Government-Haters for President

Republican presidential front-runners include three candidates with no government experience (Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina) and one senator who wants out of his job (Marco Rubio), an odd cast seeking one of the most challenging and dangerous (for us) positions on earth, says ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.

By Paul R. Pillar

When Winston Churchill made his remark about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried, the positive side of what he was saying about democracy had as background the Westminster system with which he was familiar and that has served Britain fairly well.

As we contrast that system with the current U.S. presidential campaign, the latter exhibits some characteristics that might have led Churchill to conclude that some of those other forms of government could stack up fairly well.

Billionaire and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Billionaire and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

One specific contrast is presented by the fact that the two leading contenders for the presidential nomination of one of the two major U.S. political parties, along with a third candidate who has broken into the top tier of contenders in that same party, have absolutely zero experience in public service. Such a situation would not arise in Britain, where prime ministers typically arrive at the top after a political apprenticeship that has included backbench time, responsibilities as a junior minister, and service as a senior minister or shadow minister.

The extremely long presidential campaigns in the United States are sometimes seen as a substitute for inside-government political apprenticeship, and a gauntlet that provides ample opportunity for American voters to appraise and winnow down the field of contenders. But the winnowing process is very often one that would have made Churchill either wince or laugh.

One of the headlines coming out of the most recent “debate” among Republican presidential candidates, besides how much the event became a contest in who could complain most loudly about the questions and the media, was that Marco Rubio’s comeback to Jeb Bush’s raising of Rubio’s dismal attendance record in the Senate was snappier than anything Bush said during the evening, and thus Rubio was assessed to be a “winner” of the debate and Bush a “loser.”

No one has explained what this sort of appraising and vetting has to do with the qualities required to be a successful president.

This most recent part of the winnowing process is even faultier when one considers that the issue Bush was raising was not just a matter of comparing Rubio’s attendance record with that of previous senators who also were campaigning for president. By his own description, Rubio is “frustrated” in the Senate; he just doesn’t like doing the job anymore, and that’s why he essentially has checked out of it even though the citizens of Florida elected him to do the job for six years.

That brings to mind a comment by an American contemporary of Churchill who rose to the top. When Harry Truman was contemplating a victory by Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1952 presidential election, Truman said, ““He’ll sit here, and he’ll say, ‘Do this! Do that!’ And nothing will happen. Poor Ike, it won’t be a bit like the Army. He’ll find it very frustrating.”

If Rubio were to be elected president next year and re-elected in 2020, he would still be in only his early 50s when leaving the White House. Why should we not expect that he would react to the frustrations of the presidency in some of the same ways that he has reacted to the frustrations of the Senate, while he looks forward to one of the best positions any American can hold: that of ex-president, which offers lots of prestige and financial opportunities with none of the heavy responsibilities of the president?

The U.S. presidency is a very frustrating job, even more so than in Truman’s and Eisenhower’s time. An apex of frustration has been reached with the current president, given the control by both houses of Congress by an opposition party determined to frustrate this president at nearly every turn and to oppose his most important domestic and foreign initiatives because they are his most important initiatives.

Probably the current Republican contenders expect they would have a much different situation as long as Republican control of Congress continues into 2017. Perhaps, but they need to think about this further as they observe the obstreperous and fratricidal conduct of House Republicans, which already has cost one Speaker of the House his job.

A successful presidency has at least as much to do with how the president deals with obstructions and frustrations as with how he or she identifies and pursues lofty goals. A significant part of how we should evaluate Barack Obama’s presidency, for example, will be how well or how poorly he has dealt with jingoist political pressures that have collided with prudent retrenchment overseas, and whether he has been able to fashion foreign and strategic policies that still make at least some strategic sense.

In the British system, the capacity to deal effectively with obstruction and frustration can be developed during the political apprenticeships of aspirants to high office. Those political careers also provide a basis for assessing who has or has not developed that capacity. A career with zero public service does not provide such a basis. Neither does a political campaign that gets scored in terms of zingers and who fulminates most loudly about tough questions.

Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies. (This article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest’s Web site. Reprinted with author’s permission.)

25 comments for “Government-Haters for President

  1. Russell Webb
    November 6, 2015 at 11:34

    Pillars article is insightful from the perspective of Englands political structure. I find this training and vetting of politicians to be practical and logical. BUT the corruption and stinking rot in Politics at Large is too deep now. There is a subversive culture of blackmail woven throughout the entire system – look no further than the festering pedophile revelations coming to light. As a politician, if you’re not compromised in some way, you’re not playing with the big boys. Their sandbox is a filthy nasty place… enter at your own risk.

    I recall two other non politicos entering the game – Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ventura actually balanced the state budget during his tenure and showed respectful restraint in wasteful spending. As a popular governor, in state, he declined to pursue re-election. He would have won easily.

    Schwarzenegger had good intentions regarding changes in health and education – but was irrationally opposed by powerful interests demanding unrelated compromise. He called it the buki-buki dance – he could never get anything done without doing the dance.

    Trump or Carson will need to master the buki-buki dance… good luck boys.

    These are observations only… I’m not a big supporter of any of these people. The whole system is too corrupt for me to support. I refuse to vote lesser of two evils.

    The system needs a reset.

  2. Evangelista
    November 4, 2015 at 23:47

    From the end of World War Two to now there have been only three United States Presidents of Statesman Stature: Eisenhower, Kennedy and Carter. Two, Kennedy and Carter, were Democrats, One, Eisenhower, was a Republican. Two, Eisenhower and Carter, were not professional politicians. Both were politically inexperienced. One, Kennedy, was an experienced politician. Two, Carter and Kennedy, faced serious opposition from the political ‘establishment’, the ‘establishment’ that Nixon and Ford worked for, that Reagan and G.W. Bush were worked by and who Clinton and G.H.W.Bush worked with, and that Obama is a slave for and to. Carter was belittled by the press, treated dismissively and disrespectfully by pundits and foreign leaders, and had the economy undermined and artificially manipulated to create a ‘gas-crisis recession’ to deprecate his presidency. You might recognize some parallels to Russia’s President Putin’s treatment by the ‘world establishment’. Kennedy, experienced, and so recognized unlikely to be ‘brought around’ by mistreatment (as ‘the establishment’ anticipated Carter might be), was recognized by the political establishment to require assassination. Fear of assassination appears to be significant in Obama’s reversals of all his campaign promises and becoming a good — whatever — for the political establishment. Eisenhower’s stature was such that little could be done to control him, other than encourage him to be hands-off, for being politically inexpeerienced, which worked to an extent for a while.

    Of the standard-issue riff-raff that has filled the U.S. Presidency during the period, from Truman to Obama, and that is represented by all of the ‘experienced’ candidates for the 2016 race, fielded by both parties, there is nothing particularly good that can be said, or, for the last group, looked for. Nor can any change be looked for from the last group, either party.

    For this, I do not see what mr. Pillar’s article is about, or what his purpose in writing it was. The British system that he appears to extoll is as much a pseudo-democratic system as the U.S. system, differing only in the mechanics of the manipulation systems. The British system is, if anything, even more hide-bound and opposive to change, it, as Mr. Pillar notes, being entirely oriented to vetting and apprenticing to assure the steady-course.

    If I were a voter, which I will not be until all balloting is paper-based and all ballots are triple-hand-counted by independent counters who reconcile their counts, the only candidates I would consider in my decision-making would be the outsiders, the inexperienced, the ‘government-haters’. I would, in fact, seriously consider voting for Donald Trump, who could not do worse than any professional, and could possibly rise to the responsibilities of the Office, as Joseph Kennedy did to the responsibilities Roosevelt gave him to devise means to regulate the financial industry, to prevent it doing again what it did in 1929.

    • Joe Tedesky
      November 5, 2015 at 02:03

      All you need to question Evangelista, is will the Donald appear on SNL this weekend?

      • Evangelista
        November 6, 2015 at 21:36

        I am guessing that Trump, or at least his supporting organization, is hoping he is banned, ‘despite making every attempt to campaign in “the enemy’s camp” and take his message for America to those who need it most…’, because that will win him masses of the SNL shy, offended or horrified, while appearing will maybe win him a few SNL favoring, who will admire his having the ‘cohones’ (if a Chicano word can be used referring to Trump [Sí! Absolutemente! Make those parts Mexicano an’ illegal, an’ reep ’em off heem an’ t’row ’em back over el fence!”] — Hmm, that could give him a new perspective re deportation…) to appear, but make him no points among the SNL-SOH masses.

        We’ll have to see…

    • Joe Tedesky
      November 5, 2015 at 02:40

      One more thing, I really do respect your not voting until there is a return to paper, but how sure are you, that Diebold isn’t voting for you? Would, it be beyond the techno-vote counter to come up with some searchable algorithm, which could capture the names of the non-voters, and turn them into winnable supporters? Using the names from obituaries is so 1930’s, and shut ins now get to the polls in hoverounds, so its time ward committee people get creative. Still yet, since you would vote for Trump, it’s better you just stay home. Although, since I can’t suggest a better candidate other than your favorite pick, I will quit giving you so much to think about, and just go now.

      • dahoit
        November 5, 2015 at 12:30

        Of all the candidates,Trump has told the most truths,with Bernie second.Is Trump a little overboard in his commenting?Yeah,but as i said,he speaks truths the MSM don’t want people to be aware of,namely,that GB was terrible and left US exposed to attack,and that illegal immigration sucks for Americans.
        Can they round up the illegals protesting Trump at SNL?Ship em back to their homelands!

        • Joe Tedesky
          November 5, 2015 at 14:35

          I always like your comments dahoit. Would it be beyond any stretch of the imagination, to picture NBC executives planning a greater television event, other than having Donald Trump appear on SNL? I mean, why not have the NYC police descend upon the illegals right before the SNL show? I don’t see a problem to airing this kind of roundup, I mean this wouldn’t preempt any football, or maybe it would, but who cares, I’m sure they could run commercials anyway. Isn’t it all about the revenue, for crying out loud? NBC, could easily interrupt MSNBC’s weekend prison shows, with this kind of breaking news, no? Just, think of all the pizza, and beer sales, that would occur through out this fine land. Hell, invite the family, and neighbors over, for something this big. We could all give out a hearty cheer, as we watch the cops throw a few illegals through some plate glass windows. It would be rival to the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention, for gods sake. I will admit though, Trump is busting their rump, and that is a good thing. Oh, and Trumps appearance on SNL, will no doubt be SNL’s hugest winner in the rating wars. Go, Donald!

      • Evangelista
        November 6, 2015 at 21:47

        Joe, Nothing is a guarantee in the black-box electronic world. I cancelled my registration with explanation, but that could have only gotten me into a ‘guaranteed-available’ votable pool of ‘Oh, golly, we meant to cancel those as requested, but, I guess they slipped between the desks or something…’ ‘ghost-voters’.

        Have you noticed the movements afoot now to link voter-registration to driver’s licenses? Everyone issued a driver’s license will be automatically registered and so available to be voted. The machines will need only winnow the votes cast between poll-closing and midnight to determine the names they can’t vote when X-number of additional votes are needed to ‘weight’ numbers to produce desired results. If they get that kind of thing through, on-line and operating there will be no stopping the box-operators.

  3. Mortimer
    November 4, 2015 at 11:18

    the People have the Power in America,,,,,,

    the below excerpted book review will apparently be an eye-opener for Mr. Eiford.
    ‘Give Us the Ballot’ is a sobering look at the modern struggle for voting rights in America

    Fifty years after passage of the Voting Rights Act, “Give Us the Ballot” makes a powerful case that voting rights are under assault in 21st century America. Current events underscore the book’s timeliness. In September, Alabama announced it was closing 31 driver’s license offices, a disproportionate number of them in majority-black counties, making it even harder for African Americans to comply with Alabama’s 2011 law requiring voters to show government-issued IDs to cast ballots. As author Ari Berman points out, Alabama is one of nine Republican-controlled states to pass voter ID laws since 2010, and those are only the most blatant of restrictions that also include limits on early voting and rules that make voter registration more difficult.

    skipping down

    Efforts to roll back the act’s protections for minority voters are nothing new, Berman demonstrates; the first legal challenge to the law was filed five days after President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it in 1965. When the Supreme Court upheld the Voting Rights Act a year later, Southern legislators turned from preventing African Americans from voting to diluting their votes. Black-majority counties were consolidated with larger white ones; at-large elections and multi-member districts made it nearly impossible for African American candidates to gain office.


    They [voting laws] were watered by Republican National Committee chair Lee Atwater, who in 1990 developed a cynical strategy to advocate the creation of majority-black districts in the South so that the other districts would become whiter, more conservative and, he hoped, Republican.

    The increasingly diverse electorate fostered by the act had made Barack Obama president, but it had also prompted a backlash of voting-restrictive legislation across the country. Anti-VRA activists could be astonishingly frank about their motives. “I don’t want everybody to vote,” said the founder of the American Legislative Exchange Council, [ALEC] which helped orchestrate more than half the voter ID bills introduced in 2011-12. “Our leverage in elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

    And go down it did in wake of the Shelby decision. Berman closes with a grim catalog of Shelby’s consequences. As he has done throughout, he mingles statistics — 800,000 registered voters in Texas lacked acceptable ID under its new law — with personal stories of the disenfranchised, such as the 83-year-old mail carrier turned away at the polls in the Texas county where he had lived and voted for 60 years.
    It’s not a happy ending, though Berman strains to find hope in the renewed commitment to voter registration of a younger generation of civil rights activists galvanized by Shelby and the restrictive laws it enabled. They will need that commitment to combat the organized opposition to expansive voting rights whose 50-year history is traced in this important and deeply distressing book.

    Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America
    Ari Berman

    May I suggest, Mr. Eiford, you do a search for the American Legislative Exchange Council to recognize their overwhelming power and influence in drafting laws in the nation… .

    • Russell Webb
      November 6, 2015 at 11:18

      This is fascinating. Thanks for gathering the info… For me, these historical threads are important to understand. I find when I travel down these threads – doing research – It always points to the lawyers and clever language. Lawmakers creating policy for special interests. That’s all it is. If I followed the thread of the earliest corporate charters, gaining the powers of ‘personhood’, then evolving into powerful borderless multinationals, I would come to the same conclusion.

      Corrupted lawyers are modern day black magicians casting spells on humanity with clever language enforced by the energy of wealth…

  4. Mike Eiford
    November 3, 2015 at 19:24

    28 years and he got so much wrong—the cultural forming history of the two countries is so different that the conclusions can be described by the following quote–

    “What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not.”[2]

    We are vastly larger, many more political subdivisions, of which many are larger than England, the size of our nation contributes to a ‘greater’ vision, although England’s Empire helped them in that, the political debate history is very significantly different, and our basic interest for the formative years of our nation was mostly concerned with our selves.

    BASIC DIFFERENCE–the People have the Power in America,,,,,,in Englang, the Monarchy/Parliment have the power…….

    • Dr. Ibrahim Soudy
      November 3, 2015 at 19:59

      -the People have the Power in America…….REALLY?! Who would have thought. Do you know how many Americans are HOMELESS now and we are still giving Zionist Israel $$BILLIONS$$ every year besides what the many Non-Profit Jewish Organizations PASS to it under the table after taking advantage of the tax deductible donations?! The Infrastructure in America is crumbling BUT we always have $$BILLIONS$$ for Zionists in addition to giving them NOT-SO-OLD weapons to make room for new planes and other equipment to keep the Military/Industrial Complex fed……..

      If that is YOUR definition of People Having Power, then I must be living in a different world…….

      • Zachary Smith
        November 3, 2015 at 23:50

        The Infrastructure in America is crumbling BUT we always have $$BILLIONS$$ for Zionists in addition to giving them NOT-SO-OLD weapons to make room for new planes and other equipment to keep the Military/Industrial Complex fed……..

        I’m afraid you’re wrong about the “not-so-old” business. No, Holy Israel is getting brand-new stuff, and much of it is even better than what is permitted for the US Air Force.

        In July 2010, diplomatic sources reported that U.S. President Barack Obama had refused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request for access to the “stealth F-15E”. Israel held several discussions over the F-15SE as an alternative to the F-35 Lightning II. In August 2010, Israel opted to buy the F-35. In 2015, Israel requested a squadron of Silent Eagles.

        Times have changed, and it’s time to start giving Israel the “compensation package” they were maneuvering for with all the whining and screaming that shitty little apartheid nation did during the Iran negotiations. I don’t doubt this is going to be a mighty fine acquisition for Israel, for it takes a proven design and improves it with many modern features including stealth coatings. Downside – it’s over $100,000,000 a copy, but since US taxpayers are the ones on the hook, who cares?

        On top of the already ridiculous money they’re getting from us, that “compensation package” means they’ll get even more. For all I know, the “package” could include the promise of lip glue from the US next time they go on one of their mass murder sprees.

        • Peter Loeb
          November 4, 2015 at 07:16

          CONTENT ASIDE…

          “The extremely long presidential campaigns in the United States…”
          —Paul R Pillar, above

          The specific form of never-ending US elections was developed
          and refined by Adolph Hitler’s propagandist, Joseph P. Goebals.

          (See Thomas Childers in THE NAZI VOTER….1919-1933
          (North Carolina Press, 1983))

          Even after a “loss”, the campaign of the National Socialists
          continued on and on and on with special information
          written for specific voter-populations, what would today
          be called “photo-ops” (Hitler parachuting into a neighborhood),
          and the like.

          All this came as a surprise to many other parties at that time.
          Once an election had taken place, campaigning over over. Ended.
          Until the next election.

          This basic framework has been adopted and expanded in
          the United States and elsewhere in the globe with
          differences according to a nation’s form of government
          (eg is the next candidate in a parliament anyway? or in a
          “shadow government”, as in England? Is it a “winner-take-all
          system —or almost all–such as in the US?)

          In the US we find that the unending campaign, the constantly
          tailored messages to specific voting (“target”) populations
          and similar forms are today the accepted form of a US
          election process. Plus the propaganda.

          (The relationship to the content of the parties campaigning
          is NOT involved here. Only the process.)

          —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

      • dahoit
        November 5, 2015 at 12:10

        Hilary Clinton is the worst human running.As someone pointed out at the Graun,if you were drowning 20 meters from shore,she’d throw you a 12 meter rope and say she met you half way.
        Trump just said;Medicare is good!
        As an Indian shopper said to my wife yesterday at her place of business,why do they call Trump crazy when he says the truth,and I’m going back to India,its booming,and America is no fun anymore!
        Aint that a kick in the ass?

    • Michael Harvill
      November 3, 2015 at 22:37

      In the US, the corporations and wealthy elites have the power, and they rule the government with an iron fist.

    • Brad Owen
      November 4, 2015 at 13:17

      I’ve come to realize that the “BASIC DIFFERENCE” is that a significant faction of the (future) U.S. Society, dedicated to the proposition that we should have a republican form of government, managed to gain the upper hand during the Revolutionary Era, and formed our Constitution to reflect that proposition. They were The Patriots of different “stripes” (a few outright democratic republicans, many of the more “Aristocratic Republic” persuasion, others of the cynical “Plutocratic Republic” persuasion, like the “Republic” of Venice, a disgusting Oligarchy). The wealthier Tories wanted to remain part of “Mother England” and of Empire (to their own private profit, at the expense of Commoners and slaves)(REPUBLIC VS EMPIRE; plaguing European civilization since Roman times) . I’ve come to realize the Tories and Plutocrats never went away. They’ve ALWAYS been with us; sometimes in “the back seat”, more often at “the steering wheel” of our Republic. And England has ALWAYS been “effing” with us, making alliance with these Tories and Plutocrats to undermine what the Commoner and Aristocratic factions for a Constitutional Republic have been trying to accomplish over here. THIS wholly defines our politics, from our colonial beginnings to RIGHT NOW. They are STILL the main enemy of our, would-be, democratic Republic. To make matters worse, we are of the same English-speaking “Tribe”, which mitigates against extreme, forceful measures (never wanted to go the French, or Russian route of bloodbath & annihilation), which is WHY we STILL have this political problem; such crude barbaric solutions are no solutions. The struggle continues…

  5. Ethan Allen
    November 3, 2015 at 18:10

    Professor Pillar’s clever reference to Churchill’s pretended felty to democratic ideals..

    “When Winston Churchill made his remark about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried, the positive side of what he was saying about democracy had as background the Westminster system with which he was familiar and that has served Britain fairly well.

    As we contrast that system with the current U.S. presidential campaign, the latter exhibits some characteristics that might have led Churchill to conclude that some of those other forms of government could stack up fairly well.”

    …smacks more of being a tortured revisionist metaphor than it does an accurate insight into the continuing covert hijacking of the U.S. political process by CONservative ideologues who, while masquerading as servants of the public good and welfare, serve the corruptive interests of private advantage. “We” may well be better served by divining the what the opinions of Franklin and Paine might be, rather than contemplating the imagined musings of Lord Churchill and the democratic efficacy of his beloved “Westminster system”.
    As Usual,

    • F. G. Sanford
      November 4, 2015 at 06:28

      I think you intended to write “fealty”, but in Churchill’s case, perhaps felty is appropriate. He noted that history would be kind to him, stating, “…for I intend to write it myself.” No doubt his loyalty to democracy was also tainted by the supposition that it was a fine thing as long as it did not impinge on the perquisites of the privileged classes…

  6. Zachary Smith
    November 3, 2015 at 15:03

    At the Alternet site is an essay which covers much the same ground as this one titled “We Are in the Strangest Presidential Race in Our History”.

    Of course there is a lot going on I don’t understand, and probably a lot more I haven’t even heard of, but I have the distinct impression that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United opened the flood gates to billionaires openly purchasing their candidates. Rubio’s adoption by the filthy rich and and amazingly greedy Paul Singer is the latest example. Why diddle around with ‘back-door’ manipulation when you can buy your man straight-out? The super-rich hate ‘government’ except when it functions to make them even richer. THEN it’s quite ok.

    As I’ve said in the past, the collection of totally clueless dildos who comprise the current Republican field are going to put Hillary Clinton in office. She is quite horrible in her own right, but by comparison with the idiots on the R side, she is going to look mighty good to the folks who vote for the “least evil”.

    On a side note, BHO or his clever speechwriters pulled off a real zinger a day or so back.

    The Republicans candidates “say, ‘when I talk to Putin, he’s going to straighten out’ — and then it turns out they can’t handle a bunch of CNBC moderators,” Obama said during a Democratic fundraiser at the Richard Rodgers Theater in New York City.

    The big and small “R” sissies are great whiners, and as a Texas saying goes, are “all hat and no cattle”. They’re staking out indefensible positions which will destroy them in the general election.

    Getting back to Rubio and Singer for just a moment – Singer has another not-so-obvious motivation for this one. If the election comes down to Clinton vs Rubio, the filthy-rich Zionist is in the happy position of having his favorite nation winning and winning big either way it comes out, for like Clinton, Rubio has pledged his unwavering support for the murderous and thieving little apartheid nation. This recalls my firm belief that British Intelligence manipulated the 1940 election so that Britain would win even in the unlikely event Roosevelt was beaten. By miraculously getting Willkie on the R ticket, the Brits simply couldn’t lose.

    • dahoit
      November 5, 2015 at 12:09

      Hilary Clinton is the worst human running.As someone pointed out at the Graun,if you were drowning 20 meters from shore,she’d throw you a 12 meter rope and say she met you half way.
      Trump just said;Medicare is good!
      As an Indian shopper said to my wife yesterday at her place of business,why do they call Trump crazy when he says the truth,and I’m going back to India,its booming,and America is no fun anymore!
      Aint that a kick in the ass?

  7. Bob
    November 3, 2015 at 12:05

    It is interesting how Rubio made Bush look even dimmer than he is, even though in Rubio’s reply, HE DID NOT ADDRESS THE QUESTION BUSH RAISED concerning his truancy. Rubio just changed the subject and got away with it.

  8. dahoit
    November 3, 2015 at 11:07

    Trump not being part of the govt is his strong point.We have career f*ckups throughout our political class,reelected by voter apathy, ignorance and gerrymandering where ethnic and domestic traitors rise to the highest levels of power.
    Truman;What a wanker,the CIA,Israel,nukes and warmongering anti union rhetoric stain him beyond rehabilitation.
    Eisenhower was a far superior human,and wouldn’t put up with Zionists leading US off the cliff.Remember he told the wackos to get out of Sinai,of which I’m sure their fifth columnists here in America remember well.

  9. Kim Dixon
    November 3, 2015 at 10:27

    And, of course, on the Democratic wing of the Corporatist War Party, they have a candidate with tons of government experience.

    As Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton openly advocated for offshoring, helping New York employers throw jobs offshore, while at the same time helping Indian r̶a̶p̶i̶s̶t̶ ̶ corporation Tata Consultancy bring in H1-B visa slaves to displace qualified Americans.

    We already know about Hillary’s war crimes in Libya, as well as her advocacy for Neocon regime-change in Ukraine and Syria. And, perhaps most troubling of all, in her demonization of Russia in general and Putin in particular, she seems bent on a thermonuclear confrontation. She will be Maggie Thatcher, only with far more nukes, and a much bigger point to prove to the warmongers in the Pentagon.

    This woman has tons of experience… indeed, she will make Maggie Thatcher pale in comparison when it comes to decimating the poor and middle-class at home, and in murdering innocents abroad.

    • Roberto
      November 3, 2015 at 19:16

      Well said !

Comments are closed.