Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
KoKo
KoKo's Journal
KoKo's Journal
February 23, 2016
--------------
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay.We're continuing our discussion with Ralph Nader on Justice Scalia's passing and what comes next, and the significance of it all. Thanks for joining us again, Ralph.
RALPH NADER: You're welcome, Paul.
JAY: So I've always kind of imagined this division on the court, and the division more broadly within the elite politics of a section of the elite sort of a descendant of slave owners, in a way, they see that the ability of corporations and capital to exploit workers in a very unfettered way has--completely unfettered way was slavery, direct slavery. Well, the next step from that after slavery. There should be almost no restrictions on how a corporation can exploit or how intensely it can exploit people. Where the section of the elite that calls themselves liberals, they, they think there should be some fetters, whether it's because it makes them feel better about themselves, or because they are concerned about what it might do in terms of radicalizing the population.
Or they're, more reasonable, whatever one wants to say.That division in the court, and that reflection of that division in the elite, it's significant. It ends up with very different court decisions, depending on which section of the elite is dominating the court, and obviously the Congress and such. So talk a little bit about what that far-right represents, where it comes from in terms of American history, the trend, the right that Scalia represents, and I guess take that a little bit into where the Republican party is now. Because you have most of anyone that might win the Republican nomination is more or less on the same page as Scalia.
NADER: Well, they like to talk about market. And the marketplace is the best test for economic activity. But what they really do is they support policies that entrench what I call corporate supremacy over the people. There's always a tension between commercial values and civic values throughout world history. Every major religion in the world warned its adherents not to give too much power to the merchant class. It goes back thousands of years.
Because it's so singularly monomaniacal, the pursuit of profit, pursuit of sales, pursuit of enrichment. Running--you know, running havoc over other competing much more important values for a just society. Health, safety, freedom of people, posterity and the like.So this is nothing new. So I call them corporatists. I don't call them conservatives. They are not conservatives. They are not libertarians. Some of the most powerful critiques today of corporate power, crony capitalism, bailouts of Wall Street, come from authentic conservatives and libertarians. Some of the most authentic criticism of the military-industrial complex has come from libertarians. Not just people who call themselves liberals and progressives.So that's number one. Number two, this theme throughout history has been very --.
JAY: Actually, can I add just one thing to that. Let me just add one thing. On the foreign policy side, a lot of the libertarian critique or policy is way better than a lot of people calling themselves liberals.NADER: Yeah. Well, the corporatist liberals like Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, they don't really deserve to be called liberals. They've hijacked liberal philosophy, and given it this highly-militant, aggressive, brute force-first foreign policy. Hillary is the butcher of Libya. She opposed successfully in the White House Secretary of Defense Gates, who said, no, you topple Gaddafi, who's already coming around and disarming and cutting deals with the oil companies, you topple him and there's a huge vacuum.
And in a tribal society it's going to be chaos. And of course, with all her experience, Hillary Clinton rebuffed him, and the result is sweeping, violent chaos in larger and larger portions of northeast Africa, not just Libya. Into Mali and elsewhere.So corporatism has got to be a word we incorporate in our political discussions and our electoral campaigns. Because that's what our country's turning into: a country dominated by corporate power, merging Wall Street with Washington. We call it the corporate state. Right-wing people call it crony capitalism.
JAY: The--as much as, even if you take a Hillary, and while I think you can say in terms of corporatism she's to the right of President Obama--on the other hand, President Obama is very much in the same mould, at least on certainly all the kind of things that are serving Wall Street. There is a difference, is there not? The kind of Supreme Court nominees that an Obama or a Clinton might make--and I'm not talking about Sanders now, I'm--if Sanders was ever in such a position I assume he would appoint Supreme Court nominees that would be, you know, far more liberal than those.But even there, the liberals on the Supreme Court that were appointed by corporatist Democrats, they're still coming up with decisions that are not as coercive or onerous as these people like Scalia.
NADER: Yeah, that's true. But remember, not many important cases from a progressive point of view ever reach the Supreme Court. They're thrown out for lack of standing, they're called political questions, they don't make it past the appellate level. And the Supreme Court takes fewer cases now than ever before. They used to take 150-160 cases. They're down to about 70-75 cases. So we don't have a chance for a lot of progressive issues to be put up before the Supreme Court. Like trying to reverse the wild First Amendment rights that have been given to corporations, that have blocked a lot of consumer organized power.For example, there was a regulation, California required Pacific Gas and Electric to put an insert in the electric bill inviting customers to form, join their own nonprofit consumer action group challenging the gas and electric on rate making, on environment, on service. And the California Supreme Court upheld it. It went to the Supreme Court with [inaud.] dissenting, and the 6-3 vote, or 5-3 vote, one member recused himself, they ruled that requiring Pacific Gas and Electric--mind you, a monopoly, a legal monopoly, to put an insert at no expense to itself inviting its customers to band together into a collective voice of advocacy, violated--check this--violated Pacific Gas and Electric's First Amendment right to remain silent and not rebut the insert's contents.That's the most egregious expansion of corporate personhood, and that's what we mean when progressives say that the Supreme Court is dominated by corporatists. Citizens United was just an example.
JAY: Now, the liberals on the court voted against Citizens United. Is there a possibility that an Obama appointment could reverse such things?
NADER: Yes. A very real possibility. Because that was the law of the land until Citizens United, it was a prior well-regarded Supreme Court decision that the corporatists overruled in order to install Citizens United. Corporations were not allowed to directly give money to political campaigns for over 100 years. And that's what was reversed. So it's an easy decision to re-reverse and go back to the prior controlling Supreme Court decision. And I think that could be done.But you know, in the Senate, Paul, in the last three-four decades, the Republicans just have been more aggressive, and more demanding, and more outrageous in blocking or pushing through Supreme Court nominations than the Democrats. You know, early on under Nixon, the Democrats stop Judge Carswell from being confirmed. Then they stop Nixon's appointment of Judge Haynsworth, and then they got Justice [Blackburn], who's a pretty good justice, nominated by Nixon.Now, look what happened recently. Scalia was confirmed 98-nothing. I went up to Capitol Hill, went into Kennedy and other progressive Democrats' office, can't you at least dissent?
No. They recognized the president's prerogative. And then came along Kennedy, replacing the defeated nomination of Gore, and he was support--he was voted in 97-nothing. Every Democrat voted for him.So in those days the Democrats recognized the president's prerogative to nominated someone who, if they had any intellect and they were fairly clean, okay, vote for them. Not the Republicans. No way. And the Republicans are very, very aggressive. As a result, for example, they got Justice Thomas through 52-48 in a Senate that was dominated by a majority of Democrats, and Senator George Mitchell was the majority leader. We were up there in Capitol Hill trying to change votes. We actually changed Lieberman's vote, can you imagine. He thanked me later for alerting him to Thomas' record.But Thomas won 52-48 with about 12 Democratic senators crossing the aisle and joining with the Republicans. What are you going to do with such passive, recessive types of Democrats up against, you know, saber-tooth tiger Republicans? It's not much of a contest.
JAY: Yeah, the Republicans--.
NADER: So I wonder what's going to happen.
JAY: Well, the Republicans always seem to understand they're at a war for what they want, and the Democrats make a virtue out of being able to work across the aisle. I don't understand that part. What's your observations on the elections? On the, what's going on with the primaries and such?
NADER: Well, I think the most immediate thing is to get Hillary to, to release the transcripts of her closed-door meetings before thousands of businesspeople. The realtors, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, the chain drug stores, all of whom paid her $5,000 a minute, Paul. That's what it breaks down--$5,000 a minute to say what? Why doesn't she level, and tell the American people what she told all these business conventions in secret being paid $5,000 a minute?When she was asked this question by Chuck Todd on one of the debates, she wasn't ready for the answer. She said, well, we'll look into it. Well, there are stenographers in every one of those meetings required by her lecture contract. She required the presence of stenographers.
What's she waiting for, and what's Bernie Sanders waiting for, not demanding in the debate to have her release the transcripts? He's been too easy on her, and that may have sunk his candidacy if he doesn't turn around in the remaining three debates.As far as Trump goes, again it was Chuck Todd who said, when are you going to release your tax returns? Now, it's not legally required that he do so. But he makes such a big deal out of his business successes as a reason to vote for him for president, I think he's ethically obligated to release thousands of pages. These are huge tax returns over a period of years. What did he say when he was asked? He was asked, he said--we're looking into it, Chuck, but I didn't pay much tax, because the tax [revenues] are wasted in Washington.Well, imagine all these reporters that have access to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. It never really asks the question. Day after day they deal with trivia. Did you say this about Cruz? Did you say this about Bernie? The press has not raised it to the level of its significance. It is being dragged down to the most vacuous, slander-ridden riposte, you know, all kinds of outrageous statements. It's dragged down by the candidates themselves. We accept, you know, I think, Bernie, who's actually talking about power issues and distribution of power.
JAY: The transcripts--.
NADER: Which is, by the way, which is by--which is, by the way, why they don't cover him very much. Why ABC a year ago devoted 82 minutes to Trump, and 2 minutes to Bernie Sanders, even though Bernie Sanders led the national polls. He still, you know, leads the national polls. You would know it by watching TV news.
JAY: When you put him against Trump, you mean.NADER: When you put him against anybody one-on-one, he's ahead.
JAY: I think he's about ten points behind Clinton, but the gap has greatly closed from what it was.
NADER: He's ten points behind Clinton, by Democratic voters. But if it's all the voters, all the voters, he's been in the lead.
JAY: You know, when you go back to this transcript issue, while I agree with you, Sanders should be upping the demand. He mentioned it in one of the debates, but he should up it. But I think even if, even if those speeches were just about how important it is to promote women in the corporate America, I don't think it actually matters what the heck she says. Just the fact she took the money--because if you want to keep taking that money, and you want to keep getting those enormous speaker fees, then you better not be doing anything on the policy side that's going to offend the people paying you these great big speaker fees. So just the fact she takes it is bad enough.
NADER: Oh, but the delicious words she must have used to reassure the crowds. To say, you know, I don't buy this [inaud.] the bankers. I think we're all in it together. And we have to get out of it all together. I mean, she's told these--you know, you know, Paul. You're a media-savvy person. When you're in front of an audience of 2,000 developers, or 2,000 people representing the drug industry, or hundreds of people representing Wall Street banks, you tell them what they want to hear. If you told them what you--.
JAY: Yeah, because they're all potential donors.
NADER: Yeah. You don't tell them what they don't want to hear. That's when it leaks. It's when--in fact, the Wall Street Journal wrote in an article the other day saying they interviewed some people inside these closed-door conventions. And some said she gushed. She gushed at them. That would not help her against Bernie Sanders.By the way, I think in the latest poll Bernie Sanders among the Democrats is getting closer and closer to being even, if I'm not mistaken.
JAY: Well, certainly--certainly in Nevada that's been happening. I think she still has a significant lead in South Carolina. But nationally he's getting much closer.All right. Well, Ralph, I hope you'll come back regularly, and we'll keep talking about these and many other issues.
NADER: Okay, it's a pleasure to be with Real News Network. Those of you who watch it faithfully, spread the word. Neighbors, workers, friends. It doesn't just exist for you, it exists for people who want to get the real facts and really important issues of a democratic society you can work on to get a better, more just society.
JAY: Thanks very much, Ralph.NADER: Okay. Thank you, Paul.JAY: And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network.
Bio
Ralph Nader was named by The Atlantic as one of the hundred most influential figures in American history, and by Time and Life magazines as one of the most influential Americans of the twentieth century. Ralph Nader has helped us drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breathe better air, drink cleaner water and work in safer environments for more than four decades. The crusading attorney first made headlines in 1965 with his book Unsafe at Any Speed, a scathing indictment that lambasted the auto industry for producing unsafe vehicles. The book led to Congressional hearings and automobile safety laws passed in 1966, including the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. He was instrumental in the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC) and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). Many lives have been saved by Nader's involvement in the recall of millions of unsafe consumer products, including defective motor vehicles and in the protection of laborers and the environment. By starting dozens of citizen groups, Ralph Nader has created an atmosphere of corporate and governmental accountability.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15717
Ralph Nader: Scalia, Hillary, and the Upholding of Corporate Supremacy
Published on Feb 22, 2016
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader says the both the Republican and Democratic parties are subservient to corporate power
TRANSCRIPT BELOW THE YOU TUBE or GO HERE:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15717
--------------
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay.We're continuing our discussion with Ralph Nader on Justice Scalia's passing and what comes next, and the significance of it all. Thanks for joining us again, Ralph.
RALPH NADER: You're welcome, Paul.
JAY: So I've always kind of imagined this division on the court, and the division more broadly within the elite politics of a section of the elite sort of a descendant of slave owners, in a way, they see that the ability of corporations and capital to exploit workers in a very unfettered way has--completely unfettered way was slavery, direct slavery. Well, the next step from that after slavery. There should be almost no restrictions on how a corporation can exploit or how intensely it can exploit people. Where the section of the elite that calls themselves liberals, they, they think there should be some fetters, whether it's because it makes them feel better about themselves, or because they are concerned about what it might do in terms of radicalizing the population.
Or they're, more reasonable, whatever one wants to say.That division in the court, and that reflection of that division in the elite, it's significant. It ends up with very different court decisions, depending on which section of the elite is dominating the court, and obviously the Congress and such. So talk a little bit about what that far-right represents, where it comes from in terms of American history, the trend, the right that Scalia represents, and I guess take that a little bit into where the Republican party is now. Because you have most of anyone that might win the Republican nomination is more or less on the same page as Scalia.
NADER: Well, they like to talk about market. And the marketplace is the best test for economic activity. But what they really do is they support policies that entrench what I call corporate supremacy over the people. There's always a tension between commercial values and civic values throughout world history. Every major religion in the world warned its adherents not to give too much power to the merchant class. It goes back thousands of years.
Because it's so singularly monomaniacal, the pursuit of profit, pursuit of sales, pursuit of enrichment. Running--you know, running havoc over other competing much more important values for a just society. Health, safety, freedom of people, posterity and the like.So this is nothing new. So I call them corporatists. I don't call them conservatives. They are not conservatives. They are not libertarians. Some of the most powerful critiques today of corporate power, crony capitalism, bailouts of Wall Street, come from authentic conservatives and libertarians. Some of the most authentic criticism of the military-industrial complex has come from libertarians. Not just people who call themselves liberals and progressives.So that's number one. Number two, this theme throughout history has been very --.
JAY: Actually, can I add just one thing to that. Let me just add one thing. On the foreign policy side, a lot of the libertarian critique or policy is way better than a lot of people calling themselves liberals.NADER: Yeah. Well, the corporatist liberals like Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, they don't really deserve to be called liberals. They've hijacked liberal philosophy, and given it this highly-militant, aggressive, brute force-first foreign policy. Hillary is the butcher of Libya. She opposed successfully in the White House Secretary of Defense Gates, who said, no, you topple Gaddafi, who's already coming around and disarming and cutting deals with the oil companies, you topple him and there's a huge vacuum.
And in a tribal society it's going to be chaos. And of course, with all her experience, Hillary Clinton rebuffed him, and the result is sweeping, violent chaos in larger and larger portions of northeast Africa, not just Libya. Into Mali and elsewhere.So corporatism has got to be a word we incorporate in our political discussions and our electoral campaigns. Because that's what our country's turning into: a country dominated by corporate power, merging Wall Street with Washington. We call it the corporate state. Right-wing people call it crony capitalism.
JAY: The--as much as, even if you take a Hillary, and while I think you can say in terms of corporatism she's to the right of President Obama--on the other hand, President Obama is very much in the same mould, at least on certainly all the kind of things that are serving Wall Street. There is a difference, is there not? The kind of Supreme Court nominees that an Obama or a Clinton might make--and I'm not talking about Sanders now, I'm--if Sanders was ever in such a position I assume he would appoint Supreme Court nominees that would be, you know, far more liberal than those.But even there, the liberals on the Supreme Court that were appointed by corporatist Democrats, they're still coming up with decisions that are not as coercive or onerous as these people like Scalia.
NADER: Yeah, that's true. But remember, not many important cases from a progressive point of view ever reach the Supreme Court. They're thrown out for lack of standing, they're called political questions, they don't make it past the appellate level. And the Supreme Court takes fewer cases now than ever before. They used to take 150-160 cases. They're down to about 70-75 cases. So we don't have a chance for a lot of progressive issues to be put up before the Supreme Court. Like trying to reverse the wild First Amendment rights that have been given to corporations, that have blocked a lot of consumer organized power.For example, there was a regulation, California required Pacific Gas and Electric to put an insert in the electric bill inviting customers to form, join their own nonprofit consumer action group challenging the gas and electric on rate making, on environment, on service. And the California Supreme Court upheld it. It went to the Supreme Court with [inaud.] dissenting, and the 6-3 vote, or 5-3 vote, one member recused himself, they ruled that requiring Pacific Gas and Electric--mind you, a monopoly, a legal monopoly, to put an insert at no expense to itself inviting its customers to band together into a collective voice of advocacy, violated--check this--violated Pacific Gas and Electric's First Amendment right to remain silent and not rebut the insert's contents.That's the most egregious expansion of corporate personhood, and that's what we mean when progressives say that the Supreme Court is dominated by corporatists. Citizens United was just an example.
JAY: Now, the liberals on the court voted against Citizens United. Is there a possibility that an Obama appointment could reverse such things?
NADER: Yes. A very real possibility. Because that was the law of the land until Citizens United, it was a prior well-regarded Supreme Court decision that the corporatists overruled in order to install Citizens United. Corporations were not allowed to directly give money to political campaigns for over 100 years. And that's what was reversed. So it's an easy decision to re-reverse and go back to the prior controlling Supreme Court decision. And I think that could be done.But you know, in the Senate, Paul, in the last three-four decades, the Republicans just have been more aggressive, and more demanding, and more outrageous in blocking or pushing through Supreme Court nominations than the Democrats. You know, early on under Nixon, the Democrats stop Judge Carswell from being confirmed. Then they stop Nixon's appointment of Judge Haynsworth, and then they got Justice [Blackburn], who's a pretty good justice, nominated by Nixon.Now, look what happened recently. Scalia was confirmed 98-nothing. I went up to Capitol Hill, went into Kennedy and other progressive Democrats' office, can't you at least dissent?
No. They recognized the president's prerogative. And then came along Kennedy, replacing the defeated nomination of Gore, and he was support--he was voted in 97-nothing. Every Democrat voted for him.So in those days the Democrats recognized the president's prerogative to nominated someone who, if they had any intellect and they were fairly clean, okay, vote for them. Not the Republicans. No way. And the Republicans are very, very aggressive. As a result, for example, they got Justice Thomas through 52-48 in a Senate that was dominated by a majority of Democrats, and Senator George Mitchell was the majority leader. We were up there in Capitol Hill trying to change votes. We actually changed Lieberman's vote, can you imagine. He thanked me later for alerting him to Thomas' record.But Thomas won 52-48 with about 12 Democratic senators crossing the aisle and joining with the Republicans. What are you going to do with such passive, recessive types of Democrats up against, you know, saber-tooth tiger Republicans? It's not much of a contest.
JAY: Yeah, the Republicans--.
NADER: So I wonder what's going to happen.
JAY: Well, the Republicans always seem to understand they're at a war for what they want, and the Democrats make a virtue out of being able to work across the aisle. I don't understand that part. What's your observations on the elections? On the, what's going on with the primaries and such?
NADER: Well, I think the most immediate thing is to get Hillary to, to release the transcripts of her closed-door meetings before thousands of businesspeople. The realtors, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, the chain drug stores, all of whom paid her $5,000 a minute, Paul. That's what it breaks down--$5,000 a minute to say what? Why doesn't she level, and tell the American people what she told all these business conventions in secret being paid $5,000 a minute?When she was asked this question by Chuck Todd on one of the debates, she wasn't ready for the answer. She said, well, we'll look into it. Well, there are stenographers in every one of those meetings required by her lecture contract. She required the presence of stenographers.
What's she waiting for, and what's Bernie Sanders waiting for, not demanding in the debate to have her release the transcripts? He's been too easy on her, and that may have sunk his candidacy if he doesn't turn around in the remaining three debates.As far as Trump goes, again it was Chuck Todd who said, when are you going to release your tax returns? Now, it's not legally required that he do so. But he makes such a big deal out of his business successes as a reason to vote for him for president, I think he's ethically obligated to release thousands of pages. These are huge tax returns over a period of years. What did he say when he was asked? He was asked, he said--we're looking into it, Chuck, but I didn't pay much tax, because the tax [revenues] are wasted in Washington.Well, imagine all these reporters that have access to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. It never really asks the question. Day after day they deal with trivia. Did you say this about Cruz? Did you say this about Bernie? The press has not raised it to the level of its significance. It is being dragged down to the most vacuous, slander-ridden riposte, you know, all kinds of outrageous statements. It's dragged down by the candidates themselves. We accept, you know, I think, Bernie, who's actually talking about power issues and distribution of power.
JAY: The transcripts--.
NADER: Which is, by the way, which is by--which is, by the way, why they don't cover him very much. Why ABC a year ago devoted 82 minutes to Trump, and 2 minutes to Bernie Sanders, even though Bernie Sanders led the national polls. He still, you know, leads the national polls. You would know it by watching TV news.
JAY: When you put him against Trump, you mean.NADER: When you put him against anybody one-on-one, he's ahead.
JAY: I think he's about ten points behind Clinton, but the gap has greatly closed from what it was.
NADER: He's ten points behind Clinton, by Democratic voters. But if it's all the voters, all the voters, he's been in the lead.
JAY: You know, when you go back to this transcript issue, while I agree with you, Sanders should be upping the demand. He mentioned it in one of the debates, but he should up it. But I think even if, even if those speeches were just about how important it is to promote women in the corporate America, I don't think it actually matters what the heck she says. Just the fact she took the money--because if you want to keep taking that money, and you want to keep getting those enormous speaker fees, then you better not be doing anything on the policy side that's going to offend the people paying you these great big speaker fees. So just the fact she takes it is bad enough.
NADER: Oh, but the delicious words she must have used to reassure the crowds. To say, you know, I don't buy this [inaud.] the bankers. I think we're all in it together. And we have to get out of it all together. I mean, she's told these--you know, you know, Paul. You're a media-savvy person. When you're in front of an audience of 2,000 developers, or 2,000 people representing the drug industry, or hundreds of people representing Wall Street banks, you tell them what they want to hear. If you told them what you--.
JAY: Yeah, because they're all potential donors.
NADER: Yeah. You don't tell them what they don't want to hear. That's when it leaks. It's when--in fact, the Wall Street Journal wrote in an article the other day saying they interviewed some people inside these closed-door conventions. And some said she gushed. She gushed at them. That would not help her against Bernie Sanders.By the way, I think in the latest poll Bernie Sanders among the Democrats is getting closer and closer to being even, if I'm not mistaken.
JAY: Well, certainly--certainly in Nevada that's been happening. I think she still has a significant lead in South Carolina. But nationally he's getting much closer.All right. Well, Ralph, I hope you'll come back regularly, and we'll keep talking about these and many other issues.
NADER: Okay, it's a pleasure to be with Real News Network. Those of you who watch it faithfully, spread the word. Neighbors, workers, friends. It doesn't just exist for you, it exists for people who want to get the real facts and really important issues of a democratic society you can work on to get a better, more just society.
JAY: Thanks very much, Ralph.NADER: Okay. Thank you, Paul.JAY: And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network.
Bio
Ralph Nader was named by The Atlantic as one of the hundred most influential figures in American history, and by Time and Life magazines as one of the most influential Americans of the twentieth century. Ralph Nader has helped us drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breathe better air, drink cleaner water and work in safer environments for more than four decades. The crusading attorney first made headlines in 1965 with his book Unsafe at Any Speed, a scathing indictment that lambasted the auto industry for producing unsafe vehicles. The book led to Congressional hearings and automobile safety laws passed in 1966, including the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. He was instrumental in the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC) and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). Many lives have been saved by Nader's involvement in the recall of millions of unsafe consumer products, including defective motor vehicles and in the protection of laborers and the environment. By starting dozens of citizen groups, Ralph Nader has created an atmosphere of corporate and governmental accountability.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15717
February 21, 2016
"Morgan Freeman dishes on Obama's presidential library"
Morgan Freeman dishes on Obama's presidential library
By Judy Kurtz - 02/19/16 04:16 PM EST
http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/270064-morgan-freeman-dishes-on-obamas-presidential-library
President Obama has at least one star helper assisting him in creating his presidential library: Morgan Freeman.
The five-time Academy Award winner says he dined with the commander in chief at a downtown Washington restaurant this week to discuss plans for the space that’s slated to be built in Chicago.
“There was a bunch of us there to start helping him design the Obama center,” Freeman tells host Larry King on an episode of Ora.tv’s “Larry King Now,” airing Feb. 29. Actor Tom Hanks was also reportedly eyed among the guests at the exclusive dinner with the president.
“We’re not going to call it the library,” Freeman, 78, says to King with a smile. “It’s going to be called the Obama Center.
“[The president’s] anxious to make it so that when people visit, they come away with maybe a little incentive to take part in the process,” Freeman added. Construction on the presidential center is reportedly poised to be complete in 2020 or 2021.
Calling himself “a big fan,” the "Million Dollar Baby" star, who donated $1 million to a pro-Obama super-PAC in 2012 and narrated a campaign ad that year for Obama’s re-election bid, heaped praise on the president.
“Ever since I read [Obama’s 2006 book ‘The Audacity of Hope’], he’s had me in his hip pocket. You know, whatever he needs, if I can provide it, he’s got it. He knows it.”
Freeman also made headlines on Friday for narrating an ad for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
The five-time Academy Award winner says he dined with the commander in chief at a downtown Washington restaurant this week to discuss plans for the space that’s slated to be built in Chicago.
“There was a bunch of us there to start helping him design the Obama center,” Freeman tells host Larry King on an episode of Ora.tv’s “Larry King Now,” airing Feb. 29. Actor Tom Hanks was also reportedly eyed among the guests at the exclusive dinner with the president.
“We’re not going to call it the library,” Freeman, 78, says to King with a smile. “It’s going to be called the Obama Center.
“[The president’s] anxious to make it so that when people visit, they come away with maybe a little incentive to take part in the process,” Freeman added. Construction on the presidential center is reportedly poised to be complete in 2020 or 2021.
Calling himself “a big fan,” the "Million Dollar Baby" star, who donated $1 million to a pro-Obama super-PAC in 2012 and narrated a campaign ad that year for Obama’s re-election bid, heaped praise on the president.
“Ever since I read [Obama’s 2006 book ‘The Audacity of Hope’], he’s had me in his hip pocket. You know, whatever he needs, if I can provide it, he’s got it. He knows it.”
Freeman also made headlines on Friday for narrating an ad for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
February 21, 2016
Bernie's Campaign and "WE" his Supporters are Exposing the Rot!
The Caucus System Sucks. Those who participated know this and will let the Dem Party know about it!
What has been exposed in both Iowa and Nevada about our flawed voting system in many states will be out there for Party Reformers to Parse through and make sure this doesn't happen again. DWS....You Have Been on Notice...and you need to Resign...along with the other Party Ops taking the Money and ruining our Elections System to the Advantage of Those YOU DEEM to be the CHOSEN ONES of those who have Funded you For Years!
Bernie Has the Message for the PEOPLE and he is Exposing the Rot of our Party who has Sold Out their Left Activists who bring Truth to Power and Will Not Stop!
We Work Harder and we have the Experience of being in the Trenches since "Stolen Election 2000!" We have the Info of how Our Party Organizers and Ops have betrayed us and we Have the Will to Keep Fighting.
Let's Congratulate Ourselves that we've Come this Far and We Have the POWER!
Even the Mainstream Media is picking up that our Election System is Egregiously Flawed and they are grudgingly reporting.....which will make a difference because they know they will lose more and more of their audience IF THEY DON'T.
TRUTH WILL WIN! We WILL PREVAIL!
February 20, 2016
By Daily Kos Elections
Saturday Feb 20, 2016 · 2:00 PM EST
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/20/1487128/-Daily-Kos-Elections-Nevada-Democratic-caucus-liveblog-1
"Daily Kos" Live Nevada Election Blog--(For those not doing MSM):
Democratic caucus liveblog #1By Daily Kos Elections
Saturday Feb 20, 2016 · 2:00 PM EST
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/20/1487128/-Daily-Kos-Elections-Nevada-Democratic-caucus-liveblog-1
February 19, 2016
The King and Queen of Haiti
By Jonathan M. Katz
May 04, 2015
Sunday, January 30, 2011. Two hundred thousand people occupied Egypt’s Tahrir Square, defying a military curfew to demand the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak. Tunisia’s authoritarian leader had just been overthrown, unleashing a wave of anti-government protests from Yemen to Syria to Morocco. South Sudan’s provisional president announced his people had voted overwhelmingly for independence, clearing the way for the breakup of Africa’s largest country. Yet as Hillary Clinton rushed to Andrews Air Force Base to catch her battered government-issue 727, the secretary of state was not headed to Cairo, Tunis or Juba. She was going to Haiti.
Haiti doesn’t seem like a place that would be central to a U.S. presidential candidate’s foreign policy. It’s a small country, whose 10.3 million people inhabit the western third of a Caribbean island the size of South Carolina. They are the poorest people in the hemisphere when you average their country’s meager $8.5 billion GDP among them, and would seem poorer still if you ignored the huge share held by the country’s tiny elite—which controls virtually everything worth controlling, from the banks and ports, to agriculture and, often, politics. It is not a major exporter of anything. Even its location, 500 nautical miles from the Florida Keys, has been of only passing strategic importance to the United States since a brutal 1915-1934 U.S. occupation assured no European power would surpass its influence there.
Yet the world’s most powerful couple have an abiding interest in this out-of-the-way place; the island where Bill Clinton four decades ago recommitted himself to politics after an eye-opening journey and an evening with a Vodou priest. During her tenure at State, Hillary traveled to Haiti four times, as often as she did Japan, Afghanistan or Russia. Bill Clinton continues to visit even as her presidential campaign starts up. He attended the February dedication of Port-au-Prince’s new luxury Marriott hotel, a trip on which he reaffirmed, once again, that his work in Haiti represented “one of the great joys of my life.”
Over the past two decades, the once-and-perhaps-future first couple repeatedly played a key role in Haiti’s politics, helping to pick its national leaders and driving hundreds of millions of dollars in private aid, investment and U.S. taxpayer money toward its development. They’ve brought with them a network of friends and global corporations that never would’ve been here otherwise. Together, this network of power and money has left indelible marks on almost every aspect of the Haitian economy. The island nation, in many ways, represents ground zero for the confusing and often conflict-ridden intersection of her State Department, the Clinton family’s foundation and both of their foreign policies.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-haiti-117368
"The King and Queen of Haiti"
The King and Queen of Haiti
There’s no country that more clearly illustrates the confusing nexus of Hillary Clinton’s State Department and Bill Clinton’s foundation than Haiti—America’s poorest neighbor.
By Jonathan M. Katz
May 04, 2015
Sunday, January 30, 2011. Two hundred thousand people occupied Egypt’s Tahrir Square, defying a military curfew to demand the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak. Tunisia’s authoritarian leader had just been overthrown, unleashing a wave of anti-government protests from Yemen to Syria to Morocco. South Sudan’s provisional president announced his people had voted overwhelmingly for independence, clearing the way for the breakup of Africa’s largest country. Yet as Hillary Clinton rushed to Andrews Air Force Base to catch her battered government-issue 727, the secretary of state was not headed to Cairo, Tunis or Juba. She was going to Haiti.
Haiti doesn’t seem like a place that would be central to a U.S. presidential candidate’s foreign policy. It’s a small country, whose 10.3 million people inhabit the western third of a Caribbean island the size of South Carolina. They are the poorest people in the hemisphere when you average their country’s meager $8.5 billion GDP among them, and would seem poorer still if you ignored the huge share held by the country’s tiny elite—which controls virtually everything worth controlling, from the banks and ports, to agriculture and, often, politics. It is not a major exporter of anything. Even its location, 500 nautical miles from the Florida Keys, has been of only passing strategic importance to the United States since a brutal 1915-1934 U.S. occupation assured no European power would surpass its influence there.
Yet the world’s most powerful couple have an abiding interest in this out-of-the-way place; the island where Bill Clinton four decades ago recommitted himself to politics after an eye-opening journey and an evening with a Vodou priest. During her tenure at State, Hillary traveled to Haiti four times, as often as she did Japan, Afghanistan or Russia. Bill Clinton continues to visit even as her presidential campaign starts up. He attended the February dedication of Port-au-Prince’s new luxury Marriott hotel, a trip on which he reaffirmed, once again, that his work in Haiti represented “one of the great joys of my life.”
Over the past two decades, the once-and-perhaps-future first couple repeatedly played a key role in Haiti’s politics, helping to pick its national leaders and driving hundreds of millions of dollars in private aid, investment and U.S. taxpayer money toward its development. They’ve brought with them a network of friends and global corporations that never would’ve been here otherwise. Together, this network of power and money has left indelible marks on almost every aspect of the Haitian economy. The island nation, in many ways, represents ground zero for the confusing and often conflict-ridden intersection of her State Department, the Clinton family’s foundation and both of their foreign policies.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-haiti-117368
February 18, 2016
"Vanity Fair" Magazine, June 4, 2008
by Todd Purdum, Vanity Fair's National Editor, who is married to former Clinton Press Secretary, Dee Dee Myers
Continuation of a Long and Interesting Article examining Bill Clinton during the "2008 Election" in the aftermath of the years of his leaving the Presidency, undergoing heart and lung surgeries and learning what it's like to no longer be President and dealing with new friends of influence and power...
Continuation of a Long and Interesting Article examining Bill Clinton during the "2008 Election" in the aftermath of the years of his leaving the Presidency, undergoing heart and lung surgeries and learning what it's like to no longer be President and dealing with new friends with influence and power...
Continued At.....
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/07/clinton200807
"The Comeback ID"--Bill Clinton After his Presidency & Election 2008--Vanity Fair Magazine
"The Comeback Id""Vanity Fair" Magazine, June 4, 2008
by Todd Purdum, Vanity Fair's National Editor, who is married to former Clinton Press Secretary, Dee Dee Myers
Continuation of a Long and Interesting Article examining Bill Clinton during the "2008 Election" in the aftermath of the years of his leaving the Presidency, undergoing heart and lung surgeries and learning what it's like to no longer be President and dealing with new friends of influence and power...
Old friends and longtime aides are wringing their hands over Bill Clinton’s post–White House escapades, from the dubious (and secretive) business associations to the media blowups that have bruised his wife’s campaign, to the private-jetting around with a skirt-chasing, scandal-tinged posse. Some point to Clinton’s medical traumas; others blame sheer selfishness, and the absence of anyone who can say “no.” Exploring Clintonworld, the author asks if the former president will be consumed by his own worst self.
----------snip
Throughout our history there has been a strong presumption that former presidents should conduct their affairs in ways that do not seem to cheapen, degrade, or exploit the high office they held. Hillary Clinton’s own service as senator, and her presidential campaign, reinforce that imperative in Bill Clinton’s case. Harry Truman was so reluctant to accept any business or commercial offer, however high-minded, that might be seen as capitalizing on the presidency that he nearly went broke in retirement. A few years after leaving office, he had seen a $600,000 advance from Life magazine for his memoirs whittled away by expenses and 67 percent income taxes to a net gain of about $37,000. Only the sale of his family farm for a shopping center saved him from real embarrassment. Finally, he took his case to Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn and Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson, and the first bill stipulating an annual presidential pension (initially $25,000) and money for offices and staff was passed.
Clinton benefits handsomely from Truman’s foresight. His presidential pension has totaled more than $1.2 million since he left office, and despite his fantastic private-sector income, an analysis this spring by the Web site Politico showed that he has taken almost as much in taxpayer dollars for his post-presidential existence as the other two living ex-presidents—Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush—combined. Since 2001, Clinton has received more in almost every category—pension, staff salaries, supplies—than any of his colleagues in that smallest of clubs. Before Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford died, Clinton’s telephone and rent expenses came close to exceeding the comparable expenses for all four then living former presidents combined. Part of the difference is that Clinton served eight years in office, entitling him to a federal health-insurance plan and a higher pension than Ford, Carter, or Bush, and part is that his office space in Manhattan is more expensive than space in Atlanta or Houston.
-----A Solitary Man
Throughout his career, Bill Clinton has justified acts of extraordinary selfishness in the name of idealism—he’s always in it for the people, the plain folks who tell pollsters they trust him to look out for their interests, even if they don’t trust him. He has been forgiven colossal egotism, even cruelty, by those closest to him because of his superlative political talents, and because of the overreaching of his enemies. As president, Clinton often could not show grace in the smallest ways. He dithered about where and when to go on vacation, so that aides and Secret Service agents could not plan their own. He declined to release aides and reporters who had waited around all through a pointless Saturday of duty while he made up his mind whether to play golf (a game at which he has been known to cheat). He was never, ever, on time. In Joe Klein’s roman à clef about the Clintons, Primary Colors, the Betsey Wright character accuses the Bill Clinton character of always skating by on charm and talent and need. “You have never paid the bill,” she tells him. “Never. And no one ever calls you on it. Because you’re so completely fucking special. Everyone was always so proud of you. And me, too. Me the worst.”
In the end, this is Clinton’s most grievous sin, his steady refusal to take grown-up responsibility for the consequences of his own actions. In the White House, on the day of his last sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton told her that he was worried that a foreign embassy might be listening in on their calls, and that if she were ever questioned, she should say they were just friends. Then he looked into her eyes and sang, “Try a Little Tenderness,” a song that goes: “She may be weary, women do get weary, wearing the same shabby dress.” On the day this winter that he accused Barack Obama of spinning a “fairy tale” about Obama’s anti-war stance, Clinton went on to whine about an Obama campaign research sheet criticizing his business dealings and insisting, “Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn’t take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon.” So, yes, let us stipulate: Ken Starr was a prurient, partisan zealot. Yes, other ex-presidents have made a lot of money and it is hard to begrudge Clinton his earnings (even if he did take six million nickels for a speech to the Australian Council for the Peaceful Reunification of China). Yes, Obama is a daring opponent who thinks he is hot shit and has benefited from the same enthusiasm, energy, and fresh-faced appeal that a fella named Bill Clinton once elicited (but he has suffered from some of the same skepticism, too). It is Clinton’s invariable insistence that his problems are someone else’s fault, and that questions or criticisms of him, his methods, motives, or means are invariably unfair, that is his unforgivable flaw.
He has told friends that he is not worried that his aggressive performance this year has done lasting damage to his reputation (some of them are not so sure). Whatever the future holds for Hillary Clinton, her husband is not fading away. He will remain a presence, a force to be reckoned with, as long as he draws breath.
But for a politician with so many admirers, allies, acquaintances, faithful retainers, and hangers-on, Clinton remains a profoundly solitary man, associates say, without any real peers, intellectual equals, or genuine friends with whom he can share the sweetest things in life. (The one who has always come closest, for better and worse, for richer and poorer, is simply too busy these days.)
So he spends his time veering between feeling sorry for himself and working to help others, between doing good and giving his enemies fresh ammunition, between vindicating his legacy and vitiating it. “So much of modern culture is characterized by stories of self-indulgence and self-destruction,” Clinton writes near the end of Giving, from which he earned $6.3 million and gave away $1 million (or 16 percent) to charity. “So much of modern politics is focused not on honest differences of policy but on personal attacks. So much of modern media is dominated by people who earn fortunes by demeaning others, defining them by their worst moments, exploiting their agonies. Who’s happier? The uniters or the dividers? The builders or the breakers? The givers or the takers? I think you know the answer.”
I used to think he did, too. But substitute the words “my life” for the words “modern culture” and “modern politics” in the passage above, and you’ll have a pretty succinct summary of what Bill Clinton has, at last, become.
----------snip
Throughout our history there has been a strong presumption that former presidents should conduct their affairs in ways that do not seem to cheapen, degrade, or exploit the high office they held. Hillary Clinton’s own service as senator, and her presidential campaign, reinforce that imperative in Bill Clinton’s case. Harry Truman was so reluctant to accept any business or commercial offer, however high-minded, that might be seen as capitalizing on the presidency that he nearly went broke in retirement. A few years after leaving office, he had seen a $600,000 advance from Life magazine for his memoirs whittled away by expenses and 67 percent income taxes to a net gain of about $37,000. Only the sale of his family farm for a shopping center saved him from real embarrassment. Finally, he took his case to Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn and Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson, and the first bill stipulating an annual presidential pension (initially $25,000) and money for offices and staff was passed.
Clinton benefits handsomely from Truman’s foresight. His presidential pension has totaled more than $1.2 million since he left office, and despite his fantastic private-sector income, an analysis this spring by the Web site Politico showed that he has taken almost as much in taxpayer dollars for his post-presidential existence as the other two living ex-presidents—Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush—combined. Since 2001, Clinton has received more in almost every category—pension, staff salaries, supplies—than any of his colleagues in that smallest of clubs. Before Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford died, Clinton’s telephone and rent expenses came close to exceeding the comparable expenses for all four then living former presidents combined. Part of the difference is that Clinton served eight years in office, entitling him to a federal health-insurance plan and a higher pension than Ford, Carter, or Bush, and part is that his office space in Manhattan is more expensive than space in Atlanta or Houston.
-----A Solitary Man
Throughout his career, Bill Clinton has justified acts of extraordinary selfishness in the name of idealism—he’s always in it for the people, the plain folks who tell pollsters they trust him to look out for their interests, even if they don’t trust him. He has been forgiven colossal egotism, even cruelty, by those closest to him because of his superlative political talents, and because of the overreaching of his enemies. As president, Clinton often could not show grace in the smallest ways. He dithered about where and when to go on vacation, so that aides and Secret Service agents could not plan their own. He declined to release aides and reporters who had waited around all through a pointless Saturday of duty while he made up his mind whether to play golf (a game at which he has been known to cheat). He was never, ever, on time. In Joe Klein’s roman à clef about the Clintons, Primary Colors, the Betsey Wright character accuses the Bill Clinton character of always skating by on charm and talent and need. “You have never paid the bill,” she tells him. “Never. And no one ever calls you on it. Because you’re so completely fucking special. Everyone was always so proud of you. And me, too. Me the worst.”
In the end, this is Clinton’s most grievous sin, his steady refusal to take grown-up responsibility for the consequences of his own actions. In the White House, on the day of his last sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton told her that he was worried that a foreign embassy might be listening in on their calls, and that if she were ever questioned, she should say they were just friends. Then he looked into her eyes and sang, “Try a Little Tenderness,” a song that goes: “She may be weary, women do get weary, wearing the same shabby dress.” On the day this winter that he accused Barack Obama of spinning a “fairy tale” about Obama’s anti-war stance, Clinton went on to whine about an Obama campaign research sheet criticizing his business dealings and insisting, “Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn’t take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon.” So, yes, let us stipulate: Ken Starr was a prurient, partisan zealot. Yes, other ex-presidents have made a lot of money and it is hard to begrudge Clinton his earnings (even if he did take six million nickels for a speech to the Australian Council for the Peaceful Reunification of China). Yes, Obama is a daring opponent who thinks he is hot shit and has benefited from the same enthusiasm, energy, and fresh-faced appeal that a fella named Bill Clinton once elicited (but he has suffered from some of the same skepticism, too). It is Clinton’s invariable insistence that his problems are someone else’s fault, and that questions or criticisms of him, his methods, motives, or means are invariably unfair, that is his unforgivable flaw.
He has told friends that he is not worried that his aggressive performance this year has done lasting damage to his reputation (some of them are not so sure). Whatever the future holds for Hillary Clinton, her husband is not fading away. He will remain a presence, a force to be reckoned with, as long as he draws breath.
But for a politician with so many admirers, allies, acquaintances, faithful retainers, and hangers-on, Clinton remains a profoundly solitary man, associates say, without any real peers, intellectual equals, or genuine friends with whom he can share the sweetest things in life. (The one who has always come closest, for better and worse, for richer and poorer, is simply too busy these days.)
So he spends his time veering between feeling sorry for himself and working to help others, between doing good and giving his enemies fresh ammunition, between vindicating his legacy and vitiating it. “So much of modern culture is characterized by stories of self-indulgence and self-destruction,” Clinton writes near the end of Giving, from which he earned $6.3 million and gave away $1 million (or 16 percent) to charity. “So much of modern politics is focused not on honest differences of policy but on personal attacks. So much of modern media is dominated by people who earn fortunes by demeaning others, defining them by their worst moments, exploiting their agonies. Who’s happier? The uniters or the dividers? The builders or the breakers? The givers or the takers? I think you know the answer.”
I used to think he did, too. But substitute the words “my life” for the words “modern culture” and “modern politics” in the passage above, and you’ll have a pretty succinct summary of what Bill Clinton has, at last, become.
Continuation of a Long and Interesting Article examining Bill Clinton during the "2008 Election" in the aftermath of the years of his leaving the Presidency, undergoing heart and lung surgeries and learning what it's like to no longer be President and dealing with new friends with influence and power...
Continued At.....
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/07/clinton200807
February 17, 2016
JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.On Monday, reports are confirming that Saudi Arabia will be sending fighter jets into Turkey, raising the possibility of a joint ground invasion into Syria. But the two U.S. allies seem to be backtracking a possible ground invasion after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called for a cessation of hostilities. Now Turkish and Saudi officials are saying that they will be waiting to see how a planned ceasefire transpires.
Now joining us from Williamsburg, Virginia to understand the significance of this news is Larry Wilkerson. He's the former chief of staff for U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, and he's currently and adjunct professor of government at the college of William and Mary. And of course, he's a regular contributor to the Real News. Thanks for being with us, Larry.
LARRY WILKERSON: Thanks for having me, Jessica.
DESVARIEUX: So, Larry, let's break down the intentions of Saudi Arabia and Turkey in putting forth the possibility of a ground invasion in Syria. What's their objective?
WILKERSON: Saudi Arabia's already involved in what increasingly looks like a losing campaign in Yemen, so I don't know whether they're trying to shift, maybe, attention, but they certainly can't handle two of these theatres and expect any success. So I have to expect that a lot of this is rhetoric, and rhetoric, a bluff if you will, that may or may not be called. I hope it's not called, myself. I hope that the secret talks that have been going on to sort of back the more public talks in Geneva have been, as you indicated, successful, and that we're going to have a ceasefire here, realizing it's going to take some time to get these disparate military elements to cease fire, and probably we won't get a ceasefire out of some of those people to whom they're opposed. It's not in their interest, a ceasefire.So we've got to wait and see what happens.
I'll just say that I hope that no more forces are introduced into this, because in a conflict like this with the Turks bombing Kurds, supported by the United States, with the Iranians and Hezbollah in particular helping the Syrians, with the Saudis having funded the ISIS elements in Syria already, and other complexities I haven't even mentioned, this has every prospect to be an August 1914-like event series that could lead to a much wider war, far more powerful belligerence, and maybe even a conflict that none of us, not a single one of us, other than perhaps ISIS, ever contemplated or wanted in the first place.
DESVARIEUX: Let's unpack that a little bit more. We're not fearmongering here or trying to scare our viewers, but what do you mean by that, it could be an even larger conflict?
WILKERSON: Well, we see one of the most formidable land forces on the planet today, the Turks, with a potential of getting into this conflict in a significant way to eliminate once and for all, they think, Erdogan thinks, because let's face it, Erdogan is not the person he was ten years ago. He's more embattled, now, and he's seeking for ways to consolidate and keep his power. We're looking at the possibility of them entering the fray against an enemy, an enemy, quote-unquote, who we are supporting and count a friend, the Kurdish group that's made some of the best headway against fighting ISIS forces in Syria.
They may be looking, as I said, at the Saudis suggesting they're going to enter the fray with 150,000 troops. I don't know where they're going to get them, but they're going to enter the fray with that, and we're going to wind up with the Saudis, who financed the elements of ISIS who we're going against, fighting against those elements? I find that really hard to believe. We haven't even mentioned the Sunni-Shia schism that's going to be present in this. We haven't even mentioned Iraq, who's in the background looking at the problems that the Sunnis are going to have, the Shia, of the Sunni Saudis, as it were. And all of this coalesces around the fact that Russia and the United States have major interests and major commitments in Syria.You put all that together and you've got the chemistry for a real shooting war, shortly after everybody says, well, damn, this isn't working at all. Let's just go in and make it work with force.
DESVARIEUX: Let's talk a little bit more about that force, because some people would argue that Saudi Arabia and Turkey taking this stance might actually get the Russians and Assad to the negotiation table. And this sort of pressure or possibility of a ground invasion will sort of further that along. What do you make of that argument, Larry?
Continued Discussion At:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15678
What Turkey & Saudi Arabia Aim to Gain with Possible Ground Invasion in Syria
What Turkey & Saudi Arabia Aim to Gain with Possible Ground Invasion in Syria
Col. Larry Wilkerson says Turkish and Saudi officials may be bluffing, but the prospect nevertheless is a calamity reminiscent of pre-World War I conditions -- February 15, 2016
Lawrence Wilkerson is a retired United States Army soldier and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wilkerson is an adjunct professor at the College of William & Mary where he teaches courses on US national security. He also instructs a senior seminar in the Honors Department at the George Washington University entitled "National Security Decision Making."
Partial Transcript follows after You Tube and Link for More of the Discussion..at:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15678
JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.On Monday, reports are confirming that Saudi Arabia will be sending fighter jets into Turkey, raising the possibility of a joint ground invasion into Syria. But the two U.S. allies seem to be backtracking a possible ground invasion after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called for a cessation of hostilities. Now Turkish and Saudi officials are saying that they will be waiting to see how a planned ceasefire transpires.
Now joining us from Williamsburg, Virginia to understand the significance of this news is Larry Wilkerson. He's the former chief of staff for U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, and he's currently and adjunct professor of government at the college of William and Mary. And of course, he's a regular contributor to the Real News. Thanks for being with us, Larry.
LARRY WILKERSON: Thanks for having me, Jessica.
DESVARIEUX: So, Larry, let's break down the intentions of Saudi Arabia and Turkey in putting forth the possibility of a ground invasion in Syria. What's their objective?
WILKERSON: Saudi Arabia's already involved in what increasingly looks like a losing campaign in Yemen, so I don't know whether they're trying to shift, maybe, attention, but they certainly can't handle two of these theatres and expect any success. So I have to expect that a lot of this is rhetoric, and rhetoric, a bluff if you will, that may or may not be called. I hope it's not called, myself. I hope that the secret talks that have been going on to sort of back the more public talks in Geneva have been, as you indicated, successful, and that we're going to have a ceasefire here, realizing it's going to take some time to get these disparate military elements to cease fire, and probably we won't get a ceasefire out of some of those people to whom they're opposed. It's not in their interest, a ceasefire.So we've got to wait and see what happens.
I'll just say that I hope that no more forces are introduced into this, because in a conflict like this with the Turks bombing Kurds, supported by the United States, with the Iranians and Hezbollah in particular helping the Syrians, with the Saudis having funded the ISIS elements in Syria already, and other complexities I haven't even mentioned, this has every prospect to be an August 1914-like event series that could lead to a much wider war, far more powerful belligerence, and maybe even a conflict that none of us, not a single one of us, other than perhaps ISIS, ever contemplated or wanted in the first place.
DESVARIEUX: Let's unpack that a little bit more. We're not fearmongering here or trying to scare our viewers, but what do you mean by that, it could be an even larger conflict?
WILKERSON: Well, we see one of the most formidable land forces on the planet today, the Turks, with a potential of getting into this conflict in a significant way to eliminate once and for all, they think, Erdogan thinks, because let's face it, Erdogan is not the person he was ten years ago. He's more embattled, now, and he's seeking for ways to consolidate and keep his power. We're looking at the possibility of them entering the fray against an enemy, an enemy, quote-unquote, who we are supporting and count a friend, the Kurdish group that's made some of the best headway against fighting ISIS forces in Syria.
They may be looking, as I said, at the Saudis suggesting they're going to enter the fray with 150,000 troops. I don't know where they're going to get them, but they're going to enter the fray with that, and we're going to wind up with the Saudis, who financed the elements of ISIS who we're going against, fighting against those elements? I find that really hard to believe. We haven't even mentioned the Sunni-Shia schism that's going to be present in this. We haven't even mentioned Iraq, who's in the background looking at the problems that the Sunnis are going to have, the Shia, of the Sunni Saudis, as it were. And all of this coalesces around the fact that Russia and the United States have major interests and major commitments in Syria.You put all that together and you've got the chemistry for a real shooting war, shortly after everybody says, well, damn, this isn't working at all. Let's just go in and make it work with force.
DESVARIEUX: Let's talk a little bit more about that force, because some people would argue that Saudi Arabia and Turkey taking this stance might actually get the Russians and Assad to the negotiation table. And this sort of pressure or possibility of a ground invasion will sort of further that along. What do you make of that argument, Larry?
Continued Discussion At:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15678
February 16, 2016
MUCH MORE AND WELL WORTH THE READ AT:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/13/why-not-being-friends-war-criminal-henry-kissinger-matters
Why Not Being Friends With A War Criminal Like Henry Kissinger Matters
Why Not Being Friends With A War Criminal Like Henry Kissinger Matters
by
Kevin Gosztola
In the midst of questioning the United States’ history of overthrowing and meddling in other countries’ governments, Bernie Sanders denounced Hillary Clinton for befriending and taking advice from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
Numerous media commentators reacted by mocking the Sanders campaign, believing millennials could not possibly know anything about Kissinger. They suggested millennials did not care about what Kissinger did either.
It was typical of an establishment media class, which eschews serious reflection on the record of any current or former official’s role in war crimes or atrocities. But Kissinger is someone who Clinton has mentioned multiple times during debates and at campaign events. She said during the last debate in New Hampshire, “I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time.”
The condemnation from Sanders was also newsworthy because most of the elite international relations scholars in foreign policy research consider Kissinger to be the best secretary of state of the past 50 years. Plus, despite all the inflicted destruction he helped wreak, Kissinger is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Assessing Clinton’s friendship with Kissinger not only forces her to defend her support for a war criminal, who helped fuel genocide and massive casualties in multiple countries, but it also forces her to justify support for decades of U.S. foreign policy, involving military intervention and a refusal to acknowledge systematic human rights violations.
During the debate in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on February 11, Sanders declared, “I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country.”
Sanders continued, “I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger’s actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger.”
A feeble attempt was made by Clinton to turn this against Sanders. “Well, I know journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is,” Clinton replied. Sanders quickly retorted, “Well, it ain’t Henry Kissinger. That’s for sure.” The audience laughed.
Clinton attempted to approach the issue of her support for Kissinger again. This time, she celebrated the role he played in “opening up China” and how “incredibly useful” his “ongoing relationships with the leaders of China are to the U.S. Then, she suggested Sanders was cherry-picking advisers, who she listens to on foreign policy, in order to mount an opportunistic attack.
“Yes, people we may disagree with on a number of things may have some insight, may have some relationships that are important for the president to understand in order to best protect the United States,” Clinton stated.
“You’re right, he opened up relations with China,” Sanders responded. But he also “pushed various type of trade agreements, resulting in American workers losing their jobs as corporations moved to China. The terrible, authoritarian, Communist dictatorship he warned us about, now he’s urging companies to shut down and move to China. Not my kind of guy.”
by
Kevin Gosztola
In the midst of questioning the United States’ history of overthrowing and meddling in other countries’ governments, Bernie Sanders denounced Hillary Clinton for befriending and taking advice from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
Numerous media commentators reacted by mocking the Sanders campaign, believing millennials could not possibly know anything about Kissinger. They suggested millennials did not care about what Kissinger did either.
It was typical of an establishment media class, which eschews serious reflection on the record of any current or former official’s role in war crimes or atrocities. But Kissinger is someone who Clinton has mentioned multiple times during debates and at campaign events. She said during the last debate in New Hampshire, “I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time.”
The condemnation from Sanders was also newsworthy because most of the elite international relations scholars in foreign policy research consider Kissinger to be the best secretary of state of the past 50 years. Plus, despite all the inflicted destruction he helped wreak, Kissinger is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Assessing Clinton’s friendship with Kissinger not only forces her to defend her support for a war criminal, who helped fuel genocide and massive casualties in multiple countries, but it also forces her to justify support for decades of U.S. foreign policy, involving military intervention and a refusal to acknowledge systematic human rights violations.
During the debate in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on February 11, Sanders declared, “I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country.”
Sanders continued, “I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger’s actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger.”
A feeble attempt was made by Clinton to turn this against Sanders. “Well, I know journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is,” Clinton replied. Sanders quickly retorted, “Well, it ain’t Henry Kissinger. That’s for sure.” The audience laughed.
Clinton attempted to approach the issue of her support for Kissinger again. This time, she celebrated the role he played in “opening up China” and how “incredibly useful” his “ongoing relationships with the leaders of China are to the U.S. Then, she suggested Sanders was cherry-picking advisers, who she listens to on foreign policy, in order to mount an opportunistic attack.
“Yes, people we may disagree with on a number of things may have some insight, may have some relationships that are important for the president to understand in order to best protect the United States,” Clinton stated.
“You’re right, he opened up relations with China,” Sanders responded. But he also “pushed various type of trade agreements, resulting in American workers losing their jobs as corporations moved to China. The terrible, authoritarian, Communist dictatorship he warned us about, now he’s urging companies to shut down and move to China. Not my kind of guy.”
MUCH MORE AND WELL WORTH THE READ AT:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/13/why-not-being-friends-war-criminal-henry-kissinger-matters
February 15, 2016
Hillary Clinton (Kate McKinnon) laments Bernie Sanders' popularity with young people (Aidy Bryant, Taran Killam, Kyle Mooney, Vanessa Bayer, Cecily Strong) through a performance of "I Can't Make You Love Me."
Subscribe to the SNL channel for more clips: http://goo.gl/24RRTv
SNL Skit: Hillary Laments Bernie's Popularity with Young People
Published on Feb 13, 2016Hillary Clinton (Kate McKinnon) laments Bernie Sanders' popularity with young people (Aidy Bryant, Taran Killam, Kyle Mooney, Vanessa Bayer, Cecily Strong) through a performance of "I Can't Make You Love Me."
Subscribe to the SNL channel for more clips: http://goo.gl/24RRTv
February 15, 2016
Subscribe to the SNL channel for more clips: http://goo.gl/24RRTv
SNL Skit: Hillary Laments Bernie's Popularity with Young People (Hillarious Watch!)
Published on Feb 13, 2016 
Hillary Clinton (Kate McKinnon) laments Bernie Sanders' popularity with young people (Aidy Bryant, Taran Killam, Kyle Mooney, Vanessa Bayer, Cecily Strong) through a performance of "I Can't Make You Love Me."
Subscribe to the SNL channel for more clips: http://goo.gl/24RRTv
Profile Information
Member since: 2001Number of posts: 84,711
