Sunday, August 28, 2016

Truest statement of the week

It is surreal to hear the Clinton campaign and its vast army of surrogates, including virtually the entirety of the corporate media, howl about “conspiracy theories” timed to sabotage her triumphal procession to the White House. Shaken by this summer’s Wikileaks disclosure of the Democratic National Committee’s subversion of Bernie Sanders’ leftish insurgency, Clinton is attempting to inoculate the public against the “October Surprise” they fear is coming from Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy in London. With Donald Trump’s electoral prospects diminishing by the day, the only thing the Clinton camp has to fear is the facts. Therefore, the campaign’s mission is to poison the well of public discussion in order to immunize Clinton from future factual disclosures. From now to Election Day, all facts are to be deemed suspect, no matter how verifiably true, since they might have bubbled to the surface through the machinations of “conspiracy theorists.”

-- Glen Ford, "Clintonite Conspiracy Theories " (BLACK AGENDA REPORT).

Truest statement of the week II

For eight years, President Obama has set the world ablaze under a regime of endless warfare. Part six and seven of this series explored Obama's investment in war on the African continent and on the undocumented population that resides in the US. However, these two areas cannot possibly cover Obama's extensive record of globalized war and chaos. US imperialism’s foundation rests upon the largest military apparatus in the world. The system's enduring economic crisis has made war an indispensable tool toward maintaining and expanding US hegemony. A summation of Obama's war legacy provides more than is needed to verify the necessity of endless militarism to the imperialist system in this period of crisis.
Obama inherited an economic crisis and two full-scale occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan that lacked support from the majority of people in the US. Not only did Obama fail to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he managed to expand them as well. The Obama Administration sent 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in 2009 and devoted 8,400 of those troops to remain in the war-torn nation beyond 2016. Obama carried out these policies despite announcing in 2015 that he was against "endless war" in Afghanistan.
Obama has taken a different, but no less devastating approach in Iraq. The Obama Administration announced a formal end to the occupation of Iraq in 2011. However, the so-called "end" to the war included the maintenance of 5,000 private security contractors and almost 16,000 State Department "civilian employees." Since 2014, the Obama Administration has escalated the presence of US Special Forces in Iraq to fight the so-called Islamic State (ISIS). Yet it has been acknowledged by multiple sources that it was the US destruction of Iraq that ultimately led to the rise of ISIS in the first place.
The US occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq were visible to the US public mostly because US soldiers died in them. When Obama came into office in 2008, he was almost immediately given a Nobel Peace Prize for his empty promises to end the "dumb" wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama ended up doing no such thing, and actually expanded war in the region.

-- Danny Haiphong, "The Obama Legacy Part VIII: The War Summation" (BLACK AGENDA REPORT).

A note to our readers

Hey --

Sunday -- just barely.

Let's thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.

And what did we come up with?

So that's what we came up with.


-- Jim, Dona, Ty,  Ava and C.I

Editorial: They all failed

We're used to calling out Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

But last week, they all failed.

That's Hillary, Donald, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Jerry White, Gloria La Riva, everyone running for president.

They all failed.


Because supposedly we are a nation of laws.

The laws apply to all of us.

Well, to everyone but Hillary.

But the rest of us.

And yet last week Ned Parker and Jonathan S. Landay (REUTERS) reported:

Shi’ite militias in Iraq detained, tortured and abused far more Sunni civilians during the American-backed capture of the town of Falluja in June than U.S. officials have publicly acknowledged, Reuters has found.More than 700 Sunni men and boys are still missing more than two months after the Islamic State stronghold fell. The abuses occurred despite U.S. efforts to restrict the militias' role in the operation, including threatening to withdraw American air support, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.
The U.S. efforts had little effect. Shi’ite militias did not pull back from Falluja, participated in looting there and now vow to defy any American effort to limit their role in coming operations against Islamic State.
All told, militia fighters killed at least 66 Sunni males and abused at least 1,500 others fleeing the Falluja area, according to interviews with more than 20 survivors, tribal leaders, Iraqi politicians and Western diplomats.
They said men were shot, beaten with rubber hoses and in several cases beheaded. Their accounts were supported by a Reuters review of an investigation by local Iraqi authorities and video testimony and photographs of survivors taken immediately after their release. 

US law, treaties the US has signed onto and the Leahy Amendment all insist that the US cannot support a government who attacks its own people.

The Shi'ite militias are now part of the government.

Iraq's prime minister Hayder al-Abadi did that.

Sectarian abuse by Iraq Shia militia was even worse than believed (meaning downright awful).

So this is the Iraqi government attacking a segment of the Iraqi people.

And where was Gary Johnson?

And where was Jill Stein?

This is against the law.

How would they have handled it if they were president right now?

They want to be president.

So do Donald, Hillary, Jerry and Gloria.

So how would they handles this?

Would they respect the law or not?

Would they continue to fund and back the government that's attacking the Sunni people?

It's a perfect test, the perfect chance to step up.

And yet everyone them failed it.

TV: The reality that we're all responsible for this mess

August is almost over and not only do Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump continue to remain universally despised, they still struggle with the concept called hope.

Clarence Page's CHICAGO TRIBUNE column carries the headline "Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Who's least bad?," Vic Rosenthal's JEWISH PRESS column is entitled "The Crook vs. the Demagogue," on and on it goes.

How did we get to this point?


There's a lot of blame to go around.

With regards to Republican nominee Donald Trump, the media loves to sneer at him but they created him.

And we don't just mean this campaign cycle, we mean they spent the last 20 or so years creating him.

Because he's not just a business person, he's a 'reality' star.

Kim Kardashian has no talent.

She's not a singer.

She's not an actress.

Despite multiple photo shoots, she's not even a model -- nor could she be at her height.

It started with the Loud family on PBS in the 70s -- a creepy group of people willing to dish and presented as though the product was art or a documentary.

It was a tawdry soap opera and, as it ended, enough people felt guilty about the trash that was aired that no one proposed doing it again.

Then came MTV's greed.

Not content to corner a market and air music videos, it wanted to be on TV listings and wanted to do so without spending much money.

So they resurrected the shame that was the Loud family only they called it THE REAL WORLD.

And people pretended like it was (a) programming and (b) real.

It was neither.

But if birthed the genre.

Soon the shame that should have followed a sex tape was replaced with 'reality' 'stardom' (see Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian).

This crap was treated as entertainment when the media should have collectively shunned it and shamed it.

Not only that, they rushed to award Emmys for this garbage.

It wasn't entertainment, it was cheap programming.

And after years of playing footsie, idiots in the media thought they could now take Donald Trump out as a political candidate by shaming him when the point of 'reality' 'stardom' is that it can only be found by being outrageous.

Pulling weaves, throwing drinks, making rude and insulting remarks, drama trauma, it's how you achieved stardom in that trash genre.

That same trash genre that made Donald a star.

Yes, SOUTHPARK objected to the 'lowering of the bar' in an episode but most others ignored the lowering of standards.

Now they think they can clutch the pearls over Donald, over a decade after reality TV made him a star?

They think Donald saying something outrageous harms him, all the while failing to grasp it took Mama June dating a pedophile to put the stake in HERE COMES HONEY BOO BOO.

Let's move over to Hillary.

She's worse than a 'reality' 'star,' she's a tabloid star.

Did she shame Vince Foster into suicide?

It's a question that's plagued her since the 90s and the alleged disappearance of documents this week led, of course, to the tired and faded ESQUIRE pretending it was the 90s again and rushing in to a defense of Hillary -- like all the defenses, it doesn't really defend her because it can't, so instead it tries to muddy the charges.

For those who didn't live through the 90s,, it was a nightmare.

We were all expected to line up on one side or the other.

You either charged Hillary and Bill with crimes or you attacked the ones raising issues/charges.

And if you tried to remain above the fray, you were attacked for that.

The Clintons' tawdry and low class (and no class) ways generated one scandal after another.

That alone should have prevented her from ever running for the White House.

It appears she's wrongly been given a pass for 'speaking the truth' on a morning show.

But she didn't speak the truth.

She lied.

Bill has a cheap affair with Monica Lewinsky in the White House and Hillary charges onto NBC's THE TODAY SHOW to claim it's all part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

And hacks like Paul Krugman and Joe Conason and the laughable Gene Lyons rewrite history as: Hillary was right!!!!

She was not just wrong, she was lying.

LAUER: But we appreciate you honoring the commitment, even in light of recent events. So thank you very much. There has been one question on the minds of people in this country, Mrs. Clinton, lately, and that is what is the exact nature of the relationship between your husband and Monica Lewinsky. Has he described that relationship in detail to you? 

CLINTON: Well, we’ve talked at great length, and I think as this matter unfolds, the entire country will have more information. But we’re right in the middle of a rather vigorous feeding frenzy right now. And people are saying all kinds of things, and putting out rumor and innuendo. And I have learned over the last many years, being involved in politics, and especially since my husband first started running for president, that the best thing to do in these cases is just to be patient, take a deep breath and the truth will come out. But there’s nothing we can do to fight this fire storm of allegations that are out there. 

LAUER: But he has described to the American people what this relationship was not in his words. 

[This was when Bill was publicly stated he has no had 'sexual relations' with Monica.]

CLINTON: Right. 

LAUER: Has he described to you what it was? 

CLINTON: Yes. And we’ll find that out as time goes by, Matt. But I think the important thing now is to stand as firmly as I can and say that, you know, the president has denied these allegations on all counts, unequivocally. And we’ll see how this plays out. I guess everybody says to me, how can you be so calm? Or how can you just, you know, look like you’re not upset? And I guess I’ve just been through it so many times. I mean, Bill and I have been accused of everything, including murder, by some of the very same people who are behind these allegations. So from my perspective, this is part of the continuing political campaign against my husband. 

 LAUER: To the best of your knowledge, Mrs. Clinton, has your husband ever given or received gifts from or to Monica Lewinsky? 

 CLINTON: I’m not going to comment on any specific allegation, because I’ve learned we need to put all of this into context. And it will be put into context. And anyone who knows my husband knows that he is an extremely generous person to people he knows, to strangers, to anybody who is around him. And I think that, you know, his behavior, his treatment of people will certainly explain all of this. 

LAUER: When you say he’s a generous person, so it is possible that he has given gifts to Monica Lewinsky? 

CLINTON: I think it’s possible, of course, because if you know my husband, you know that he is somebody who will, you know, say, how would you like this. I mean, I’ve seen him take his tie off and hand it to somebody. 

LAUER: So that wouldn’t be a behavior that would be unusual for him dealing with an intern at the White House? 

CLINTON: Dealing with anybody, Matt. I mean, seriously, I have known my husband for more than 25 years, and we’ve been married for 22 years. And the one thing I always kid him about is that he never meets a stranger. He is kind. He is friendly. He tries to help people who need help, who ask for help. So I think that everybody ought to just stop a minute here and think about what we’re doing. And it’s not just what we’re doing in terms of making these accusations against my husband. But I’m very concerned about the tactics being used and the kind of intense political agenda at work here. 

LAUER: I want to talk about Kenneth Starr in a second. Before I get to him, let me just ask you, do you know Monica Lewinsky? 


LAUER: You’ve never met her? 

 CLINTON: I may have. You know, there are hundreds and hundreds of young people who serve as interns, and we have big events for them. We take pictures with them. But unless they work directly in my office, I’m not likely to meet them. 

 LAUER: Did Evelyn Lieberman, the former deputy chief of staff, or any other White House staffers, Mrs. Clinton, ever come to you and say, we may have a problem with one of the interns at the White House, and mention Monica Lewinsky by name? 

CLINTON: No, that never happened. 

LAUER: So these charges came as big a shock to you as anyone? 

CLINTON: And to my husband. I mean, he woke me up Wednesday morning and said, you’re not going to believe this, but—and I said, “What is this?” So yes, it came as a very big surprise. 

LAUER: When he said “but,” he said “but” what? 

CLINTON: But I want to tell you what’s in the newspapers. 

LAUER: I think the part of this that makes certain people across the country uneasy is that we have a 21-year-old intern at the White House who moves to the Pentagon, who then gets a job interview at the UN with Bill Richardson himself. And then a very dear friend of your husband, Vernon Jordan, recommends her for two jobs in this city here in New York and then drives her personally to a lawyer’s office when she’s subpoenaed by Kenneth Starr. Does it not appear, though, that this intern had more clout in Washington than most others do? 

CLINTON: I don’t know the circumstances of any of that, Matt. I think that—you know, I just can’t describe to you how outgoing and friendly Vernon Jordan is. I mean, when he stood up and said what I believe to be the absolute truth, that he has helped literally hundreds of people—and it doesn’t matter who they are. And if he were asked to help somebody, he would help that person. I’ve seen him do it countless times. So I guess I know the people involved. I know them personally. I know them well. I’ve known Vernon longer than I’ve known my husband. 

LAUER: So when people say there’s a lot of smoke here, your message is where there’s smoke... 

CLINTON: There isn’t any fire, because think of what we’ve been through for the last six years and think of everything we’ve been accused of. And you know, initially, when this first started, and I would be accused of something or my husband would be accused of something, I would be really upset. And I would want to rush out, and I’d say, that’s not true. And then somebody would nit pick and say, well, what about this? I would say, well, I hadn’t thought about that. And then I’d rush around, I’d say, well, that’s not true. 

 LAUER: Are you saying that you no longer—this doesn’t upset you anymore? You’re almost numb to it? 

CLINTON: It’s not being numb so much as just being very experienced in the unfortunate, mean-spirited give-and-take of American politics right now. So having seen so many of these accusations come and go, having seen people profit, you know, like Jerry Falwell, with videos, accusing my husband of murder, of drug running, seeing some of the things that are written and said about him, my attitude is, you know, we’ve been there before, we have seen this before. And I am just going to wait patiently until the truth comes out. 

 LAUER: So if what you have heard is something you can believe and if what the president has told the nation is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then you’d have to agree that this is the worst and most damaging smear of the 20th century? 

 CLINTON: Well, I don’t know. There have been a lot of smears in the 20th century. But it’s a pretty bad one. 

 LAUER: Pretty devastating. 

 CLINTON: Well, just think about it, and this is what concerns me: This started out as an investigation of a failed land deal. I told everybody in 1992, we lost money. People said, it’s not true. You know, they made money. They have money in a Swiss bank account. Well, it was true. It’s taken years, but it was true. We get a politically motivated prosecutor who is allied with the right-wing opponents of my husband, who has literally spent four years looking at every telephone... 

LAUER: And thirty million dollars. 

 CLINTON: More than that now. But looking at every telephone call we’ve made, every check we’ve ever written, scratching for dirt, intimidating witnesses, doing everything possible to try to make some kind of accusation against my husband. 

 LAUER: We’re talking about Kenneth Starr, so let’s use his name, because he is the independent counsel. 

 CLINTON: Well, we’re talking about—but it’s the whole operation. It’s not just one person. It’s an entire operation. 

 LAUER: Did he go outside his rights, in your opinion, to expand this investigation? After all, he got permission to expand the investigation from a three-judge panel? 

 CLINTON: The same three-judge panel that removed Robert Fisk and appointed him, the same three-judge panel that is headed by someone who was appointed by Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth.  

LAUER: Also Janet Reno approved this expansion of an investigation? 

 CLINTON: Well, of course, she is, because she doesn’t want to appear as though she’s interfering with the investigation. I don’t—look, I’m not going to take all that on, because I’ve learned that we just have to ride this out. It’s just a very unfortunate turn of events that we are using the criminal justice system to try to achieve political ends in this country. And you know, when I’m here today, I’m not only here because I love and believe my husband. I’m also here because I love and believe in my country. And if I were just a citizen out there, maybe because I know about the law and I have some idea of some of the motivations here, I would be very disturbed by this turn of events. 

 LAUER: When—the last time we visited a subject like this involving your family was 1992, and the name Gennifer Flowers was in the news. And you said at that time in an interview a very famous quote, “I’m not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man.” In the same interview your husband admitted that he had, quote, “caused pain in your marriage.” Six years later you are still standing by this man, your husband, through some difficult charges. If he were to be asked today, Mrs. Clinton, do you think he would admit that he again has caused pain in this marriage? 

 CLINTON: No, absolutely not. And he shouldn’t. You know, we’ve been married for 22 years, Matt. And I have learned a long time ago that the only people who count in any marriage are the two that are in it. We know everything there is to know about each other, and we understand and accept and love each other. And I just think that a lot of this is deliberately designed to sensationalize charges against my husband, because everything else they’ve tried has failed. And I also believe that it’s part of an effort, very frankly, to undo the results of two elections. 

 LAUER: Let me talk about your role. There have been reports that you’ve taken charge at the White House and decided to be the chief defender of your husband, of the president, and deflect these charges. How much of a role are you taking in this and do you think you should take? 

 CLINTON: Well, I certainly am going to defend my husband. And I’m certainly going to offer advice. But I am by no means running any kind of strategy or being his chief defender. He’s got very capable lawyers and very capable people inside the White House, and a lot of very good friends outside the White House. 

 LAUER: But you’re probably the most credible defender of the president at this time? 

 CLINTON: Well, I probably know him better than anybody alive in the world. So I would hope I’d be the most credible defender. 

 LAUER: James Carville, who you know... 

 CLINTON: Great human being... 

 LAUER: I’m sure you like him, especially at this time. He has said this is war between the president and Kenneth Starr. You have said, I understand, to some close friends that this is the last great battle and that one side or the other is going down here. 

 CLINTON: Well, I don’t know if I’ve been that dramatic. That would sound like a good line from a movie. But I do believe that this is a battle. I mean, look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings. This is—the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president. A few journalists have kind of caught on to it and explained it. But it has not yet been fully revealed to the American public. And actually, you know, in a bizarre sort of way, this may do it.

Yes, Hillary did speak of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

She used that as she explained to the American people and Matt Lauer that her husband had not had sex with Monica Lewinsky.

Of course, he had.

And this tawdry and cheap life that the Clintons led in DC led to them being referred to as "hicks from the sticks" and accused of turning the White House into an episode of HEE-HAW.

The moment that should really follow Hillary from that 90s exchange is this:

LAUER: I think the part of this that makes certain people across the country uneasy is that we have a 21-year-old intern at the White House who moves to the Pentagon, who then gets a job interview at the UN with Bill Richardson himself. And then a very dear friend of your husband, Vernon Jordan, recommends her for two jobs in this city here in New York and then drives her personally to a lawyer’s office when she’s subpoenaed by Kenneth Starr. Does it not appear, though, that this intern had more clout in Washington than most others do? 

CLINTON: I don’t know the circumstances of any of that, Matt. I think that—you know, I just can’t describe to you how outgoing and friendly Vernon Jordan is. I mean, when he stood up and said what I believe to be the absolute truth, that he has helped literally hundreds of people—and it doesn’t matter who they are. And if he were asked to help somebody, he would help that person. I’ve seen him do it countless times. So I guess I know the people involved. I know them personally. I know them well. I’ve known Vernon longer than I’ve known my husband. 

That minute has played out over and over in 2016 as Hillary's sat opposite one talking head after another.  Most recently, it played out Friday on MSNBC's MORNING JOE:

BRZEZINSKI: If a Republican candidate who was actually credible was running against you and served as secretary of state and ran a foundation that took donations from foreign entities, wouldn't you be criticizing him or her for a conflict of interest? And, in retrospect, was that a good idea, if you're not going to be doing it, in some cases, as president?

CLINTON: Mika, I would not be criticizing. I would be looking at the work. And if there were no evidence — and, you know people can say whatever they want; I understand that — but if there were no evidence that there was any conflict, I would say, "Look, I appreciate the work that they did to help 11.5 million people around the world get more affordable medicines, and I appreciate the work that was done to help more people make a living and get a job and help American kids battle obesity and get better foods." I would appreciate that.

She continues to lie like that.

She continues to because the media fails to call her out.

The media never did their job.

And Clinton and Trump signify something else: The decay and the rot.

Gale Anne Hurd always makes us laugh.

Like when she's on her anti-piracy kick that she started around 2013.

Gale's over THE WALKING DEAD and FEAR OF THE WALKING DEAD -- AMC's faded garbage about zombies.

Gale claims that piracy is preventing her from having all the pennies in the world for the trash she foists off on people.

Reality: Piracy gave her tired show 'cred' it never deserved.

And it never deserved to be on the air.

Nor does Keifer Sutherland's upcoming ABC show.

Or half the crap -- depressing and disgusting and depraved -- that's covered the airwaves in the last ten years.

We're not 'moralists.'

We don't give a damn about cursing on screen, we could care less about sex or any other life affirming act.

We do care about depravity presented as normal.

HANNIBAL never belonged on TV.

Half the crap that's aired in the last ten years on network television had degraded the world.

It has done so by glorifying violence and by treating things that are grossly offensive as though they are normal.

Gale Ann Hurd has been among those selling eternal fear.

It is any real surprise that a culture that has embraced one dystopia narrative after another would end up with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as presidential candidates?

Entertainment has spent approximately ten years now preaching death and destruction.


Why even THE CARTOON NETWORK's ADVENTURE TIME takes place in a post-nuclear war world.

You think that doesn't impact society?

"What if all that we are is simply the result of what we have thought?"


"What if all that we are is simply the result of what we have thought?"

And that probably, more than anything else, explains how the United States has arrived at this moment where the duopoly has promoted two candidates who still can't, even after winning their primaries, promote hope.

Clinton tears down Trump -- and in the process, the Americans who support him.  He turns around and does the same to her and those that support her.

And this failure of leadership in campaigning does not translate well into what leadership in office for either might actually mean.

But at this point, even aspirations and dreams served up by either candidate would be met with skepticism.

That's due to the 2008 campaign of Barack Obama which promised so much but delivered nothing.

Universal healthcare?

The country still waits as ObamaCare repeatedly reveals itself to be a disaster.

None of dare admit was always a scam and now is a dying failure. US needs .

The country still waits for Barack to end the Iraq War -- the one he promised would be ended 10 months after taking office.

The country watches as the Afghanistan War continues -- with another US service member killed in it last week.

The country still waits for Barack to close Guantanamo Bay's prison as he promised to do in his 2008 campaign.

Last week, White House press spokesperson Josh Earnest stumbled trying to come up with an answer for how Barack could close the prison now in the few months Barack has left as president.  As he failed to offer anything concrete, it was pointed out that Democrats controlled the House and the Senate during the first two years of Barack's presidency and a reporter wondered why it was done then?

It's the question many Americans ask.

And they wonder why Barack spoke out against The PATRIOT Act only to demand its renewal when it was the president.

And they question why Barack called out illegal spying when he was a US senator but increased it when he became a president.

There's so much blame to go around for arriving at this moment in time when universal suffrage turned into universal suffering.  No wonder so many are considering the campaigns of Jill Stein (Green Party presidential candidate), Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party presidential nominee), Jerry White (Socialist and Equality Party nominee) and Gloria La Riva (Peace and Freedom Party Candidate).

No wonder at all.

How to cover the presidential race?


Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump get more than enough media coverage in their races for the presidency.

Once upon a time, the web was going to democratize political races.

That flew out the window immediately.

In some cases because it required a lot of work.

We remember Laura Flanders' on air surprise when she was promoting Tammy Duckworth early on only to learn that the progressive in that race was Christine Cegelis.

Honest mistake and one we can certainly relate to.

But there were a lot of dishonest mistakes.

THE DAILY KOS and other propaganda fronts began using double speak to exclude because they weren't about changing anything, they were about raising funds off elections, raising funds for their personal accounts.

We aren't whores so we've always defined our purpose here as making sure that what the MSM ignored we covered.

So we highlight the campaigns of Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Jerry White, Gloria La Riva, etc.

But it's not always easy.

Take Jerry White.

Where's the campaign website?

Where are the press releases?

We know we can find campaign information in articles at WSWS.

But those articles aren't available for republication.

So Jerry White's campaign is never going to get the same amount of attention here that the other three will.

We can only do what we can do.

We support those four being able to compete in the debates.

We support opening the debates and demand that the FCC stop obstructing fair use of the airwaves.

Of course they obstruct, they're appointed by the duopoly and they don't serve the people.

A real FCC would be demanding that debates include all candidates.

It's just one more way the system gets rigged.

Each year, people grow more aware of how rigged it is.

We'd love to see Jerry, Gloria, Jill or Gary take the White House this election.

Even if they don't, they can raise a great deal of awareness.

Barack had a question


Meeting with the National Park Service, Barack Obama leans into Ed Thomas to whisper, "Did you guys really move Vince Foster's body?"

Barack rebuked


Barack Obama prefers virtual reality.

And you would too if you were a cheapskate who couldn't keep his promises and everyone was talking about it.

This unbelievable feature on Kayla Mueller is one of the most blistering indictments on the Obama administration:

  1. sickening how handled the kidnapping. Threatened to prosecute the fam. then won't donate to the foundation
  2. 's father looked right at the camera when he said "I'm still waiting on that donation, Mr. President" GOOD FOR HIM. 😡

Parents of late ISIS hostage Kayla Mueller say Pres. Obama broke promise to donate to charity set up in her name.

Friday, at the White House press briefing, spokesperson Josh Earnest faced some tough questions about Barack's failure to keep his word.

  Q    Thanks, Josh.  I want to ask you about an interview that the parents of Kayla Mueller did.  Of course, Kayla Mueller was taken hostage and murdered by ISIS, and the President went out to visit with the family about 17 months ago.  Her parents say that, during that visit, the President had promised to make a donation to a foundation they had set up in Kayla's name.  Is that correct?  Did he make that promise?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jon, let me just start by saying that obviously the ordeal that the Mueller family has had to endure is unimaginable.  And their daughter, Kayla Mueller, was a special person who had a special calling in her life.  And I actually still remember the first time that we were in this room talking about reports of her death.  And her parents made public a letter that she had written and been able to deliver to them, or have delivered to them, where she talked about how her life had been fulfilled based on her passion to serve people in need.  And I think the line that she used was she said that she recalled seeing God in the eyes of people who were in crisis.  It's a really profound statement for somebody who was -- she was just in her late twenties when she was killed.  
And her life and her example I think has had an impact on people all across the country.  Her life and her example have had an impact on people here at the White House, myself included.  And given all that, I think the pain and grief that continues to be experienced to this day by Kayla's parents I think is entirely understandable.  
What I can say -- I'm not going to speak to any private conversations that the President has had with the Mueller family.  I know that they've given an interview.  What I will say is the President is aware of the foundation, Kayla's Hands, that's been formed to honor her memory and to honor her life's work.  Is certainly is consistent with the kind of charitable organization that the President and the First Lady have supported in the past.  And I do anticipate that the President would make a commitment to support this organization moving forward. 

Q    What Carl Mueller, Kayla's father, said is that the President in that meeting, back in March of last year -- that he said that he would be making a donation to the foundation, and 17 months later he says the donation has not been made.  Can you confirm that no donation has been made?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, listen, I wasn’t a part of the conversation.  Obviously, Mr. Mueller and the President were.  So what I can tell you is --

Q    But you wouldn’t think he would lie about this?

MR. EARNEST:  No, I'm not accusing anybody of not telling the truth.  I'm just indicating that I wasn’t part of the meeting.  And even if I were, I wouldn’t -- this is a private conversation.  The President obviously is aware of the foundation that's been set up to support the life's work of Kayla Mueller, and it is exactly the kind of organization that the President and First Lady have supported in the past, and I would anticipate that this is a foundation that the President and First Lady would support.

Q    Can you think of any reason that would prompt a delay like that?  I mean, I know the President is obviously busy.  Could he have forgotten about it?  Or is there something that would prevent him as President for making a donation?

MR. EARNEST:  Again, I can't speak to any promises or conversations between the President and the Mueller family directly.

Q    The Mueller family, both parents, also expressed some disappointment with the amounts -- or saying that the efforts that were taken to free Kayla before she was murdered were inadequate.  What Carl Mueller says is the President could have been a hero, but he chose not to.  What's your reaction to that?

MR. EARNEST:  Again, this is a father who is grieving over the loss of his daughter.  And again, I think the grief and sadness that he feels about the fact that his daughter was not successfully rescued I think is an entirely human response and one that's entirely understandable.  What I will say, Jon, is that at the direction of President Obama himself, a variety of national security agencies in the federal government expend significant resources and dedicate significant time to going to great lengths to try to rescue Americans who are being unjustly held against their will around the world.
And you’ll also recall, Jon -- I know you covered this closely -- there were some weaknesses in that approach that were identified by the administration.  And there have been important reforms that have been made to that process over the course of the last 18 to 24 months that have resulted in more effective use of those resources and more effective use of the expertise within the federal government to sharpen our efforts to secure the return, or to rescue American citizens held against their will around the world.
There also has been a concerted effort made to improve the way in which the federal government of the United States communicates with families who are in this unspeakable situation, like the Mueller family was.  And the President has been pleased by the way those reforms have improved the effectiveness, both in terms of securing the release of American hostages, but also in terms of communicating more clearly and directly with families who are in that difficult situation.
But the President hopes that the pace of improvement will continue as the reforms take root.

Q    And I remember one of those issues was the question of private individuals paying ransom.  The Muellers say that White House officials threatened them with criminal prosecution if they tried to pay the $6 million ransom that ISIS was demanding.  Is that correct?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, as we’ve talked about before, there are sort of three aspects to this.  The first is, I’m just not going to get into private conversations between government officials and families who are in this difficult situation.  I can tell you that it is not the policy of the Obama administration to threaten families like these who are in this situation with prosecution.  
But thirdly, the United States does have a policy that we have assiduously followed of not paying ransom.  And that is a very painful policy, and it’s understandable that families like the Muellers would have grave concerns about that policy, both as a policy matter, and I can understand them raising some pretty thorny moral questions about that, too.  But the conclusion that President Obama reached is the same conclusion that previous Presidents in both parties have reached, which is that to get in the habit of paying ransom would only make Americans traveling overseas a more appetizing target to criminal or terrorist organizations that are hoping to collect a ransom.
And so for that reason, we’ve made clear and we have carefully followed a policy of not paying ransom, even to secure the release of Americans who are being held against their will overseas.

Q    Okay, and just a last question, Josh.  So just to be clear, the first line of questioning here.  Can the Mueller family expect that the President, that the Obamas will make a donation to their daughter’s -- to the foundation in the name of Kayla Mueller soon?

MR. EARNEST:  As I mentioned, I can’t speak to any previous conversations that they’ve had, but I can tell you that --

Q    But is a donation coming, is the question.

MR. EARNEST:  The foundation, Kayla’s Hands, that’s been established in her memory is certainly the kind of foundation that the President and First Lady have supported in the past.  And I would anticipate that they would make a financial contribution to continue supporting it.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }