Friday, February 24, 2017
Protests against the outrageous activities of the Trump White House and Republican Party are needed and the ones begun by "Indivisible" organizers can be a major part of reform, as long as the control of it is at the local level; however this guide has been organized by former congressional staffers from the Democratic Party and if they're allowed to lead this movement then it could turn into a Trojan Horse that just leads them right back to business as usual with the same corrupt Democrats that are selling out to the same corporations as the Republicans.
If the Democrats wanted to prevent this from happening they could have and would have provided much better options than their incredibly lame efforts rigging the primary for Hillary Clinton which is how Trump got the presidency in the first place. If they wanted to cut into the Republican majority they could have run many more progressives instead of the same establishment candidates more concerned about serving the interests of their campaign contributors.
How many of these protests are calling for Single Payer Insurance?
How many are calling out both the Democratic and Republican Parties for supporting one war based on lies after another?
How many are demanding a much more diverse media to coverall candidates including alternative parties like the Green Party? How many are calling for Instant Run-Off elections to make this more likely?
How many are demanding that the poor have their environment protected as much as the rich? As it stands the rich have a right to profit by polluting the poor and neither traditional Party is trying to stop them, although the Democrats occasionally do a better job pretending to oppose it.
How many of these protests are demanding an end to privatization of schools prisons Social Security and much more? Once again the Democrats occasionally do a better job pretending to oppose this but often support it in subtle ways, especially establishment candidates like both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who campaign against privatization but often pushed it when they thought fewer people were paying attention.
The vast majority of people sticking to the script provided by the former congressional staffers are probably not doing much of this, since they might be to busy following the agenda dictated to them by organizers for the same political establishment that got them into this mess in the first place.
However it is virtually guaranteed that many of the real grassroots that supported all these things all along recognize that they can't allow the former congressional staffers to control and possibly limit the reforms they demand. They're almost certainly calling for much more in at least some case4s but there is little or no chance that tehy'll get much media coverage for their demands.
If this protests goes according to the plans of the political establishment we might get enough reform to keep the grassroots in line and restore the same political establishment to power, on the Democratic side for a little while but then we'll only see many of these reforms watered down or even eliminated before they try the same trick again telling us that we need to choose the other corporate party, switching back to Republicans.
If this goes according to plan then the Indivisible protests will be nothing but a Trojan Horse to minimize the reforms enough to silence the majority and keep the control in the hands of the wealthiness without cutting back on corruption any more than they have to.
They may provide only enough reform to benefit themselves when and only when it serves their purposes.
This is standard operating procedure already and it won't change unless there is more organizing from the grassroots level that isn't just following the lead of those in the political establishment.
Even the most progressive politicians from the political establishment have a history of capitulating to corporations, either directly or indirectly.
I liked Bernie Sanders in last years elections and still think he's far better than the rest of the political establishment; however when he abandoned his campaign without speaking out against massive voter fraud and tried to present Hillary Clinton as a progressive he clearly caved to the political establishment. He tried to convince his followers that the election wasn't rigged but even though many of us still like him it is clear that it was rigged from the start.
Kieth Ellison, who was endorsed by Bernie Sanders might be the most progressive candidate that has a reasonably good chance of winning the DNC chair but he also caved and argued that the election process wasn't rigged and that we should accept the results. He also indicated that he would support war in Syria according to Keith Ellison on Syria. He makes a compelling argument about protecting civilians from atrocities, which would be a good argument if that was all there was to it. However even if there are some examples where intervention is necessary to protect civilians from massive atrocities like Rwanda; it also needs to be accompanied by action to curtail the permanent state of war; and one of the most obvious things that needs to be done is that we need to simply stop selling weapons to people all over the world, including many tyrants.
A significant about of the weapons and training that we provide to our current allies are routinely turned against us; any support for war without demanding major changes to these policies around the world should be met with major skepticism.
As Miami Gator and the Miami Progressives have pointed out he apparently also endorsed Stephen Bittel a Florida millionaire that supports the Democratic establishment progressives have been standing up to. They seem to have reluctantly supported Kieth Ellison over Tom Perez because their preferred candidate Samuel Ronan probably won't be able to win anyway and they consider it important to avoid Perez who will be a disaster. I don't know Ronan as well as they do so I can't confirm that he's as progressive as I hope he is but it is clear that if Kieth Ellison is elected he'll need to be held accountable just like any establishment candidate even though he'll be far more productive than Tom Perez.
We may not be able to get grassroots candidates elected right away but even with the most progressive candidates the establishment has to offer we can't count on them to bring about the reforms we need unless we're doing what it takes to keep them honest as much if not more than the traditional media and we need to elect as many progressives as possible so that they can't just blame it on the rest of the political establishment.
There is little or no doubt that if these "Indivisible" protest are going to do much to bring about real reforms that are badly needed the grassroots are going to have to control them, not the former congressional staffers that created their organizational guideline. If some of their recommendations work then fine, they should be used; however the grassroots need to do much more to educate themselves about the Democrats that have betrayed them as much as the Republicans that they recognize for the disaster that they are.
All this talk about "AstroTurf" is at least partially right but this doesn't mean that the vast majority of these people are being paid to protest; there's simply no way even large corporations can afford that when it gets this big. the E-Mail leaks clearly confirmed that some protest really are carried out by paid protesters; one of them said that if they can't get a large crowd they shouldn't send anyone, so they should either send all their interns to pretend to be grassroots protesters or none. But this can only be done on rare and relatively small occasions.
A far more common and larger aspect of AstroTurf is when they pay a small number of organizers to gather larger crowds of people that often don't know they're being manipulated.
This is the kind of AstroTurf both the Indivisible and Tea Party protests are, for the most part.
If the real grassroots movements want to prevent this from being AstroTurf they can join in and do what they can to put as much emphasis as possible on the issues that the establishment is routinely trying to sweep under the rug; and they need to do as much as they can to remind the protesters that it was the Democratic Party that enabled the Republican Party to take over.
This may seem to contradict the idea of Indivisible that congressional staffers had in mind but we don't want to be an indivisible cult blindly following the leader right back into the hands of the same Democratic Party that sold us out during the Democratic Primary when they rigged it for Hillary Clinton.
If we're going to be Indivisible we have to be damn sure it's for the right cause so it will require a reasonable amount of dissent and discussion at the lower levels.
We must always remember, even after the political establishment steals credit from the grassroots the next time, that it was the real grassroots that does the work; and the political establishment only implements the minimum they think they can get away with.
This won't change until we get major media reform and arrange a much better education system for all people, not just the rich that study how to manipulate the poor!
if the grassroots don't do their part to learn about the most important issues and push them especially when the Democrats try to convince them otherwise then this will clearly turn into an Indivisible Democratic Trojan Horse that will ensure business as usual!
Edit 02/27/2017: The election of Tom Perez as DNC chair and response by both Bernie Sanders and especially Kieth only confirms even more that we can't expect much if any help from the political establishment claiming to represent the majority of the public. Tom Perez had little or not support from grassroots levels especially those supporting Bernie Sanders campaign and progressive reforms. This was made clear by the outrage expressed when they announced his election, although most traditional media only reported this part briefly, while repeating Perez's rhetoric over and over again.
The waiving of the rules to elect Kieth Ellison as Deputy Chair was an obvious attempt to get his progressive supporters to be part of the "Indivisible" effort being led by political insiders catering to corporate interests. Kieth Ellison seemed almost to be giving Perez a friendly lecture about what he had to do now that he was Chair and Perez acted as if he was responsive, then he turned around and told his followers how much he trusted Perez.
This was obvious pandering and Kieth Ellison, once again caved and showed that support for the Democratic establishment is more important than support for progressive causes. Only the most credulous would be fooled by this obvious act.
Bernie Sanders also caved at least to a point, endorsing the establishment after it made this choice; however, at least when he was asked about Trump's tweet indicating that the election was rigged, he said that Trump does have a point, accurately. But of course Trump gave them an opportunity to show they can stand up for the people simply by standing up to Trump.
We Need a grassroots political establishment that stops falling for the lesser of two evils trick and giving the public nothing but rhetoric; and that won't happen until we get more candidates elected the media tries to suppress and get more news from alternative media outlets that isn't censored and heavily biased.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
I haven't heard one media pundit or politician ask if Neil Gorsuch was a fascist.
(Edit 03/31/2017: When I initially wrote this article I found the claim that he founded a Fascism Forever Club so outrageous that I anticipated that there had to be some kind of rebuttal; in the initial article I accounted for the possibility that he would dismiss it as a youthful indiscretion, but that this wouldn't hold up since his political record since then was extreme right wing and adopted many of the characteristics of fascism. Since then they claimed it was just a joke, which is similar, more details on that added at bottom of article.)
This might seem rational about most nominations without some reason to suspect this might be the case but apparently Neil Gorsuch himself came up with this claim when he founded "Fascism Forever" in college and his politics also seem to indicate that he is either a fascists or plutocrat or more likely both as indicated in the following article, which went viral on the internet while the media has been ignoring it.
Dr. Marsha Adebayo explains more about how outrageous his mothers record was at the EPA, how it contributed to many environmental disasters including the lead poisoning at Flint Michigan and how she was forced to resign in Apples Don’t Fall Far from Trees: The Nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court 02/07/2017
If not for his record since college Gorsuch might be able to argue that his participation in "Fascism Forever" was just a youthful indiscretion and that he shouldn't be judged on his mothers actions; however his own actions clearly indicates that he favors the wealthy overwhelmingly. His most famous case is the Hobby Lobby case which he ruled in favor of a craft store that enabled the employers to make choices for employees based on the religious beliefs of the employers. Prior to this case no one was denying the employers to make religious and health care decisions for themselves; they were only denied the right to force their beliefs on workers and deny them the right to make their own choices.
This wasn't about religious freedom for all; it was about allowing the wealthy people that control large corporations to force their beliefs on the poor or middle class. This is especially important with most large corporation consolidating into a small number of oligarchies.
However there is little or no discussion about this or his history as president of "Fascism Forever" in the traditional media; instead there's an enormous amount of propaganda glorifying him or at least avoiding many of the most important issues.
Most reports clearly indicate that he also has no objection to the consolidation of the corporate media so that more than ninety percent of the media is now controlled by less than one percent of the richest, which is a blatant violation of the intent of the First Amendment. There should be little or no doubt that he's a plutocrats and a Fascist!
One of the most blatant is a high profile ad, presumably paid for by wealthy people that will benefit from his rulings, making it seem as if he's open minded and will treat each decision fairly, by a female lawyer portrayed as progressive from the Obama administration.
Jane Nitze says, ‘I Worked for the Obama Administration. I Have to Say, I’m 100 Percent Comfortable with Judge Gorsuch.’ 02/09/2017 among other things. she look's really sweet and compassionate when she says this, which is an image many advertisers study how to create, whether it is sincere or not.
However just because she worked for the Obama administration doesn't mean that she's as progressive as propaganda about his presidency might imply. He hasn't been much if any better than the Republicans on most issues and was the strongest supporter of TPP and many other trade issues despite his promises to be far better than Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries. He also promised to do a much better job standing up for the environment and refuse to hire lobbyists in his campaign; and broke those promises and many more. He filled his cabinet with lobbyists and presumably wore "comfortable shoes" when he met with them instead of marching picket lines like he promised.
He paved the way for more drilling in the Gulf as soon as the publicity from the Deep Horizon slowed down and indicated that he was willing to give in to the oil companies on the Keystone pipeline, Dakota Access Pipeline and many others; but only held off after enormous protests.
But even this opposition was only temporary; he still allowed part of the Keystone Pipeline to be built which would have been useless without the rest. Clearly the oil companies never would have built it if they didn't think that he would eventually allow them or if they didn't think that the next president wouldn't allow it. And they turned out to be right; Hillary might have been willing to reverse herself as she often has but they did such a bad job campaigning and ignoring her epidemic corruption that it enabled Trump to win who is the oil companies dream.
Now liberals, or people like Jane Nitze pretending to be liberals are trying to provide propaganda coverage for him and his appointments; and this coverage is being spread, like all successful propaganda, much more widely in the mainstream media than the more reliable criticism showing his true positions and how corrupt he is.
AARP has also put out a propaganda piece that sounds like it supports Trump quoting him when he says he's going to protect Social Security and asking Congress to do the same, clearly implying they expect Trump top keep his promise. However his appointment of Tom Price should raise incredibly obvious doubts about his willingness to keep this promise, since Price is one of the leading opponents of protecting Medicare and Social Security and takes enormous amounts of money from drug Companies that would profit from his efforts to privatize them, contrary to Trump's promises.
This is actually some of the much better propaganda that might even appeal to some rational people that don't do much fact checking. some of their other propaganda is so blatant that it might back fire with many rational people asking the public to call in and ask their representatives top approve his cabinet so that he can "Make America Great Again." These advertisements are so primitive that only the most devout cult followers wouldn't see through them. they were coming out at t a time when there were enormous numbers of call urging the Democrats to be united against his Cabinet and plenty of them targeting the Republicans as well.
Many rational people will be even more likely to call in and oppose the Cabinet as a result of these ads; but they were already doing so and, presumably these were targeted at a much less educated people when it comes to recognizing obvious propaganda tactics. The political establishment has studied ways to make appeals to emotions to many of the most credulous people for years and despite their claims that Trump has been unscripted they have studied how to appear that way and enabled him to do a much better job appealing to some of these people that border on cult followers that don't understand many if any of the issues.
The media has been full of supporters making incredibly bad arguments for Trump including some reported by Rachel Maddow on her show polling Trump supporters and finding out how out of touch with reality many of they are, although she has her own way of appealing to the progressives she tries to convince to accept the Democratic nominees like Clinton even though they're not progressive at all. A couple of the most obvious of his emotional fans include his Hispanic supporter who said "I saw Trump in my dreams" 10/09/2015 and Huber is such a big fan of the president that he has a 6-foot cardboard cutout of Trump. "And I salute that every single day and pray and I tell him, 'Mr. President, I pray for your safety today,'" 02/19/2017
How can these fans possibly not see how many scams he's been involved in?
I know that the media he's constantly criticizing really is as bad as he says, although not always for the reasons that he says; but his record is still incredibly corrupt; and it will quickly become obvious, or already is to some people paying attention.
For all his rhetoric about "Draining the Swamp" he's made it clear with his cabinet choices that he's doing the opposite, with Steven Mnuchin who was one of the leading predatory bankers he spoke against even foreclosing on a ninety year old woman for a twenty seven cent payment error and many other outrageous foreclosures; Betsy Devos who supports privatizing education for the poor and didn’t oppose Common core until it would help her chances of being confirmed; Jeff Sessions who has the worst civil rights record you can imagine; Rex Tillerson who is involved in so many foreign scandals supporting tyrants it’s hard to keep track and most if not all his other cabinet choices which also have major flaws contradicting his campaign promises already.
On top of that the person that is oftenr efered to as the most rational of his cabinet that might keep him under control is Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis who supports war as much as any other member of the Military Industrial complex and famously said "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet;" and "Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people.”
His record supporting many abuser of women as well as accusations against himself are clearly as bad if not worse than those against Bill Clinton that he highlighted, when and only when it suited his purposes. When Bill Clinton was his ally he of course said that there was nothing to these accusations but when he was running against Hillary he used it for his own political gain even though he was caught blatantly with several scandals including calling the former Miss USA "miss piggy" in public among many other demeaning names openly spoken and then got caught with his tape saying that he could "grab women by the pussy" and that "they would let you do anything" as long as your a celebrities which he was at the time.
Amazingly his latest pick inevitably brings one of his past scandals more attention even if the media doesn't cover it as much as they probably should. At least two other of his choices or former choices were also accused of sexual misconduct by their wives and police reports were filed. Donald Trump Steve Bannon and Andrew Puzder were all accused by their ex wives of abusive behavior, possibly even rape and they all had court records of this and stories of intimidation to keep witnesses silent. Donald Trump even publicly threatened to sue nine women when they accused him of doing exactly what he admitted to doing in the Access Hollywood tape to intimidate him.
There's a clear pattern of behavior from both him and many of his allies, indicating that some accusations shouldn't be easily dismissed. Yet his second choice for Labor Secretary after Andrew Puzder was forced to withdraw after these accusation came forward arranged a sweetheart deal for Jeffrey Epstein, who Trump said, "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life." Then later when he was convicted he blatantly denied knowing much about him.
The media hardly covered it at all but while the election was going on Katie Johnson was preparing to sue him for allegedly raping her when she was only thirteen in 1994; and according to her attorney Lisa Bloom she had two other corroborating witnesses, but that she was "in terrible fear;" but withdrew the lawsuit just before the election. considering all the conflicting stories about this, some from reasonably reliable sources it's hard to completely dismiss it, especially with his outrageous pattern of behavior of both demeaning women publicly and intimidating people through lawsuits, also publicly.
Claims that he did these and used intimidation clearly follow a consistent pattern of behavior and it's hard to believe so many women would do this when faced with so much intimidation. If it was just one maybe, but in addition to Katie Johnson there was his ex-wife, at least nine people represented by Gloria Alred and many more involved in both Trump and his allies.
If this isn't blatant enough propaganda now, for some of his cult followers, it will be before this is all done!
Labor Secretary nominee Alexander Acosta gave ‘sweetheart deal’ to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein 02/16/2017
Shhhhh - Top Obama bundler accused of child rape: Column 11/20/2014
Obama’s homosexual bundler arrested for child rape 02/1/2017
Who Is Katie Johnson? Woman Accuses Donald Trump Of Raping Her In 1994 11/02/2016
Donald Trump Is Accused Of Raping A 13-Year-Old. Why Haven’t The Media Covered It? 11/02/2016
Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl 11/04/2016 Epstein likes to tell people that he's a loner, a man who's never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
Donald Trump And Bill Clinton Share A Relationship With Convicted Billionaire Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein 10/15/2016
Edit 03/18/2017: Neal Gorsuch Emails have shown him praising Republican involved in voter suppression, In E-mails, Neil Gorsuch Praised a Leading Republican Activist Behind Voter Suppression Efforts. 03/17/2017 Additional reports can be found that he also supports efforts to consolidate media so only the wealthy can influence it and torture.
Edit 03/31/2017: Snopes investigated the article claiming that Neil Gorsuch founded a club called Fascism Forever Club and claimed that it was a fictitious club that never existed and it was just a joke, Did Neil Gorsuch Found a High School 'Fascism Forever' Club? However their own rebuttal doesn't deny that the entries in his year book are legitimate and seems to confirm them, if anything; and they also confirm the claim that he had extreme right wing beliefs in college. He still thought it was amusing to cite Henry Kissinger's quote about the "illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer."
If a civil rights activist that fought against outrages like this joked about it it might be acceptable since they demonstrate that they don't really mean it; however when people from the ruling class treat it like a joke and support cover ups of corporate abuses, they're demonstrating with their actions that they think it is justifiable to flout the law and use it only to protect the wealthy. The claim that he might have founded a club called Fascism Forever may be easier to point to as an indication to his beliefs; but the more important thing is that he, and many other members of the Trump administration have a long record of disregarding the rights of the vast majority of the public.
The claim that it was initially treated as a joke doesn't change much if anything. They still support policies that are Fascist and that is more important.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Whether Elizabeth Warren deserves it or not she got an enormous boost to her image when Mitch McConnell suppressed her speech on the Senate floor. Like many other cases when she comes up with a good message I can't argue with the message but I have major doubts about her sincerity.
The coverage about Elizabeth Warren first seemed a little odd to me when it was drastically increased starting in 2011; and the traditional media started portraying her as the greatest hope for progressive liberal. At that time it seemed like it might be exaggerations but not much more to worry about. However the closer I checked the details the clearer it was that she was very vocal about a handful of issues taking positions that sounded good and would be good if she followed up on them at the right time and convinced a significant portion of the so-called progressives to join her.
Many other problems continued to turn up including numerous examples where she adopts the outrageous tactics she criticizes when other politicians uses them; routine endorsements to candidates that oppose many of her progressive positions; criticizing record breaking fund raising while participating in them; and many other examples where she has supported the corporate agenda that she seems to oppose, if you take the propaganda surrounding her seriously.
Basically what it comes down to is that she’s just another politician; except that she has much better propagandists helping her deceive the public; and intentionally or not she’s even getting help from the Republican Party with their extreme attacks on her like this obviously counter-productive attack from Mitch McConnell, which he should have known might backfire and boost Elizabeth Warren’s popularity!
This may seem like a farfetched conspiracy theory to some but a large portion of these conclusions doesn’t fit the definition of a conspiracy since it isn’t completely secret; which means that I can and have cited sources in past articles to support major doubts about her. However the patterns of behavior giving her one opportunity after another at certain times when it helps boost her image provides a growing amount of circumstantial evidence to indicate that there might be a bigger conspiracy to plan some of these events; however even if this isn’t true checking the stories that can be confirmed is enough to show she can’t be relied on to support progressive causes any more than other phony progressives that showed how much they supported Wall Street, contrary to campaign promises, after getting elected like Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
One of the most obvious examples which many progressives seem to recognize is her refusal to endorse Bernie Sanders and support for Hillary Clinton. Another example that gets far less attention is the enormous amount of coverage that she received as a progressive superstar at a time when people coming from the real grassroots couldn’t get any coverage at all.
Many of these grassroots candidates almost certainly would have done far more to support progressive issues if they actually got half the coverage that Elizabeth Warren gets.
What most people don’t realize is that she caved to Hillary Clinton far sooner than the media indicated and that the only reason she held out with her endorsement of Hillary Clinton is that when rumors that it might be coming got around there was an enormous amount of outrage that was easily visible on Twitter and almost certainly was accompanied by phone calls and E-Mails that are less visible; otherwise it is virtually guaranteed that she would have endorsed Hillary Clinton months earlier when the rest of the pseudo-progressive members of Congress did.
As I pointed out in a previous article, one of the reasons that she was able to develop her progressive image is that when she wrote her earlier book “The Two-Income Trap” she reported well on how Hillary Clinton opposed a bankruptcy bill as First Lady and helped convince her husband to veto it; but then after collecting a lot of donations for her Senate campaign she voted for an almost identical bill. However once she became a Senator she stopped talking about that and even provided a far different version in her next book "Fighting Chance;" but amazingly reports the opposition to the bill as first lady while completely omitting any mention that she reversed herself painting a very flattering picture of Hillary Clinton.
This book came out at approximately the same time she signed a letter urging Clinton to run, clearly implying that she would endorse her if she did. However this clearly tipped off many of the progressives, including a lot who believed her propaganda at that time and they made it clear to her that this wouldn’t be a popular endorsement and eventually when Bernie Sanders indicated he would run that they wanted her to endorse him who was far better. These progressives were widely reporting on her earlier criticism of Hillary Clinton.
there seems to be little or no doubt that this is why she was the only woman Senator that allegedly remained neutral during the primary.
Her hypocrisy was obvious to those paying enough attention; but the media hardly covered this at all; so it was understandable when most of the public didn’t notice; however her hypocrisy about statements about Lawrence Summers would have been even more obvious but it got even less coverage, even most reasonably well informed progressives probably missed that one.
In her book "Fighting Chance," which came out in 2014 she wrote that Larry Summers made it clear “But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders. I had been warned,” giving her readers the impression that she wasn’t inclined to play by those rules that that she would be the outsider. However prior to that book coming out she had already demonstrated that she was taking that advice to heart and not criticizing insiders, including Larry Summers who she said, "made terrific contributions to the field of economics;" and she also supported Janet Yellin, both of whom opposed the Glass-Steagall Act helping to bring about it’s repeal and preventing it from being reinstated which she accurately blamed, at least partially, for the collapse on wall Street in 2008. Ironically the media gave her an enormous amount of credit for standing up to Larry Summers and other issues like opposition to Climate Change even when a few lower profile articles accurately reported that she wasn’t actually doing much on either issue or many other issues she’s credited with supporting progressive causes.
One of the biggest issues that she spoke about fixing when she was trying to get elected was campaign finance reform which she strongly supported as a candidate, but like most if not all candidates that support it during the campaign she quickly forgot about it as a Senator when she rarely mentions it at all. Even worse, a close look indicates that she’s shifting a large cost of campaigns to people that believe her propaganda who she may betray after collecting money from them.
Even when politicians like Elizabeth Warren do speak out about campaign finance reform they practically never discuss ways to put control of the election in the hands of the public, or come as close as they can to it; which is why I have repeatedly argued that campaign finance reform wouldn’t be good enough, since it typically changes the rules they manipulate so that they can just adjust their tactics without addressing the concerns of the public; which is why I have argued for a broader Election Reform and Saving Project Vote Smart and improving it or replacing it, which dramatically increases the public's ability to hear from all candidates, not just the ones the media wants to cover, and control a much more diverse interview process that candidates, or perhaps they should referred to as job applicants, would be required to fill out a job application controlled by grassroots members of the public and allow diverse people to ask additional questions at town hall meetings or debates that aren’t screened by a small segment of the media controlled by six oligarchies which currently control over ninety percent of the press.
Others have also come up with other improvements on our system but the best ideas, whether mine or from other people never get mentioned in the traditional press.
Instead, while criticizing the influence of money during her campaign she broke records raising more money than any other candidates for Senate. Part of the way she did this was to take advantage of all the positive propaganda she was getting from the press and asking for small donations from people that couldn’t afford it creating a virtual poll tax requiring the public to do their part helping to finance campaigns without being able to control them or ask their own questions in a high profile venue.
She writes about a kid who says, "I give you money every month and I'm taking on hours so I can give you more." And she goes on to say “It gives me goose bumps” as if this is the way to solve the problem. Many of these people donating to her campaign are relying on the propaganda that they hear from the traditional media and don’t realize that buried in low profile locations are an enormous amount of research raising doubt about her support for these progressive campaigns.
There is no way that poor people or middle class people can compete by funding campaigns this way and when they donate to a candidate like these they don’t have control over how it is spent, unlike large donors to traditional candidates that get an enormous amount of access behind closed doors.
And there is a major chance that if they donate based on deceptive propaganda from the commercial media that their candidates will take their money without supporting their cause when it counts, and all the small donors might get is broken promises just like other candidates.
This is already happening on a large scale in many cases. One of the most obvious ones is union money supporting Democratic candidates for years, yet the same Democrats have been taking enormous amounts of money from corporations as well, and when it comes time to make decisions they routinely favor the corporations while giving lip service to workers. Hillary Clinton was one of the most obvious ones and as I explained previously supposed supporters of workers like Richard Trumka seemed to favor Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, even though he was much better on workers rights and the rank and file like him much more than union leaders. Many of these union leaders decided to remain neutral during this election, often because they knew if they put it to a vote workers might favor Bernie over Hillary, when the leaders like Trumka seemed to prefer Hillary.
If Hillary was so good for workers why would she support NAFTA so much and until it became clear that the working class hated TPP she was one of the strongest champions of it; and Elizabeth Warren supported her despite this.
Even Bernie Sanders, who I still believe is far better than most mainstream politicians, has caved when he agreed to endorse Hillary Clinton and campaign for her without pointing out the enormous amounts of election rigging that was going on that was exposed in the DNC and Podesta leaks as well as enormous amounts of voter irregularities in at least eighteen states that Bernie could have spoken out about; but instead he tried to convince his followers that the system wasn’t rigged despite all the evidence that it was and when they saw through it that was part of the reason Trump managed to get elected.
The thousands of small donors didn’t want their candidate to ignore that and see their donations going to an effort to patch together faith in a flawed system. On top of that even before the primaries were over the most vocal of so-called Bernie Sanders supporters like Van Jones and several others that got a fair amount of media coverage while the primaries were going on spent an enormous amount of time defending Hillary in a hypothetical campaign against Trump instead of speaking out for Bernie while he could have still prevented the primaries from being rigged.
If they financed an interview process like I suggested in the two previous articles about election reform and reforming Project Vote Smart then the people that donate to the interview process would have control over it instead of donating to campaigns and watching when they betray them after taking their money.
Elizabeth warren ahs also taken positions against teacher unions in favor of charter schools, provided propaganda to cover up planned obsolescence, hired gambling lobbyists to help run her campaign and opposed many other progressive causes which I went into in previous articles listed below. She also avoided her own primary thanks to help from the political establishment even though she had an opponent and refused to fill out her Project Vote Smart questionnaire and was reluctant to take many positions on many issues until she was pressured from the grassroots during her campaign, but this was quickly forgotten by the traditional media. The majority of problems with her politic as are reported briefly and quickly forgotten by the traditional media while propaganda glorifying her is repeated over and over again.
Perhaps one of the most obvious problems is that she never actually came from the grassroots at all; she was closely tied to the political establishment going back to the Clinton administration and first became famous when she was working with the Obama administration; the candidates or researchers that really do have grassroots rarely get so much coverage. She was forced to retract her statement, “I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they [Occupy Wall Street] do” when it was exposed that it wasn’t even remotely true. There are many researchers like Naomi Klein, Stacy Mitchell Michelle Alexander that did far more to research an “intellectual foundation” for them to expose epidemic levels of fraud.
One of them is also Juliet Schor who exposed what Elizabeth Warren refers to as the “over-consumption Myth” and also exposed fraudulent advertising to kids; but instead of agreeing with her she provided a lame and misleading argument against Juliet Schor, so not only was she not helping in this case but she was arguing that people should essentially buy more of the hyped up garbage that they have no use for.
Using political hype to glorify pseudo-progressives isn’t limited to Elizabeth Warren; many of the supposedly progressive members of Congress lined up to endorse Hillary Clinton long before the primaries, even though she had the worst popularity ratings in history with the possible exception of Donald Trump.
The fact that these two horrible candidates could ever get the nomination in the first place partially with the help of the political establishment including Elizabeth Warren should raise major questions.
One of the worst so called progressives besides Elizabeth Warren is Corey Booker but the media is presenting him as one of the most popular candidates that could potentially run in 2020; yet he was one of the Senators that took enormous amounts of money from pharmaceutical industries, then voted against the bill to re-import drugs from Canada saving consumers enormous amounts of money.
Not that there aren’t legitimate problems with a bill that would essentially require drugs to be exported so they can be shipped back to save money; but none of the opponents objected to that part; nor did the supporters try to fix it; which should raise even more questions.
This bill would have been better than the current system but it should be obvious that if Canada has much lower process for the same drug and it is just as safe they must be doing something right and we should simply consider doing the same thing without requiring export and re-importing, which is foolish.
Why aren’t the reasons for these high drug costs, patents, ever mentioned or explained to the public?
Could it be that if they explained it the public would realize how corrupt the system is and that the government is helping corporation gouge consumers?
Well, yes that is exactly what is going on. The government subsidizes research for medical purposes and routinely gives them patents that allow monopolies without anything in return. There are no limitations on how much they can charge in return for the subsidies. The government takes the risks but the drug companies get all the profits. They spend far more on advertising than they do on research and there are many other problems indicating that the heath of the public isn’t nearly as important as the profits of the drug companies donating money to political campaigns.
Googling about pharmaceutical industries government subsidies for research or advertising expenses quickly turns up relatively low profile articles like Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than research 02/11/2015; How taxpayers prop up Big Pharma, and how to cap that 10/27/2015; and How The US Subsidizes Cheap Drugs For Europe 09/24/2015; that are rarely repeated in the media unless members of the public seek them out. These could help educate the public but only those that do good research find out about them.
Instead of re-importing drugs we could just finance research with a tax on medications that would be far less than the price gouging. This would allow full disclosure of research so that competing companies could share their research data and minimize replication of the same research enabling them to find out more about potential problems. The current system encourages them to keep everything secrets so that different companies won’t know about advancements that other companies are making and they might not know about potential dangers. Full disclosure would allow free exchange of information decrease costs and increase safety for patients.
But is would make it much more difficult if not impossible for the drug companies to gouge consumers committing enormous amounts of fraud.
Why aren’t any of these so-called progressives even discussing this?
I don’t like Donald Trump and his outrageous cabinet any more than anyone else but I’ve been looking closer at Elizabeth Warren since she first raised doubts about herself in 2011 and one problem after another has come up which the media routinely buries. She’s not nearly as progressive as the media presents her; and if we turn to her for solutions she’ll betray us just like the other manipulative politicians that have routinely done it in the past, including both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who both came up with excellent rhetoric during campaigns but showed they didn’t mean any of it when in office.
The following are some of my past articles that include many external sources showing how fake her progressive image is. Many of these sources were reported briefly by the traditional press but quickly buried and forgotten, which is a routine propaganda tactic that works like a charm for the oligarchs.
How sincere is Elizabeth Warren?
Elizabeth Warren is NOT as sincere as she appears!!
Is Elizabeth Warren supporting Charter Schools not Unions?
Elizabeth Warren is NOT a “consumer advocate!!”
Elizabeth Warren's propaganda overlooks many flaws!
Elizabeth Warren is a charismatic propagandist not the Messiah
Elizabeth Warren steals credit from real grass roots efforts
Media Conspiracy Theories and Propaganda about Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren
House Sit In Is Political Theater On Both Sides
Book Excerpts: Elizabeth Warren “The Two Income Trap” 2003
Book Excerpts: Elizabeth Warren "Fighting Chance" 2014
Shutting Down Speech by Elizabeth Warren, G.O.P. Amplifies Her Message 02/08/2017
Read Coretta Scott King's Letter That Got Sen. Elizabeth Warren Silenced 02/0/2017
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Is Donald Trump trying to incite a terrorist attack at Trump Towers?
It's hard to imagine what he could possibly be trying to accomplish with his absurd and insane activities; or what the political establishment could possibly be trying to accomplish by allowing him to get the coverage he needed and putting him up against the only candidate the public hates so much that he could get elected president in the first place.
I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, that this isn't part of a fringe conspiracy involving the Illuminati or UFOs or something like that, since that would be considered a fringe conspiracy theory, at least for now. Especially since a large part of this insanity can be explained without resorting to fringe conspiracy theories. However that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of smaller conspiracies around, since they keep getting caught at many of them and both political parties now routinely accuse each other of participating in them, many of these conspiracy theories make no sense, although others are more rational.
Donald Trump said “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,” and now over a year later after assuming the presidency, he's following through on it; and it's a disaster.
If Donald Trump or most if not all the other politicians and media pundits can't figure out "what the hell is going on,” at least to some degree, it is because they don't want to!
I'll give you a clue that should be easy to understand if anyone was willing and able to avoid adopting an incredibly obvious double standard:
They don't like it when we bomb them any more than we like it when they bomb us!
If anyone else bombed us one time after another and called it collateral damage but acted outraged when other countries or terrorists used the same language we would be so outraged that we would fight them relentlessly and we shouldn't be surprised if they do the same!
Of course some of the details are more complicated and there is some fanatical religious beliefs involved; however there are often as many fanatical Christian, Jewish or other beliefs also involved and there are plenty of moderates from all three Abraham religions and many other faiths that are willing to do much more to tolerate each other without constant violence inciting the opposition without acknowledging inconvenient facts.
Right now there is almost certainly no one that is doing more to incite massive amounts of terrorism than Donald Trump; and that could make his own hotels a prime target for terrorists. Not that I'm calling for this, quite the opposite; however with Trump's current behavior blatantly calling to kill civilians family members of alleged terrorists, without a trial, stealing oil from countries that they consider sources of terrorist activity without due process, and banning enormous numbers of people from coming to the country without due process either it's just not hard to see how this could be the greatest terrorist recruiting tool fanatical Islamic organizations have.
If somehow he manages to avoid having his towers bombed the people doing the most to save his property just might be among those he's demonizing, assuming he, or someone else who removes him from power responds more rationally.
Recently At Texas Muslim Capitol Day, supporters form human shield around demonstrators; (01/31/2017) and there are numerous incidents like this across the country, although there are also other examples where Donald Trump and the rest of the political establishment is successfully inciting violence, whether that admit to us, or even themselves that is what they're doing or not.
One of the biggest problems is that the vast majority of the public is kept complacent and distracted since the traditional media only reports many of the most important facts briefly while repeating the worst propaganda over and over again so that many people don't suspect that many of these wars are based on lies and many of the real attacks on our country are retaliation for atrocities committed by our own government, although there might be some Islamic extremism mixed in with the justifiable grievances.
Many of these peaceful protesters are probably better informed than the average Americans, so they might know that this conflict goes back decades if not centuries and Muslims don't forget many of the details any more than Americans are willing to forget about 9/11, although many Americans have no clue what caused 9/11.
Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama are as responsible, if not more responsible for the situation we're in than Trump!
They both abandoned any sincere support for the Constitution long ago, although when it suited his purpose Obama id a better job pretending to support it. They both fought wars based on lies and one of the reasons they objected to Anwar al-Awlaki isn't necessarily because he was a terrorist, but because he was far more familiar with history than most of the public and he was informing his own people about it in his preaching. To the best of my knowledge, he didn't start out calling for terrorist activities, or perhaps ever call for them; and he made attempts to have legitimate concerns of the Muslims addressed peacefully before the USA government labeled him a terrorist.
Several sources including Democracy Now Truthdigg and Jermey Scahill author of "Dirty Wars" and a couple articles listed below, which goes into much more detail, explained more about this, although a large portion of it is ignored by traditional media. The mainstream media doesn't debunk much if any of it and even confirm large portions of it although they don't repeat it often, which is a common propaganda tactic.
Part of the reason he was labeled a terrorist wasn't because he called for terrorism at all but because some of the people listening to his sermons leaned more about the atrocities being committed against Muslims and acted on their own. The most famous was Nidal Hasan who apparently E-mailed Anwar al-Awlaki but there was no evidence that Awlaki encouraged him to commit the shootings and he was never put on trial; instead he was assassinated in violation of the Constitution and so was his son.
Most of what Anwar al-Awlaki did, as far as I can tell, was inform his followers about the history the United States has against Muslim countries. I didn't watch his sermons but they almost certainly included reports about how the CIA was responsible for the Iranian coup in the fifties. The Shah negotiated an outrageous deal with oil companies that enabled them to profit and the Shah to keep power but was disastrous for the Iranian people who suffered from the resource curse. Then when Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected he insisted on renegotiation and nationalized the oil fields. Truman refused war or a coup but when Eisenhower got in power he authorized the coup.
After that the Shah terrorized his own people with the support of the United States and SAVAK. This was followed by continued support during the student uprisings which enabled a radical Islamic government to gain power instead of democratic forces; if the United States had supported democracy instead of coups it could have avoided this. Then they supplied arms to both sides of the Iran Iraq war providing the chemical weapons that were used against the Kurds, while also funding the mujaheddin which turned into the Taliban and Al Qaeda and much more.
Anwar al-Awlaki did far more to educate his people about the lies the United States have been feeding to their own people than he did to incite terrorism; and when peaceful means didn't work to get them to stop that is when they fought back with what we call terrorism.
Of course when the USA supported SAVAK or dropped bombs on Muslims they didn't call that terrorism because this is a political term they define dramatically different for their own activities than they do for their enemies.
If our enemies held the same double standard we would never stand for it and a lot of what Anwar al-Awlaki did was let his people know about it while ours were fed non-stop propaganda or distracted by celebrity or sports worship.
When Donald Trump was coming up without outrageous rhetoric about killing family members of terrorists without trial or looting countries for their oil Barack Obama and before him George Bush were actually doing it, but only those that paid close attention to the media, in most cases the best reports came from alternative media not the traditional media, knew about it.
Now we have a president that is bragging about committing atrocities and doing them at the same time and the mainstream political establishment is pretending to be the good guys standing up to him, conveniently forgetting that they did the same things, only with more effective propaganda to cover it up, and that they provided the media coverage and incompetent opposition he needed to get elected.
If the mainstream media covered diverse candidates and informed the public about all aspects of many more issues there is no way either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton could have come close to getting the nomination. The mainstream media is trying to convince us we would have been better of with Hillary Clinton, and perhaps in some ways we would, but at least it is incredibly obvious how incompetent Trump is and if he doesn't destroy this country he'll wake it up and provide an opportunity to educate the public assuming the grassroots gets their message across.
Sadly, Chief Petty Officer William "Ryan" Owens didn't sacrifice his life because he was fighting to defend the United States and make us safer from terrorists; he died because he believed the lies told by our government and unwittingly made us more at risk for future terrorist attack, the opposite of what the propaganda routinely tries to tell us. However in this case the traditional media is prepared to partially expose it and blame it all on Trump without admitting their own responsibility, or fully exposing their own propaganda.
Think about that dramatic scene at the end of "A Time To Kill," close your eyes and imagine as Matthew McConaughey might say if Nawar Anwar al-Awlaki, was white!
Would you be outraged?
Keep in mind that although most Americans don't know it this is routine for many Muslims, they pay attention to the news that our politicians and media rarely ever mention to us and spin badly when they do.
Do you really think we're defending our country from terrorism by killing thousands of Muslims every year in one conflict after another based on lies and pretending that the enemy should accept at as collateral damage even though we would never even consider such an outrageous claim if it were reversed?
This is already routine for Muslims and they know it.
Know who else knows it?
Or should and would know it if they wanted to?
The so-called foreign policy experts media pundits and politicians involved in the decision making process.
There's also a lot more about political manipulation that they've proven many of them also know more about, and although I can't report the vast majority of it in a relatively brief blog there is no doubt that they understand many of our problems much better than the reporting in the traditional media lets on. If many good researchers searching alternative media outlets can figure out what is going on so do many of all their pundits that are constantly doing a bad job spinning facts in their own favor.
They've understood this for decades if not hundreds of years and there is plenty of research to show how they've done just that some of it going back, at least to the nineteenth century when William Tweed was outraged by Thomas Nast's cartoons and famously allegedly said, “Stop them damn pictures, I don’t care so much what the papers write about me. My constituents can’t read. But, damn it, they can see pictures.“ And Then Boss Tweed said, “Stop them damn pictures”
Or at least this was somewhat famous when he said it and well remembered by a small percentage of the public that keep track of history, but the vast majority of the public doesn't read now much more than they did then, and when they do it is often the shallowest tabloid trash that has little or no credibility.
Since then they've done much more research to learn how to manipulate the public and as the Podesta and DNC E-Mails indicate they've been putting that research to work for decades and as I pointed out in Frank Luntz confesses to sabotaging democratic process for clients the Republicans have been just as bad, and even report many of their manipulation tactics in books along with lame denials and their followers still fall for the same scams.
They also have plenty of research available to know that there policies are destructive and, even if they wanted to deny to themselves that sacrifice zones were growing in abandoned inner cities and other parts of the world there have been plenty of protests informing them for decades even if they don't report it, so they had to know that taking the extreme positions they've been taking would lead to disaster.
There's even a quote from The Declaration of Independence, that clearly indicates they understood that if they don't push the public too far they won't rebel, "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, ..." If they wanted to understand that pushing the public too far with their extreme policies they could have and would have anticipated this massive protest against Trump.
And they also know that they can control who is elected, or at least limit it to a small number of choices by simply not giving the best candidates the coverage they need. This is exactly what they've been doing for decades; and despite all the criticism that Trump has been heaping on the media and the efforts they've made to expose his scams after it was too late to stop him from getting elected it is clear that many of them know that Trump never could have been elected if they hadn't given him obsession coverage and put him up against a candidate that was so horrible that she couldn't even beat Trump.
Does anyone still think we should completely rule out the Illuminati or UFOs or something like that?
Well when it comes to the most extreme exaggerations yes; and if more traditional research explains all the absurdities that are going on then perhaps we should remain skeptical of these fringe theories.From a scientific point of view we shouldn't try to prove one theory or another; instead we should go through the process of figuring out which one is true, which will provide evidence as we go.
However if there is evidence of major unsolved mysteries, if might not be such a good idea to completely rule them out, at least not until considering them more carefully. Most of these bizarre theories can't possibly be true in their entirety; but many of them might have some good points and if traditional media and so-called mainstream science refuses to acknowledge many unsolved mysteries.
When there are legitimate unsolved mysteries that might impact the long term development of our ancestors it is highly unscientific to pretend they don't exist to prove our preconceived ideas.
And, it's time to admit to ourselves that Donald Trump did not get elected despite the opposition of the political establishment; he was elected because they drove the country to the edge and gave Trump the coverage he needed to appeal the the most disenfranchised people that political strategists have been studying for years.
Now they're trying to present themselves as the good guys compared to the fanatical Trump without acknowledging that they helped him get elected.
The levels of corruption are so extreme that it isn't even in the best interest of those that are benefiting from it, since they already have much more money than they could ever use and they need a stable society to benefit from it but they're pushing the economic system they rely on over the edge, and it is so obvious that even they have to know that it can't be sustained. Donald Trump promised to do one thing then did the opposite on almost every subject with cabinet choices that include an EPA secretary that opposes environmental protection, a labor secretary that opposes protection of workers rights a secretary of HUD that claims the pyramids were built for grain storage by Joseph, an education secretary that has destroyed education in Michigan and has admitted that "We do expect something in return, .... We expect a return on our investment" for campaign contributions which is admitting to a felony since this is an obvious quid pro quo, a secretary of energy who couldn't remember that he wanted to eliminate this department and indicated that he has little or no idea what it does and a nomination for the Supreme Court that is a former president of "Fascism Forever."
This has gone viral on the internet; however amazingly the traditional media continues to pretend it doesn’t exist in the majority of their coverage so far. It is inevitable that Neil Gorsuch will be asked about it before his confirmation and he could, and probably will argue that it was a “youthful indiscretion,” and he’s not a fascist, which is a standard argument acceptable for the wealthy, although not acceptable for the rest of us.
However this will be difficult for a rational person to believe, unless they want to ignore most facts like typical politicians, when considering his support for the Hobby Lobby case. This decision allegedly protects religious liberty; however it only protects it for employers not for employees. The Hobby Lobby case allowed companies to deny coverage based on the religious beliefs of the owners with no regard for the religious beliefs of employees who may want to control their own health care decisions and their own religious beliefs. If this decision had gone the other way it would not have infringed on the rights of the owners of corporations to make their own health care and religious decisions for themselves; it would only have deprived them of the right to force their beliefs on their employees which they shouldn’t be able to do anyway.
This decision gives more power to executives, who aren’t accountable to the democratic process, at the expense of workers. This is especially important with large corporations consolidating into a small number of oligarchies controlling most if not all of the economy.
We now allow a fraction of one percent of the public to control well over ninety percent of the media, which is a clear bad obvious violation of the intent of the First amendment. So it is also important to know if he supports Citizens United, Buckly v. Valeo and a few other major cases are part of the complex justification to make this possible burying the details in long arguments the vast majority of the public never read. Donald Trump came up with rhetoric saying that he would stand up to corporate corruption; but it is now clear that he’s doing the opposite, and Neil Gorsuch doesn’t appear to be any exception.
But it’s easy for people to understand how outrageous it is to allow a fraction of one percent to control well over ninety percent of the media.
This is just one of many court decisions that are clearly designed to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the vast majority of the public. As I explained previously in Florida Has History Of Some Of Worst Abuses At Schools a couple of other include a decision that allows corporal punishment to be used against school children even when it is excessive and there is no due process; and another one that allows the wealthy to get a far better education than the poor who aren’t entitled to be educated well enough to realize how they’re being manipulated by the wealthy.
Additional evidence raising doubts come from his family including his mother who served under the Reagan administration and had no regard for environmental protection, at least for areas where poor people live, which includes the vast majority of pollution according to Apples Don’t Fall Far from Trees: The Nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court 02/07/2017
Neil Gorsuch is clearly a plutocrat along with the rest of Trump’s administration and they want to keep control of the government in the hands of the elites they pretend to stand up to just like any other politician.
This is just a small fraction of the insanity in this presidency and it is clear that many of the people that control the political establishment and the media knew all a long how to ensure that a candidate this insane could never get elected. His advisers must know how to at least do a better job pretending to have a sincere presidency.
As far fetched as it sound there has to be more to this than they're letting on and it isn't just that Donald Trump was so good at manipulating the media so they would give him the coverage he needed to get elected as the media often implies; however there are some things that we can be sure of regardless of what is going on or why we should all be demanding major electoral reform and a much more diverse media that covers all candidates. We need to start electing people that aren't pre-selected by the media and political establishment and we need to demand much more disclosure about what our government is doing and why among many other things.
If this is a much larger conspiracy of some sort than what could be so important that it would be worth all this insanity?
Is there any hard easy evidence of what is going on? Or at least to a major unsolved mystery that indicates that an enormous amount of what we're led to believe isn't true?
There might be, and there is definitely hard evidence of major unsolved mysteries that go back thousands of years, although there's little or no hard evidence to connect it with this unless you count a seemingly far fetched interpretation of the Apocalypse from the Bible, which sounds far more like the current circumstances than many reasonable skeptics might expect it to. However this isn't the most conclusive evidence of a major unsolved mystery.
The hardest evidence that is almost impossible to deny involves the megaliths from ancient history including some over seven hundred tons that were moved hundreds of miles allegedly with only technology that was available to primitive man, yet experiments for megaliths above ten tons ran into major problems that involved cheating to get partial success, at best and above forty tons they didn't even try to do any, after failing with the ones close to it as I explained in 107 Wonders of the Ancient World. This may sound like the theories provided in Ancient Aliens of some other flawed book or TV show however as I explained in UFO Hypothesis with rational use of Occam's Razor and several other articles, most of these higher profile theories are full of obvious blunders so they can't possibly be true in their entirety. But at least they don't pretend these major unsolved mysteries don't exist.
However even though there are a lot of false facts in these shows and they can't be relied on as reliable sources occasionally they get somethings that are right and can be confirmed independently. In order to sort through it it requires a lot of familiarity with many different subjects that aren't widely reported by the mainstream media.
As I said the Book of Apocalypse is far more similar to what is going on than a reasonable skeptic might expect; I went into this more previously in Yes Virginia There Is A Trump And Clinton Conspiracy; and the absurd actions of Donald Trump the political establishment and the media continues to look as insane as the situation described in this book. If anything instead of looking less like the Apocalypse it is looking more like it, in some ways. In the book of Apocalypse, "the beast was taken prisoner, together with the false prophet" .... "and they were were hurled alive into the fiery lake of burning sulphur." If you consider this somewhat close to what might be coming soon it could mean that if this is following a variation of this alleged prophecy Donald Trump might be removed from power as soon as it suits "God's" purposes.
There are already enough signs to indicate this is a strong possibility; ironically one of them might be one of the rare occasions where he actually comes closer to the truth than most politicians, which seems to happen from time to time. Usually when this happens it is about something controversial and they don’t want the public taking it seriously and, intentionally or not Trump makes statements that don’t seem credible to most people but comes close to the truth, when you sort out the details.
One of those times was when he said that John McCain wasn’t a war hero because he was captured. His reasoning was wrong but his point was valid; he wasn’t a war hero because he was fighting a war based on lies and dropped bombs on civilians, which is cowardly, although by getting caught he paid the price for his crimes, although propaganda was used to make him seem like a hero.
The most recent one was when he said "We've got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country's so innocent?" which was correct and many of those murders weren’t even remotely justified, often for wars based on lies.
The traditional political establishment responds with outrage and the only rational reviews of the statement are in alternative media outlets or very rare traditional media outlets that get buried where few people find them. They also routinely misuse the definition of the word “compare” for propaganda purposes. If you look at most dictionaries they provide at least two definitions, 1. “to liken” and 2. “to analyze the similarities and differences.” The second is far more useful for a rational debate that wants to get to the truth; this enables people to consider the legitimate problems and fix them.
The first “to liken” is of course the one they use for propaganda purposes; with the second there is no need to claim that Trump claimed we were the moral equivalency to Russia which does have their share of problems. The traditional media and political establishment is acting with self righteous indignation to avoid any discussion of the many legitimate problems and put all the blame on Trump.
That doesn’t mean Trump doesn’t deserve his share of the blame he was for the Iraq war as indicated on his interview with Howard Stern despite his denials and he acts as if it is justified to continue bombing and torturing people anyway. If he really wanted a legitimate claim to the high ground he would argue to end the wars based on lies; unfortunately the only place to find this argument is in alternative media outlets where peace advocates and civil rights workers get their only chance to present their views since the establishment media is very selective about letting them speak.
If the investigation into his Russian connections or bad press from his smearing the United States saying that we “have a lot of killers, you think we’re so innocent,” isn’t enough to get him impeached justifiably or not there’s an incredibly long list of other reasons that could do so, many of which are justified; however they’ve been ignored for a long time. The truth is that if they wanted to use justifiable reasons to impeach him they could have done a better job reporting on him long before he became the front runner instead of giving him obsession coverage.
The truth is that if they did a better job neither Trump nor Clinton could have ever come close to getting the nomination let alone being elected president!
Assuming you believe that "God" is staging many of these Biblical events and will continue doing so at least until he fulfills his purpose what ever that is, as many religious people do.
However any reasonable skeptic would hesitate, at best, to take this too seriously, especially without a significant amount of corroborating evidence and peer review, as they should. For true believers these prophecies can be interpreted in many ways to support a variety of contradictory beliefs; a rational skeptic wouldn't considered it credible evidence of anything without much more evidence. But, as I said in past articles, even if there isn't anything to it, it is worth considering since religious people involved in many of the most important decisions believe it and because of major unsolved mysteries that indicate there might be problems with the traditional scientific beliefs.
We already have enough evidence to prove that many of the conclusions about "God," if he exists, that religious people choose to believe can't possibly be true and it comes from their own Bible which they consider the word of God. In Exodus 14:4 it says God or Yahweh "shall then make Pharaoh stubborn" (some translations say "obstinate" or "harden his heart") so that he doesn't obey God's orders then he uses this as an excuse to show his powers and terrorize the Pharaoh and his entire army and eventually the entire Egyptian people and at other times in the Bible the entire human race. In Matthew 10; 34-7 Jesus says "it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword" and he goes on to say that he'll turn family members against each other if they don't love Jesus or his God more than their own family.
This is enough evidence to prove that if their "God" does exist and the Biblical version of him is close to being accurate he's not merciful or benevolent as they chose to believe, nor is he a reliable source of morality; if this hypothetical "God" exists at all he's the greatest control freak, or cult leader, the human race has ever known staging atrocities presumably for his own reasons to accomplish an unknown goal. If the Bible isn't the literal truth of God then it is still used to inspire his religion and if it isn't what he intended then if he was as benevolent as he's made out to be then he could have, and would have, opened up an honest line of communications so that these misunderstandings wouldn't happen and then he could have at least tried to prevent a lot of atrocities like the Crusades, inquisitions and Holocaust.
As Richard Gabriel, a professor and Biblical historian, puts it, “How does one reconcile that with the idea that some people use the bible as a guide to their life? Well, one would either have to admit that history is wrong, and I don’t think that it is, or that God is a savage creature, in that the instruction of the bible is certainly full of enough violence to give rise to the question of what kind of a God, if there is one, would permit this?” (The History Channel in "Bible Battles")
If God doesn't exist then he has nothing to do with what is going on, although the belief in a non-existent God does; however if there is an unknown advanced intelligence influencing the enormous monuments that haven't been explained and inspiring religions that constantly fight against each other what could he possibly be trying to accomplish? How could he gain from this?
In several previous articles I speculated about the possibility that, although the hypothesis presented by most Ancient Astronaut theorists presented on "Ancient Aliens" are seriously flawed they might have the basic idea right and there might have been some kind of advanced intelligence that managed to travel the long distances with the help of Artificial Intelligence and long lasting technology that would still take hundreds if not thousands of years to get from one solar system to another. If this is the case they might have done experiments, including some that were to dangerous to do on their own planet and others that might have to be adjusted to to different environments on other planets, like ours. In "God's Not Dead" But Is He Nice? I speculated about the possibility that Ancient Aliens might be involved researching Climate Change; and in Multinationals Are Using Public For Research On Massive Scale that they might have allowed their technology to be shared one way or anther with people within the scientific and political community and used to to develop many modern medications which they're using the public as research subjects.
In both these cases, even if there is no alien technology there is still an enormous amount of research on both medical developments using the public as research subjects and Climate Change, as it would be developed normally; however that has been extremely rapid over the past few decades, especially compared to thousands of years developing technology at a relatively slow pace.
If there is no help from alien technology why is our technology all of a sudden developing so fast?
Also whether there is something to this far-fetched theory or not there will almost certainly be arguments to claim that keeping secrets is in the best interests of the majority of the public; in fact there already have, however those are terrible. The most common claim is that they’re keeping secrets for national security reasons but this is routinely exposed when the truth partially leaked out and it is clear that we’re selling weapons that routinely wind up in the hands of the enemy and that many of the attacks against us are retaliation for wars, based on lies.
If they’re using us for research subjects on a massive scale then they could argue that it’s for our best interests; however that wouldn’t be true anymore than it is true that when researchers use guinea pigs, rats or monkeys they’re looking out for the best interests of the research subject. The only difference is that it would be humans being sacrificed for research. Like many research projects, with or without alien technology the poor are used as subjects and the rich control the benefits and keep most if not all for themselves.
If they really were looking out for the best interests of the majority there would be no need for all this secrecy so the existence of secrecy is evidence that they’re definitely not looking out for the best interest of the majority.
The best they could reasonably argue is that there are mitigating circumstances and that we could benefit from this research when it is disclosed; however if that were the case and they wanted to minimize the damage they would allow disclosure in the most effective way possible, so for now even that isn’t a possibility.
However we shouldn't assume that there can't be other explanations for many of the things that are going on, especially since, the vast majority, if not all, of recent events doesn't involve anything that would be considered paranormal or supernatural, that is often attributed to "God;" and there's also an enormous amount of research, including the disclosures by Wikileaks to indicate that there is a vast conspiracy to manipulate the elections and that the reason Trump was elected was at least partially a result of that conspiracy, although most interpretation of this conspiracy seems to indicate that they tried to rig the nomination for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump because they thought he would be easy to beat.
In the Book of Apocalypse God allegedly let's Satan out when it suits his purposes and promises to do so in the future without any explanation of what he's trying to accomplish or why. Recent history shows that our political leaders do somethings very similar constantly leading us into one war after another; and they know how to manipulate the vast majority of the public by appealing to their emotions and often turning them against each other.
There are some things that we should be able to understand either way. Regardless of how or why our politicians are leading us into one war after another they've proven that they can't be trusted to control our government and we need to do far more to elect people from the grassroots that are actually accountable to the public. Ending these wars based on lies is just one of many obvious things that needs to be done like protecting the environment repairing the election system controlled by the elites, ending outsourcing so we can have local labor and dramatically reduce shipping and distribution costs redirecting the expenses to workers or consumers, and exposing the manipulation tactics that our politicians have been using to control us so that the majority of the public will stop falling for their scams one time after another.
This means relying much more on alternative media outlets at least until we can get major media reform, which would allow much more diverse ideas from many different points of views.
We also need to expose the fear-mongering which both political parties are participating in.
In addition to the protest that took place at the Texas Capital Support poured in after mosque burns 01/30/2017 from many people that are doing far more to counter Trump's divisive rhetoric and irrational bans or threats to invade countries. If these people can do more to influence decision then a lot can be done to show that terrorism isn't the way to respond; however there are enormous efforts by the Democratic Party to take credit for this. If this is successful they can use it to regain power and do the same outrageous things that helped get us into this mess in the first place.
Right now we can be certain that we're getting stuck with an enormous tab to protect Trump Towers and Donald Trump is not only cons=ducting activities that will incite an attack against his own property but against all of us.
We should be calling for full disclosure of this and everything else that impacts society the way it would really be done if it were a democracy as our political leaders pretend it is.
In a real democracy it is absolutely necessary to give the public the information and the education that they need to participate in the democratic decision making process. this has to include educating the public about manipulation tactics that the elite have been using to convince the public to vote against their own interests over and over again.
The people from the UFO community may not be right about everything; and a disclosure effort should be designed to prove that aliens exist, unless they actually do, but they've done far more than most people to call for disclosing the full truth of what is going on than most people.
Also anyone that does enough research into political history and recent events must know or at least suspect that if the leading members of the political establishment and those that control the media wanted to stop Trump from taking this country to such an extreme and insane position they could have and almost certainly would have.
Unless they have a bizarre undisclosed motive of some sort. They must know that if he keep going as he is it won't even be in their own best interests. Efforts to prevent total destruction should be helped even if it helps prevent the destruction of the elites; however in order to prevent this from happening again they need to be exposed and removed from power.
Donald Trump has been coming up with so many insane things that it is hard to imagine that the media, which routinely refuses to give coverage to the most rational grassroots candidates that come up with the most effective political policies on one issue after another couldn't have prevented him from getting elected. They've been covering one fanatical clown after another in the Republican Party with the help of political advisors like Frank Luntz, or Dick Morris and many others to tell them the most effective ways of convincing the public to vote against their own best interests they had to know if they pushed it to an extreme something disastrous would eventually happen, and unless the grassroots stop it that is what will happen soon.
This is true whether it is related to a far-fetched Apocalypse hypothesis or not.
The following are some sources or related articles to this one:
Betsy DeVos, Trump’s Big-Donor Education Secretary 11/23/2016
Trump's Supreme Court pick Neil Gorusch founded and led club called 'Fascism Forever' against liberal faculty at his elite all-boys DC prep school 02/01/2017
OFFICIALS: Trump Authorized Raid That Killed Civilians Without Proper Intelligence, Backup For SEALs 02/01/2017
Trump’s First Military Raid Killed An 8-Year-Old American Girl And A Navy SEAL (VIDEO) 01/31/2017
Jeremy Scahill: The Secret Story Behind Obama's Assassination of Two Americans in Yemen 05/27/2013
Inside America’s Dirty Wars How three US citizens were killed by their own government in the space of one month in 2011. 05/13/2013
Secret Service wants to shut down traffic on Fifth Ave. around Trump Tower when the President-elect is in town: sources 11/14/2014