I skipped ball for the rain so....
as to an explanation for why I stopped blogging about the Bo$ton Globe, essentially it comes down to the uselessness of continuing to refute the endless lies, obfuscations, distortions, and flat-out fictions spewing forth from the one-sided propagandists fronting for insane war-criminal psychopaths pushing their false version of reality in an increasingly desperate and insulting fashion. Jail 'em all, some say, and I agree. They want nuclear war with Russia (and China) to complete the Syria-Iran part of their project. They have done all the rest.
Of course, western citizens living under Zionist domination and control of their ma$$ media megaphones are blind to the entire situation; however, the rest of the world from Muslims to Asians to Africans to Latinos can see it right in front of their faces and are starting to move against it en masse.
And guess what dominates the top half of fold of today's Sunday Globe?
"There are various legal scenarios, however far-fetched, in which a switch could be made. The most likely scenario is that Trump remains the nominee, and Republicans distance themselves from him and try to run on the claim that a Republican Senate and House are necessary to prevent Hillary Clinton from getting what she wants. To figure it all out, we spoke with...."
To quote their own piece, "why would anyone believe [them]?"
In this case, it's all wishful thinking -- and the missing editorial proves ill intent and one-sided bias! It certainly explains the focus of their campaign coverage over the last month.
Or maybe it was just a slip of the mind, 'eh?
According to reporting, the conversation was with a member of the Bush clan. That and the timing of the release (same day Hillary's e-mails are dumped) stinks (as others have noted). I'm not questioning the authenticity (although you could, and in this age of social media we are being told Apprentice comments were worse) nor am I defending the comments; however, the ma$$ media motivations are so blatantly obvious.
As for the debate tonight, I'm not prepared to watch it (what traps have they laid for Trump tonight?). She won't be winning me over, but she has to "at least give the appearance that her appeal extends beyond the Democratic base" -- which confirms what she said behind closed doors to the bankers, ‘‘you know, you need both a public and a private position.’’
Funny how the fury over Trump and his piggish comment from 11 years ago overtakes that leak, 'eh? And need I remind you that others have validly pointed out the hypocritical and willful ignorance of Bill Clinton's sexual assaults and possible rapes of underaged girls and the selectivity of some regarding Hillary's defense of her husband while standing by her man (given her health problems one wonders if it might actually be Bill Clinton's 3rd term).
According to some people, I'm a spoiler but at least I can say I voted for a woman (if I even vote, although I suspect I will be logged as such since Jeb Bush said stay home) despite the hate. It's going to be women all around, a changing of the guard if you will, criminals in cahoots playing mu$ical chairs to put a new face on the globali$t agenda.
For Trump to recover and win election he needs to look right into the camera tonight and acknowledge that he has behaved in boorish ways. He needs to say it's a problem he is trying to work on with the women in his life, particularly his wife and daughter, and say he is making slow improvement. He then needs to look into the eye of the questioner and camera and tell the American people that this election is ABOUT YOU, not me and not her! It's about what has happened to YOU and your standard of living. That he is doing this FOR the good of the country and YOU, the American people, despite the cost to himself personally regarding himself and his reputation. That is why he will see it through to the end on November 8th, come hell or high water, or until his last breath (God forbid), in victory or defeat.
Not like it will matter regarding the rigged vote (only if Trump wins, of course, despite the Clinton's stealing the nomination from Sanders and their long legacy of dirty tricks along with the other dynastic family that needs appalling secrets to be kept under wraps. Have people forgot that H.W pretty much adopted Bill as the son he never had?) that will be blamed on, you know.
May God help us all....
Sorry to cast you adrift with the rest, salute and all (cue taps for the next generation of soldiers).
I know it's rough seas upon the flip....
"UN officials said the agency’s Central Emergency Response Fund was releasing $5 million to help Haiti. Earlier this week, the fund released a loan of $8 million to UNICEF to boost response to Haiti’s cholera problem."
They are finally ‘‘really concerned about cholera.’’ Hmm.
.... but not as bad up here (although it should depress voter turnout down there, cui bono)?
Massachusetts is mobilizing, but not the U.S. military according to my Globe (like last time 5 years ago; where did all that Bush-Clinton aid money go anyway?)
So who (and why) is the U.S deploying troops under cover of the humanitarian aid excuse again?
And speak of the devil....
"Russia’s last-minute introduction of its resolution Friday took Western supporters of the French draft by surprise. Saturday’s competing votes are expected to exacerbate tensions between Moscow and the West over the Syrian conflict, which has raged for more than five years, killing more than 300,000 people. Also on Saturday, Hanaa Singer, UNICEF’s representative in Syria, said conditions in besieged Aleppo are ‘‘terribly dire,’’ with hospitals hit, doctors overwhelmed, and more than 100 children killed in bombings since Sept. 19. In one case, a mother so desperate from the continuous displacement, stabbed her baby girl, thinking she would save her the misery of living on handouts and without a home, Singer said...."
I don't believe that last bit (smells like Kuwaiti incubator to me), and it's the same old tune the last few days (yes, even the NYT admits the U.S. is supporting the terrorists admit the log of war propaganda), over and over, again and again!
Is it really any wonder I've tuned them out?
I'm now told they are threatening the Baltics and other regions, too.
Speaking of war crimes, btw:
"An airstrike by a Saudi-led coalition on Saturday targeted a funeral hall packed with mourners ‘‘The silence of the United Nations and the international community is the munition of the murderers,’’ said Mohammed Abdul-Salam, a spokesman for the Houthis in Sana, angrily denounced the airstrike as the latest act of ‘‘genocide’’ by the Saudi-led coalition....."
It is, but war crimes are only committed by those opposed to domination by the EUSraeli Empire, you see. That war won't be pounded upon by my Jewi$h War Pre$$ as is Syria (now if you were Mormon....)
US says it may have struck Syrian troops while targeting ISIS
Yeah, OOOPS -- and what do you know, a U.N. aid convoy is bombed by someone soon after. Hmmmm.
And the day before?
At least 7 Afghan police officers killed in errant US strike
Somalia accuses US over airstrike
Ah, that's just Africa and hardly worth the attention of the lead war promoters (nor did they give it any since), and not once did I see anything about the neocon Zionist Project for the New American Century or Israel's Yinon plan factoring into the calculus. Hmmm.
Oh, yeah, Libya. Had to see that on Fox!
"He has ordered drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Syria, actions that that have killed civilians and sparked tension in those countries and across the international community. What began as a secret program has become more transparent and Obama has aimed to leave legal limits for his predecessor on the use of unmanned warplanes.
Looks like war crimes to me despite the fig leaf of AmeriKan law.
The speech Obama delivered — a Nobel Peace Prize lecture about the necessity of waging war — now looks like an early sign that the president would not be the sort of peacemaker the European intellectuals of the Nobel committee had anticipated.
(Blog editor shakes head at the contradiction)
He is the erstwhile antiwar candidate, now engaged in more theaters of war than his predecessor. He is the commander in chief who pulled more than a hundred thousand US troops out of harm’s way in Iraq, but also began a slow trickle back in. He recoiled against full-scale, conventional war, while embracing the brave new world of drone attacks and proxy battles.
Brave New World (Huxley's book) is such a charged term.
In many respects, Obama’s tenure has been a seven-year debate over whether the president has used the tools of war to try to make peace too much or little.
(Blog editor shakes head at the contradiction)
Obama has been sharply criticized for his refusal to use force to depose Syrian President Bashar Assad, cripple his air force, or more aggressively engage in diplomatic efforts to end the fighting. Many view Obama’s policies as an unfortunate overcorrection from the George W. Bush-era Iraq war.
‘‘The president correctly wanted to move away from the maximalist approach of the previous administration, but in doing so he went to a minimalist, gradualist and proxy approach that is prolonging the war. Where is the justice in that?’’ said retired Lieutenant General James Dubik, a senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War and the author of the book ‘‘Just War Reconsidered.’’ Obama should have worked harder to rally a coalition around a shared vision of a stable Middle East, he said.
He's a minimalist?
The swath of destruction across the planet would seem to say otherwise.
‘‘Part of the requirement of leadership,’’ Dubik said, ‘‘is to operate in that space between where the world is and where the world ought to go.’’
Who decides that?
The president’s advisers dismiss such critiques as a misguided presumption that more force yields more peace.
(Blog editor shakes head at the contradiction that seems to have been internalized by warmakers)
Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said, ‘‘The president doesn’t believe you can impose order through military force alone.’’
He could have fooled me, and maybe they are not trying to impose order but sow more chaos so there will be an outcry for their preconceived solution and agenda. Every think of that, or are you buying the war paper on its face despite its odd terminology and strange framing of war and peace?
Just a big oopsie, huh (they never learn, either)?
Oh, and lest we not forget the dark legacy of interrogation policy (as my printed headline puts it).
This is more trouble than it's worth to read so I won't. If I wanted to read the New York Times to find out what is going on in the world I would buy a New York Times. As it is the goddamn thing is making me sick.
What time is his last game?