Month: June 2016

by William Skink

The plan, according to Chris Matthews, was to announce that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive winner of the Democratic nomination today, hours before voting closes in California. But late yesterday, the Associated Press decided to call it for Hillary, based on conversations with super delegates who the AP won’t name:

This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary. The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identity the media organization – incredibly – conceals. The decisive edifice of super-delegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that their nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward and undemocratic sputter.

Youngsters being exposed to this corrupt political process for the first time are getting quite the education on how dead democracy in America has become. After getting a first-hand look at this corruption, what will they do in November? Vote Hillary? Stay home? Vote Trump? Vote 3rd party?

That last option would be more interesting if Bernie decided to run on the Green ticket. Also, there’s that 3rd party Trump spoiler Bill Kristol has hinted will come forward soon to kill Trump’s chances in November.

Regardless, those new to this process will learn some important lessons. You can’t trust political leaders like Jon Tester, who declared “it’s already over with” last month (Tester, it should be noted, is one of those corrupt super delegates who also doubles as a corporate fundraiser for Senatorial Democrat candidates). And you can’t trust a media that is willing to report something as blatantly inaccurate as calling it for Hillary before voting even starts in California.

After today, Hillary still won’t have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. But none of that matters to the corrupt politicians and media outlets pushing their false narrative on voters.

The only good that could come from all this is the realization among young voters that the Democratic Party does not and will not represent them. From the head to the tail, the fish is rotten, and the only thing to do with a rotting carcass is to throw it in the trash.

By JC

by William Skink

I’ve been focusing so much lately on the Democratic self-imolation with Hillary Clinton that the current clear and present danger sitting in the White House–Barack Obama–has gone unmentioned in these virtual pages for far too long.

When Obama went to Hiroshima last month, I tried to ignore the media accounts of his visit, knowing doing so would drastically deplete my rage-reserves. Why? Because the topic of Obama and nuclear weapons is so saturated with hypocrisy that I’m almost thinking a new word needs to be created to describe Obama’s Orwellian duplicity.

The joke that is now the Nobel Peace prize was disgustingly bestowed upon Obama seven years ago in part because he said things about saving the world from the threat of nuclear weapon proliferation:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

In all the subsequent years Obama has continued shoveling bullshit from his lying mouth while doing the exact opposite of making the world safer from nuclear annihilation, as reported earlier this year by The Intercept:

The Obama administration has historically insisted that its massive $1 trillion nuclear weapons modernization program does not represent a return to Cold War-era nuclear rivalry between Russia and the United States.

The hugely expensive undertaking, which calls for a slew of new cruise missiles, ICBMs, nuclear submarines, and long-range bombers over the next three decades, has been widely panned by critics as “wasteful,” “unsustainable,” “unaffordable,” and “a fantasy.”

The administration has pointed to aging missile silos, 1950s-era bombers, and other outdated technology to justify the spending, describing the steps as intended to maintain present capabilities going forward — not bulking up to prepare for a future confrontation.

Last year, speaking to NATO allies, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter insisted that “the Cold War playbook … is not suitable for the 21st century.”

But President Obama’s defense budget request for 2017 includes language that makes it clear that nuclear “modernization” really is about Russia after all.

This is just fucking insane. While Democrats would like us to think the biggest threat to America is Trump’s plans to build a wall and temporarily stop Muslims from immigrating to America, the true threat is sitting in the White House right now, preparing for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against Russia.

Mutually assured destruction used to be the dominant rationale keeping the crazy people drunk on power from wiping out half the planet. Unfortunately that has changed, and it was accomplished through Democrats more effectively than through Republicans.

Part of it is the timing of the technology. The Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System is ready to go and starting to be deployed in Eastern Europe, which would be alarming if widely reported and given the context this overt escalation of Cold War 2.0 deserves. We of course don’t get that in America save a few cranks who disseminate the “alternative media” of the day to each other.

One of those cranks, The Saker, does a great job scaring the shit out of me with the details of this seemingly inevitable confrontation:

Actions speak louder than mere words, and U.S. President Barack Obama has now acted, not only spoken. His action is to refuse to discuss with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russia’s biggest worry about recent changes in America’s nuclear strategy — particularly a stunning change that is terrifying Putin.

On Sunday June 5th, Reuters headlined “Russia Says U.S. Refuses Talks on Missile Defence System”, and reported that, “The United States has refused Russian offers to discuss Washington’s missile defence programme, Russian Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov was quoted as saying on Sunday, calling the initiative ‘very dangerous’.”

Russia’s concern is that, if the “Ballistic Missile Defense” or “Anti Ballistic Missile” system, that the United States is now just starting to install on and near Russia’s borders, works, then the United States will be able to launch a surprise nuclear attack against Russia, and this system, which has been in development for decades and is technically called the “Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System”, will annihilate the missiles that Russia launches in retaliation, which will then leave the Russian population with no retaliation at all, except for the nuclear contamination of the entire northern hemisphere, and global nuclear winter, the blowback from America’s onslaught against Russia, which blowback some strategists in the West say would be manageable probems for the U.S. and might be worth the cost of eliminating Russia.

That theory, of a winnable nuclear war (which in the U.S. seems to be replacing the prior theory, called “M.A.D.” for Mutually Assured Destruction) was first prominently put forth in 2006 in the prestigious U.S. journal Foreign Affairs, headlining “The Rise of Nuclear Primacy” and which advocated for a much bolder U.S. strategic policy against Russia, based upon what it argued was America’s technological superiority against Russia’s weaponry and a possibly limited time-window in which to take advantage of it before Russia catches up and the opportunity to do so is gone.

This backdrop makes the coming political transition in America even more terrifying. With one candidate willing to say anything, and another candidate willing to do anything, who knows what will happen.

When the war goes hot, there may not be anyone left to tell the story of how this country went berserker, taking slow, deliberate steps to keep Russia from emerging with dignity from their collapse and provoking nuclear war.

That is how I’m sure future historians will come to see this time period if given the benefit of time and a world not destroyed by sociopaths.

by William Skink

When the Bernie Bro meme was making the rounds earlier this year, eager scolds like Don Pogreba were quick to jump on the meanies icking up his Facebook and Twitter with sexism and misogyny.  It was an odd post for an alleged Bernie supporter to write, and despite being asked in the comments to write more about the now quite contested primary between Hillary and Bernie, there has been virtually nothing at ID since that February post.

Here is the scold, scolding:

I have no doubt about Senator Sander’s commitment to economic justice for all people and I havehillary no doubt that he would work for all people in this country, regardless of race, sexuality, and gender expression. He’s spent his life fighting for values I champion, and I can’t tell you how exciting it is to see his message resonating with voters, especially young voters.

But I have to say some his supporters online are hurting him. I’m troubled by the misogynistic tone of their attacks on Secretary Clinton, their troubling ageism (which makes no sense incidentally), and their willingness to engage in the same kind of tactics we’d decry from Ted Cruz. My Facebook and Twitter feeds are filled with unflattering photographs of Senator Clinton and accusations that are often not about the policy differences between the two candidates, but personal attacks that seem designed to obscure the real work Senator Clinton has done in her life on behalf of the disadvantaged.

Now it’s June, and things are really heating up, especially for Trump supporters. I wonder if those same Democrat scolds who perpetuated the Bernie Bro attack (because that’s what it was) against Sanders will call for the violence popping up in places like San Jose to end. From the link:

Violence by protesters at a Donald Trump rally in San Jose on Thursday night has sparked criticism of the demonstrators and the reaction to them.

The San Jose police officers union condemned the violence and called on bystanders to provide any video of the incident to investigators.

“I’m disgusted by the violent attacks yesterday that have no place in our society or our political process,” said Paul Kelly, president of the San Jose Police Officers’ Assn.

Meanwhile, San Jose’s police chief told the San Jose Mercury News that there were not enough officers on hand during the event. He said there were about 250 officers and more than 400 protesters.

“Obviously, in hindsight, it wasn’t enough,” Chief Eddie Garcia told the paper.

The Mayor of San Jose is a Democrat, which makes the optics of this even worse. Not for Trump, but for Democrats hoping to stop him. For Trump, this violence against his supporters is a godsend.

by William Skink

In just 4 days a critical round of Democratic primaries will be occurring, with California the big prize. Since the race appears to be narrowing in California, the plan at MSNBC to call the nomination for Hillary before voting closes is even more odious and despicable, as it will undoubtedly dampen voter turnout:

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has revealed that the major television networks plan to call the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton during the day on June 7th — hours prior to the close of polls in California — on the grounds that Clinton has “clinched” the nomination as soon as she crosses the 2,383-delegate threshold via both pledged delegates (who are already committed to her) and super-delegates (who cannot, by Democratic Party rules, commit themselves to her or be tallied until July 25th).

In other words, as recently indicated by Mark Murray, NBC’s Senior Editor for Politics, the networks will make the news on June 7th rather than report it — as, per the Democratic National Committee, the final and indeed only authority on the tabulation of super-delegates, Clinton cannot clinch the nomination on June 7th unless she wins 78.3 percent of the pledged delegates on that date.

Which she won’t.

Though I’ve been writing critically about Hillary Clinton’s wake of destruction for years, I’m going to change my tune. I want Hillary to win the Democratic nomination. Why? Because the Democratic party needs to be destroyed.

I don’t want Democrats to wiggle out of what their party has become. I want political sycophants like the Williams family to be rhetorically hung by their own words.

I include the above political family because they collectively signed their name to this piece of supportive garbage describing, in glowing terms, the Hillary they’ve known for decades.

Let’s eviscerate this trash paragraph by paragraph, shall we?

Our family has known Hillary Clinton for over three decades. Each of us has worked alongside her on various pressing problems and issues facing America and the world. In doing so, she has become a friend. Perhaps it is helpful to hear from folks who personally know a presidential candidate. It is with that in mind that we share these impressions.

First, just no. I don’t find it helpful at all to hear from people who personally know a candidate. From the get go we know what comes next will carry a tremendous bias in favor of helping said friend, not an objective analysis of the candidate’s record and what that record may portend of future actions.

So what do Hillary’s good friends have to say about their intimate relationship?

In 1985, at the height of the Cold War, Carol was running Peace Links, an organization that had the bold idea to bring professional women from the former Soviet Union to the United States with the aim of increasing understanding of one another. This was a visionary exercise in citizen diplomacy at a time when engaging with the “Evil Empire” was risky and unpopular. We asked a handful of States’ First Ladies if they would be willing to host the visitors. Hillary was the first to agree. Not only did she invite them to Little Rock, she hosted them at the Governor’s mansion for a public conversation and arranged various visits with schools, businesses and hospitals. Perhaps not surprisingly, more than a few people attacked Hillary for being too progressive for hosting the Russian visitors. We learned first-hand how she identified problems and courageously went to work on a plan to fix them. During her life of public service, her creativity and experience has only grown, and with it has grown our admiration.

This anecdote from the first Cold War is supposed to make us feel all warm and fuzzy, but for some reason I find more recent Cold War 2.0 saber rattling coming from Hillary, comparing Putin to Hitler, to be more representative of what we can expect from Hillary, warmonger.

That said, I’m sure Hillary and Bill showed those nice Russian ladies a real good time in the Arkansas Governor’s mansion in 1985.

That’s Carol’s anecdote, now let’s see what Pat’s experience with Hillary was like.

Pat met Hillary when he was Chair of the House Committee on Labor-Management and Hillary was First Lady, helping develop President Clinton’s Health Care proposal. Pat’s committee had legislative jurisdiction over the legislation. Working closely together on health care, Pat was impressed with her considerable smarts, dedication and joyous sense of humor. They traveled the country, including Montana, listening to folks needs and doing what they could to craft a plan to solve them. Hillary always came to Capitol Hill and all of the meetings prepared, knowing the issues, saying what she meant and keeping her word. Pat has liked, supported and trusted Hillary ever since that first meeting twenty-six years ago.

Healthcare. Not a good subject, Pat. Again, I think more recent impressions are warranted in assessing this candidate, like her use of GOP fear tactics against Bernie’s push for single payer.  Also important to consider, rate hikes will likely skyrocket next year.  If Hillary knows her shit, how must one reconcile her recent attacks on single payer and this inconvenient reality of Obamacare’s broken promises?  Next up, Whitney.

A few years after graduating from the University of Montana, Whitney went to work for Hillary in the White House, serving as the First Lady’s trip director. Traveling alongside Hillary to more than 40 states and countries, Whitney got to know Hillary, the person. Hillary is funny and she has one of the best laughs you have ever heard. She is loyal, she’s a great mom and a very good friend to many. At her core Hillary is fearless, humble and kind. She is a hard worker entirely driven by public service and she has limitless grit and determination to leave the world better than she found it. Hillary is trustworthy and has never forgotten where she came from or the progressive values she is fighting for.

While I’m sure the Williams family has truly seen Hillary create sounds that appear to be human laughter, I just can’t imagine someone who so delights in death and destruction—as evidenced by this now famous clip—is anything other than a sociopath.

More evidence of a sociopathic disposition is Hillary tendency to lie, then lie even more when caught in the first lie. Some would say this is indicative of pathological behavior.

Since Whitney traveled so much with her friend Hillary, maybe she was there that day Hillary Clinton lied about taking sniper fire in Bosnia. When caught in this one, Hillary continued to misrepresent what happened, despite video footage proving she wasn’t telling the truth.

And now the two concluding cheers for Hillary Clinton:

Whitney has remained close to Hillary since her time in the White House. They worked together on domestic and foreign issues from foster care advocacy when Hillary was U.S. Senator to development projects in the Congo as Secretary of State.

Hillary is a remarkable leader with an impressive track record fighting for progressive causes our family cares deeply about. Each of us is delighted to have worked alongside Hillary to further many of them but we are most proud to call her a friend of the family.

Gross.

From my vantage point, “remained close” looks a lot like “continued to benefit monetarily” as the Hillary gravy train went from domestic shilling to international shilling.

And a colonial gig in the Congo, to boot. What kind of development projects, Whitney? For more on that, the MT Standard fell all over itself when it was “granted” a “rare” interview with WW. Here’s a taste:

MS: Who are some of your high-profile clients?

WW: We have this amazing client list. They range from the Gates Foundations of the world to major institutions who are doing incredible work, to individual philanthropists who are of very high net worth, to big corporations like Nike or TOM’S Shoes.

Howard Schultz, Starbuck’s CEO, and his wife hired my firm to better support veterans when they return home. My firm’s been trying to dedicate more of our time and resources toward some domestic work. That’s one issue that’s overlooked.

MS: How do you know actor/activist Ben Affleck? How did you two form the Eastern Congo Initiative?

WW: Ben and I got to know one another through a mutual friend. He wanted to make strategic, sustainable decisions. He’s really smart. Ben and I started spending time together in Central Africa, a place I knew well. We started a nonprofit together: Eastern Congo Initiative, a grant-making advocacy organization. Ben is very interested in politics and how to do more for people who have less.

I hope Papa Pat, Mama Carol and Daughter Whitney get their wish and Hillary becomes the nominee, then president. I mean, shit, let’s just get on with it already. NATO is building up troops along Russia’s border and we’re poking China in the South China Sea, among a myriad other simmering hotspots that could trigger larger escalations.

The problem with allowing Hillary Clinton to kill any last illusion that the Democratic Party is a political institution worth saving is the chance humanity might survive the resulting conflagration.

I know how that sounds, but saying it outright will continue to sound like hyperbole until it actually starts happening.