“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the
laws.” ~ Amschel Rothschild
During the primaries in 2008 the DNC overturned the will of
the voters and installed the half-term flimflam man from Illinois, Barack Obama
as their candidate for President. After
8 horrific years of the Republican George W. Bush Administration, a ham
sandwich could have won the election on the Democratic ticket. A much different Hillary Clinton from the one
you see today, ran her campaign garnering support from the working class and
investors’ class against the DNC’s preselected candidate winning primaries
across the nation by double digits.
An angry DNC viciously attacked the Clintons for daring to
run against their preselected candidate calling them racists. Hillary soldiered on winning primaries from
Massachusetts to Puerto Rico but in the end the DNC, irate that their sham
primaries were exposed as a fraud, made the decision not to count the votes of
Florida and Michigan as well as award delegates won by Hillary into the column
of Barack Obama.
The Super Delegates, completely owned by the banking
industry, overruled the voters of their states awarded the Democratic
nomination to Obama. The unregulated banking
industry had brought the world’s economy to the edge of a cliff and was about
to implode and needed a pliable president to protect them and their ill-gotten
gains and they got that in spades from Obama.
Many Democrats left the party after the betrayal and are
never going to return to the un-Democratic Democrat Party. In 2016 Hillary had a sensible plan to
restore stability to the American banking system. From Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone:
Excerpt:
Why It’s a Big Deal Hillary Clinton Plans to Shake Up the Fed
Clinton has a chance to achieve
radical, lasting financial reform
Hillary Clinton is taking on the United States Federal Reserve System, but
in a wonky, bottom’s-up way that shows her understanding of a complex and
widely misunderstood organization. This is not “End the Fed” or even “audit the
Fed” — she wants to rebuild it from its
fundamentals at the regional level…
Generally, the public pays
attention to little more than the face of the organization — the Fed’s
chairperson, currently Janet Yellen — who announces and explains the Fed’s
decisions. But beneath Yellen functions an intricate and influential
bureaucracy that’s dominated by
interests from the financial sector, the vast majority of them white men,
and may well be blind to the reality
of a vast majority of Americans.
The Federal Reserve was set up in 1917, in the wake of a financial
crisis, as a private national bank that could serve as lender of last
resort to other banks. If a bank needed money to make good on deposits, it could
go to the Fed for a short-term loan. It was, since its inception, a bankers’ institution, run for banks, by
banks…
The Fed is run by a seven-member
board in Washington, D.C., and a dozen regional bank presidents based in
financial centers throughout the country (New York, St. Louis, Kansas City and
Cleveland, among others). While the crew in D.C. is selected by the president
and vetted by Congress, the regional
bank presidents are chosen by the financial industry and tend to be either
bankers or career Fed employees...
New York’s regional president is
Willian C. Dudley, previously a Goldman
Sachs managing director. Robert S. Kaplan of Dallas was a former vice
chairman at Goldman. Neel Kashkari,
a known financial reformer, is nonetheless a former employee of PIMCO, one of the world’s largest asset
managers and a subsidiary of German financial behemoth Allianz. Dennis P.
Lockhart, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta is a former Citigroup executive.
Clinton’s proposal would remove bankers from the regional boards of
directors. Those boards choose the regional presidents and generate most of
the information and perspective that the Federal Reserve governors use to set
monetary policy. Clinton clearly understands how the Fed functions.
Donald Trump has said he would not
reappoint Janet Yellen as chair. Fine. But appointing the Fed chair is merely
the most high-profile action a president can take in this regard. It doesn’t change the system, and the Fed
is known as the Federal Reserve System for a reason.
This is Clinton at her best – she
knows how the government works. The region Federal Reserve boards do not get a
lot of press. Most people do not know
that they are staffed with chief executives from Morgan Stanley, Comerica,
KeyCorp and private-equity firms like Silver Lake, and if they do know it,
they do not understand its importance…
Clinton is digging deeper. Changing the roster of the regional boards
will hopefully help more accurate economic information trickle up to the
chairperson and the federal governors. Perhaps,
even, a labor representative or somebody with closer ties to the common
American experience could become a regional bank president.
In her quiet way, tinkering with
the inner workings of a near-century old quasi-government institution that is
arcane to most, Clinton has a chance to
achieve radical, lasting financial reform.
The Obama Administration recognized the threat Hillary posed
to the out-of-control Federal Reserve Banking system so they began sabotaging
her campaign way before the 2016 election.
The preferred candidate for Obama and the DNC was Joe Biden, the
bankers’ bagman. The Obama
Administration sent out Susan Rice to lie to the American people about what
happened in Benghazi, Libya then blamed Hillary Clinton for the lies.
It was the Obama Administration that opened up the
investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails knowing that Colin Powell and
Condoleezza Rice had done the same thing.
In October of 2016 it was the Obama Administration that had James Comey
re-open the email investigation of Hillary to cast doubt on her trustworthiness
and ensure her loss.
The true Democratic voters were revolted by the Obama
Administration’s subservience to the Wall Street Banks and left the party long
ago. Hillary’s muddled message in the
2016 campaign along with her propping up Obama’s shameful legacy of abandoning
the American people and bailing out the corrupt banks, drove those voters into
the open arms of Donald Trump.
Those voters remain in the Donald Trump camp today because they
know that the Democratic Party no longer exists. The Democratic Party is indistinguishable
from the neocon Republican Party. From
Michael Hudson at Information Clearing House:
Excerpt:
Rescuing the Banks Instead of the Economy
November 02, 2018 "Information
Clearing House" - You can’t bail
out the banks, leave the debts in place, and rescue the economy. It’s a
zero-sum game. Somebody has to lose. That’s what happened in 2009 when
President Obama came in. He invited the
bankers to the White House and he said, “I’m the only guy standing between
you and the mob with pitchforks,” by which he meant the voters that he was
bamboozling. He reassured the bankers.
He said, “Look, my loyalty is to my campaign donors not to the voters.
Don’t worry; my loyalty is with you.”
I’m Bonnie Faulkner. Today on Guns
and Butter, Dr. Michael Hudson. Today’s show: Rescuing the Banks Instead of the
Economy. Dr. Hudson is a financial
economist and historian. He is president of the Institute for the Study of
Long-Term Economic Trend, a Wall Street financial analyst and Distinguished
Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.
His 1972 book Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire is
a critique of how the United States exploited foreign economies through the IMF
and World Bank. His latest books are
Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage to Ensure the
Global Economy and J is for Junk Economics.. Today we discuss how the bank
bailouts, not the crash, are killing the economy. Also, the concept of debt
deflation, the magic of compound interest, the growth of the financial
extraction FIRE sector, quantitative easing, tariffs, economic sanctions and
isolationism.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Dr. Michael
Hudson, welcome.
MICHAEL HUDSON: It’s good to be
back after a few years.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Boy I’ll say. I’ve
just read your article “The Lehman 10th Anniversary Spin as a Teachable
Moment.” Obviously, 2018 is the tenth anniversary of the 2008 stock market
crash. You immediately point out that
today’s financial malaise is a result of the bank bailout not the crash. I
think people might find this statement surprising since the claim is that the
bailout saved the economy.
MICHAEL HUDSON: I think what the
newspapers said was that the bailout saved the banks. To bankers, their banks
are the economy. The problem is, you can’t save the banks and the economy. If
you save the banks, you’re saving all the debt that people owe to the banks. And if you save all the debt that the
people owe to the banks – and you foreclose on the millions of families that
forfeited their homes in the mortgage crisis – if you leave the debts
growing at compound interest, raise the debt equity ratios and the
debt-to-income ratios, then the economy is going to shrink and shrink, and
we’re in a slow crash. So in a sense the celebration over “Yes, we saved the
banks” was correct last week, but
people don’t realize that the economy cannot be saved unless there’s a bank
crash.
That’s what Sheila Bair wrote in
her memoir about her experience as the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation. She pointed out that Citibank was insolvent from losing all its
net worth on bad gambles. She said it was the worst managed bank in America –
as distinct from the just plain crooked banks and criminal banks like Countrywide, Bank of America and Wells Fargo.
She said that there was plenty of theft by Citibank, but that all
the insured depositors could have been reimbursed. No insured depositor would
have lost money. But the stockholders and the bondholders that ran this
gambling institution would have been wiped out. She said that Obama and Geithner really represented Citibank. Geithner
was a protégé of Robert Rubin, the Secretary of the Treasury under President
Clinton. She wrote that she found out, she was told, “It’s all about the
bondholders.”
The problem is that Republican free-enterprise bankers
discussing what happened ten years ago are saying, “Nothing to see here folks.
Everything’s fixed now. We don’t have to do any regulation. Let the banks
be free again.” Or, you have Democrats like Paul Krugman who cannot bring
themselves to criticize what Obama did. A week ago, on September 14, Krugman showed
himself to be a flack for the banks and for the Democrats’ donor class by
writing that the Washington Beltway was crazy to believe that America had a
debt problem.
As I wrote in my article, he said
that all you need is Keynesian policy to run a large enough budget deficit to
spend enough money into the economy so
that wage earners will have enough to pay the banks what they owe. I think this
is the Democratic Party’s position: The role of wage earners is to make
enough money so that all of their income over and above survival needs has to
be paid for the banks. More and more income is needed to pay carrying charges
as their debts keep rising…
There’s no feeling at all within the Democratic Party that somehow the
banks should have been subordinate to saving the economy. I think that
is a major reason why Hillary lost the 2016 election. She kept saying, “Aren’t
you better off today than you were eight years ago when Mr. Obama was elected?”
Well, most people, especially in the Midwest, said, “No, we’re not
better off. Are you kidding? We’ve lost our homes, employment’s down, our wages
are lower, our pension funds are being seized. Of course we’re not better.”
So more and more voters stayed home. Just today I was reading a survey that 55%
to 85% of Americans say if there was a rerun of the 2016 election between Trump
and Hillary they just wouldn’t vote, because both candidates were so bad.
So what you really have seen in
this anniversary is not the discussion that you need to have: How are we going
to deal with the next crisis to avoid bailing out the banks all over again? If
we don’t bail out the banks, what’s the policy? How are we going to take over
the insolvent banks – that means, take them public. Sheila Bair pointed out that if Citibank would have been taken over by
FDIC it wouldn’t have made crooked loans, it wouldn’t have made junk mortgages.
It wouldn’t have made corporate takeover loans, it wouldn’t have made loans to
payday lenders, it wouldn’t have made
derivative gambles. That’s not what public banks do.
That discussion somehow isn’t
occurring. It’s not occurring because people don’t realize that in any economy
– not only in America; you’re having the same thing in Europe – the volume of
debt expands exponentially, by compound interest. All the debt that people owe
keeps mounting up more and more arrears. And
if you miss a payment on your credit card, or even if you miss a payment to the
electric utility or any other monthly bills, your credit card’s interest rate
goes up from 11 or 12% to 29%.
All this accumulates up and up and
up. And the result is that personal debt service relative to income is going
up. Corporate debt service relative to income is going way up, and the share of government budgets that must
be paid to bondholders is going up. That means that people don’t have
enough money to go and buy the goods and services they produce.
Here in New York, where I live there are whole blocks down 8th Street or
Broadway or 5th Avenue or Madison Avenue with more and more stores empty and
for rent, because the stores are going out of business. Restaurants
especially are going out of business.
The big chains that have been going
out of business, as you’ve seen—not only Toys R Us but the whole slew of the
big global and American chains are going out. People do not have enough money to buy goods and services anymore.
All of this is celebrated as “Saving the banks” instead of “Destroying the
economy.” This is Orwellian Doublethink.
It’s as if keeping the debts in
place instead of writing them down was a victory for the economy. The reality is that it was only a victory
of the banks and their bondholders…
The first debts to be wiped out are
going to be what companies and states owe for pension payments. You’ll see pensions wiped out, and you’ll
see Social Security scaled back. The vice is going to be tightening
financially on people. That should be what people are talking about when
they talk about the disaster of 2008
The first thing Obama did when he was elected was to send a list of
recommended cabinet positions to Rubin at Citicorp. So Citicorp got to name the
cabinet. Of course, it wasn’t going to accept anyone who would regulate it,
or any people in Justice who would throw a banker in jail. That’s the crisis. IT’S A POLITICAL CRISIS NOW THAT IS TEARING AMERICA
APART. But it’s not a crisis that’s being talked about in the press.
Why would anyone vote for a Democrat or a Republican that
espouses continuing the status quo?
These politicians are not the people’s representatives they are
government sanctioned predators bought out by special interests. Our representatives are financial terrorists
working against the American people.
From The Intercept:
Excerpt:
GOP REP. TOM REED FOUNDED MEDICAL DEBT COLLECTION FIRM THAT HARASSES
HIS OWN CONSTITUENTS
OVER THE LAST two years, Michael
Enslow, a resident of Waterloo, New York, has been in a back-and-forth with a
debt collector. The exchanges, familiar to many Americans, ended up in federal
court, claiming that the debt collection
company repeatedly refused to remove medical debt he long ago resolved from his
credit report. Their error prevented
him from getting preapproved for a mortgage.
Such chicanery is par for the
course in the debt collection industry, which is known for abusive practices,
including bullying consumers into paying debts they do not owe. What’s unusual about Enslow’s case is that
he was mistreated by a company that
his own representative in Congress, western New York’s Republican Rep. Tom
Reed, founded.
More than a dozen other consumers, including other New York residents,
have filed complaints about Reed’s company, according to a docket
maintained by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, one of the agencies
that oversees consumer lending companies. Several of the complaints claim that Reed’s
firm harassed them for medical debt they never incurred or had already resolved.
For nearly two decades, Reed reaped financial rewards from the debt
collection industry, managing a law firm that specialized in the trade.
After his election to Congress in 2010, Reed resisted congressional rules that
prohibited him from practicing law and required him to remove his name from his
law firm.
The Buffalo News reported that 194
court documents continued to carry his law firm’s name after he was elected. But his name remained until 2014, when Reed
said he had sold his stake in the company to his brother. In response to an
inquiry from The Intercept, Abbey Daugherty, a spokesperson for Reed’s
campaign, said, “Tom is not involved in this business.”
Yet records show that the Reed
household did not fully divest from the company, though the company was
rebranded from the “Law Office of Thomas W. Reed,” to “RR Resource Recovery.” An ownership stake in the firm is now
controlled by Jean Reed, the wife of Tom Reed. And the newly incorporated
firm lists Tom Reed’s brother John as the registration agent.
Reed makes little effort to
distance himself from the company. Records show that he owns a property company
called Reed & Reed Properties that houses RR Resource Recovery. And his
personal ethics disclosure shows that Reed’s
household continues to own a stake in both firms and collect an income of up to
$100,000 a year from the two companies…
From his perch in Congress, Reed has participated in several
Republican-led attempts to unravel the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
the primary federal agency that polices debt collection practices. The
attacks would defang the very agency that has collected consumer complaints
about Reed’s company.
Last year, Reed voted for the
Financial CHOICE Act, a sprawling
financial deregulation bill that rolls back CFPB’s mandate to regulate “unfair,
deceptive, and abusive practices,” and weakens the agency’s independence by
making the director an at-will employee of the president…
Unfair Targeting for Debt
Collection
Enslow is not the only person to
lodge a complaint against the company Reed founded. The Intercept spoke to
others and reviewed records, from as far
back as 15 years ago, of residents in Reed’s district who said they were
unfairly targeted by his company.
Over the last year, local activists
raised Reed’s financial interest in medical debt collection, claiming that he
profits from the current patchwork of policies, and that he would personally benefit further from his vote to repeal the
Affordable Care Act…
Reed did not directly respond to the allegation that his household
benefits from medical debt. “Even if we went to single-payer health care,
who do you think is going to pay for that?” Reed retorted…
Tracy Mitrano, Reed’s Democratic
opponent for the 23rd Congressional District, has campaigned for “Medicare for
All,” making the issue front and center in her campaign, along with bringing
broadband to rural New York and tackling student debt. Reed, however, has
largely sidestepped the issue of health care, instead campaigning on his
support for President Donald Trump and deploying
the catch-all insult he uses against every Democratic opponent, labeling
Mitrano an “extreme Ithaca liberal.”
Yes, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency has been a
thorn in the side of our “representatives” since its inception and they want to
get rid of it. Obama’s healthcare law
was written by special interests to maintain Wall Street profits. Who are you going to vote for in the midterms? Who gives a rip about the American
people? And it’s not just banking and
healthcare, it’s the military industrial complex too. From The Intercept:
Excerpt:
WEAPONS MAKERS RUSHING CAMPAIGN CASH TO DEMOCRAT IN LINE TO CHAIR
DEFENSE INDUSTRY’S KEY HOUSE COMMITTEE
WEAPONS MAKERS ARE moving last-minute money to the Democratic
congressman in line to chair the defense industry’s key House committee, as
he is under assault from a fellow Democrat, who is attacking his pro-war record
just ahead of a rare intra-party general election.
If Democrats take the House of
Representatives, the next chair of the Armed Services Committee, which oversees
military affairs and defense spending, will likely be Rep. Adam Smith, a hawkish Democrat from Washington state who
represents a district in the Seattle-area, where important elements of the
military-industrial complex are concentrated.
But standing in his way is Sarah
Smith, a working-class activist and
democratic socialist, hoping to channel progressive momentum to dislodge the
incumbent lawmaker in an unusual Democrat versus Democrat general election
matchup.
In a year that has seen several
high-profile incumbent Democrats challenged, this race stands out for its focus
on foreign policy and the pernicious
influence of the weapons industry.
Sarah Smith has mounted a
surprisingly spirited bid, attacking the
“corrupting influence of the military-industrial complex” and demanding
that the country shift “away from our economy of violence toward an economy of
peace.” She has singled out Adam Smith’s votes in favor of war and against restrictions on cluster
munitions, as well as his support for bills that have expanded the reach of
the sprawling homeland security and surveillance state.
Sensing an opportunity to influence
the race and the potential future committee chair, major weapons contractors have given the lawmaker last-minute campaign
support. Lobbyists and executives associated with General Dynamics, one of
the largest weapons makers in the world, have given over $10,000 in recent
weeks, in addition to the $9,500 from the company over the last quarter…
Adam Smith has served in Congress
since 1997 and has compiled a relatively interventionist voting record. He cast a vote in favor of the Iraq War
during George W. Bush’s administration and initially warned against winding
down the war in Afghanistan during Barack Obama’s administration.
In 2016, in one of the first major
floor votes to prevent the transfer of American arms to Saudi Arabia for the
war in Yemen, Adam Smith was one of only
16 Democrats to join Republicans in voting the measure down. The bill
explicitly restricted the use of cluster munitions, which often kill
and injure civilians because the ordinance is designed to detonate and spread
miniature explosives over a wide area.
Textron, the Rhode Island-based defense contractor that has long served
as a leading producer of cluster bombs, has given Adam Smith $24,500 in
campaign contributions over the last decade. The company announced two
years ago that it would end the production of the weapon…
Adam Smith’s campaign has massively out-raised his progressive
challenger by an 11 to 1 margin, giving the incumbent a significant advantage,
as he’s been able to air campaign commercials to get his message out. The local
chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, as well as several local
activist groups, have volunteered for Sarah Smith’s campaign, giving the young
challenger a boost of enthusiasm despite the moneyed gap in political
resources.
Political prognosticators are
giving Sarah Smith little chance: FiveThirtyEight
projects Adam Smith has a better than 99 percent chance of winning the race.
The incumbent has a 99 percent chance of winning because he
has been engorged with campaign contributions from the defense industry,
particularly the leading producer of cluster bombs. That is what the DNC has to offer, foreign
policy formed by campaign contributions.
The DNC is un-Democratic and has become an extension of the Republican
Party. Who would vote for that? From James Howard Kunstler at Lew Rockwell:
Excerpt:
Midterm Endgame
Back in the last century, when this
was a different country, the Democrats were the “smart” party and the
Republicans were the “stupid” party. How did that work? Well, back then the Democrats represented a broad
middle class, with a base of factory workers, many of them unionized, and
the party had to be smart, especially in the courts, to overcome the natural
advantages of the owner class. In contrast, the Republicans looked like a
claque of country club drunks who staggered home at night to sleep on their
moneybags. Bad optics, as we say nowadays.
The Democrats also occupied the moral high ground as the champion of
the little guy. If not for the Dems, factory workers would be laboring
twelve hours a day and children would still be maimed in the machinery. Once
the relationship between business and labor was settled in the 1950s, the party
moved on to a new crusade on even loftier moral high ground: civil rights,
aiming to correct arrant and long-lived injustices against downtrodden black
Americans. That was a natural move, considering America’s self-proclaimed
post-war status as the world’s Beacon of Liberty. It had to be done and a
political consensus that included Republicans got it done. Consensus was still
possible.
The Dems built their fortress on
that high ground and fifty years later they find themselves prisoners in it.
The factory jobs all vamoosed overseas. The middle class has been pounded into
penury and addiction. The Democratic
Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons seeking
favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the
permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic
and sexual minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that
bureaucracy. It’s the last group that has become the party’s most public face
while the party’s other activities – many of them sinister — remain at least
partially concealed.
The Republican Party has, at least,
sobered up some after getting blindsided by Trump and Trumpism. Like a drunk out of rehab, it’s
attempting to get a life. Two years in, the party marvels at Mr. Trump’s
audacity, despite his obvious lack of savoir faire. And despite a longstanding
lack of political will to face the country’s problems, the Republicans are being forced to engage on some real issues, such
as the need for a coherent and effective immigration policy and the need to
redefine formal trade relations. (Other
issues like the insane system of medical racketeering and the deadly racket of
the college loan industry just skate along on thin ice. And then, of
course, there’s the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.)
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has
become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting with the position that
“diversity and inclusion” means shutting down free speech, an unforgivable
transgression against common sense and common decency… And it
is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift, new-fashioned gross
political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual
depravity in higher education.
I hope that Democrats lose as many
congressional and senate seats as possible.
I hope that the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront
its astounding dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge
their leadership across the board.
If there is anything to salvage in
this organization, I hope it discovers
aims and principles that are unrecognizable from its current agenda of
perpetual hysteria. But if the party actually blows up and disappears, as
the Whigs did a hundred and fifty years ago, I will be content. Out of the
terrible turbulence, maybe something better will be born.
Or, there’s the possibility that
the dregs of a defeated Democratic Party will just go batshit crazy and use the
last of its mojo to incite actual sedition.
Of course, there’s also a distinct possibility that the Dems will take over
congress, in which case they’ll ramp up an even more horrific three-ring-circus
of political hysteria and persecution that will make the Spanish
Inquisition look like a backyard barbeque. That will happen as the US enters
the most punishing financial train wreck in our history, an interesting recipe
for epic political upheaval.
How true, if the Dems take over congress “they’ll ramp up an
even more horrific three-ring circus of political hysteria” rather than
concentrate on fixing our out of control banking system that has continued to terrorize
the American people. There are hardly
any Democrats in the Democratic Party anymore because they were purged by the
Obama Administration.
The people don’t want Donald Trump to be impeached, they
want a Democratic Party to work with him to end these fruitless wars and repair
our infrastructure. The bobble heads from
the Democratic Party that populate the political talk shows are indicative of
the “new” Democratic Party of relentless war-mongers hell-bent on destroying
America for financial and political gain.
From Geopolitics:
Excerpt:
Panic Among Oligarchs, Trump May Turn the Election
President Donald Trump is fully deployed to assure that the
“Impeachment Party” — once known as the Democratic Party — is denied their
effort to take over the Congress and launch an impeachment. He has held 12
rallies across the country in support of Republican candidates, repeating
everywhere that a vote for Democrats this year is a vote against himself.
He plans to hold 10 more rallies in
the final days preceding the election on Nov. 6. Although he seldom engaged the
press in his first two years, in the
past three weeks he has held numerous press conferences and interviews, fully
confident and determined in his role as President.
The LaRouche PAC-sponsored
Independent Congressional candidacies in Texas and South Dakota of Kesha Rogers
and Ron Wieczorek are rallying people around the country, regardless of party
affiliation, to defend the nation
against the British-orchestrated coup attempt, and organizing Americans to back Trump’s intention to
establish peace and friendship with Russia and China, restore American System
economic policies in the U.S., while calling on Trump to join in the new
paradigm for global development represented by the Belt and Road Initiative.
The British and their assets in the U.S. are not pleased. In the
past week we have seen the “caravan” of people from Honduras and Guatemala,
openly mobilized and financed by George Soros’s NGOs, being driven toward the
U.S. border, trying to force a showdown that they believe will undermine
Trump’s resolve and public support.
Even the Presidents of the these
two impoverished nations have denounced the operation as a destabilization of
their own countries, and created a “Safe Return” fund to entice the marchers
back to their homelands. Mexican
President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador has offered jobs and work visas to
the marchers if they would stay in Mexico.
And now we have the mail-bomb
operation, with primitive pipe-bombs mailed to Obama, Hillary Clinton, CNN and
others — even George Soros himself — although they may have been so poorly
constructed that they could not explode.
CNN President Jeff Zucker immediately blamed Trump and his press spokesperson
Sarah Sanders, claiming that their attacks on the press constitute an
invitation for terrorist assassinations!
Trump, in fact, strongly denounced
the criminal acts and swore to catch the perpetrators. The {Washington Post}
headlined an article: “Amid Incendiary Remarks, Targets of Trump’s Words Become
Targets of Bombs.” They also denounced
those who questioned the bombs as a possible “false-flag” operation, of the
sort now widely recognized due to the fake chemical weapons attacks in Syria by
the terrorist White Helmets.
The New York Times went so far as
to publish a short story by a British pulp novelist about a Russian hit-man,
with help from the U.S. Secret Service, assassinating President Trump.
These actions have a destabilizing
purpose, but there is a process underway in humanity at large which cannot
easily be stopped. The British people
have rejected the EU dictatorship, and now the same sentiment has led to a new
government in Italy which is putting the health and livelihood of their
citizens ahead of the unelected Brussels oligarchs. The elections of
Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, and Donald Trump in the U.S.A. demonstrate
the old Abe Lincoln saying: You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
Most importantly, there is now more
than one choice facing the citizens of the world. The “one game in town” era of IMF dictates, the “Washington Consensus,”
is dead, although the dinosaurs have so far failed to concede their demise.
The Belt and Road is being embraced across Asia, Africa and Ibero-America, and
increasingly in both Eastern and Western Europe.
This is what the Lords of the City
of London and Wall Street fear most. When they heard this past week that Trump
plans to meet Vladimir Putin in Paris immediately after the election, and that
he is also to meet with Xi Jinping at the end of November in Argentina, all the King’s horses and all the King’s
men have been deployed to prevent this affront to the British Empire’s division
of the world by the upstart President of the breakaway colony across the
Atlantic. But Humpty Dumpty is about to take a great fall.
In 2008 the working people were abandoned by the Obama
Democrats in favor of Wall Street Banks and now the working people have
abandoned the Democratic Party and they are not coming back. The Democrats may take back the house and if
they do, they will neuter the populists and revert back to their same, failed
policies of coddling banks ensuring a Trump victory in 2020. The Democrats care only about money and
cannot be relied upon to save Social Security or Medicare. There is no Democratic Party, just a neocon
war party. For the DNC nothing will
change after the midterms no matter the outcome.
