The TPP Is A Vital Part Of The President Clinton Doctrine

Is anyone fooled by Hillary Clinton’s about-turn on the Trans Pacific Partnership?


Well don’t be. Clinton’s not only in favour of it, she absolutely dribbles with desire over it. Knowing that she’d never win over the Bernie Sanders supporters while backing the TPP, she conveniently changed her public view and made much of her pretend objections by stating that the final negotiation didn’t live up to her “high standards.”

Anyone who’s studied Clinton and her past indiscretions knows she doesn’t have any high standards. It’s just a ploy to win more votes. Prior to her Democratic nomination, while Secretary of State, she described the TPP as, “the gold standard in trade agreements.” A gold standard cannot be improved on.

In Australia in 2012 these were her words:

So it’s fair to say that our economies are entwined, and we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment. [Bold added][1]

And again in Singapore 2012:

“The so-called TPP will lower barriers, raise standards, and drive long-term growth across the region. It will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and establish strong protections for workers and the environment. Better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions, including for women, migrant workers and others too often in the past excluded from the formal economy will help build Asia’s middle class and rebalance the global economy. Canada and Mexico have already joined the original TPP partners. We continue to consult with Japan. And we are offering to assist with capacity building, so that every country in ASEAN can eventually join. We welcome the interest of any nation willing to meet 21st century standards as embodied in the TPP, including China.” [1]

In 2012, some may have been fooled by that. Since then, thanks to Wikileaks, we know enough about the TPP to realise Clinton was spouting the biggest load of bullshit to emanate from an American politician in a long time.

Clinton’s not going to back out on the TPP now. She has too much of herself invested in it. Back in 2011, she authored, “America’s Pacific Century,” which was published in ‘Foreign Policy’. It’s a long, rambling piece, headlined:

The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.[2]

And continues:

As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region.

Back in 2011 the war in Iraq certainly proved not to be ‘winding down’, and the forces withdrawn from Afghanistan ended up back there (albeit in smaller numbers) and are likely to remain so for a very long time.

The ‘Pivot’ as it’s known by the Obama administration is in reality a turnaround. Having been defeated in the Middle East, Obama’s aim is to switch tacks, let the Middle East foment in its own bloody juices, and pivot the focus of operations towards the Asia-Pacific region, in the hope that that area will prove easier to subjugate.

Later, in “America’s Pacific Century,” Clinton continues:

…our work will proceed along six key lines of action: strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights. [bold added]

Two things to note here: first, the “broad-based military presence.” The U.S. already has numerous military bases in the region, including in Japan, the Philippines (though possibly not for much longer if Duterte manages to swing things with China), South Korea, and many in Australia:


Click to enlarge

The conclusion to be drawn from Clinton’s comments is that military muscle is to be strengthened in the area, presumably as a ‘persuader’ to any nation not happy with the increased U.S. presence.

Second, there’s that good old standby excuse for any needed aggression: “advancing democracy and human rights.” America’s previous attempts at such worthwhile ideals could hardly be considered as actions overflowing with the milk of human kindness.

One interesting paragraph in, “America’s Pacific Century,” reads:

President Obama has led a multifaceted and persistent effort to embrace fully our irreplaceable role in the Pacific, spanning the entire U.S. government. It has often been a quiet effort. A lot of our work has not been on the front pages, both because of its nature — long-term investment is less exciting than immediate crises — and because of competing headlines in other parts of the world.

It’s a rather lacklustre attempt to offer reasons for the secrecy surrounding the TPP, but it’s now public knowledge that the reasons were way more nefarious. Deals involving a huge upward shift in corporate power over governments and the people they represent would not have gone down well as headlines. Now, again thanks to Wikileaks, we’re all aware of the truth. The above quote is just another of Clinton’s lies.

And then there’s Russia. America’s land grab of eastern European nations following the fall of the U.S.S.R. – now stuffed to the gills with U.S. military bases and missile sites (all pointing at their next-door-neighbour) – did nothing for the security of Russia, or its citizens. Western media tends to overlook Russian citizens. They’re convinced there’s no-one in Russia but Vladimir Putin and his horse.

A quick glance at any map of the world illustrates the Asia-Pacific nations nicely butting up against Russia’s southern borders. Any military man worth an M4A1 will point out that this, coupled with the U.S. military presence in eastern Europe, forms a classic ‘pincer-movement’ with Mister Putin and his horse positioned in the jaws. Hopefully, it won’t make his nuclear trigger-finger too itchy.


Map showing general definition of Asia-Pacific. Dark green refers to the core Asia-Pacific countries, light green refers to regions that may be included.

In 2000 we were presented with the “Project for the New American Century.” It set out a neat plan for the United States of America to conquer the world, both economically and militarily via “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.”

The PNAC was founded by Messrs William Kristol and Robert Kagan. They, and other members, were responsible for planning the invasion of Iraq. Ten of the PNAC’s members wheedled their way into the Bush administration.

Iraq was intended to be a short, sharp, engagement that would rid the country of Saddam Hussein, have the populace bowing in reverence, forever grateful to their bounteous benefactor, America, and serve as a warning to Iran, or any other Middle Eastern nation that might dare to not toe the American line in future.

It was a policy of military invasion, to be followed by a period of forced diplomacy. It failed miserably, and the PNAC was disbanded in 2006.

Five years later in ‘FP’ Hillary Clinton wrote, “America’s Pacific Century,” which might just as well have been entitled, “Hillary’s Project for the New American Century.” It has the hallmarks of the original, merely placing forced diplomacy as a prelude to any ‘necessary’ military aggression. The TPP is vital to the success of the ‘Pivot’. Persuading as many nations as possible to sign up for it will strengthen America’s hand when its military is required for, “advancing democracy and human rights” in those nations who are not prepared to sign – Russia? China? North Korea? The Philippines?

Hillary Clinton has based her whole doctrine as a future president on the ‘Pivot’. The TPP is vital to its success. For her to stand up and say differently is a blatant and downright lie, a manipulation of the electorate to further her own ends, and a flagrant disregard for the “democracy and human rights” to which she pretends to aspire.

“What Hillary Clinton really said about TPP and the ‘gold standard'” Politifact, October 13th 2015

[2] “America’s Pacific Century” FP, October 11th 2011

Could The Kettle Be Less Grimy Than The Pot?


An Iraqi child shrieking in fear and loss, bathed in the blood of her dead parents. Just one of the million innocent victims of the US and NATO crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Libya ~ Lest We Forget

I don’t often choose to write in the first person, but the shit that’s been pouring from the mouths of western politicians, over Syria in general and Aleppo in particular, needs to be confronted. Don’t think for one moment this means I don’t consider Aleppo, or Syria more generally, anything less than a disaster zone for those innocents trapped there by the Sunni rebels who are using them as human shields. The suffering of those people is beyond diabolical.

According to western politicians, Assad is guilty of war crimes and should be brought to justice. I would like to remind them of Iraq in general, and Fallujah in particular. Fallujah was virtually razed to the ground by U.S. forces using white phosphorus and depleted uranium munitions. This has resulted in the most abominable birth defects – there’s overwhelming evidence of a multitude of them despite the whitewash of a WHO ‘investigation’ that concluded:

“The rates for spontaneous abortion, stillbirths and congenital birth defects found in the study are consistent with or even lower than international estimates. The study provides no clear evidence to suggest an unusually high rate of congenital birth defects in Iraq.”[1]

That’s very strange considering other investigations, carried out by a number of non-governmental organizations, have found a monumental spike in birth defects following the razing of Fallujah in April 2004 and again in November 2004.

As noted by The Independent newspaper in July 2010:

Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study….Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that “to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened”.

US Marines first besieged and bombarded Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, in April 2004 after four employees of the American security company Blackwater were killed and their bodies burned. After an eight-month stand-off, the Marines stormed the city in November using artillery and aerial bombing against rebel positions. US forces later admitted that they had employed white phosphorus as well as other munitions…Dr Busby says that while he cannot identify the type of armaments used by the Marines, the extent of genetic damage suffered by inhabitants suggests the use of uranium in some form. He said: “My guess is that they used a new weapon against buildings to break through walls and kill those inside.” [2]

The American military isn’t good at winning the hearts and minds of those it conquers:

“You have to understand the Arab mind,” one company commander told the New York Times, displaying all the self-assurance of Douglas MacArthur discoursing on Orientals in 1945. “The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face.” Far from representing the views of a few underlings, such notions penetrated into the upper echelons of the American command. In their book “Cobra II,” Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor offer this ugly comment from a senior officer: “The only thing these sand niggers understand is force and I’m about to introduce them to it.”[3]

The latter quote was from a pep-talk given to his troops by a commander (who’s name has been carefully extricated from all reports) just prior to one of the assaults on Fallujah.

The newly-invested British Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, has suggested that Russia may be guilty of a war crime IF it bombed an aid convoy near Aleppo recently. I wonder if he’d be so quick to condemn the U.S. if it’s ever revealed those bombs came from one of the Pentagon’s aircraft? There’s no evidence it was Russia. The American government is quick to lay the blame elsewhere, and British politicians are equally quick to pick it up and run with it. I might remind Boris Johnson that the British military were also involved at Fallujah, as well as the Americans. Better not to be the pot that calls the kettle – especially if the kettle turns out to be a little less grimy than the pot.

Western media would have us all believe the civil war in Syria is an uprising against the regime of Bashar al-Assad by Syrian citizens fed up with the regime’s dictatorial tactics and desperate for democracy. They’ve said similar about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and almost every other Middle Eastern nation in which the United States, or NATO (same thing) have interfered over the past four decades. It simply isn’t true.

The U.S. government uses the guise of ‘spreading democracy’ to attempt subjugation of nations that refuse to bow to Western political will. In every case since its double-edged intervention in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s (the deliberate downing of a civilian airliner – Iranian Flight 655 – was another war crime that went unpunished***) it has failed to do so.

Note that the U.S. only picks on nations with substantially less military power than itself. Yet they never win in any conflict. Iraq is a quagmire, as are all the other nations mentioned above. The reason is simple: all U.S. administrations since Gerald Ford (and possibly before that) have failed to take the Muslim religion into account before setting out on some wild military enterprise, supposedly to install democracy in place of dictatorship.

America’s political advisers are expected to have at least a degree of intelligence and common sense, yet totally ignore the blatantly obvious religious fact that the Koran categorises all non-Muslims as infidels. Are Arab Muslims likely to allow infidels into their country, telling them how to run it and how to be democratic? Study what has happened in Iraq, Libya, etc., and the answer is painfully obvious. How many lives has it cost? How many more will be lost, families shattered, children orphaned, before U.S. administrations finally see the obvious?

Still the U.S., together with its NATO puppets, entangles itself in the same old conflicts. The Syrian civil war is the latest venture doomed to failure, but Hell, it’s great for the profits of the U.S. military-industrial complex. Never mind the continuing slaughter of the innocent. We’ll just call it ‘collateral damage’. Think of the profits for the body-bag manufacturers.

Prior to the civil war Syria was predominantly Sunni (74%), with a minority Shia population (14%) and an even smaller contingent of a sect known as Alawites(11%) whose beliefs and traditions are more Christian in style, though they are closer to Shia Islam than Sunni. The ruling family of Assad are Alawites, which has caused continuous intermittent rebellion by the Sunni majority since Bashar’s father, Hafez, took power as president in 1971.

The conflict in Syria is described by Western media as ‘rebels’ versus the government of Bashar al-Assad. This is not strictly true. Certainly, there’s a large Sunni faction, some Shias and even certain Alawites, who want regime change (the latter due mainly to the sons and husbands they’ve lost to the conflict). Assad’s not considered a true Muslim, but ‘ordinary’ Syrians who make up the bulk of the populace i.e. non-‘rebels’ strongly support Assad, as seen in this poll from December 2015:


Click to enlarge

This is hardly the impression put out by Western media organizations, and in particular those of the United States. Syria under the Assad regime is a secular country with civil and criminal courts. There are religious courts but these only hear personal disputes, or family matters appertaining to the particular religion of those involved. The present civil war is an attempt by jihadists to overthrow the regime and introduce Sharia law with its accompanying restrictive practises and Islamic court system.

The war began as a series of uprisings and demonstrations which quickly metamorphosed into a more serious conflagration, which Assad failed to quell despite making concessions to the ‘rebels’. At first, various religious factions joined forces, but with so many differing agendas splits resulted in infighting. The result was several groups, mainly Sunnis, fighting their individual battles against Assad’s forces, a situation Islamic State exploited to muscle-in and control.

Assad knew if his regime was toppled Syria would follow Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq into the mire of failed states with no rule of law and ISIS would take control. He was forced to fight the rebels, who used guerrilla tactics with the populace as human shields. Inevitably, there would be heavy casualties, and there were. Fortunately, he had backing from alliances forged years ago with Russia and Iran, otherwise it’s unlikely he would have survived. Without Russia, in particular, the United States would have gone in and taken out Assad, as they did with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Gaddafi in Libya. The result would have been catastrophic for the Syrian people, just as it has been in America’s other ‘liberated’ nations.

Whatever you may think of Arab dictators it would seem that only strong-handed leadership can keep a nation together when powerful religious factions are constantly vying to pull it apart. In Iraq under Hussein, Sunni and Shia lived in harmony, inter-married, and had mixed families. In Libya under Gaddafi there was free healthcare, education, and subsidised housing and transport.

Regime change in Syria will not solve any problems. It’s time western governments realised that fact and stopped using the farce of ‘spreading democracy’ as a means of advancing their own hidden agendas. It doesn’t work and only results in misery and suffering for many thousands of people.

Even as I write this John Kerry, with his puppet Boris Johnson at his side, is threatening sanctions against Syria and Russia if they don’t come to heel. Kerry is calling it, “the largest of humanitarian disasters,” and “crimes against humanity.”

Hypocrisy is alive and well and John Kerry is its spokesperson.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has just stated she’s in favour of a no-fly zone over Syria. Presumably this means she’s prepared to shoot down Russian aircraft, an act that could likely result in a nuclear WW3.

We are in the grip of mad, power-crazed, people. American arrogance leads it to believe it can take on Russia and win. The only losers will be us all.

***They called it an “accident.” The story put out by the U.S. government was that on July 3rd 1988 the American cruiser, USS Vincennes patrolling the Persian Gulf and in international waters, shot down an Iranian airliner, an Airbus 300 with 290 passengers and crew aboard. It was flying outside of the designated commercial aircraft corridor and appeared to be in descent on an “attack profile.” The ship’s captain, Will Rogers III, identified the aircraft as an Iranian F-14 fighter and gave the order to open fire.

In point of fact, however, the American version of events consisted mostly of untruths. The Vincennes was actually sailing inside Iranian territorial waters, thereby violating international law. Transiting the Gulf from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to Dubai on a regularly scheduled flight, the Airbus was flying well within its assigned flight path. Most important, rather than descending, the aircraft was gaining altitude. In short, the assertion that Iran Air 655 had been closing on the Vincennes and thereby posing a threat was outright wrong…Vice-President George H W Bush made his own position [over the incident] clear: He wasn’t about to send flowers to any memorial service. “I will never apologize for the United States – I don’t care what the facts are,” he remarked, “I’m not an apologize-for-America kinda guy.” [5]

The most likely explanation is that the aircraft was deliberately targeted in an attempt to ‘persuade’ Iran to end the war with Iraq. Three weeks later, Khomeini agreed to a ceasefire.

[1] “How the World Health Organisation covered up Iraq’s nuclear nightmare” Guardian, October 13th 2013

[2] “Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah ‘worse than Hiroshima'” Independent, July 24th 2010

[3] “What’s an Iraqi Life Worth?” Washington Post, July 9th 2006

[4] “Bashar Al-Assad Has More Popular Support than the Western-Backed “Opposition”: Poll”, Global Research, December 11th 2015

[5] Excerpt from, “America’s War for the Greater Middle East – A Military History,” Pages 105-106, Andrew J. Bacevich

Pride And Racism Alive And Well And Living In Britain


Brit Poll Showing Racism Of Generations ~ The Economist, May 31st 2014

It’s truly difficult to comprehend the sheer arrogance of the British government. They treat a very closely run referendum result as though it were overwhelmingly supportive of leaving the European Community, inform all concerned there will be no going back (“Brexit means Brexit,” quoth the new Prime Minister, who’d pretended throughout the campaign she was a ‘Remainer’, while actually sitting astride the political fence waiting to see which way it would go), then expect the E.U. to hand them all the trade advantages of being a member, while restraining the free movement of citizens into the U.K..

This week, Donald Tusk the European Council President, made it plain such would not be the case:

In his speech, Mr Tusk mocked a Brexit campaign promise that Britons could “have the EU cake and eat it too” – the idea that the UK might manage to keep trade benefits of EU membership while barring European immigrants and rejecting EU courts’ authority.
“To all who believe in it, I propose a simple experiment. Buy a cake, eat it, and see if it is still there on the plate.
“The brutal truth is that Brexit will be a loss for all of us. There will be no cakes on the table. For anyone. There will be only salt and vinegar.”
Mr Tusk also suggested that Britain might ultimately decide not to leave the EU “even if today hardly anyone believes in such a possibility”.[1]

Who can blame him? The Brexit vote was a vote for racism. There are many British people who resent foreigners living in their country. There are many who support the United Kingdom Independence Party’s view that ‘Britain should be for the British’. It was they who tipped the referendum balance, allowing the far-right wing of the Tory Party to gain the ascendance and take control of the country – a political faction who see their future, not with Europe, but tagged onto the imperial power that is America today.

Theirs is the attitude that Britain no longer has an Empire so we’ll be a part of America’s instead. Unfortunately, even ignoring the arrogance and hypocrisy of such political ideals, they’ll undermine the living standards of everyone in Britain, except of course, the wealthy and powerful who’ll continue to benefit enormously.

Britain has always been a racist nation. The ‘pride of empire’ still lingers among the older community. Back in the 1950s, before the nations of empire won their independence, there was rarely a ‘foreigner’ to be seen anywhere in Britain. Black people numbered only about 20,000 and lived mostly around London, with a few settling in the port areas of Liverpool and Cardiff. They were considered inferior by their ‘British’ counterparts and could only work in the most menial of jobs.

This may seem a long time ago for many younger members of British society, but there are still ten million people alive in Britain who can remember those times. That older generation of Brits was responsible for tipping the balance of the Brexit vote.

Since the referendum result the U.K. pound has lost much of its value against foreign currencies. Many British airport currency exchanges are offering less than one euro to the pound, and while back in May 2016 it bought one U.S. dollar and forty-eight cents, today that figure has dropped so low that some exchanges are only giving one dollar eight cents per pound.

As oil is valued in U.S. dollars this means that petrol and diesel products are set to rise. According to the BBC:

…the Petrol Retailers’ Association (PRA) [has] forecast that vehicle owners will be paying an extra four or five pence per litre (ppl) for petrol by the end of October because retail prices have, so far, only reflected part of the recent rise in wholesale prices.
Petrol prices hinge on the value of oil, which is priced in dollars, and the falling pound against the US currency means that petrol automatically become more expensive at the pump.
“Wholesale costs to retailers have increased by over six ppl for petrol and seven ppl for diesel in the last few weeks, whereas the UK average pump prices have moved up by less than two ppl for both grades over the same time period,” said Brian Madderson, Chairman of the PRA.
“Thus motorists can expect increases by the end of the month unless there are favourable corrections to the exchange rate and to global oil prices.
“The double impact of the pound weakening against US dollar and global oil prices strengthening will cause pump prices to move sharply upwards,” he added.[2]

Food prices are already on the rise and can only go up further given the pound’s lowly status.

Donald Tusk stated that Britain cannot have its cake and eat it. It seems likely the average Brit soon won’t be able to afford cake.

Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, was upbeat about the future when she spoke at her party’s conference recently. She could hardly appear pessimistic. Nevertheless, talk in Parliament now is of ‘Hard Brexit.’ No longer is there the optimism of blackmailing Europe into giving British politicians what they want – curtailing free movement, while maintaining free trade.

Why should Europe agree to this? If one resigned one’s membership from a club that served free beer to all its members, one could hardly expect to continue drinking there.

Donald Tusk was quite right. He still hopes that Britain may change its mind and stay in the European Community. It’s unlikely to happen. British pride doesn’t like to be dented. After all, they had an Empire – once!

[1] “‘Hard Brexit’ or ‘no Brexit’ for Britain – Tusk” BBC, October 13th 2016

[2] “Less than one euro to the pound at many UK airports” BBC, October 10th 2016

Donald Trump Could Never Be Another Lyndon Johnson

Donald Trump’s not the first lewd, brash, chauvinist with a foul mouth, slavering after the top job in the White House.


As Michael Shelden recounts in his review of Robert Caro’s, “The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Volume III”, there was at least one other before him:

Near the beginning of this 1,100-page biographical tome – which covers the 12 years that Lyndon Johnson spent in the US Senate (1949-61) – the reader is offered an unforgettable image of the big Texan giving dictation to a nervous female secretary while he urinates in a corner washbasin. Apparently, such moments at his Capitol Hill office were not uncommon and were observed by several people. The scene “was startling to those who witnessed it”, his earnest biographer blandly notes. Away from the spotlight, LBJ had the manners of a barnyard dog and enjoyed shocking his subordinates, whom he bullied mercilessly. Like most bullies, he was a coward at heart who used flattery and evasion to dominate more powerful foes, reserving his insults and tantrums for lesser folk. If one of his underlings did not jump fast enough or high enough, he shouted obscenities and threw things. He demanded absolute devotion, declaring, “I want someone who will kiss my ass in Macy’s window and stand up and say, ‘Boy, wasn’t that sweet!’ ”
Women were for sex and servitude. His shy, unglamorous wife, Lady Bird, was more of a maid than a mate, serving him breakfast in bed every morning and entertaining his cronies with huge meals prepared at short notice. At dinner parties he would say, “Bird, get me another piece of pie!”, and if she hesitated more than a few seconds, he would repeat his demand in a deafening roar.
At his Senate office, his female workers were fondled, ogled and overworked. Though his own figure was flabby, he was quick to berate any of his “girls” who put on weight. He wanted to make sure the view was good when they walked away from his desk. “I don’t want to look at an Aunt Minnie. I want to look at a good, trim back end.”
He boasted of his sexual prowess and had long affairs with at least two women, as well as casual flings with members of his staff. Robert Caro, who is a dogged researcher, has uncovered the story of LBJ’s previously secret relationship with Helen Gahagan Douglas, one of the few congresswomen in Washington during the 1940s. A former actress, she was an attractive blonde whose political career came to an abrupt halt after she failed to join her lover as a member of the Senate. In a dirty campaign for an open seat in California, she was defeated by a Republican newcomer who spread rumours that she was a Communist sympathiser. His name was Richard Nixon…
…he [LBJ] once informed a trembling subordinate, “You couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel.”

Trump never could, even if he gains his ambition, be the president that Johnson was. For all his faults, and they were legion, Johnson got things done. He got the Civil Rights Bill passed, something even Kennedy couldn’t manage, and both as Leader of the House and later as President was able to work Congress in a way that no president has managed since.

Of course, there weren’t so many microphones around then.

“A lewd, crude Master” The Telegraph, August 10th 2002

Trump Talks ‘Dirty’ – Where’s The Surprise?

Donald Trump is a coarse, brash, chauvinist who likes to talk ‘dirty’ when he’s in the company of other men.


Is this really any great surprise? Didn’t we all know it already? He’s hardly the type of individual one expects as a prospective White House tenant, but then Richard Nixon wasn’t too far removed.

Trump’s hardly made a secret of his male chauvinism. The very fact he’s been heavily involved in so many beauty pageants gives a hint, even if his own vociferousness on the campaign trail hadn’t made it obvious.

It’s schoolboyish, immature, and smacks of lacking intellect, but sadly it’s what many men do when they’re together and free from female company. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous, but it’s exactly what male politicians worldwide are now rushing to deny. So far, there’s only been one who’s admitted to the truth, and that’s Nigel Farage, the reinstated leader of UKIP, who called it for what it was – “alpha male boasting”.

At the moment, there’s no evidence to suggest it was any more than that. Immature men frequently lie to other males about their sexual prowess. It’s all part of the male hierarchy process. If, as was the case with DJ Jimmy Savile and others in Britain, evidence should emerge that Trump has been engaged in physical sexual assaults against women, that would be cause for further investigation and possible criminal charges. At this time such is not the case.

Perhaps it’s more important to highlight the political hypocrisy of the other male U.S. politicians, who in their droves are removing their support for Trump following disclosure of this tape. This writer doubts there’s one of them who, at some time in their past, hasn’t indulged in a similar all-male conversation, or had sexual imaginings that were not wholly respectful of the fairer sex. To publicly parade such pretended disgust at Trump is pure hypocrisy.

An even more important issue is how this tape surfaced just a few days before the crucial second nominee debate. Coincidence, or a political ploy by the Democratic Party machine?

All the evidence points to the latter.

It’s not known how the Washington Post got the story, but it was almost certainly an NBC employee who gave it to them. It all centred around an NBC progamme , ‘Access Hollywood’. Apparently, Trump has given interviews to this programme on numerous occasions. Back in 2005, he was on a bus with six other men waiting for an interview to begin when he made the comments, not realizing they were being taped. That tape ended up in the programme’s archives where it’s resided ever since.

Apparently, the host of the show, Billy Bush, to whom most of Trump’s unsavoury remarks were addressed, didn’t realise the tape was running either.

NBC “Today” show host Billy Bush is apologizing for comments he made in a video that surfaced on Friday showing him and Donald Trump speaking about women in vulgar terms.
“Obviously I’m embarrassed and ashamed. It’s no excuse, but this happened eleven years ago — I was younger, less mature, and acted foolishly in playing along. I’m very sorry,” Bush said in a statement.
Trump makes most of the coarse remarks in the video, from 2005 when Bush was host of “Access Hollywood.” But Bush eggs on Trump and at one point says that an actress approaching them is “hot as shit, in the purple.” [1]

‘Access Hollywood’ ‘just happened to discover’ the tape while searching their archives. They intended to expose it on their next programme, but someone beat them to it and sold it to the Post.

‘Access Hollywood’ is part of the NBC network. NBC is owned by Comcast. The Chief Executive of Comcast is Brian L Roberts (annual salary $24,000,000). It’s no secret that Comcast virtually owns the Democratic Party. MSNBC is the Party’s mouthpiece thanks to the tireless efforts of Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, etc..

Brian Roberts plays golf with President Obama, donated a ton of cash to his presidential campaign, and has personally been involved in large-scale fund-raising for the Clinton campaign. (No references needed, this is common knowledge).

A Trump presidency could make life very difficult for the super-corporations. There can be little doubt that NBC and its associates would be told to ‘find dirt’ on Trump in order to discredit him. Why else would NBC employees be pouring through the archives of ‘Access Hollywood’ at this time?

Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States would be a disaster for America and the world. Nothing written here can alter that fact. It’s also a fact that the same will be true if Clinton is elected president. Both are liars, deceivers, and the lowest America has ever come in its choices for president.

Hillary Clinton is the champion of the corporations; Donald Trump is the champion of no-one but himself. Whichever way the vote goes on November 8th, we’ll all likely live to regret it.

[1] “Billy Bush apologizes for comments in Donald Trump video” Politico October 10th 2016