Sunday, December 10, 2017

Being Global Media Celebrity Dave Weigel: 8 examples from Dec. 9 evening thread

.
12/9/17, "“He Fights” – President Trump Calls Out Fake News Reporting of Washington Post and Dave Weigel," tcth, sundance

"In an effort to ridicule President Trump, Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel tweeted a fake news picture from last night’s MAGA rally in Pensacola Florida; obviously attempting to frame a narrative that the rally was poorly attended."...
.......................

Following are 8 examples of what flowed from Dave's action mentioned above:

Below, WaPo's Dave Weigel says fellow reporter David Martosko (of Daily Mail) alerted him that his Trump rally photo was wrong (posted at tcth at 540pm):


Below, David Martosko says he and Weigel haven't connected in at least a year (posted at tcth at 808pm):














David Martosko's last word is that Weigel is odd but "a very talented reporter," Trump is "ganging up on him," and "Let it go."













...............................

Below, comment to Martosko's pathetic "very talented" smoke:











Below, as to Martosko's "ganging up," "very talented," and "let it go:"















Below, Weigel wraps it up, for those interested:

















.........................
...........................

My comment:

Dave Weigel enjoys being a global celebrity. Perhaps that's where his "talent," if any, may best be focused. In 2010 Dave Weigel was fired/forced to resign from the Washington Post for hateful comments he made about Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and conservatives in general. Weigel's statements were apparently made on the Journolist site, at the time an online mob of Deep State media cheerleaders. Some of his comments became public. Whether public or not, Weigel harbors hateful, bigoted opinions. Persons with out of control emotions shouldn't be employed at the Washington Post. There are other ways of being a global celebrity--which is what Weigel is.

6/26/2010, "Washington Post blogger David Weigel resigns after messages leak," Washington Post, Howard Kurtz




.............

Look, Gloria, all we asked for was the standard, well rehearsed crying victim. What were you thinking with this yearbook thing?-commenter imagines Mitch McConnell chatting with Gloria Allred

.











"7 posted on 12/9/2017, 11:32:57 PM by Eddie01" 

Image and caption of imaginary conversation between Deep State Republican Mitch McConnell and Gloria Allred posted by Free Republic commenter to article, 12/8/17, "Forgery 101: Beverly Young Nelson and Gloria Allred Both Presented ‘Notes’ as Roy Moore’s Own Writing," Joel B. Pollak, Breitbart 


 
.............

FDR formed partnership with Stalin and Churchill to defeat Nazis in Europe. FDR outlined for Stalin his view of future United Nations dominated by "four policemen," US, UK, China, and Soviet Union-Politico

.
Stalin, FDR, Churchill, 11/28/1943

















"President Franklin D. Roosevelt joined British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Josef Stalin at a conference in Tehran. AP Photo," via Politico

11/27/2016, "FDR attends Tehran conference: Nov. 28, 1943," Politico, Andrew Glass

"On this day in 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt joined British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Josef Stalin at a conference in Tehran that cemented the pledge of an Allied second front against Nazi Germany in Western Europe.

The leaders, known as the Big Three, chose the Iranian capital as the site for their parley, largely at Stalin’s behest. When first lady Eleanor Roosevelt and Roosevelt's daughter Anna voiced a desire to accompany the president, he said no women would be present. Subsequently, they were incensed to learn that Churchill’s wife, Clementine, and Madame Chiang Kai-shek of China had made the trip. 

FDR biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote that rather than feeling any trepidation about the dangers of a secret trip through war zones, Roosevelt was not only eager to meet again with his friend Churchill but also excited at the prospect of meeting Stalin for the first time.

Roosevelt promised Stalin that the Americans and the British would invade Nazi-occupied France, crossing the English Channel, in the spring of 1944. Until that point, Churchill favored a joint strike through the Mediterranean, pushing eastward through the Balkans. That strategy would have presumably secured British interests in the Middle East and India while curbing the Soviet advance into Eastern Europe. For his part, FDR, with the advent of an Allied victory, sought to break up the British Empire; his concessions to Stalin served that goal....

The leaders agreed that the Soviet Union would fight against Japan once the Nazis were beaten. They also promised to offer postwar economic assistance to Iran and guaranteed the host nation’s independence and territorial integrity."




...............

Saturday, December 9, 2017

The RussiaGate investigation industry was created for purpose preventing Pres. Trump from restoring normal relations with nuclear superpower Russia. Media barrage has convinced Russia that US taxpayers are planning a military attack. Never again will a US presidential candidate be allowed to win by direct appeal to the people-Paul Craig Roberts...(US taxpayers have been returned to their status as global slaves of the bloody Endless War industry)

.
"The ruling oligarchy is making an example of Trump in order to ensure that no future presidential candidate makes a direct appeal to the people."

12/5/17, "Paul Craig Roberts: America Is "Walking Into Armageddon"," Zero Hedge, Authored by Paul Craig Roberts 

"The orchestrated hostility toward Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea protects the $1,000 billion annual budget of the military/security complex by convincing the American public that the US is threatened by enemies. It also keeps alive Democratic Party hopes that Trump can be removed from office, and it has prevented President Trump from normalizing relations with Russia. I have emphasized for some time that Washington’s gratuitous and aggressive actions against Russia and the constant barrage of false accusations against Russia and its government have convinced Russia that Washington is planning a military attack. There is nothing more reckless and irresponsible than to convince a nuclear superpower that you are preparing an attack on them. 

One would think that such irresponsible and reckless behavior would have the citizenry aroused and the media reporting the risk. Yet, there is only silence. It is more important to the media whether NFL players stand for the national anthem and that some male politicians show sexual interest in women in inappropriate ways. Insouciant America is walking into Armageddon.

A few days ago former US Secretary of Defense William J. Perry added his voice to mine and to those of the few who understand the danger. Perry said:
“When the Cold War ended, I believed that we no longer had to take that risk [nuclear annihilation] so I put all my energy into efforts to dismantle the deadly nuclear legacy of the Cold War. During my period as the Secretary of Defense in the 90s, I oversaw the dismantlement of 8,000 nuclear weapons evenly divided between the United States and the former Soviet Union. And I thought then that we were well on our way to putting behind us this deadly existential threat, But that was not to be. Today, inexplicably to me, we’re recreating the geopolitical hostility of the Cold War, and we’re rebuilding the nuclear dangers.
We are doing this without any serious public discussion or any real understanding of the consequences of these actions. We are sleepwalking into a new Cold War, and there’s very real danger that we will blunder into a nuclear war. If we are to prevent this catastrophe, the public must understand what is happening.”
How can the American public understand when they do not know, because the few voices telling them are not reported. Indeed, the military/security complex, the Israel Lobby and the lobby’s American agents among the neoconservatives are actively working to discredit those who are aware of the dangerous situation.

The power of the military/security complex and the Israel Lobby, the two prime war-mongers of the 21st century, have immobilized the President of the United States. Trump is helpless in the face of a special prosecutor who is “investigating Russiagate,” a hoax created for the express purpose of preventing President Trump from restoring normal relations with a nuclear superpower.

Experts including William Binney, who developed the universal spy program for NSA thinking mistakenly that it would not be used against American citizens, have stated publicly that, if Russiagate were real and not an orchestrated hoax, the NSA would have all the evidence, making special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s “investigation” completely pointless.

One would think that even those who comprise the presstitute media would be able to figure out that NSA has the evidence if it exists. 

Instead, the presstitutes cooperate with Mueller in creating a fake news story, one that has been kept alive for over a year.

A country in which the media lack integrity cannot be a democracy as the people have no accurate information with which to make decisions and hold government accountable. The American presstitute media functions as a control arm for the powerful vested interests that are turning the United States into a police state that serves only a few hundredths of One Percent. 

Americans have been lied to about everything. I agree that the lies go back a long way. To keep this column to a readable length, we can start with the many lies of the Clinton regime. The war on Serbia was done in order to humiliate Russia by proving that Russia was helpless in the face of American might to come to the aid of its ally, and it was done to establish the use of NATO as an arm of, and cover for, US military aggression.

Then we come to 9/11, the official explanation of which is rejected not only by Osama bin Laden but also by every expert unafraid to open his/her mouth.

Then we have the fake reason for the US invasion of Afghanistan, a disaster for America as it was for the Soviets. A handful of lightly armed Afghans defeated “the world’s only superpower,” just as they defeated the powerful Soviet army.

Then we have the fake charges of Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” hyped to the heavens by the corrupt American presstitutes. This amazing lie, disavowed by the UN weapons inspectors, was used despite the evidence to the contrary to invade Iraq and to destroy a country. This lie was later repudiated by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who regretted the stain on his reputation caused by the George W. Bush/Dick Chaney regime’s misuse of his credibility before the UN.

Then we have the fake charges against Libya’s Gaddafi that were used to murder Gadaffi, to Hillary’s great delight, and to destroy the most successful country in Africa.

The ISIS mercenaries that Hillary and Obama used to destroy Libya were sent to destroy Syria when Russia and the British Parliament blocked Obama’s plan to send American troops to invade Syria. We have been subjected to years of lies from Washington and the presstitutes that Washington is fighting ISIS, when Washington sent ISIS to Syria to destroy Assad and the Syrian government.

And there is Somalia, another packet of Washington/presstitute lies. And the violation of Pakistan with the bombing of tribal areas falsely claimed to be al-Qaeda or Taliban supporters.

And there is Yemen devastated by Washington’s puppet Saudi Arabia.

And there are the false news reports of “Iranian nukes” and Iranian belligerent actions against Israel.

And “Russia invaded Ukraine” when in fact Washington overthrew with its financed NGOs the democratically elected Ukrainian government. 

And now we hear that those who dare to tell the truth to Americans are “Russian agents” and “fake news purveyors.”

When a country’s government and media do nothing but lie 24/7, how can democracy exist. Clearly, it cannot.

Environmental organizations are reporting that President Trump intends to abolish two national monuments by executive order in order to open protected lands to rape, ravage, and ruin by corporations. The two national monuments are Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante.

If Trump has the power to turn national monuments over to corporate campaign donors, he most certainly can have his Attorney General open an investigation of Hillary Clinton or even indict her on the already known evidence. He can issue a pre-emptive pardon of General Flynn, who is being framed on charges that do not relate to Russian influence in the presidential election. Indeed, he can have the Attorney General investigate or arrest Mueller for sedition and an attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. These charges are far more realistic than the charge Mueller has brought against Flynn.

But what does President Trump do? He twitters, complaining that Gen. Flynns life is being destroyed while “Crooked Hillary Clinton” walks around free. 

Trump is correct, so why doesn’t he do something about it? What Flynn did was to ask the Russians not to over-react to the new sanctions that Obama placed on Russia in an effort to create such bad relations between the US and Russia that Trump would be unable to normalize them. What Flynn did was entirely appropriate and has nothing to do with the hoax story of Russiagate. The real reason that the military/security complex is after Gen. Flynn is that he is the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and he said on a TV news show that the decision by the Obama regime to send ISIS to overthrow Syria was a “willful decision” that went against his recommendation.

In other words, Flynn let the cat out of the bag that ISIS was not an independently formed organization but a tool of US policy.

The presstitutes, of course, ignored Gen. Flynn’s statement. The only effect of Flynn’s statement was to set him up for retaliation, and that is what Mueller is doing.

What Mueller is doing is so corrupt that he really should be arrested and renditioned to Egypt.

Private interests and agendas have control over the US government. The people have no control. Washington works by selling legislation to the interest groups in exchange for campaign contributions. The private interests that provide the money that elects politicians get the laws that they want. For example, President Trump is giving the environmental despoilers two protected national monuments, but he is powerless to protect himself and has advisers.

The ruling oligarchy is making an example of Trump in order to ensure that no future presidential candidate makes a direct appeal to the people. When Trump said that he was going to govern in the interest of the people by bringing the offshored jobs home, he attacked the profits of the global corporations, and when he said he was going to normalize relations with Russia, he attacked the power and profit of the military/security complex. He is now paying the price for his rashness.

The larger question is: what price will the American people and the rest of the world pay for the constraints the military/security complex has placed on Trump’s ability to normalize relations with Russia?



...............


Biggest common denominator among the 6.7 to 9.2 million Obama to Trump voters was view that US political system is corrupt and doesn’t work for people like them. These voters won the election for Trump-NY Times, Edsall, 6/8/17

.
"The biggest common denominator among Obama-Trump voters is a view that the political system is corrupt and doesn’t work for people like them."...There were between 6.7 and 9.2 million Obama to Trump voters, "far more than enough to provide Trump his electoral College victory."

6/8/17, "The Democratic Party Is in Worse Shape Than You Thought," NY Times,  Thomas B. Edsall, commentary 
 
"Priorities also studied Obama-to-Trump voters. Estimates of the number of such voters range from 6.7 to 9.2 million, far more than enough to provide Trump his Electoral College victory.


The counties that switched from Obama to Trump were heavily concentrated in the Midwest and other Rust Belt states. 

To say that this constituency does not look favorably on the Democratic Party fails to capture the scope of their disenchantment....

A solid majority, 77 percent, of Obama-to-Trump voters think Trump’s economic policies will either favor “all groups equally” (44) or the middle class (33). 21 percent said Trump would favor the wealthy.

In contrast, a plurality of these voters, 42 percent, said that Congressional Democrats would favor the wealthy, slightly ahead of Congressional Republicans at 40 percent.

Geoff Garin is a partner in the Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group which, together with the Global Strategy Group, conducted the surveys and focus groups for Priorities USA. Garin wrote in an email: 

"The biggest common denominator among Obama-Trump voters is a view that the political system is corrupt and doesn’t work for people like them."

Garin added that

"Obama-Trump voters were more likely to think more Democrats look out for the wealthy
than look out for poor people."... 


If the Priorities analysis is bleak, the 13 American Prospect essays are even more so. 

Stan Greenberg, the Democratic pollster, writes in his Prospect essay:

"The Democrats don’t have a “white working-class problem.” They have a “working-class problem,” which progressives have been reluctant to address honestly or boldly. The fact is that Democrats have lost support with all working-class voters across the electorate, including the Rising American Electorate of minorities, unmarried women, and millennials. This decline contributed mightily to the Democrats’ losses in the states and Congress and to the election of Donald Trump." 

Greenberg voiced an exceptionally sharp critique of his own party and its candidates. First, he takes on Barack Obama:

"Working-class Americans pulled back from Democrats in this last period of Democratic governance because of President Obama’s insistence on heralding economic progress and the bailout of the irresponsible elites, while ordinary people’s incomes crashed and they continued to struggle financially.""... 


[Ed. note: Campaigning in 2008 Obama promised Rust Belt voters he'd renegotiate NAFTA. One month after his 2009 inauguration, he announced NAFTA would remain as is, that US should avoid "beggar thy neighbor" policies.  2/19/2009, "NAFTA Renegotiation Must Wait, Obama Says," Washington Post, Michael D. Shear..."The president's message served as a reminder of last year's private assessment by Canadian officials that then-candidate Obama's frequent criticism of NAFTA was nothing more than campaign speeches aimed at chasing support among Rust Belt union workers." And: 12/10/2009, "Obama's Big Sellout: The President has Packed His Economic Team with Wall Street Insiders," Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi]


(continuing): "Hillary Clinton does not escape Greenberg’s wrath:

"In what may border on campaign malpractice, the Clinton campaign chose in the closing battle to ignore the economic stress not just of the working-class women who were still in play, but also of those within the Democrats’ own base, particularly among the minorities, millennials, and unmarried women."

Greenberg does not stop there, shifting his focus from individual Democratic politicians to the Democratic Party itself: Past supporters
"pulled back because of the Democrats’ seeming embrace of multinational trade agreements that have cost American jobs. The Democrats have moved from seeking to manage and champion the nation’s growing immigrant diversity to seeming to champion immigrant rights over American citizens’.

Instinctively and not surprisingly, the Democrats embraced the liberal values of America’s dynamic and best-educated metropolitan areas, seeming not to respect the values or economic stress of older voters in small-town and rural America. Finally, the Democrats also missed the economic stress and social problems in the cities themselves and in working-class suburbs.""...

[Ed. note: 4/5/17, "Democrats are still ignoring the people who could have helped them defeat Trump, Ohio party leaders say," Washington Post, William Wan, Youngstown, Ohio. (The Republican Party has no interest in its voters either.)]

(continuing): "Along parallel lines, three analysts at the pro-Democratic Center for American Progress, Robert Griffin, John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira, argue that:

"Rather than debating whether Democrats should appeal to white working-class voters or voters of color — both necessary components of a successful electoral coalition, particularly at the state and local levela more important question emerges: Why are Democrats losing support and seeing declining turnout from working-class voters of all races in many places?"

Griffin, Halpin and Teixeira argue that:

"Democrats allowed themselves to become the party of the status quo--a status quo perceived to be elitist, exclusionary, and disconnected from the entire range of working-class concerns, but particularly from those voters in white working-class areas. 

For Democrats who argue that the adoption of economic populism is the best way to counter Trump, Guy Molyneux, a partner in Garin’s polling firm, warns in his American Prospect essay, “A Tale of Two Populisms,” that voters drawn to Trump are anti-government, deeply wary of a pro-government Democratic Party.


“Many analysts and leading Democrats,” Molyneux writes “have attributed Donald Trump’s impressive 2016 vote margin among white working-class voters to his embrace of economic populism.”...

While “Democrats can take obvious comfort in a story about Trump winning in large measure because he stole our ideas,” Molyneux writes, “this assessment misses the mark in important ways.” Why? Because,

"Trump’s brand of populism — and more importantly, that of working-class whites — differs in important ways from the populism of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren." 

While the populism espoused by Sanders and Warren is economic, challenging C.E.O.s, major corporations and “the billionaire class,” Trump is the messenger of what Molyneux calls “political populism,” which “is, fundamentally, a story about the failure of government.” 

Molyneux writes:

"White working-class voters’ negative view of government spending undermines their potential support for many progressive economic policies. While they want something done about jobs, wages, education, and health care, they are also fiscally conservative and deeply skeptical of government’s ability to make positive change. So political populism not only differs from economic populism, but also serves as a powerful barrier to it."

Or, as I have written elsewhere, Democrats cannot simply argue in favor of redistributive government on economic matters because defecting whites are deeply hostile to a government they see as coercive on matters of race."...


[Ed. note: Coercion is what Big Government is all about. Unisex bathrooms, ie, forcing 6 year old girls to face adult male genitalia, were considered a political triumph.]

(continuing): "In May, the Public Religion Research Institute released a report, Beyond Economics: Fears of Cultural Displacement Pushed the White Working Class to Trump.” It found that 

"more than half (52%) of white working-class Americans believe discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities" 

and that “four in ten white working-class Americans agree” with the statement that “efforts to increase diversity almost always come at the expense of whites.”

In a separate argument, Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu, professors of political science at Duke and Vanderbilt, challenge a basic premise on the left — that the populism of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren could have stemmed the loss of non-college whites to Trump.

Carnes and Lupu contend instead that the oft-cited theory that Trump won because of support from the low-income white working class is itself wrong. 

The two scholars provide data showing that "among white people without college degrees who voted for Trump, nearly 60 percent were in the top half of the income distribution" and that "white non-Hispanic voters without college degrees making below the median household income made up only 25 percent of Trump voters." 

Democratic pessimism today stands in contrast to the optimism that followed the elections of 2006, 2008 and 2012. 

At that time, the consensus was that Democrats had found the key to sustained victory. The party saw its future in ascendant constituencies: empowered minorities, singles, social liberals and the well-educated.

Democratic activists saw the Republican Party as doomed to defeat without a radical change of course because it was tied to overlapping constituencies that they viewed as of waning significance--for example, older, non-college, evangelical white Christians.... 

Before 2016, no one, Democrat or Republican, thought that the man who would bring about radical change would be Donald Trump, except, perhaps, Trump himself. 

For all the harm he has done [No link to examples of alleged "harm"], continues to do and proposes to do, Trump has successfully forced Democrats to begin to examine the party’s neglected liabilities, the widespread resentment of its elites and the frail loyalty of its supporters."

............................ 

Added: Perhaps Rust Belt voters remembered being deceived:

One month after his inauguration Obama broke his 2008 campaign promise to struggling Rust Belt Americans to renegotiate NAFTA, confirming Canadian officials' belief that his promise had just been to fool Rust Belt union workers into voting for him. Obama chose to make his announcement in Canada 'during his first trip abroad' as US president. He said now is not the time for "beggar-thy-neighbor policies." Washington Post, 2/19/2009. Definition of "beggar" when used as a verb: "to reduce someone to poverty." Meaning, as Obama told the entire world, if you Rust Belt people wanted NAFTA you were mean and just wanted others to suffer: 

Obama was inaugurated Jan. 20, 2009:

2/19/2009, "NAFTA Renegotiation Must Wait, Obama Says," Washington Post, Michael D. Shear 

"President Obama warned on Thursday against a "strong impulse" toward protectionism while the world suffers a global economic recession and said his election-year promise to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement on behalf of unions and environmentalists will have to wait.

Obama made the comments as he stood with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper during his first trip abroad as president. The two pledged cooperation on efforts to stimulate the economy, fight terrorism in Afghanistan and develop clean energy technology.

In a joint news conference, Obama said he wants to find a way to keep his campaign pledge to toughen labor and environmental standards -- and told Harper so -- but stressed that nothing should disrupt the free flow of trade between neighbors.

"
Now is a time where we've got to be very careful about any signals of protectionism," the president said. "Because, as the economy of the world contracts, I think there's going to be a strong impulse on the part of constituencies in all countries to see if we--they can engage in "beggar-thy-neighbor policies."

The president's message served as a reminder of last year's private assessment by Canadian officials that then-candidate Obama's frequent criticism of NAFTA was nothing more than campaign speeches aimed at chasing support among Rust Belt union workers.

"Much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," the Canadians concluded in a memo after meeting with Austan Goolsbee, a senior campaign aide and now a member of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. [Goolsbee was already on his way out by this time: On Nov. 5, 2008, the day after the election, Obama's transition team was announced. The list "was most notable for who was not on it, especially on the economic side. Austan Goolsbee...didn't make the cut." 12/10/2009, "Obama's Big Sellout: The President has Packed His Economic Team with Wall Street Insiders," Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi] 

When the memo became public, Obama advisers rejected the idea as absurd and insisted that he was serious about changing NAFTA. Obama even suggested that the United States might opt out of NAFTA if the standards could not be improved to the nation's satisfaction.

But some longtime observers of the U.S.-Canada relationship said Obama's current position appears to confirm the impression that Canadian officials got from the meeting with Goolsbee. 

"It sounds like [Goolsbee] was right," said former Massachusetts governor Paul Cellucci (R), who served as U.S. ambassador to Canada during George W. Bush's first term. "It looks like [President Obama has] softened that quite a bit, to put it mildly."

That could anger some of Obama's staunchest labor supporters, who blame NAFTA for sending American jobs oversees by not requiring a level playing field in the areas of labor and the environment.

But some of those allies said Thursday that they are giving the president more time to make good on his promise and praised Obama for finding a sophisticated way to express support for trade and changes to NAFTA.

"I am happy for him to frame his way of positioning the issue any way he wants, as long as he actually delivers on the issue," said Lori Wallach, the director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch division. "If down the road Obama doesn't deliver on the policy, there will be a whole lot of really upset people."

(p. 2) The trade discussion came as Canadians have expressed concern in recent days about the "Buy American" provision that Congress added to the $787 billion stimulus package that Obama signed into law this week. 

Harper said he has "every expectation" that the United States will abide by trade rules that forbid such preferences. But he used strong language to indicate how seriously the country takes that issue.

"If we pursue stimulus packages, the goal of which is only to benefit ourselves, or to benefit ourselves, worse, at the expense of others, we will deepen the world recession, not solve it," he said. Obama and Harper also pledged to work together to battle terrorism, especially in Afghanistan, where Canadian soldiers have been fighting and dying for years.

In his first public comments since sending an additional 17,000 troops to the war-torn country earlier this week, Obama said that "it was necessary to stabilize the situation there in advance of the elections that are coming up."

The president declined to say how long the troops will remain there, citing a 60-day review he has ordered. Harper also declined to say whether his country's troops will remain beyond 2011, but said the long-term goal of the war should be constrained.

"We are not in the long term, through our own efforts, going to establish peace and security in Afghanistan. That, that job, ultimately, can be done only by the Afghans themselves," he said....

 Obama and Harper also pledged cooperation to revive North America's closely linked economy and signed an agreement to work toward developing clean energy technology.

"It will advance carbon reduction technologies. And it will support the development of an electric grid that can help deliver the clean and renewable energy of the future to homes and businesses, both in Canada and the United States," Obama said."

............... 

Added: NY Times was "tempted" to accuse Trump voters of "racism," but couldn't because many of them had been Obama voters:

After Trump's win, a New York Times reporter said it's "tempting" to blame "racism" for it, but can't because many white Obama voters became Trump voters in 2016 (instead of becoming Hillary voters). Why would it ever be "tempting" to blame racism?



Above NY Times twitter image via 11/11/16, "2016: The Revenge Of The White Working Class Voter, And Where Millions Of Obama Supporters Flipped For Trump," Matt Vespa, Townhall

.....................







.........


Friday, December 8, 2017

10,000 text messages reveal passions shared by Mueller team adulterous lovers. The deeply embedded Swamp Dwellers' anti-Trump prejudice dates back to presidential debates. Strzok's wife consoles herself in key SEC job Obama gave her in late 2016-Daily Mail...(All 4 adults involved, two adulterers and their spouses, are in position to be blackmailed)

.

12/7/17, "PICTURE EXCLUSIVE: Married FBI lawyer who exchanged 10,000 texts with her anti-Trump agent lover who was a key player in Mueller's Russia probe and helped clear Hillary is seen for the first time," Daily Mail, Louise Boyle, Alana Goodman in DC, and Cheyanne Roundtree
  • Lisa Page, who exchanged anti-Trump text messages with Peter Strzok, her FBI agent lover, was seen for the first time since the affair was exposed
  • Strzok was dismissed from Robert Mueller's Russia probe over the conversation and was relocated within the FBI over the summer, it was reported Saturday
  • Page, a lawyer, was also involved in Mueller's investigation but left the probe [but is still working at FBI] before the messages were discovered
  • Page, 38, is married to non-profit executive Joseph Burrow who was seen wearing his wedding ring on Wednesday morning
  • Strzok was a part of former FBI Director James Comey's Hillary Clinton email probe, and changed the wording in Comey's assessment from 'grossly negligent to 'extremely careless'
  • Strzok was also involved in questioning Michael Flynn before he was prosecuted for lying to the Bureau 
  • The DOJ said they would be handing over the messages to Congress. It is currently going through more than 10,000 messages between the couple that span months"
"The woman who exchanged anti-Trump text messages with her FBI lover, who was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe [but allowed to return to her job at the FBI still on the payroll of US taxpayers], has been photographed for the first time since news of her affair was revealed.



Lisa Page, a lawyer for the FBI, looked somber in DailyMail.com's exclusive photos as she was spotted leaving the home that she shares with her husband and children in Washington D.C. on Wednesday. 

The 38-year-old registered Democrat wore all black and her hair was still wet when she left the residence carrying two bags moments after her husband Joseph Burrow, 40, pulled his hood over his head and left the house with their son. 

On Saturday, Page was exposed as being the lover of Peter Strzok, deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI, after it was discovered they exchanged anti-Trump text messages, which led him to be reassigned to the FBI's human resources department in August. 


Strzok, according to the Washington Post, was a key player in the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state. He was also responsible for changing the wording in then FBI director James Comey's assessment from 'grossly negligent' to 'extremely careless,' and the probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election.

Page was also working on Mueller's Russia probe for a short time but had already left the investigation [having returned to the FBI] when the text messages were discovered.

According to the Washington Post's sources, the extramarital affair was problem enough, but the greater concern among senior law enforcement officials were the 'text messages the two exchanged during the Clinton investigation and campaign season in which they expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton.'

When approached by DailyMail.com as he was walking down the street alone, Page's husband, an executive at a non-profit international education organization, refused to comment, shaking his head when asked about his wife’s text messages with Strzok. Attempts to reach Lisa Page and Peter Strzok for comment were unsuccessful. Burrow was still wearing his wedding ring, days after news of his wife's affair was revealed to the public on Saturday.

Page attended Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University and graduated in the class of 2006. A statement from her on the college website, under the title ‘Lisa Page ’06: Living Her Dream’, reads: 'Lisa Page '06 always knew that she wanted to pursue a career in public service, and she figured that the path to her ideal job would be a winding one.

'As a federal prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice, however, she skipped the scenic route and moved immediately from law school to her dream career. "Luckily for me," she says, "it's been as gratifying and fulfilling as I'd hoped."'... 

Strzok is also married. The Georgetown University graduate is married to fellow alum Melissa Hodgman, who was promoted to Associate Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division by Obama in late 2016.

The promotion came after the FBI found emails pertaining to the Hillary Clinton email server scandal on her aide Huma Abedin's husband s laptop.

After news broke of her husband's alleged bias in Mueller's investigation, Hodgman scrubbed all evidence of her supporting Hillary Clinton from her social media, according to Gateway Pundit.

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice announced they would be handing over the messages to Congress. The department is currently going through more than 10,000 messages that span months between Page and Strzok, according to Fox News....  

Strzok was among the top officials investigating Clinton and changed Comey's description of her conduct from 'grossly negligent' – language that mirrors the criminal code – to the softer words 'extremely careless.'

Strzok was also part of the team that quizzed disgraced former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn before he pleaded guilty to lying during that interview.

Strzok participated in the FBI's sit-down interviews with two Clinton insiders linked to her email scandal, both of whom got a free pass despite making statements to agents that were later challenged by other records.

The email probe included question-and-answer sessions with several senior Clinton aides including lawyer Cheryl Mills and chief of staff Huma Abedin.

And when those two friends-of-Hillary sat down for their third-degree sessions, Strzok – the partisan anti-Trump agent – was asking many of the questions.

Mills and Abedin both denied knowing of Clinton's unorthodox email server setup, according to summaries of their interviews that the Bureau released last year. 

'Mills did not learn Clinton was using a private server until after Clinton's [State Department] tenure. Mills stated she was not even sure she knew what a server was at the time,' one agent's interview notes read.

And Abedin told agents, they wrote, that she 'did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago when it became public knowledge.' 

But in emails released by State, Mills and Abedin both referred to Clinton's server specifically, The Daily Caller reported Monday. 

Comey defended the Clinton aides' contradictory statements when he testified in a House Judiciary Committee hearing about six weeks before the 2016 election. 

'Having done many investigations myself, there’s always conflicting recollections of facts – some of which are central, some of which are peripheral,' Comey said then....

The Washington Post and New York Times reported that his [Strzok's] text messages 'expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton.'

ABC News had reported Strzok's departure from the Russia probe in August, but without offering a reason. Now the controversy could taint not one, but two of the biggest federal investigations in the last year....

[Deputy FBI Director Andrew] McCabe had no role in the Clinton investigation until months after his wife's [democrat] political campaign had concluded.

But Page, the lawyer who exchanged anti-Trump texts with Strzok, was on McCabe's staff." 


...........


Thursday, December 7, 2017

Trump recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is a sharp and welcome contrast to Obama's policy of just a year ago. There's no need to keep up tedious fiction that Israel's capital is anywhere but Jerusalem-Washington Examiner Editorial

.
12/7/17, "The Jerusalem decision: Trump's geography lesson for the world," Washington Examiner Editorial

"One year ago this month, former President Barack Obama's administration was working behind the scenes at the United Nations to slip a resolution through the body’s General Assembly attacking Israel.

It was one of Obama’s final, sneaky, and reprehensible acts in office. It put an exclamation point on his long, nasty, personal feud with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Previously, our president [Obama] had gone so far as to interfere in an Israeli election and then unleashed his minions when Netanyahu had the gall to accept an invitation to address Congress.

Fast forward to this Wednesday, Netanyahu was thanking Obama’s successor in a formal televised statement for officially recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

We believe, and hope, Trump made the right decision — or at least one that probably won’t make things any worse than they are. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is highly complex, replete with myriad and tangled disagreements, charges, counter-charges, libels, counter-libels, offenses given, and offenses taken.

But one simple truth remained for Trump as he approached this question. In the 25 years since the Oslo talks began, not one thing Americans have done has successfully advanced the cause of peace in the Middle East, not even a little. The approaches of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, all genuinely diverse, were equally useless.

This should put to rest the idea that an American president can step in and solve this problem. And one minor consequence of this relieving, humbling revelation is that there’s no need to keep up tedious fictions such as the one that Israel’s capital is anywhere except where it actually has been for years, in Jerusalem.

Other governments don’t need to live thus with their heads buried in the sand. Russia recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in April. Hardly anyone noticed. The outrage over Trump's recognition now is born of opportunism.

To be sure, one can never be completely certain what effect this or any other event will have on the fragile alliances that are forming in order to restrain Iran’s ambitions in the region. But with Iran’s growing threat, the Sunni Arab nations have been forced to find common cause with Israel and America. That made Trump’s decision easier and guarantees that most objections are likely to be half-hearted and pro forma.

But what of the deeper question of justice between Israelis and Palestinians? The concern that this decision will cause further violence, voiced throughout America's news media, hinges on the idea that an injustice is being done. To the extent that Trump’s decision weakens the Palestinian starting point for negotiations, one might argue that the decision to recognize Jerusalem harms the legitimate merits of the Palestinian cause.

Then again, we are reminded by this week’s House passage of the Taylor Force Act that no one has delegitimized or degraded that cause as much as the Palestinian Authority itself, whose leaders probably have to be removed before any justice can be done. That bill, named after an American tourist who was murdered last year in a Palestinian terrorist attack, punishes the PA for its well-documented practice of paying terrorists to commit specific acts of violence against Israeli interests.

The PA, the beneficiary of an ungodly amount of humanitarian aid (including from Israel), concerns itself mostly with keeping those it misgoverns angry, vengeful, and impoverished. It bombards its subjects (even in its children’s television shows) with feverish anti-Semitic propaganda and indoctrinates them with denial of Israel’s existence and false hope of seizing all of its lands.

If Trump’s decision helps impose a little reality on those deceived through these measures, so much the better. It is a sharp and welcome contrast to the Obama policy of just a year ago, which hinted to Palestinians that if they held on long enough, the tide would turn against Israel. It’s nothing new, but Israel is there to stay."





................

Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital by Pres. Trump is perfect response to lame duck Pres. Obama’s outrageous orchestration of Security Council resolution declaring Western Wall to be illegally occupied territory along with Hebrew University, Hadassah Hospital, and the Jewish Quarter-Dershowitz

.
12/6/17, "Dershowitz: Recognizing J'lem 'perfect response' to Obama," Israel National News, Tal Polon

"Former Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz says that US President Donald Trump’s official recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is the “perfect response” to “President Obama’s outrageous orchestration” of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 during the waning weeks of his presidency.

That resolution defined Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem as a “flagrant violation of international law” with “no legal validity” and demanded Israel immediately cease all construction in those areas, deemed by the resolution "occupied Palestinian territory." The US abstained from voting on the resolution, allowing it to pass.

Later, reports emerged, corroborated by the Israeli government, that the Obama administration had not only allowed the passage of the resolution, but had played an active role in promoting it.

Speaking to Fox News today, Dershowitz said, “I think President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is the perfect response to President Obama’s outrageous orchestration of the Security Council resolution which he pushed through as a lame duck, that declared the Western Wall to be illegally occupied territory, the Hebrew University, Hadassah Hospital, the Jewish Quarter - according to this resolution that was basically pushed through by Obama, these are outrageously flagrant violations of international law.” 

“The best response to that horrible resolution is for the President to say, 'we don’t accept the UN resolution, and the best proof of it is, we’re going to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,'” Dershowitz asserted.

“You say it’s occupied, we say it’s the capital.”"

More on Obama backed resolution: 2/14/17, "Trump-Netanyahu meeting can expose Obama collusion on Resolution 2334," Israel National News, David Singer

"The Egyptian newspaper Al-Youm Al-Sabea was the first to allege American collusion in promoting Resolution 2334."

................

Added #1: Clinton, Bush, and Obama all promised to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital but failed to do so. George Bush "even said he would “start the process as soon as I’m sworn in.”"..."Bill Clinton declared in February 1992, at the height of the Democratic primaries, that he supported recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital." Later in the campaign Clinton "promised that he and running mate Al Gore would “support Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel.”... 

12/6/17, "FLASHBACK: All The Times Past Presidents Promised To Move US Embassy To Jerusalem," Daily Caller, Saagar Enjeti

"President Donald Trump will begin the formal process of moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem Wednesday and recognize the city as Israel’s capital, actually fulfilling a campaign pledge many of his predecessors made.

The process of moving the embassy could take years and puts the U.S. in compliance with Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. Each president since the act’s passage has signed a waiver every six months while in office, keeping the embassy in the city of Tel-Aviv for national security concerns.

Former President Bill Clinton made Jerusalem a campaign issue in 1992, attacking then-former President George H.W. Bush for having allegedly “repeatedly challenged Israel’s sovereignty over a united Jerusalem” and vowing to move the embassy during his administration.

Clinton, however, believed moving the embassy and recognizing the capital may derail his many attempts at brokering a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians.

The cycle appeared to repeat itself once again during the 2000 U.S. presidential election when former President George W. Bush castigated Clinton for failing to follow through on his embassy promise and vowing to get the process started in his few months in office. Bush never made a concerted effort towards moving the embassy and became embroiled his own Middle East conflicts.

Former President Barack Obama himself never attacked Bush or Clinton for not moving the embassy to Jerusalem but declared in a 2008 campaign speech, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

The Obama administration similarly never pursued a serious effort at moving or declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel formally, even taking a case all the way to the Supreme Court to block American citizens born in Jerusalem to list Israel as their place of birth." (See below)

..................

Added #2: In 2009, Obama began court proceedings that ended in his favor in 2015 in the Supreme Court. The decision ended need for US government discussion as to whether Jerusalem was Israel's capital or any part of Israel, saying it was up to individual presidents to acknowledge or withhold recognition of nation states: 

6/18/2015, "Supreme Court Sides With Obama on Jerusalem Passport Row," Reuters 

"Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (July 10, 2009) The U.S. Embassy refused to record the place of birth of Petitioner Menachem Zivotofsky as “Jerusalem, Israel.”"...

.............................

Added #3: From Haaretz, more on Jerusalem campaign statements by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush (Obama isn't mentioned in Haaretz article. 2008 NY Times article below discusses Obama statements):

12/6/17, "From Bill Clinton to Trump: The Never-ending Story of the Jerusalem Embassy Move," Haaretz, Amir Tibon (Orig. published Feb. 5, 2017, republished 12/6/17) 

"By the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocating the embassy became more common for policy debate – and for campaign promises. Bill Clinton declared in February 1992, at the height of the Democratic primaries, that he supported recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a step that would alter U.S. policy."...

[Ed. note: Three years later in 1995, the Jerusalem Embassy Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress. The bill stated that the American embassy should move to Jerusalem within five years. Bill Clinton refused to sign the bill.]

(continuing): "Later, during the general election campaign, Clinton attacked President George H.W. Bush for having “repeatedly challenged Israel’s sovereignty over a united Jerusalem.” He promised that he and running mate Al Gore would “support Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel.”...


By 1995, the administration found itself opposing the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress, but was left unsigned by Clinton. The bill stated that the American embassy should move to Jerusalem within five years. The last three U.S. presidents have all made sure to sign a waiver every six months, putting away the implementation of this legislation....

In the 2000 election campaign, George W. Bush clearly promised to move the embassy and attacked Clinton for failing to deliver on his promise. At one point he even said he would “start the process as soon as I’m sworn in.” Bush made that promise in front of leading Jewish organizations including AIPAC and the American Jewish Committee. But like Clinton before him, once Bush entered the White House, it didn’t take long for him to walk back his promise."...

...............

Added #4: 2008 Obama campaign statements regarding Jerusalem:

6/7/2008, "Obama’s Comments on Israel Stir Criticism in U.S.," NY Times, Larry Rohter

"The morning after claiming the Democratic nomination, Senator Barack Obama spoke to skeptical members of a pro-Israel lobby and made a pledge that some of them found pleasantly surprising: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”...

Over the last 24 hours, as Mr. Obama and his campaign have sought to explain his initial remarks, and suggested that an undivided Jerusalem would be hard to achieve, they have been accused of backtracking....

Mr. Obama’s speech on Wednesday in Washington to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee came just hours after he claimed the Democratic presidential nomination. As such, and especially in view of doubts that Jewish groups have expressed about his commitment to Israel, it was “a major platform and a major speech, and he knew that everyone would be listening,” said Nathan Diament, public policy director for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America....

His remarks about Jerusalem received the most enthusiastic response. Mr. Diament said, “My organization and constituents were very excited when we heard him on Wednesday making what seemed to our ears to be a very clear and declarative statement, something different from what he had said before, but which he is now circling back towards in his clarifying statements yesterday and today.” 

In the Middle East, however, reaction to Mr. Obama’s speech, which was broadcast live on several Arab-language television stations, was immediate, and strongly negative....

“This statement is totally rejected,” said Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority. He added, “We will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital.”...

An article on Friday in The Jerusalem Post sought to clarify Mr. Obama’s stance further. In it, an unnamed foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama was quoted as saying that the candidate’s position is that “Jerusalem remains Israel’s capital and it’s not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967.” 

That formulation does not rule out the city simultaneously serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinians’ being granted control of some Arab neighborhoods there."...
................................

Added #5: 

6/18/2015, "Supreme Court Sides With Obama on Jerusalem Passport Row," Reuters

"Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (July 10, 2009) The U.S. Embassy refused to record the place of birth of Petitioner Menachem Zivotofsky as “Jerusalem, Israel.”"...

In 2009 Obama established the case as US State Dept. vs petitioner. The case was first named Zivotofsky v. [Hillary] Clinton, because it began when Hillary Clinton was Sec. of State. After Hillary was gone, John Kerry's name was inserted, and the case was called "Zivotofsky vs [Sec. of State] Kerry".

Additional source on Obama's Supreme Court victory: 

June 8, 2015, "Supreme Court strikes down law in Jerusalem passport case," CNN Supreme Court Reporter, Ariane de Vogue


 

 ...........................