Barack Obama is "getting a pass" from Democratic Leadership Council and Blue Dog Democrat types and plenty of so-called "liberals." It's not the first time a Democratic President has been held up as "the lesser of evils" and therefore the best "we" (those Democrats) could manage what with the penchant for many Americans to shoot themselves in the foot by electing neocon, neoliberal, hyper-predatory, hyper-violent, unethical-capitalist, crony, Republican, hypocritical, lying slime balls, as it were.
It's time to revisit the Mena, Arkansas, Reagan/Bush/Clinton CIA drug-smuggling cover-up.
That link is actually quite tame.
Here are two comments I added that came out of the thread on.
That WaPo article is a pretty good beginning. I say beginning because it goes really, really deep. The leads are endless. You never run out of material. They snake all through the dark side.
Look, a couple grade school boys were murdered because they had stumbled into a drop zone. The whole thing was covered up. When you listen to their parents, it breaks your heart. The Clintons were right in the thick of it all and all on account of the huge money laundering that was going on. Hillary was a big shot statewide lawyer too, and her law firm was implicated in tons of stuff for the banks that was all papered over. Bill Clinton knew all about it.
"I never had sexual relations with that woman." That was just a telling sideshow. The only reason they didn't go after him on Mena was because it would have pulled down the Bush family too and killed off the Reagan "reputation," which was already crap on account of Iran-Contra. They couldn't pull him down on Whitewater because they couldn't go into it deeply enough. The Clinton people had plenty on everyone else. That's what they all do, get dirt on each other and then "trust" each other because no one wants to be ruined by a lynch mob with the truth. It's like the Aryan Nation requiring members to kill someone randomly in eyeshot of other members – join the club.
So, what's the price of initiation into the Bush/Clinton Club?
One lead leads to another and another all through the CIA and the Nazis and drug dealing going back to the China Opium Wars and pirating and on and on.
Welcome to Afghanistan where all the anti-poppy talk is just that: talk. Every big bankster is getting his cut and turning around and rewarding the minion millionaires. We all know that the Taliban had dramatically reduced the poppy cultivation. We also know that the only thing the US was going to do was start spraying hugely expensive, ineffective, toxic herbicides – that's chemical-corporation contracting with all the side deals, etc. The cultivation would have continued.
Don't forget that Wal-Mart (now Walmart) is Arkansas. That's the publicly richest immediate family in the world. Hillary was really close to them. The dirt would have spread. You know the Walton's knew about what was going on. Nothing could happen there on the ground, etc., without their knowledge.
Now you know another reason why Bill Clinton gets along so well with the Bush family. Now you know another reason why they all hate Jimmy Carter so much too because Carter wasn't ever dirty with any of that sort of stuff.
One of the worst things that happened was Yugoslavia breaking up. The powers that be couldn't stand it that Tito wasn't under the thumb of either the Atlanticists or Soviets but was nonaligned.
The CIA worked over time to bring about sectarian strife there even while the so-called European leaders were publicly wringing their hands for fear of a new world war since the first one, they claim, had started there: another "historical fact" farce.
Clinton had a huge hand in cracking that all up for Empire's sake. He milked the Kosovo story that was almost all a huge lie. Once the real story came out, it was all flushed down the memory hole.
He was surrounded by, surrounded himself with, Zionists and neoliberals. It's a terrible combination that is killing everything decent in foreign affairs. We need to kill off Zionism and kill off neoliberal economics. The sooner those things are done the better. We need to do those things by changing hearts and minds for real.
Predatory capitalism is a mental illness. There is no more militarily aggressive ideology in the world. Just look at the military-industrial complex. Capitalist military contracts and all the capitalist contracts associated with Empire have replaced the old-style imperialism, but it's leading right back to it — consolidation.
The capitalists like to point to the wars fought by socialists and communists. However, who won the wars and why? Besides, there's a huge difference between non-dictatorial giving and sharing versus a one-party dictatorship under a cult of personality.
If we end up with one global bank running it all right out in the open, how could it not give rise to an evil dictator using and magnifying all the worst examples from the pages of history?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)