Did Americans Dream of Democratic Republic or Political Monarchy?

American conservative billionaire Charles Koch gave a revealing interview on ABC News to “This Week” host Jon Karl last weekend, stating his disappointment in the National and Electoral politics lately. However, he observed some good things going locally and on state level, but not nationwide. He is also disappointed by all sorts of personal attacks observed during this election campaign and pitting one person against another, making the U.S. Presidential candidates “terrible role models.”


Koch agreed that American system is rigged to benefit big and wealthy companies like his, while preventing smaller companies from even getting started. When asked if he controls the Republican Party because of his multi-million dollars donations to various causes, he smiled and responded that if he controlled them, we wouldn’t have a two-tiered tax system that benefits the wealthy, while impoverishing the middle and the lower class. When asked about Donald Trump wanting to keep tabs on all the Muslims in the country, Charles said that making Muslims register, like Trump wants, would make our country to become more like the Nazi Germany. “That’s monstrous!” – he added.


Koch also stated that Democratic President Bill Clinton did a better job as president than his Republican successor George W. Bush or present President Barack Obama, who increased Government spending on restrictive regulations 2.5 times more under Bush than it was under President Clinton, and who was trying to do the right thing, but was “misguided” to start wars, trying “to create democracies in countries where that’s counter-productive.”
When asked if it was possible that another Clinton (meaning, Hillary Clinton) could be better than another Republican, he said: “It’s possible…“ When asked if he could see himself supporting Hillary, he smiled diplomatically and responded: “We would have to believe that her actions would be quite different than her rhetoric. Let me put it that way. And on some of the Republican candidates, before we could support them, we’d have to believe that their actions would be quite different than the rhetoric we heard so far.” He didn’t say he will support Hillary, but he stated a condition for his support, and yet, his words were taken out of the context all over major media resources who claims that this conservative mogul stands behind Clinton, who was fast to respond that she wasn’t interested in his support. This was quite an interesting statement, considering that it was coming from a person who craves for support of Americans all over Facebook with her anti-Trump sponsored advertisements and demand to sign up to show that we are with her…


What Koch may have hinted to us by mentioning Bush and Clinton dynasties, though, is that these choices may not have been accidental. With Bushes, we had a father and a son to become the U.S. Presidents. We also had cousins and grandsons serving as U.S. Presidents before. A husband and a wife, however, would be the first for this country, just as a woman President can be our first.
Unfortunately, an American political system that was initiated by the Founding Fathers as a Democratic Republic has since seemed to be morphed into a dynastic structure, where representatives of several political dynasties replace each other during awfully expensive election season. Do you think an outsider has a chance to get in between them? While searching for data about how many U.S. Presidents have been related to each other, I stumbled upon a shocking article about BridgeAnne d’Avington and her discovery that 43 out of 44 of U.S. Presidents have one common ancestor – King John “Lackland” Plantagenet, also known as evil King John of England, against whom Robin Hood fought! Her research and the relationship chart was so astounding that it got filed into the Library of Congress’s exhibit on the Magna Carta. Even though Obama is our country’s first black President, he, too, is related by blood to King John and is actually the 18th cousin of BridgeAnne herself, and so she wrote him a letter to let him know about her revelation. Somehow, this shocking discovery was missed by all major media outlets, and I would like to know why?
If America had been led only by descendants of King John of England ever since it’s supposed declaration of Independence, then who are we? A country of freedom with ideals of republican democracy or a colony with political monarchy ruling it till this day? If you think this was not shocking enough, there are hints that John Forbes Kerry if 16th cousin of George W. Bush, and so Mister Kerry himself descends from King Henry II of England and Richard the Lionheart. Before that, George W. Bush rand against Al Gore, who, rumors have it, is also a distant cousin of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush and a descendant of Edward I, Roman Emperors Louis I, II, and Charles II. Al Gove is also a direct descendant of Charlemagne. More than that, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole are also distant cousins and can trace their ancestry to England’s King Henry III and U.S. Presidents William Henry and Benjamin Harrison… Clinton, however, has more royal blood than Dole and is directly descended from the same bloodline as the House of Windsor, every Scottish monarch and King Robert I or France. No wonder our last Presidential races were so close! Is it all just about genetics? Was it ever about the will of American people?


I know that the American people are tired of politicians with the same family names ruling over them and this is manifested in mass support for alternative Republican and Democratic candidates such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. But wait! Some researchers have proven that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are also distant cousins, and that “their 19th great grandfather is King Edward III, so there is precedent for ruling a country, it’s in their genes.” Where does it leave Bernie Sanders then? You got it! On the outskirts of American history. So much for our illusion of the American Dream and our American Freedoms that we have sacrificed so many lives for…

From Wall Street to Super PACs to Clinton: What’s Wrong with this Picture?

An interesting debate was held in New York City on April 14, 2016 between two Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Since this week’s Super Tuesday was a primary election day in New York and twelve other states, let’s examine the last Democratic debate in New York City and try to understand how Clinton won over the majority of New York City voters and if this game was fair.

As the debate opened, Bernie Sanders was right on the money stating that Hillary Clinton got millions of dollars from Wall Street and large corporations who donated undisclosed amounts of money to her campaign though her Super PACs. A Super PAC is a Political Action Committee (a.k.a. “independent expenditure-only committee”) that is allowed to raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, individuals, associations and even not-for-profit organizations and spend them on candidate promotion via any means deemed necessary in order to influence the outcome of state and federal elections. They can purchase television, radio, print advertisements and other media in order to advocate for the election or defeat of other (not as funded) candidates.

A super PAC is a recent invention of our corrupted political system created in July 2010 (right before the previous Presidential elections that ended up being the most expensive elections ever) with the federal court’s ruling that it found any limitations placed on both individual and corporate contributions that are used to influence the elections to be “unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment right to free speech”! In SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission case, a federal court found that restrictions imposed on individual contributions to independent organizations that seek to influence elections to also be unconstitutional. In other words, the court used our right to Free Speech to make it easier for big corporations to buy the U.S. elections, while taking our individual rights for participation in fair elections away from us, the citizens of the United States of America! What’s even worse, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that any financial limits placed on corporate and union spending to influence elections were also unconstitutional. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Oh, really? 

Back in 2012, U.S. Senator John McCain warned us: "I guarantee there will be a scandal, there is too much money washing around politics, and it’s making the campaigns irrelevant." As the article I have found while doing my research on Super PACs further explains, “another criticism of super PACs arises from the allowance of some nonprofit groups to contribute to them without disclosing where their money came from, a loophole that allows so-called dark money to flow directly into elections.” No wonder the rumors have it that Hillary pocketed millions of dollars from infamous Mr. Soros, which she is using to stir an unprecedented havoc of this campaign season via all these anti-Trump demonstrations popping up across the country like mushrooms after the rain.

In the course of the debate, Bernie Sanders accused Hillary of accepting $250,000 per speech from the nation’s largest financial institutions, which are using this as one of the ways to finance her campaign, buying her loyalty to their corporate interests in the future. Wouldn’t you like to be paid a quarter of a million dollars for an hour of talk, while it would take years for most of us to earn as much money by going to work every day? And yet, Clinton objects that she is the Wall Street’s candidate. Wouldn’t you?

To be fair, Donald Trump who is worth 4.5 billion dollars is not a peasant either, but at least we know where his money came from. He builds things. He invests in our country’s infrastructure, and, God knows, we need to rebuild many cities and repair our country’s aging infrastructure, such as: roads, bridges, railroads, etc. We don’t need Wall Street to make economic bubbles and then have them burst right into our faces, whipping out our retirement funds and all our savings. That’s what we’ll get if Hillary Clinton wins this Democratic nomination over Bernie Sanders and gets propelled into the White House, once again. I highly doubt that Donald Trump has any chance of winning this Presidential bid because of all the hysteria associated with him, although most of bought-up media allegations against him are outright false and spun out of context or proportions. And even if he does, who is to say that the President of the United States cannot be… umm… “removed” from the Office via some unfortunate circumstances?

If this last possibility is out of your realm of possibilities or core belief system, consider this theory for a minute: the fact now emerges that John F. Kennedy Jr. planned to run for the New York State’s Senate seat before he found out that our First Lady Hillary Clinton had plans to run for that seat, and, lo and behold, he vanished into thin air (or was it really the Atlantic Ocean?) on July 16, 1999, while witnesses insisted that his plane seemed to be blown during descend by something like an altitude-triggered bomb. Google for “John F Kennedy Jr Senate” keywords and see what pops up. You’ll be shocked by what you may now find on this topic.

What’s also caught my attention is an article that reported that a day before the primary elections in New York some “New Yorkers filed an emergency lawsuit in attempt to restore the voting rights to 3.2 million people,” which amounts to 27% of all New York voters, with most of them being believed to be Sanders supporters, who were somehow listed as “independent” voters and thus were banned from voting in this presidential primary election. The issue was caused by New York having the earliest change-of-party deadline in the country, meaning that independent voters who wanted to participate in the primary had to change their party by October, 2015. In addition to that, voters who voted outside of their own precincts via affidavit ballot due to the Hurricane Sandy hitting New York on the Election Day of 2012 got their party affiliation automatically changed to “unaffiliated”, and so they were banned from voting during this Super Tuesday. How “super” it is for Hillary’s chances, isn’t it? What’s even worse is that similar problems were also reported in other states, including California, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky.

Going back to this last debate that aired before these New York elections, Hillary Clinton kept talking about her Senate achievements from 2000 to 2008 and the Secretary of State’s position she held during the bloodiest years of the last decade’s “War of Terrorism” and undeclared wars on other countries and their leaders that dared to stay independent from the International Monetary Fund! Surprisingly, Clinton now changed her opinion on $15 an hour minimum wage that Bernie Sanders advocated for and said that she wouldn’t mind some cities having a minimum wage of $12-15 an hour. Both of them also mentioned the climate change and the steps that each candidate would take to address it. Sanders wanted to take on the fossil fuel, while Clinton kept repeating what current President Obama has done on this topic, avoiding outlining her own strategy. She just criticized the coal mining and seemed to now decide to oppose the fracking – a method of extracting oil and natural gas that irrevocably ruins the soil and water resources in the area.

On the issue of National Security and Foreign Policy and mentioning of President Obama’s latest admission that the worst mistake he made while being in Office over these past 7.5 years was “not preparing for Libya after Muammar Gaddafi was removed,” Clinton responded that she did “a great deal to help the Libyan people after Gaddafi’s demise” by “helping them to hold two successful elections”, for which there was “a pent-up desire to try to chart their own future after 42 years of dictatorship.” She also added that we got rid of their stockpile of chemical weapons, and that she’s very proud of her achievements as Secretary of State. She did mention that there was a “problem with providing security afterwards” and that U.S. failed to prevent the clashes between different forces inside Libya, but that couldn’t be helped.

Bernie Sanders replied that “the New York Times told us that it was Secretary Clinton who led the effort for that regime change, and this is the same type of mentality that supported the war in Iraq.” He further stated: “We didn’t think thoroughly about what happens the day after you get rid of these dictators. Regime change often has unintended consequences… If you study the whole history of American involvement in regime change, you’ll see that quite often.” In response, Mrs. Clinton remembered Mr. Sander’s positive voting in Senate’s unanimous vote in favor of going to the U.N. Security Council, to which Bernie responded that “just repeating this allegation doesn’t make it true,” and that his vote was not about the regime change, but to support Libya’s move to Democracy.

Go listen to the rest of this heated debate called “CNN Democratic Presidential Debate Brooklyn, NY Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders (4/14/16)” on YouTube if you want to hear how two people from parallel Universes try to talk to each other across the cosmic Void. As for me, I don’t mind if Hillary ends up winning in her own personal Universe, as long as she stays the Hell away from mine!

Two Mistakes for the Price of Billions

Two Mistakes for the Price of Billions

Washington, DC: U.S. President Barack Obama says the biggest mistake of his presidency was a lack of planning for the aftermath of the fall of late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, with the country spiraling into chaos and grappling with violent extremists.

 

Really, Mister President? You’re admitting to this mistake of criminally killing another country’s leader that you so diplomatically called as “lack of planning” now? I do wonder how do you sleep at night without being visited by all the Souls you and your drone warfare have “liberated” from their bodies? That’s ok to make mistakes, I guess, even if you’re the President of the most aggressive army on Earth. As long as he finally admits to his mistakes, all that is just water under the bridge, so let’s forgive and forget… Right?

 

However, in light of the President Obama’s admission about the Libyan campaign being the biggest mistake of his presidency, let’s not forget Hillary Clinton’s crucial role in planning and executing this disastrous war on Libya, while she was the U.S. Secretary of State. After all, she’s so close to become the next President of the United States of America – she can almost taste it! How many mistakes will she admit to at the end of her presidency? Can American people survive though her war-loving presidency? Let me remind you of her other disastrous Foreign Policy decisions that brought U.S. relations with other large nations to a halt.

Remember her infamous “Reset” button she gifted to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with offers to revive US-Russian relations back in 2009? Well, what you may not know is that there was a misspelled Russian word «PEREGRUZKA» (“Overload” or “Overcharged”) written on it instead of intended «PEREZAGRUZKA» (“Reset” or “Reboot”). No wonder that US-Russian relations are so dazed and confused right now, with bogus economic sanctions imposed on Russia and the Third World War starting all over the world…

Remember Benghazi and her letting four U.S. Citizens be sacrificed there for some “greater cause” of paving the road towards a war on Libya with American blood? The attack that she did nothing to prevent ended up in U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, to become a “sacrificial lamb” to her cause. The rule is as old as this world: if you want to gain something, a sacrifice is required. Why is it her fault? As a Secretary of State, she was “in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts,”, as Clinton said in an interview with CNN. Here, she said it herself.

Remember the excitement of widely televised Arab Spring in Egypt? How fast did we then witness Egypt’s destabilization and flip-flopping more radical Muslim Brotherhood in and out of power as a result of another failed U.S. policy? In futile attempts to create another “puppet” radical Islamic movement in the Middle East in order to topple Syrian Government, and Islamic State (also known as ISIS) was born, and it’s so out of hands now – it’s not even funny! Even Clinton’s opponent Donald Trump mentioned in his interview last summer that “Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama created ISIS!” What does he know that we don’t? One doesn’t have to be a fan of Donald Trump to see some truth in his allegations.

Here we are, questioning the results of Hillary Clinton’s intense diplomatic activity, while some are still cheering her on her way into the White House. Have anyone questioned her lack of diplomacy and effective Foreign Policy doctrine? Where will she lead us if not to another World War that this planet may not even survive or recover from? Can we afford to risk it all for giving a woman a first chance to rule our country? Don’t we have other women, though? If it’s all about gender equality, then how come the Green Party candidate Jill Stein gets no media coverage or support in her bid for the White House? The answer is obvious: U.S. elections are all staged, fixed, and the notions of “democracy” and “personal freedoms” (of choice and speech) that our Forefathers have founded this country on have been stolen from right under our noses, and we don’t even know it…

On a side note, back in 2014, an ABC News journalist asked Hillary Clinton directly about her biggest achievement as Secretary of State and did not even get an answer. Other questions that were raised were about Hillary Clinton's prolonged absence, supposedly connected to health issues, but, according to some sources, they might have been related to Clinton's unwillingness to answer some hard questions about the killing of U.S. Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi and lack of ability to effectively lead and take good care of employees of U.S. State Department. Should we now allow her to lead our whole country into oblivion? Not unless we want to have a country to live in.