“Donald Trump Gave A Brilliant Tour de Force Speech In Iowa” – Steve Pieczenik

– Congratulations to Donald Trump for a Brilliant Tour de Force Speech in Iowa: Humorous, Biting, Highly Detailed, and Comprehensive!

trumpI hope that as Donald keeps running and devastating the Republican and Democratic field, he is cautious of the envy he generates; especially in the Bush and Clinton families. For some time, you and I have been cheering on Donald Trump and his revolutionary style of eviscerating opponents while at the same time explaining the problems of our staid, dysfunctional American political system. I am concerned as some of my more dedicated readers have pointed out – that the longer Trump keeps up his engine-of-truth that the more desperate the Bushes and Clintons become. I use the plural because Hillary and Jeb are not really one person but a compilation of enablers whose relatives have been former presidents with checkered and miscreant pasts.

Both Bush and Clinton families have had an infamous record of avoiding prosecution for economic and political crimes committed by them against the American people. Without belaboring the point, all one has to do is to look at Jeb, who promised a new team, but said team has repopulated the Neocon cockroaches like Wolfowitz and company. Likewise, Hillary has rebounded from one lie to another with alacrity and vibrant pathology.

I am not writing this blog to laud Trump, he certainly can do that on his own. My deep concern is when a revolutionary force like Trump appears on a fixed political system, an ossified dyad of Republicans and Democrats, unfortunate accidents and assassinations appear from so-called “lone gun men.”

Continue reading

George W. Bush: “What difference does it make if the order is Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/Clinton or it is Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/Bush?”

bushJonathan Turley – For those who are already upset about the prospect of the country again being given simply a choice between a Bush or a Clinton in the general election, they might not want to read the recent interview of President George W. Bush and Bill Clinton in Time magazine. In a revealing aside, Bush shrugs off the real significance of the result of the election so long as it is either a Clinton or a Bush: says it really does not matter so long as it is either a Bush or Clinton: “What difference does it make,” he said at the time, “if the order is Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/Clinton or it is Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/Bush?” It appears that we have a dynastic democracy.

Many Americans are disgusted with the duopoly of not just the two main parties but the two main families controlling the parties. Like Henry Ford saying that customers can have any color so long as it is black, Bush’s comment also suggests that there really is little difference between which color you pick: blue or red. It is either part of some dynastic game of duopoly.

The two parties seem prepared to ignore the sentiments of most Americans and again force a choice between a Bush and a Clinton. The reason is that most Americans are independents and do not vote in the primary. Moreover, the Bushes and Clintons continue to exercise a huge degree of control over their respective parties. The Clintons particularly have been adept in lining up the establishment figures and party leaders who are still “ready for Hillary.” Continue reading

Hillary Clinton Delivers First Major Campaign Speech Amid Trust Drop

clintonRT News – Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, has held the first major rally of her campaign on Saturday, vowing to make the economy work for every American.

“America can’t succeed unless you succeed, that is why I am running for president of the United States,” she told a cheering crowd at New York City’s Roosevelt Island.

“Prosperity just can’t be for CEOs and hedge fund managers. Democracy can’t be just for billionaires… Prosperity and democracy are part of your basic bargain, too.”

As Hillary Clinton hits the campaign road, it is people’s trust – or rather the lack thereof – that is her major roadblock, as polls show most Americans don’t see her as honest and trustworthy.

What’s up with Clinton’s ratings?

The former secretary of state will have to do an outstanding job to get the votes. However, her unfavorable ratings have plummeted to a 7-year low, according to a Washington Post-ABC poll. Now more Americans have an unfavorable view of her than a favorable one.

Yet a more salient metric than favorability may be trustworthiness. According to a CNN/ORC poll last week, 57 percent of Americans think Clinton isn’t honest and trustworthy, up from 49 percent in March.

Allegations of corruption have raised serious doubts about her suitability.

The Clinton Foundation controversies

Continue reading

The Clintons And Their Banker Friends, 1992-2016

This piece first appeared at TomDispatch. Read Andy Kroll’s introduction here.

[This piece has been adapted and updated by Nomi Prins from chapters 18 and 19 of her book All the Presidents’ Bankers: The Hidden Alliances that Drive American Power, just out in paperback (Nation Books).]


clinton
Goldman Sachs alum Jon S. Corzine kisses Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2007. (AP / Mel Evans)

Nomi Prins – The past, especially the political past, doesn’t just provide clues to the present. In the realm of the presidency and Wall Street, it provides an ongoing pathway for political-financial relationships and policies that remain a threat to the American economy going forward.

When Hillary Clinton video-announced her bid for the Oval Office, she claimed she wanted to be a “champion” for the American people. Since then, she has attempted to recast herself as a populist and distance herself from some of the policies of her husband.  But Bill Clinton did not become president without sharing the friendships, associations, and ideologies of the elite banking sect, nor will Hillary Clinton.  Such relationships run too deep and are too longstanding.To grasp the dangers that the Big Six banks (JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley) presently pose to the financial stability of our nation and the world, you need to understand their history in Washington, starting with the Clinton years of the 1990s. Alliances established then (not exclusively with Democrats, since bankers are bipartisan by nature) enabled these firms to become as politically powerful as they are today and to exert that power over an unprecedented amount of capital. Rest assured of one thing: their past and present CEOs will prove as critical in backing a Hillary Clinton presidency as they were in enabling her husband’s years in office.

In return, today’s titans of finance and their hordes of lobbyists, more than half of whom held prior positions in the government, exact certain requirements from Washington. They need to know that a safety net or bailout will always be available in times of emergency and that the regulatory road will be open to whatever practices they deem most profitable.

Whatever her populist pitch may be in the 2016 campaign—and she will have one—note that, in all these years, Hillary Clinton has not publicly condemned Wall Street or any individual Wall Street leader.  Though she may, in the heat of that campaign, raise the bad-apples or bad-situation explanation for Wall Street’s role in the financial crisis of 2007-2008, rest assured that she will not point fingers at her friends. She will not chastise the people that pay her hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop to speak or the ones that have long shared the social circles in which she and her husband move. She is an undeniable component of the Clinton political-financial legacy that came to national fruition more than 23 years ago, which is why looking back at the history of the first Clinton presidency is likely to tell you so much about the shape and character of the possible second one.

The 1992 Election and the Rise of Bill Clinton Continue reading

Robert Scheer ~ The Democrats Who Unleashed Wall Street and Got Away With it

Nation Of Change | February 3 2012

That Lawrence Summers, a president emeritus of Harvard, is a consummate distorter of fact and logic is not a revelation. That he and Bill Clinton, the president he served as treasury secretary, can still get away with disclaiming responsibility for our financial meltdown is an insult to reason.

Yet, there they go again. Clinton is presented, in a fawning cover story in the current edition of Esquire magazine, as “Someone we can all agree on. … Even his staunchest enemies now regard his presidency as the good old days.” In a softball interview, Clinton is once again allowed to pass himself off as a job creator without noting the subsequent loss of jobs resulting from the collapse of the housing derivatives bubble that his financial deregulatory policies promoted.

At least Summers, in a testier interview by British journalist Krishnan Guru-Murthy of Channel 4 News, was asked some tough questions about his responsibility as Clinton’s treasury secretary for the financial collapse that occurred some years later. He, like Clinton, still defends the reversal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, a 1999 repeal that destroyed the wall between investment and commercial banking put into place by Franklin Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression.

“I think the evidence is that I am right about that. If you look at the big players, Lehman and Bear Stearns were both standalone investment banks,” Summers replied, referring to two investment banks allowed to fold. Summers is very good at obscuring the obvious truth—that the too-big-to-fail banks, made legal by Clinton-era deregulation, required taxpayer bailouts.

Continue reading