Sunday, October 30, 2016

A presidential pardon for Hillary?

An aspect not yet mentioned -- have any of you seen or heard a peep? -- Presidential pardon.
There must be whole bunches of folks thinking hard about this, but no one is talking. Please, start the conversation. I want to hear from youse guys, what do you think?
If Hillary loses, Obama pardons her in a heartbeat. If she wins, ditto (or not?), but with ***unprecedented*** political consequences, which would take the US political system into truly uncharted territory. And then... what about a pardon in the next few days, before the election? Boom! A frikkin' political nuke,.. in an electoral season where the spectacle leaps by the minute to a new, ever more spectacularly outrageous level.
So far, deafening silence. Mum's the word. How is that possible? I mean shouldn't the Trump side at least, be going to town, preemptively shouting their condemnation of the planned, expected, predictable, and thoroughly corrupt nature of a looming -- yeah, speculative and semi-fictional like the Russia/Wikileaks/Trump Manchurian candidacy, but so what? -- Presidential pardon?
Ford pardoned NIxon ***on the way out***, a totally different creature than a pardon for Hillary ***on the way in***.
I'm goin' a little crazy wondering, astonished, "How?,... Why?,... the silence?
Surely someone has said something and I've just missed it, right? Help me out here.

Friday, October 14, 2016

What the thunder said

The entire establishment is scared shitless of Trump. His bid for the presidency is nothing less than a revolution in American politics -- a challenge to their "ownership" of the country --

-- and they are going all out to prevent his election. This will no doubt have some limited success  Without question, it is the conventional, proven technique for manipulating public opinion. But the world is changing. The internet as an alternative source of info has broken the MSM monopoloy on "narrative" construction, so there is mounting cognitive dissonance created by the conflicting narratives. And that dissonance actually **forces** people to think, forces people to **learn to think**.
It has often been said, in frustration and disgust, that the American people are stupid. I understand the situation, but I just don't think it's as bad as one might think. People who are intentionally manipulated, misled, maleducated, and propagandized, may speak about the world, and do things at the voting booth, that seem "stupid" to you, particularly if your political views are not theirs. But when people have no real choice, any vote they cast will look stupid. So what's really going on -- in my view -- is not stupidity, but helplessness.
Not stupidity. And the Trump movement phenomenon demonstrates this. Millions of regular people from across the political spectrum have thrown in with Trump. They are smart enough to know that they have been getting screwed "by a system that threw them overboard thirty years ago", and now, long-frustrated, their instinctive intelligence sees and seizes the opportunity to actually vote in their own interest,... for the first time in my lifetime (67 years). For Trump the blue-collar billionaire. Despite all his wealth, Trump is one of them: a blunt-to-the-point-of-rudeness, NY working-class, horn-doggie alpha-male. A guy who hangs out with the elite-and-snobby, caters for a premium price to the elite-and-snobby, hits on the wives of the elite-and-snobby, but is still at heart a working-class bad boy in the mold of Tony Manero. Oh, how the elite-and-snobby hate him. Their hatred, and their snob-based cluelessness is what signals regular folks to stream to support him at his rallies -- the enemy of their enemy is their friend -- and what makes me think the American people are smarter than the elite-and-snobby think they are, and are secretly, quietly supporting Trump. Secretly and quietly so that they do not have to be annoyed by the flailing and spittle-flecked hysteria of politically correct sissies.
So for the next 26 days we will have more of the magnificent spectacle. But after the polls and pundits,...
After the torchlight red on sweaty faces
After the frosty silence in the gardens
After the agony in stony places
The shouting and the crying
Prison and palace and reverberation
Of thunder of spring over distant mountains

...
We will have the reality of Nov 8th.
Then we shall see.
Good luck.

Madame President

Gina Ferrara, responding to my comment to:

WikiLeaks Cancels Major Clinton Revelation Amid ‘Security Concerns’

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/02/wikileaks-cancels-major-clinton-revelation-amid-security-concerns/


writes: You best get used to saying Madame President:)

To which I respond:

Gina my dear, I am thoroughly enjoying the spectacle of this political season. The last few days of Trump-trashing have made Trump supporters glum -- booey hooey! -- but for me that's just the back and forth of the political battle. Like watching a football game, sometimes your team is in the lead, sometimes behind. High drama, yum! And there's still 3+ weeks of drama left, and regardless of the outcome the entertainment value promises to be delightful. Yes, I have a pleasant emotional investment in the Trumpinator -- it's more fun that way -- but it's limited and I try to suppress it, because in the end it's just Kabuki, with no perceptable effect on me **personally**. I think of myself as a "Carlinite". Divorcing myself from "The Freak Show", my view aligns with George: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ERFBg2Uh1c Whatever genuine emotional engagement I have -- human weakness that it is -- stems from the circumstance George describes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ Your "Madame President" -- enjoy it while you can -- is as phony as a three-dollar-bill. Her tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear "public positions" are thirty years of practiced insincerity, empty platitudes, and "panderisms". She, like WJC, Bush/Cheney, and Obama is the candidate of Carlin's "the owners". Her presidency will give us more of the same-old-same-old, which is to say nothing,... or less than nothing, which is to say more wars and chaos internationally and the continued looting of America. Trump, by contrast, is outside Carlin's cynicism box, a revolutionary, a radical change agent, who might or might not overthrow the established order. We really don't know, and that uncertainty is his greatest weakness. What will we get with a Trump presidency? It's all political talk -- when not drowned out by "Trump the Sexual Predator" sensationalism -- so nobody knows. And of course, the Clinton folks want to fill that vacuum of uncertainty with their defamation narrative -- fact-based and otherwise. Facts? Is anyone really interested in facts? Voters, maybe. Political assassins and commercial eyeball sellers?... not! I'm not complaining. That's the way the game is played. All's fair in love and war, and this is basically war sans bloodshed. Consequently, it will not be the "right" person or the "wrong" person who will win, but the better political "war fighter". Opinions and partisan cheer-leading abound, polls and pundits pontificate, but the noise aside, one thing and one thing alone matters, one thing alone is "real": Nov 8th. We shall see. Okay. Now I'm a Trump guy, howbeit a light-duty Trump guy, an entertainment-value-focused (mostly) Trump guy, a poke-my-finger-in-the-PC-sissies-eye kind of guy. But let me indulge you in your warm-and-fuzzy Hillary love. Let's look at an HRC presidency: Trump fades away, and the GOP is restored to its former leadership. Hillary's negatives remain, which enables the Repubs to sit on her like they sat on Obama. Full spectrum obstruction. She gets nothing done that doesn't serve the one-percent, which is no big deal ***for her*** and is, in fact, her plan: pander, promise, and then use GOP resistance as the excuse for not being able to deliver for her black and minority constituencies. Meanwhile the banks and insurance companies, the military contractors, the hedge fund people, the oil companies, the drug companies and multi-nationals, Saudis and Israelis -- all these folks -- will get everything that they want because the GOP will be happy to cooperate. Her Supreme Court nominees will be centrist: she'll claim, rightly, that she "had to compromise", but -- secretly -- she'll be fine with that, because she's one-hundred-percent establishment and hasn't a progressive bone in her body. Where things get interesting is in foreign policy. People are -- in my view rightly -- concerned that her hawkish attitude will lead the entire world to the brink of nuclear war. She seems committed to facing down a nuclear-armed Russia. And her aggressive posture is amplified by the war-pimping Neocon Kool-Aid that demonizes Russia/Putin as threatening and aggressive. This is old hat: the political utility of the boogeyman-du-jour, in this case a spiffed-up and recycled Commie boogeyman from the good old days of the cold war. I understand the fear, but I'm not as concerned as some folks. I think the fear is overblown, which is the way fear works, particularly in a political context. No, I'm a little worried, but not much, because I believe Putin is a cool-headed and brilliant strategic actor, against whom Hillary will be hopelessly out-matched. Putin will not let Hillary win, and he most certainly will not let her take us over the brink into nuclear war. He will be ready for her, and if she pushes the matter **up to the brink**, Putin will be prepared to defeat and humiliate her and forestall a full nuclear exchange. It is clear that in her arrogance -- and dare I say comprehensive record of strategic incompetence -- she is no match for Putin. After four years of failure and humiliation with Hillary, the country will once again be ready for a revolution, and she will be history. The first woman president, like the first black president, an utter failure. But who can say? I wish you luck. I'm an American and a Jew and I live deep in Mexico outside the nuclear blast zone, so come what may, I'll be just fine. You?

Madame President

Gina Ferrara, responding to my comment to:

WikiLeaks Cancels Major Clinton Revelation Amid ‘Security Concerns’

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/02/wikileaks-cancels-major-clinton-revelation-amid-security-concerns/


writes: You best get used to saying Madame President:)

To which I respond:

Gina my dear, I am thoroughly enjoying the spectacle of this political season. The last few days of Trump-trashing have made Trump supporters glum -- booey hooey! -- but for me that's just the back and forth of the political battle. Like watching a football game, sometimes your team is in the lead, sometimes behind. High drama, yum! And there's still 3+ weeks of drama left, and regardless of the outcome the entertainment value promises to be delightful. Yes, I have a pleasant emotional investment in the Trumpinator -- it's more fun that way -- but it's limited and I try to suppress it, because in the end it's just Kabuki, with no perceptable effect on me **personally**. I think of myself as a "Carlinite". Divorcing myself from "The Freak Show", my view aligns with George: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ERFBg2Uh1c Whatever genuine emotional engagement I have -- human weakness that it is -- stems from the circumstance George describes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ Your "Madame President" -- enjoy it while you can -- is as phony as a three-dollar-bill. Her tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear "public positions" are thirty years of practiced insincerity, empty platitudes, and "panderisms". She, like WJC, Bush/Cheney, and Obama is the candidate of Carlin's "the owners". Her presidency will give us more of the same-old-same-old, which is to say nothing,... or less than nothing, which is to say more wars and chaos internationally and the continued looting of America. Trump, by contrast, is outside Carlin's cynicism box, a revolutionary, a radical change agent, who might or might not overthrow the established order. We really don't know, and that uncertainty is his greatest weakness. What will we get with a Trump presidency? It's all political talk -- when not drowned out by "Trump the Sexual Predator" sensationalism -- so nobody knows. And of course, the Clinton folks want to fill that vacuum of uncertainty with their defamation narrative -- fact-based and otherwise. Facts? Is anyone really interested in facts? Voters, maybe. Political assassins and commercial eyeball sellers?... not! I'm not complaining. That's the way the game is played. All's fair in love and war, and this is basically war sans bloodshed. Consequently, it will not be the "right" person or the "wrong" person who will win, but the better political "war fighter". Opinions and partisan cheer-leading abound, polls and pundits pontificate, but the noise aside, one thing and one thing alone matters, one thing alone is "real": Nov 8th. We shall see. Okay. Now I'm a Trump guy, howbeit a light-duty Trump guy, an entertainment-value-focused (mostly) Trump guy, a poke-my-finger-in-the-PC-sissies-eye kind of guy. But let me indulge you in your warm-and-fuzzy Hillary love. Let's look at an HRC presidency: Trump fades away, and the GOP is restored to its former leadership. Hillary's negatives remain, which enables the Repubs to sit on her like they sat on Obama. Full spectrum obstruction. She gets nothing done that doesn't serve the one-percent, which is no big deal ***for her*** and is, in fact, her plan: pander, promise, and then use GOP resistance as the excuse for not being able to deliver for her black and minority constituencies. Meanwhile the banks and insurance companies, the military contractors, the hedge fund people, the oil companies, the drug companies and multi-nationals, Saudis and Israelis -- all these folks -- will get everything that they want because the GOP will be happy to cooperate. Her Supreme Court nominees will be centrist: she'll claim, rightly, that she "had to compromise", but -- secretly -- she'll be fine with that, because she's one-hundred-percent establishment and hasn't a progressive bone in her body. Where things get interesting is in foreign policy. People are -- in my view rightly -- concerned that her hawkish attitude will lead the entire world to the brink of nuclear war. She seems committed to facing down a nuclear-armed Russia. And her aggressive posture is amplified by the war-pimping Neocon Kool-Aid that demonizes Russia/Putin as threatening and aggressive. This is old hat: the political utility of the boogeyman-du-jour, in this case a spiffed-up and recycled Commie boogeyman from the good old days of the cold war. I understand the fear, but I'm not as concerned as some folks. I think the fear is overblown, which is the way fear works, particularly in a political context. No, I'm a little worried, but not much, because I believe Putin is a cool-headed and brilliant strategic actor, against whom Hillary will be hopelessly out-matched. Putin will not let Hillary win, and he most certainly will not let her take us over the brink into nuclear war. He will be ready for her, and if she pushes the matter **up to the brink**, Putin will be prepared to defeat and humiliate her and forestall a full nuclear exchange. It is clear that in her arrogance -- and dare I say comprehensive record of strategic incompetence -- she is no match for Putin. After four years of failure and humiliation with Hillary, the country will once again be ready for a revolution, and she will be history. The first woman president, like the first black president, an utter failure. But who can say? I wish you luck. I'm an American and a Jew and I live deep in Mexico outside the nuclear blast zone, so come what may, I'll be just fine. You?

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Feel the Burn

On the Unz Review, in the comments section to Nuclear Poker by Israel Shamir

http://www.unz.com/ishamir/nuclear-poker/#comment-1602591

Phillip Owen writes:

"Also, the Syrian government did commit massacres of Sunnis over the decades."

The US massacred: Native Americans, enslaved Africans, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, US Confederate rebels, and many many others; beyond direct mass murder, the US abetted oppression, coups de etat, slaughter, and torture in countries across the planet:  Brazil, Chile, Indonesia, Angola, South Africa, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, now Syria, Palestine of course, Egypt, now Yemen, Panama, Grenada, and others, many many others.

This BS about Assad being a bad guy is total Kool-Aid.  When the Confederate South revolted against the North a slaughter ensued.  Surprise! surprise! Revolt leads to civil war which, being war, involves "massacres".  That's what war is, one giant massacre fest.  When Sunnis revolt in Syria, they are slaughtered until they get the message, which is: if you take up arms against the govt you will be slaughtered without mercy.  This is reality.  This is the real world.  The idea that when "we" slaughter it it a humanitarian act, and when "they" slaughter back its terrorism or "genocide", is the criminal insanity of tribal "exceptionalism".

Hafez al Assad -- father of today's Bashar -- put down the Hama rebellion of 1982 by surrounding the rebel area and  subjecting it to a relentless artillery bombardment until 20,000 were dead and the rebels -- Muslim Brotherhood Islamists -- surrendered.  Thirty-five years later, the Neocon-subverted US, acting as Israel's proxy, has fomented a war of aggression against Syria, and pawned it off as a "legitimate" civil war.  In their arrogance, HRC and her Neocon accomplices in the State Dept thought they could duplicate their "success" in Libya and send Assad packing.  But they were wrong, and now instead of a few thousand dead rebels and peace restored, we are approaching half-a-million dead, millions fleeing for their lives, and confrontation with a Radical Islamic Terrorist cancer, funded, armed, and unleashed by Obama/Clinton to rampage across the planet.

And if that isn't bad enough, we're about to suffer the election of HRC to the Presidency of the World's-Greatest-Death-Machine.  Meet Hillary Rodham Clinton, the enthusiastic "point-person and executor" of Mideast horrors, she who destroys entire countries, who believes she can repeat in Syria her "no-fly-zone success" from Libya, who arms terrorist monsters, who is so arrogant that she thinks she can face down nuclear-armed Russia, and a person of such frustrated ambition and depravity that she chortled in delight at the sodomized-to-death-by-bayonet of the legitimate head of state of Libya, a country she transformed from a stable and prosperous nation -- 2nd highest standard of living in Africa -- to a death zone of savagery and barbarism.  Thus did Hillary Rodham Clinton bestow upon the Libyan people the great American blessing of "freedom and democracy"!

War is a business horrific beyond words.  Under HRC, somewhere on the planet someone is likely to "feel the burn", the nuclear burn that is, pray that it isn't someone you care about. 

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Putin's "cancer cure"?


I keep mulling over the likely course of the US/Russia confrontation we will see if HRC is elected. She will try to face down Putin, to no avail. Putin is a cool-headed and very capable strategic thinker and will have gamed-out the various scenarios. He will do what he has to do to prevent the situation getting out of hand. With that as a premise, I ask myself "How will he do that? What plan of action by Putin will prevent (or more crucially, halt) an out-of-control escalation?"


First and foremost of course is to put the entire Russian nation in a state of readiness. Civil defense for the civilian population, and defensive deployment and a highest state of readiness among both the conventional military and the strategic nuclear forces. That's just the bedrock of strategic deterrence: eliminate the element of surprise and with it any hope of first-strike effectiveness.


But let's say HRC gets militant and arrogant, and persuades herself -- all those marvelous weapons and enthusiastic generals -- that Putin will inevitably have to back down, and having thus persuaded herself, decides she can get away with attacking Russian forces in Syria. How will Putin be ready for that? What can he do?


I don't much like indulging in this sort of speculation, because there are so many known unknowns that I can't avoid feeling that I'm talking out my ass, and also because it appeals to my inner GI Joe.


That said, I stumbled upon a strategy that seemed to have a very compelling logic, so allow me to share it with you.


There are a number of relatively safe and semi-conventional -- destructive and disabling but "non-lethal" -- preventive attacks short of all out war: attacks that do not involve human casualties -- electronic warfare, cyber warfare, destruction of the US satellite fleet, and a limited EMP attack to degrade/disable certain assets while simultaneously send a message.


Not very interesting.


But if Putin's Russia and HRC's Pentagon death machine are nose-to-nose, sphincters rigid, ready (various insane generals more or less enthusiastic) to destroy the world, what could stop that in its tracks?


The Russians are very discreet when it comes to issuing "threats". They seem to favor a very light -- dare I say "diplomatic" -- touch, issuing an almost neutral assertion, but one that carries with it a cautionary element. Two have been issued recently: a little-noticed announcement that Russia plans a test of an airborne ***anti-satellite*** laser, and a comment from Maria Zakharova, Russia's Foreign Affairs spokesperson, that a US attack on Syrian/ Russian forces would have "tectonic consequences" in the Mideast.


Focusing on the latter comment: what might these "tectonic consequences" entail? If the US and Russia are nose-to-nose, US psychopaths -- HRC/Neocons/Pentagon -- unwilling to back down, locked on a course to blow up the world, notwithstanding the threat of mutual annihilation, what could stop that seemingly unstoppable march to war?


Call me crazy, but if at that point Putin de-fangs or annihilates Israel with a brace of nuclear weapons, any confrontation between the US and Russia would come to a screeching halt. 

While the US would most assuredly retaliate for a nuclear attack on the US, the end of the world notwithstanding, they would not commit suicide in response to an attack on Israel. And since all the problems in the Mideast, as well as the rising antagonism toward Russia, originate with Israel through the Neocon/AIPAC domination of US foreign policy -- Oded Yinon plan and the Wolfowitz Doctrine -- the destruction of Israel would -- in a stroke -- moot virtually the entire US foreign policy.


The destruction of Israel would not only eliminate the cancer at the heart of the "Clash of Civilizations", but knock everyone back on their heels with an apocalypse-lite demonstration of what a full-on apocalypse would look like. Plus, the non-Jewish world would secretly be delighted to see the Zionists gone.

Nasty?  Absolutely.  But nowhere near as nasty as a full-on nuclear exchange.

Okay, your turn.