperative of cohabitation could also lead to genuine realignment. That is, chunks of parties from the left and right of center could break away to form a different kind of center, defending pragmatism, meliorism, technical knowledge, and effective governance against the ideological forces gathering on both sides. It’s not hard to imagine the Republican Party in the United States — and perhaps the British Conservatives should Brexit go terribly wrong — losing control of the angry, nationalist rank and file and reconstituting themselves as the kind of Main Street, pro-business parties they were a generation ago, before their ideological zeal led them into a blind alley. That may be their only alternative to irrelevance.
The issue, at bottom, is globalization. Brexit, Trump, the National Front, and so on show that political elites have misjudged the depth of the anger at global forces and thus the demand that someone, somehow, restore the status quo ante. It may seem strange that the reaction has come today rather than immediately after the economic crisis of 2008, but the ebbing of the crisis has led to a new sense of stagnation. With prospects of flat growth in Europe and minimal income growth in the United States, voters are rebelling against their dismal long-term prospects. And globalization means culture as well as economics: Older people whose familiar world is vanishing beneath a welter of foreign tongues and multicultural celebrations are waving their fists at cosmopolitan elites. I was recently in Poland, where a far-right party appealing to nationalism and tradition has gained power despite years of undeniable prosperity under a centrist regime. Supporters use the same words again and again to explain their vote: “values and tradition.” They voted for Polishness against the modernity of Western Europe.
Perhaps politics will realign itself around the axis of globalization, with the fist-shakers on one side and the pragmatists on the other. The nationalists would win the loyalty of working-class and middle-class whites who see themselves as the defenders of sovereignty. The reformed center would include the beneficiaries of globalization and the poor and non-white and marginal citizens who recognize that the celebration of national identity excludes them.
Of course, mainstream parties of both the left and the right are trying to reach the angry nationalists. Sometimes this takes the form of gross truckling, as when Nicolas Sarkozy, who is seeking to regain France’s presidency, denounces the “tyranny of minorities” and invokes the “forever France” of an all-white past. From the left, Hillary Clinton has jettisoned her free-trade past to appeal to union members and others who want to protect national borders against the global market. But left and right disagree so deeply about how best to cushion the effects of globalization, and how to deal with the vast influx of refugees and migrants, that even the threat of extremism may not be enough to bring them to make common cause.
The schism we see opening before us is not just about policies, but about reality. The Brexit forces won because cynical leaders were prepared to cater to voters’ paranoia, lying to them about the dangers of immigration and the costs of membership in the EU. Some of those leaders have already begun to admit that they were lying. Donald Trump has, of course, set a new standard for disingenuousness and catering to voters’ fears, whether over immigration or foreign trade or anything else he can think of. The Republican Party, already rife with science-deniers and economic reality-deniers, has thrown itself into the embrace of a man who fabricates realities that ignorant people like to inhabit.
Did I say “ignorant”? Yes, I did. It is necessary to say that people are deluded and that the task of leadership is to un-delude them. Is that “elitist”? Maybe it is; maybe we have become so inclined to celebrate the authenticity of all personal conviction that it is now elitist to believe in reason, expertise, and the lessons of history. If so, the party of accepting reality must be prepared to take on the party of denying reality, and its enablers among those who know better. If that is the coming realignment, we should embrace it.
Despite threats, dire warnings of financial doom, and trashing of nationalism from Obama, UK Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and assorted bankers, the British people voted yesterday to leave the European Union.
The final count of the Brexit (Britain Exit) referendum is:
51.9% (17,410,742 votes) leave vs. 48.1% (16,141,241 votes) remain.
Humiliated by the result, Cameron declared he will step down as PM by October. He said, “The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected. The will of the British people is an instruction that must be delivered.”
Pro-Brexit politicians UKIP leader Nigel Farage hailed it as the UK’s “independence day”, while former London mayor Boris Johnson said the result would not mean “pulling up the drawbridge”. A frontrunner to be the next prime minister, Johnson said voters had “searched in their hearts” and the UK now had a “glorious opportunity” to pass its own laws, set its own taxes and control its own borders.
German chancellor Angela Merkel expressed “great regret” at the outcome, and EU chiefs said they expected the UK to begin negotiations to leave “as soon as possible, however painful that process may be”.
ZeroHedge has a list of Hillary Clinton’s biggest ($100,000 and more) campaign donors, from Democratic National Committee (DNC) documents leaked by a group of Russian hackers who call themselves Guccifer2.
The list of Hillary’s big fat donors contains the usual suspects:
1. George Soros, evil currency speculator and financier of unrests across the globe, donated $1 million. See:
2. Hollywood moguls Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, and actors Morgan Freeman and Chelsea Handler donated, respectively, $1 million, $3 million, $1 million, and $100,000.
Here’s the full list, many of the names I don’t recognize. Note also the large number of Jewish names: Handler, Vogelstein, Schwartz, Susman, Birenbaum, Berger, Goldman, Egerman, Bernstein, Kimmel, Soros, Spielberg, Rubin, Hoffman, Abraham, Jacobs, among others.
“I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars….” –Revelation 3:9
Just remember that all the above individuals and unions are the domestic enemies of America because they don’t give a fig that Hillary:
This is a simply brilliant commentary. Highly recommend!
by Fred Reed of Fred On Everything • April 28, 2016
I love it: Donald Trump’s campaign reveals the establishment for what it is, a swamp of corruption as fetid as those of Latin America. It is better entertainment than Vaudeville. The frantic scramble to rig the primaries, change the rules, and thwart the voters–anything to defend their cozy entanglement of political tapeworms–makes absurd any pretense of democracy.
This morning in the Drudge Report: “Trump Highest Number of Republican Voters in History“. Whom do the Republicans want to get rid of? Trump.
On the same page a poll reports Trump tied with Hillary nationally. Whom do the Republicans want to get rid of? Guess.
It’s wonderful. The GOP is looking for someone that Hillary can beat. She would squash Kasich or Cruz like stepping on bugs. Trump might actually win. This the Republicans strive to avoid. What could make more sense?
But it does make sense. The Republicans try desperately to ditch the only Republican candidate who could win the Presidency because…Hillary is one of them. Because, as every sentient being has by now noticed, the Republicans and Democrats are members of the same corrupt club of blood-sucking parasites, the action arm of the corporations, Wall Street, the Israeli lobby, and those who want the US to control the world at any cost–except, of course, to them. They are panicked at the rise of someone who might put first the interests of America. Better Hillary, a fellow parasite, than Trump, who isn’t.
The latest skulduggery is the Virginia governor’s allowing convicted felons to vote. The obvious intention is to increase the black vote for Hillary. In Chicago, the dead vote. In Virginia, the killers. This sort of thing of course explains the support for Trump. (See “20,000 convicted violent felons can now vote in Virginia, to benefit Hillary”)
Will the two parties succeed in blocking the Donald? Might they even resort to the Martin Luther King solution? My powers of political prognostication would be under zero if they could figure out how to get there. If the felony vote and delegate-tampering bring Trump to the convention with only 1236 delegates, and the Republicans broker-in some sad-sack compliant loser, well, the mask will be definitively, openly, for all time off. Welcome to Paraguay.
Which would be only another step in the country’s race toward the Third World.
What would the public do if Trump were robbed of the nomination? What could the public do? There might be protests, mass demonstrations in the streets, but so what? The Insiders’ Club would just wait them out. Once a society realizes that it has no power over its rulers, it lapses into resignation. Republicans do not loot malls or burn cities, and would soon go home. But all the world would see that the Americans have no recourse, that the Insiders do as they please. Welcome to China.
But the mask would be forever off. Very, very off.
If the Republicans deep-six Trump, and Hillary runs against Kasich, or Cruz, or some other derelict, what then? Our choices will be not to vote, which will make no difference, to vote for either of the party candidates, which will make no difference, or to vote for Trump if he runs as a third party, which will make no difference. But at least we will have seen under the log, the squishy pale creatures scurrying. They will keep their grip on the country, but the world will know them for what they are.
And America for what it is: Corrupt to the roots of its teeth. The corruption is adroitly hidden, yes, or disguised as something else. Yet it is there. Consider the subprime disaster. To believe that it was an accident, or a cyclical downturn, or other artifact of econobabble, one has to believe that bankers, realtors, and Wall Street do not understand mortgages, credit, or defaults. You have to believe that officials of the Treasury, who slide back and forth between Wall Street and government like the motion of the tides, had no idea what was going on.
At the top, America is as corrupt as Mexico but American corruption is far more efficient. Among the white middle class, the rot is less. But within the clubhouse of insiders, at the level of the anointed, of the Adelsons and Epsteins and Clintons and Bushes, there is putrefaction most foul.
It is cleverly done, and seldom involves anything so sordid as open bribery. Yet the results are everywhere. Men who knew exactly what they were doing engineered the student-loan bubble. Yet it is legal, like so many scams. Huge military contracts for things not needed, the near-control of Mid-Eastern policy by Israel, poor medical care at high prices, the deliberate gutting of American industry so that corporations can enrich themselves in China–all of this is legal. You pay Congress and it makes legal anything you want.
Credit cards, which intentionally lure people into going deeply in debt and paying usurious interest rates, are legal. Big Pharma paid Congress to rule that Medicare cannot negotiate the price of drugs, opening a sluice to the Treasury. Corruption, but legal.
Under the rule of the Insiders Club, medical care is a fecund source of legal graft. Example: I once needed eye drops from Bausch and Lomb called Muro, which amounted to hypertonic salt water. A bottle of 1.8 (I think it was) ounces cost $23 in Washington, $19 in Winchester, Virginia. Exactly the same product in Mexico, $6. Price-fixing, but where and by whom? What Congressmen were paid to make it legal, or not look into it too closely, or at all?
Welcome to Guatemala.
Corruption has come to be the purpose of government, and the Club battens on it. You want to see the political equivalent of a public latrine in Uganda? Try HUD, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I promise that you will be horrified by the diversion of funds and lining of pockets.
You ask, Fred, why do you say this? Are you a student of HUD? No. I know nothing of HUD. I know much of government. HUD is an outfit with over thirty billion a year to spend, completely unwatched. Have you ever seen a newspaper story about HUD? I guarantee that it is dominated by the sacred ethnic groups who milk it like a prize Guernsey, and by big companies getting sweetheart contracts.
Or try Commerce, or Education, or the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Congress.
It is to preserve these overflowing rice bowls that we have elections without substance between candidates without a difference. Hillary is just Jeb Bush in a dress, Biden a universally applicable cipher, Cruz a compliant applicant for membership in the club. Since the parties collude in avoiding issues that people care about, the contest becomes a popularity contest of the sort found in middle school. Whoever wins, the Insiders win.
Of course Trump also is a billionaire, but he is a turncoat, a class traitor, the Benedict Arnold of billionaires. He addresses the issues that the Insiders want to remain unaddressed. He is indeed dangerous. He threatens the endless (immensely profitable) wars, the endless (immensely profitable) shipping of American jobs to China, the endless (immensely profitable) importation of cheap Mexican labor. He threatens the sacred rice bowls.
It is why he must be stopped.
H/t FOTM‘s maziel
Did you know that the retail price of the first Apple computer was $666.66?
Reporting for the UK’s Independent on October 22, 2014, James Vincent wrote:
The Apple-1 […] is one of fifty hand-assembled by Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak in [Steve] Jobs’ family garage in 1976. It was the first pre-assembled computer ever made (they usually came as kits) and is credited by many tech historians as kick-starting the PC revolution. […]
The original Apple-1 computers were sold to San Francisco electronics retailer Byte Shop and were put on sale for $666.66 apiece. Wozniak reportedly chose the price for two reasons: it was a mark-up of a third on the parts’ cost and because he “liked repeating digits”.
But the “repeating digits” that Wozniak favored just happened to be the digits of 666, the Mark of the Beast. What a coincidence! /sarc
There are more things that should disturb us about Apple, in addition to the price of the first Apple computer. The video below points to the following:
The rest of the video makes a case for Apple — and information technology — being used as tools to familiarize and brainwash us in transhumanism.
What do you think?