The Danger of Excessive Trump Bashing

Exclusive: The prospect of Donald Trump in the White House alarms many people but bashing him over his contrarian views on NATO and U.S.-Russian relations could set the stage for disasters under President Hillary Clinton, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The widespread disdain for Donald Trump and the fear of what his presidency might mean have led to an abandonment of any sense of objectivity by many Trump opponents and, most notably, the mainstream U.S. news media. If Trump is for something, it must be bad and must be transformed into one more club to use for hobbling his candidacy.

While that attitude may be understandable given Trump’s frequently feckless and often offensive behavior – he seems not to know basic facts and insults large swaths of the world’s population – this Trump bashing also has dangerous implications because some of his ideas deserve serious debate rather than blanket dismissal.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix, Arizona. March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix, Arizona. March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Amid his incoherence and insults, Trump has raised valid points on several important questions, such as the risks involved in the voracious expansion of NATO up to Russia’s borders and the wisdom of demonizing Russia and its internally popular President Vladimir Putin.

Over the past several years, Washington’s neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment has pushed a stunning policy of destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia in pursuit of a “regime change” in Moscow. This existentially risky strategy has taken shape with minimal substantive debate behind a “group think” driven by anti-Russian and anti-Putin propaganda. (All we hear is what’s wrong with Putin and Russia: He doesn’t wear a shirt! He’s the new Hitler! Putin and Trump have a bro-mance! Russian aggression! Their athletes cheat!)

Much as happened in the run-up to the disastrous Iraq War in 2002-2003, the neocons and their “liberal interventionist” allies bully from the public square anyone who doesn’t share these views. Any effort to put Russia’s behavior in context makes you a “Putin apologist,” just like questioning the Iraq-WMD certainty of last decade made you a “Saddam apologist.”

But this new mindlessness – now justified in part to block Trump’s path to the White House – could very well set the stage for a catastrophic escalation of big-power tensions under a Hillary Clinton presidency. Former Secretary of State Clinton has already surrounded herself with neocons and liberal hawks who favor expanding the war against Syria’s government, want to ratchet up tensions with Iran, and favor shipping arms to the right-wing and virulently anti-Russian regime in Ukraine, which came to power in a 2014 coup supported by U.S. policymakers and money.

By lumping Trump’s few reasonable points together with his nonsensical comments – and making anti-Russian propaganda the only basis for any public debate – Democrats and the anti-Trump press are pushing the United States toward a conflict with Russia.

And, for a U.S. press corps that prides itself on its “objectivity,” this blatantly biased approach toward a nominee of a major political party is remarkably unprofessional. But the principle of objectivity has been long since abandoned as the mainstream U.S. media transformed itself into little more than an outlet for U.S. government foreign-policy narratives, no matter how dishonest or implausible.

Losing History

To conform with the neocon-driven narratives, much recent history has been lost. For instance, few Americans realize that some of President Barack Obama’s most notable foreign policy achievements resulted from cooperation with Putin and Russia, arguably more so than any other “friendly” leader or “allied” nation.

President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20 Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20 Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

For instance, in summer 2013, Obama was under intense neocon/liberal-hawk pressure to bomb the Syrian military supposedly for crossing his “red line” against the use of chemical weapons after a mysterious sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013.

Yet, hearing doubts from the U.S. intelligence community about the Assad regime’s guilt, Obama balked at a military strike that – we now know – would have played into the hands of Syrian jihadists who some intelligence analysts believe were the ones behind the false-flag sarin attack to trick the United States into directly intervening in the civil war on their side.

But Obama still needed a path out of the corner that he had painted himself into and it was provided by Putin and Russia pressuring Assad to surrender all his chemical weapons, a clear victory for Obama regardless of who was behind the sarin attack.

Putin and Russia helped Obama again in convincing Iran to accept tight restraints on its nuclear program, an agreement that may mark Obama’s most significant foreign policy success. Those negotiations came to life in 2013 (not coincidentally after Secretary of State Clinton, who allied herself more with the bomb-bomb-bomb Iran faction led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, had resigned and was replaced by John Kerry).

As the negotiating process evolved, Russia played a key role in bringing Iran along, offering ways for Iran to rid itself of its processed nuclear stockpiles and get the medical research materials it needed. Without the assistance of Putin and his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the landmark Iranian nuclear deal might never have happened.

Obama recognized the value of this Russian help but he also understood the political price that he would pay if he were closely associated with Putin, who was already undergoing a thorough demonization in the U.S. and European mainstream media. So, Obama mostly worked with Putin under the table while joining in the ostracism of Putin above the table.

Checking Obama

But Washington’s neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment – and its allied mainstream media – check-mated Obama’s double-talking game in 2013 by aggressively supporting a regime-change strategy in Ukraine where pro-Russian elected President Viktor Yanukovych was under mounting pressure from western Ukrainians who wanted closer ties to Europe and who hated Russia.

Leading neocon thinkers unveiled their new Ukraine strategy shortly after Putin helped scuttle their dreams for a major bombing campaign against Assad’s regime in Syria. Since the 1990s, the neocons had targeted the Assad dynasty – along with Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq and the Shiite-controlled government in Iran – for “regime change.” The neocons got their way in Iraq in 2003 but their program stalled because of the disastrous Iraq War.

However, in 2013, the neocons saw their path forward open again in Syria, especially after the sarin attack, which killed hundreds of civilians and was blamed on Assad in a media-driven rush to judgment. Obama’s hesitancy to strike and then Putin’s assistance in giving Obama a way out left the neocons furious. They began to recognize the need to remove Putin if they were to proceed with their Mideast “regime change” dreams.

In late September 2013 – a month after Obama ditched the plans to bomb Syria – neocon National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman wrote in The Washington Post that Ukraine was now “the biggest prize” but also was a steppingstone toward the even bigger “regime change” prize in Moscow. Gershman, whose NED is funded by Congress, wrote:

“Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

By late 2013 and early 2014, with Gershman’s NED financing Ukraine’s anti-government activists and journalists and with the open encouragement of neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and Sen. John McCain, the prospects for “regime change” in Ukraine were brightening. With neo-Nazi and other Ukrainian ultra-nationalists firebombing police, the political crisis in Kiev deepened.

Meanwhile, Putin was focused on the Sochi Winter Olympics and the threat that the games could be disrupted by terrorism. So, with the Kremlin distracted, Ukraine’s Yanukovych tried to fend off his political crisis while limiting the violence.

However, on Feb. 20, 2014, snipers fired on both police and protesters in the Maidan square and the Western media jumped to the conclusion that Yanukovych was responsible (even though later investigations have indicated that the sniper attack was more likely carried out by neo-Nazi groups to provoke the chaos that followed).

A Successful Coup

On Feb. 21, a shaken Yanukovych agreed to a European-brokered deal in which he surrendered some of his powers and agreed to early elections. He also succumbed to Western pressure that he pull back his police. However, on Feb. 22, the neo-Nazis and other militants seized on that opening to take over government buildings and force Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives.

Screen shot of the fatal fire in Odessa, Ukraine, on May 2, 2014. (From RT video)

Screen shot of the fatal fire in Odessa, Ukraine, on May 2, 2014, as far-right Ukrainian nationalists burned alive scores of ethnic Russian Ukrainians. (From RT video)

The U.S. State Department and its Western allies quickly recognized the coup regime as the “legitimate” government of Ukraine. But the coup provoked resistance from the ethnic Russian populations in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, political uprisings that the new Kiev regime denounced as “terrorist” and countered with an “Anti-Terrorism Operation” or ATO.

When Russian troops – already in Crimea as part of the Sevastopol naval basing agreement – protected the people on the peninsula from attacks by the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists, the intervention was denounced in the West as a “Russian invasion.” Crimean authorities also organized a referendum in which more than 80 percent of the voters participated and favored leaving Ukraine and rejoining Russia by a 96 percent margin. When Moscow agreed, that became “Russian aggression.”

Although the Kremlin refused appeals from eastern Ukraine for a similar arrangement, Russia provided some assistance to the rebels resisting the new authorities in Ukraine. Those rebels then declared their own autonomous republics.

Although this historical reality – if understood by the American people – would put the Ukrainian crisis in a very different context, it has been effectively blacked out of what the American public is allowed to hear. All the mainstream media talks about is “Russian aggression” and how Putin provoked the Ukraine crisis as part of some Hitlerian plan to conquer Europe.

Trump, in his bumbling way, tries to reference the real history to explain his contrarian views regarding Russia, Ukraine and NATO, but he is confronted by a solid wall of “group think” asserting only one acceptable way to see this complex crisis. Rather than allow a serious debate on these very serious issues, the mainstream U.S. media simply laughs at Trump’s supposed ignorance.

The grave danger from this media behavior is that it will empower the neocons and liberal hawks already nesting inside Hillary Clinton’s campaign to prepare for a new series of geopolitical provocations once Clinton takes office. By opportunistically buying into this neocon pro-war narrative now, Democrats may find themselves with buyer’s remorse as they become the war party of 2017.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and

111 comments for “The Danger of Excessive Trump Bashing

  1. August 7, 2016 at 20:13

    Great article! Right on! Getting Right with Russia is the second (to Global Warming) most important issue facing us. With Hillary and Nuland, the neo-con with the historic ethnic grudge against the Tzars, it’s WAR; with Trump, by default, it’s Right with

  2. Candace
    August 6, 2016 at 15:16

    I have to say I disagree that the conversation about Russia, Nato and interventionism rests on the media and voters ignoring how unfit Trump is to be president. He doesn’t own questioning the wisdom of antiPutin and Russia propaganda and an election isn’t the only time for serious conversations to be had

    If genuine, why hasn’t Donald used the media’s attention to promote his supposed anti establishment views on interventionism, Putin and Russia?
    Why instead has he consistently used it for trolling opponents or anyone he feels slighted by and promoting himself?

    why would anyone think that a crude and proud of it, pro-religious war and ++torture trump presidency would be more successful toning it down with Russia and getting us out of the Middle East disaster quagmire than Obama has? In case anyone has forgot Trump and his Republican party have regularly criticized Obama for his restraint in Syria, Iran with Russia and “polite Harvard” talk. They say its projecting weakness.
    But if by some unlikely chance Trump went against his party’s ideas of who the enemies are would Republicans treat him the way they treated Obama? (assuming that it wasn’t just about Obama being black and/or a democrat) How would Trump react? Would defending the idea be more important than defending himself and attacking and as potus punishing his opponents?

    There has also been a lack of support and pressure from the people to get out of the Middle East. And who knows what you can say about the insanity surrounding the attitude towards Iran and Russia. This country has lost its mind.
    The criticism of the antiwar/regime change movement has been about America winning, not for changing our ways.
    Republicans always use mistakes as validation of their policies and a need to do more rather than for change. What will America become with republican pres, congress and conservative majority supreme court?
    (Do they really need to dominate the government they hate so much?)

    Nothing about Trump, Pence and their Conservative Empire says that he could be restrained about anything his new found power as a president would allow. It doesn’t matter what “ideas” he says he has.

    Beyond that who in the establishment is talking about withdrawing from the Middle East? No one is. Who in America does? Where are the antiwar allies on the inside? Its only brought up now to take political points from Hillary. Its a hate fest not a antiwar movement. This is the same thing that happened with Obama. Hate fest and conspiracy for Obama chosen over protesting drones and regime change/interventionism.

  3. Bill Bodden
    August 5, 2016 at 13:13

    More on the other face of Trump:

    The Trump Doctrine: Talk Loudly and Carry the Biggest Stick Possible: Trump’s foreign policy isn’t an alternative to U.S. empire. It’s just a cruder rendition of it. By John Feffer –

  4. Bill Bodden
    August 5, 2016 at 11:11

    It looks like a good bet Trump has lost the Arab-Americans and Muslims in America: For millions of Arab and Muslim American voters, this election is an emergency by Wilson Dizard –

    They have the same choice as the rest of us: Strychnine or arsenic in your coffee or tea?

  5. Jim Hannan
    August 5, 2016 at 09:06

    I wonder if T.rump and his cohorts have cut a deal with Julian Assange. Has Assange been promised some kind of amnesty if he continues to leak damaging material against Hillary Clinton? Assange has been very cryptic on his motivation to attack Clinton, especially on a recent PBS Newshour interview with Judy Woodruff. He’s been holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy for four years now, and may be looking for a way out. Hitching his star to Trump is not going to earn him any friends if Hillary Clinton wins.

    • dahoit
      August 7, 2016 at 11:12

      Ah,more code words.Cohorts?I would use that to describe the zionists,whose cohorts are throughout or media,and are all in for the creep from Hades,HRC.
      And Assange has the whole zio world against him,because the truth is to be denied,and I doubt there are any connections between Trump and him,but I’ll add this to your diatribe,as the Zionist media had better pray that Trump doesn’t win,and their total assassination of him has been noted by America,and him.
      Out of the shadows,into the light of disinfection.

  6. Peter Loeb
    August 5, 2016 at 06:12


    It should be remembered that every knee-jerk attack (sometimes called
    “report”) of a Trump maniacal outburst feeds the beast. It gives
    him the free publicity he (and his handlers) so desperately crave.

    Moral: Correct Trump when necessary but do so judiciously which
    is to say without providing Trump with “free” airspace, “analysis’
    by punditocracy etc. Incidentally, Trump’s outbursts against
    someone or other (?) are precisely the meat of his adoring

    One pundit (forgot name) noted Trump’s extremely close
    relationship to the counsel for Senator Joseph McCarthy,
    Roy Cohn (d 1986). Perhaps few readers remember that
    name. This writer said the relationship was not only close
    but extremely close, likening to a mentorship.

    For historical record, the “anti-commie” tendency while having
    roots in previous US history was highlighted in Joyce and Gabriel
    Kolko’s landmark work, THE LIMITS OF POWER.

    Previously, I commented in this space of the likelihood of HRC’s
    conspiracy to have as an opponent someone who insulted
    each and every group which has traditionally supported
    the Democratic Party (eg, various minority groups etc.).
    No one accepts conspiratorial analyses, of course, but this
    one certainly fits.

    Our job today as observers is to try to the best of
    our ability to analyze what happens and what
    has happened.

    Robert Parry’s excellent article is a demonstration of
    how that must be done.

    According to Gareth Porter’s excellent book analyzing the
    negotiations with Iran, the grandeur of making peace in
    the world with Iran is more than exaggeration. The US
    required pushing and shoving to come along.

    I heard Obama’s press conference of 8/4/16 and
    in a sense agree with Trump that sending cash in an
    airplane was not necessary. Lacking knowledge of the
    financial world, I cannot conceive of a reason why
    arrangements with other banks (eg Brittish?Swiss?)
    could not have been more appropriate. (I don’t accept
    Obama’s excuse that we have no existing financial
    arrangement with Iran bla bla bla.)

    Obama failed to mention (of course) the frequent attempts
    by US officialdom to banks for the express purpose of
    discouraging investment in Iran. (“bribe”??). More
    information is required which I lack with any specificity
    at this time.

    —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

  7. voxpax
    August 5, 2016 at 03:48

    If Trump does not hate the Iranians he will lose many votes, at the same time he stays away from Big Mac Pain, THE guy who’d love to bomb the shit out of anything outside of his Global Texas.

  8. Bill Bodden
    August 4, 2016 at 23:23

    The suggestion that Donald Trump could prevent a war with Russia that may likely occur if the Queen of Chaos ascends her throne in the situation room is certainly worth serious consideration, but given Trump’s stated hostility towards Iran and who knows who else in the Muslim-populated Middle East and South Asia we may be exposing ourselves to greater horrors in the Middle East to avoid a catastrophe in Eastern Europe.

    Let’s not forget Trump spoke encouraging words about Israel that Netanyahu and his US lobby didn’t like, but it didn’t take long for Trump to reconsider how he might deal with Israel.

    Our only hope comes with cause for little optimism in the form of an eleventh hour rescue by Jill Stein or the Libertarian duo being elected instead of the Democratic and Republican monstrosities.

  9. August 4, 2016 at 23:15

    To get a good idea of what Obama is all about – his character – I recommend “Barack Obama And The Politics Of Illusion,” edited by Jeffrey St Clair and Joshua Frank. If you’re principled and prefer principled leaders, then you will not favor Obama once you read this book, which contains over 50 entries by assorted authors, tracing Obama’s career.

  10. 5 dancing shlomos
    August 4, 2016 at 22:52

    i keep it simple
    when roaches, parasites, scum attack someone
    defend the victim
    something there they fear
    something very good

  11. Abe
    August 4, 2016 at 22:42

    Col. Lawrence Wilkerson and Paul Jay of the Real News discuss Hillary Clinton’s militarist track record and Donald Trump’s bellicose rhetoric

    • August 5, 2016 at 18:26

      I’m not overly fond of Wilkerson. He’s a bit too pro establishment for my tastes

    • Abe
      August 6, 2016 at 14:04

      Apparently the neocons are not overly fond of Wilkerson. Seems he’s a bit too critical of Israel for their tastes.

      Case in point:

      Tablet Magazine, the stridently pro-Israel online journal of Nextbook press, is a project financed by venture philanthropist Mem Bernstein, a Director of the pugnaciously neoconservative Tikvah Fund.

      Tikvah Fund is a philanthropic foundation “committed to supporting the intellectual, religious, and political leaders of the Jewish people and the Jewish State”. It co-opts scholars and scholarship under a direct neoconservative interest.

      In Israel, the Tikvah Fund is the primary financial backing for the Shalem Center, a right-wing think tank in Israel which itself is the sponsor of the neocon Jewish journal Azure.

      Arch neocons William Kristol and Elliott Abrams serve on the Board of Directors of the Tikvah Fund along with Bernstein.

      So what prompted Tablet Magazine’s sudden burst of attention to Bernie Sander’s foreign policy help?

      A February 24 article by Michael Crowley, Politico’s senior foreign affairs correspondent, mentioned that Sanders had “reached out to at least one former member of George W. Bush’s administration” — Lawrence Wilkerson, retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell.

      Crowley noted that Wilkerson had “helped prepare Powell’s famous United Nations speech accusing Iraq of hiding a weapons of mass destruction program, but became a hero on the left after turning against the Iraq War and saying in 2005 that he had unwittingly ‘participated in a hoax’ against the American people and the world. He has also said that Vice President Dick Cheney should be ‘in jail for war crimes’ and that some Republicans, including John McCain were ‘bordering on being traitors’ for their opposition to President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal”.

      Sanders’ outreach to Wilkerson was bound to raise the hackles of the neocons who had championed the Iraq War.

      Yair Rosenberg, a senior writer at Tablet and the editor of “Israel’s Documented Story,” the English-language blog of Israel’s National Archives, found it ominous that Wilkerson had Sanders’ ear.

      Rosenberg wrote: “Disillusioned by the Iraq War, he later remade himself as a sharp critic of American foreign policy, slowly sliding to the extremes of the political discourse – which is how he came to insinuate that Israel was gassing Syrians to frame their dictator, Bashar al-Assad.

      “In March 2013, after Western intelligence officials had confirmed that Assad had used chemical weapons on his own people, Wilkerson went on TV to alternately cast suspicion on the victims and the Jewish state. In an interview with Current TV, Wilkerson told host Cenk Uygur: ‘This could’ve been an Israeli false flag operation, it could’ve been an opposition in Syria, or it could’ve been an actual use by Bashar Assad.’ In other words, the Syrian rebels might have gassed themselves to place blame on Assad, or Israel might have.

      “While journalist Seymour Hersh has claimed that the rebels carried out these attacks (and been widely debunked), neither he nor anyone else has ever suggested that Israel had anything to do with them. Only cranks – or worse – would insinuate that the Jewish state was somehow responsible for such an atrocity.”

      Rosenburg’s insistence that claims of rebel responsibility for the chemical attacks near Damascus had been “widely debunked” was supported with a link to the December 2013 article, “Sy Hersh’s Chemical Misfire” written by Eliot Higgins.

      Higgins, aka Brown Moses, is a faux “citizen investigative journalist”. Higgins’ accusations that the Syrian government was responsible for the August 2013 Ghouta chemical attack were proven false, but almost led to war.

      Richard Lloyd and Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology criticized Higgins: “although he has been widely quoted as an expert in the American mainstream media, [he] has changed his facts every time new technical information has challenged his conclusion that the Syrian government must have been responsible for the sarin attack. In addition, the claims that Higgins makes that are correct are all derived from our findings, which have been transmitted to him in numerous exchanges.”

      Despite the fact that Higgins’ accusations have repeatedly been proven false, he continues to be frequently cited, often without proper source attribution, by media, organizations and governments.

      A principal neocon propaganda organ, Tablet Magazine, attacked Sanders with an appeal to the work of notorious deception operative Eliot Higgins.

    • Abe
      August 6, 2016 at 14:12

      A 29 February article in Haaretz loudly proclaimed: “Bernie Sanders Consults With Foreign Policy Expert Who Called Israel ‘Predatory’ and ‘Detrimental’ to U.S.”

      The Haaretz article directly refered to the 24 February “recent article in Tablet Magazine”.

      Haaretz stated that the Tablet Magazine article “put supporters of Israel on edge after it quoted Wilkerson suggesting in the past that chemical attacks attributed to Syrian leader Assad in 2013 might have been the work of the Israeli military.”

      From the Times of Israel to David Horowitz’ Frontpage Magazine to the New York Times, pro-Israel media circulated the charge. Wilkerson was derided as a “truther” and a “crank” for daring to speculate that Holy Israel might be involved in mayhem.

      The neocons were desperate to make “supporters of Israel” anxious about Sanders.

    • dahoit
      August 7, 2016 at 10:45

      What bellicose rhetoric?Who has he threatened,other than IsUS?You like IsUS?

  12. August 4, 2016 at 21:40

    There is nothing more dangerous that people can do than spend the next few months promoting justifications for a war by the next president—almost certainly Hillary—just to get more kicks in against Trump, on her behalf. There are plenty of reasons to criticize Donald Trump. His stated aversion to war with Russia, his skepticism about NATO, and his more-accurate-than-the-Dems take on Ukraine and Russia, are not among them. See post at:
    Democrats Promote Lies and War To Attack Trump

  13. Bill Bodden
    August 4, 2016 at 20:46

    The Danger of Excessive Trump Bashing

    Apparently, these veterans were not persuaded by this column: Military veterans demand Republicans unendorse Trump and his ‘ignorance’: Group of veterans visit Capitol Hill to present petition to Senator John McCain urging him and other Republican leaders to disavow presidential nominee –

    Excessive bashing of Trump is possible – if opponents go beyond the pale. Trump has made encouraging statements, but like the Queen of Chaos his words are subject to change at any time.

    Choosing between Trump and the Clinton’s is like choosing between the Ebola virus and Bubonic plague.

  14. mc
    August 4, 2016 at 20:09

    There are usually things said to show that a commenter’s arguments and sources do not make the commenter’s arguments credible. Things like “ask Anne Applebaum.”

  15. Wayne
    August 4, 2016 at 19:36

    Wonderful piece. I couldn’t agree more.

  16. August 4, 2016 at 18:58

    When the globalists provoke WW3 through their “chosen one” the demoness Hillary Clinton, they will sail off in their billionaire yachts in which they have already bought cabins &/or hide in their underground bunkers while the rest of us die, live in a nuclear winter-starve to death or die by radiation exposure….

  17. Akech
    August 4, 2016 at 17:06

    Iran is already surrounded with military bases ready to go at a moment’s notice. What is left is a psychopath willing to give the button pushing orders which Barack Obama has hesitated doing!

  18. Mario Zamper
    August 4, 2016 at 17:00

    Great piece!
    This article should be brought to discussion within the mainstream media and reach as many readers as possible, but unfortunately we will stick with the one-side propaganda.

  19. Akech
    August 4, 2016 at 16:56

    Are the parents of the late Capt. Humayun Khan aware that the people who are dying, being wounded, being depopulated en masse, or whose historical culture is being dismantled to the ground are his innocent fellow Muslims? Are there valid explanations why these Muslims do not deserve to live in the Middle East or Afghanistan?

  20. Akech
    August 4, 2016 at 16:25

    I would like someone to enlighten me about the circumstances that led to the parents of the late Capt. Humayun Khan, a veteran of Iraq War, being put at the podium during the Philadelphia Democratic National Convention in order to go after GOP candidate Donald J. Trump?

    Prior to this grieving family being placed in this awkward position, what did Donald or his campaign know about them? Did Trump or his campaign say anything against this particular family to provoke them?

    I know there are over 4,000 American young men/women who paid the ultimate price and continue to lose their lives in Iraq, the Middle East and Afghanistan; there are also thousands and thousands wounded American soldiers, some with debilitating PTSDs and lost limbs. The families of these young American soldiers are either grieving or are confronted, on a daily basis, dealing loved the family members who have been left with physically and/or emotionally wounds in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan! Let us also not forget that there have been probably over 1million innocent Iraqi and Afghani citizens killed, maimed, homeless and displaced who these self righteous DNC elites in Philadelphia did not utter a word about during that convention!

    I would like someone to explain to me in no uncertain term, the rationale behind the DNC establishment and their candidate, Hillary Clinton, picking this particular family to wage MSM war against GOP candidate. What did Trump say to provoke the sensitive fight with this vulnerable family and who is the beneficiary?

    I am highly appalled at the insensitivity associated with this saga! Is this not what is called winning elections at all costs, regardless of who is being trampled on?

    • Abe
      August 4, 2016 at 18:16

      Highly appalled at the insensitivity associated with this saga, the Trump campaign urged its followers: “Reject these calls to disunity and come together.”

      No, wait, that was ISIS

      Trump should beware of politically dying as a neocon apostate.

    • Kiza
      August 6, 2016 at 04:49

      Mrs and Mr Khan coming to the Convention to become an instrument of those who organised the death of their son by shipping him to a foreign land whose people did nothing to either US people or to Mrs and Mr Khan, this reminds me so much of the victims of US military in Afghanistan. When the “force-for-good” US military kills an Afghani child and the father is offered $200 and a goat in return, he accepts this compensation and goes and buys $200 worth of explosives for an IED to blow himself up a few mofos from the country which killed his child, that is to get some real “compensation”. I know, this is opposite behavior, but it just shows how low some people have to sink and sacrifice even their soul to have a place in the sick US system.

  21. Abe
    August 4, 2016 at 16:09

    The references to actual history and the seemingly rational statements regarding NATO, Ukraine, U.S.-Russian relations, China, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that infrequently punctuate Trump’s xenophobic rants are part of a meticulously choreographed “bumbling” political script designed to reinforce the vehement mainstream media bashing of such “contrarian views”.

    President Trump will dump the “contrarian views” Candidate Trump pumped during the campaign faster than Dealmaker Trump drops unpaid subcontractors.

    • dahoit
      August 7, 2016 at 10:36

      Xenophobic rants?Or astute rational approaches to immigration and terror threats?
      The most xenophobic people who ever existed,Zion,now control America.They hate us all equally,because we’ve never warmed to their corrupt and hollow persona.

  22. Daniel Guyot, France
    August 4, 2016 at 15:20

    Brilliant article.
    But what can be done? Trump or Clinton. No other choice.
    Apparently time has come for a regime change in the USA, hopefully before next nuclear war!

    • Demetri Politis
      August 4, 2016 at 20:07

      I know what I can do. I am a Democrat, but disgusted with my Un-Democratic National Committee that decided that they choose the democratic candidate, not the people. To hell with primaries. So i thew out my DNC card and will vote for trump. I am not afraid of Trump. I am deathly scared of the war monger Killary. I believe a lot more Sanders supporters will do the same and save the world from WWIII..

  23. August 4, 2016 at 14:57

    The mistake here is to think any U.S. president actually runs the country anymore.

    • Joe Tedesky
      August 4, 2016 at 15:50

      I think the last president who tried found out the hard way how right your comment is. There is even a date to commemorate this lesson in American politics, it’s November 22, 1963.

    • August 5, 2016 at 18:22

      For sure. Progressive commentators all over the place are being interviewed on shows like Democracy Now and having to steer people’s thinking away from personalities and back to the sytem.

    • dahoit
      August 7, 2016 at 10:33

      Ah,Trump will,hence the opposition.
      Did anyone see the excuse laden tome on Obomba,and how his underlings interfere with his plans?Sheesh.

  24. John Puma
    August 4, 2016 at 14:52

    One MUST assume that the majority of the bashing is coming precisely from the Clinton campaign and its neocon supporters in government and in media.

    Have we forgotten that the email revelation of total DNC corruption was immediately brushed aside by Clinton with an almost unstoppable reflex to blame Russia? Brilliant, vicious, obsessed and very dangerous.

    Russia and Putin exist, therefore there will be “disasters” under a Clinton campaign. This is true with or without Trump.

    The rumors that Trump is running simply to pave the way for Clinton appear less silly every day.

  25. Algirdas
    August 4, 2016 at 14:52

    I agree with this article’s analysis 100%. Putin’s foreign policy has been defensive, and while he’s no angel; then again, is someone who cackles over the destruction of Qadaffi and Libya? He appears to be someone concerned primarily in building up his country rather than tearing down others. It’s conceivable that Putin’s ambitions might expand if Russia were in a position to do more, but to make this sort of speculation a basis for foreign policy is as good a definition of paranoia as any I can think of. At this stage of development, Russia is in no position to pose a threat.
    Unfortunately, neocon propaganda will see to it that hotter heads prevail. And given the ease of hacking voting machines, I doubt that the upcoming election will have much to do with democracy. There could well be a 4 way hacker war between Israel, China, Russia, and the DNC, a consequence irresponsibly ignored by proponents of electronic voting. Comparisons between exit polls and machine results should make interesting reading.
    Re the previous poster, I do understand the strong feelings of Poles, Balts and Western Ukraine’s vis-a-vis Russia. But there’s no justification to bring NATO into this political mess. With one half of Ukraine regarding Stepan Bandera as a war hero and the other half regarding him as a war criminal, a delicate balancing act was needed to keep the tinderbox from igniting. Tensions were inflamed by the irresponsible behavior of the EU and American agents, including Nuland, McCain and Biden. Did these naifs really expect Putin to passively acquiesce to the loss of his only Black Sea port and the murder of Russian-speaking Ukraines as proposed by Timoshenko? Are the Crimeans who sought refuge with Russia worse off than their Odessan brethren burnt to death on 5/2/13? The role of the west in this was irresponsibly stupid.
    In Poland and the Baltic states, on the other hand, the reaction was entirely inappropriate. The analogous situation that might have led to problems would have been for the West to try to take over the Kaliningrad enclave. I have seen ZERO reports that anything like that was in the mix, Applebaum’s and her discredited husband’s saber-rattling notwithstanding. That political mobilization was extremely irresponsible, and unprovoked.
    As for Masha Gessen, I lost respect for her after reading her biography of Putin; not only does she take every opportunity to cast Putin in a bad light, but she even engages in mind-reading to embellish her case. I found her an untrustworthy zealot. I could believe that Putin had something to do with Litvinenko, but the case is unclear, and the “conclusions” conjectural. We do know that Obama as responsibility for the fates of Manning and Assange; political embarrassment is punished by the PTB’s everywhere, and is unfortunately unexceptional. And while Putin may be involved in the poorly-investigated Ryazan bombings, we’ve yet to see an honest investigation of 911 anomalies here. I’d judge the moral umbrage to be more sincere and less propagandistic were it evenly applied.

  26. M2
    August 4, 2016 at 14:32
  27. Ol' Hippy
    August 4, 2016 at 12:34

    The thing that strikes me as most interesting is that Trump’s own party faults him for the very few positive aspects of his ‘bid’. He’s a businessman and sees Russia as a business venture instead of a nuclear armed bear that will protect their interests. The resources they possess may be too tempting to resist, oil, #1. The other thing is his slight reluctance towards Israel’s hegemony in the ME, which to say the least is a big part of the US’s problem and driving the instability in the region. Otherwise he’s unhinged or anything that I’ve seen so far and no amount of mental gymnastics and getting him to ‘be with the program’ seems to be working as yet. If I was gambler I’d start taking book on where and when the ‘next war’ will start on date and place. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that because it will be bloody or worse. I hope sanity prevails but I wouldn’t bet against it.

    • Chris Chuba
      August 4, 2016 at 13:49

      “The thing that strikes me as most interesting is that Trump’s own party faults him for the very few positive aspects of his ‘bid’.”

      Exactly, when I heard Trump say, ‘don’t get angry at Russia and China for looking out for their own interests, it is up to us to look out for ourselves’. I thought, finally, an adult is in the room. I had my fill of Neocon R’s and D’s telling me how Putin is out to ‘humiliate the U.S.’. What narcissists. They believe that other countries spend all day plotting on how to embarrass the U.S. rather than try to improve their own lives. I was so glad to see that Trump was free of such irrationality and appalled that he was the only one.

      His reset with Russia would work because it is premised on an understanding that both countries act in their own interests and cooperate when they find common ground. HRC’s reset failed because it was premised on the requirement that Russia had to capitulate to the U.S. on all matters, and become a client state like Greece but without the perks. Sadly it looks like the forces of hell are likely to prevail this November.

      Well the only thing I can do is to continue to buy all of my gasoline at Lukoil or as I call it, Volodya’s.

  28. Realist
    August 4, 2016 at 12:14

    What’s really incredible is the extent of anti-Russian solidarity in the Western media. No one who is not willing to twist the facts or make up new ones to bash Russia gets a word in edgewise. This includes not just the Ukraine crisis, starting with the coup, the secession of Crimea and the rebellion in Donbass, but the whole gamut of topics considered to be worth discussing, like the wars in Syria and the rest of the Middle East, downing of the Malaysian jetliner, downing of the Russian fighter jet by Turkey, the Rio Olympics, the Russian economy, oil markets, trade with Europe, alliances with China and Iran, war games and militarization of the Russian border by NATO, internal affairs within Russia such as homosexual rights and mysterious assassinations, and so on and so forth. Even “Pussy Riot” was universally presented as evidence of Vladimir Putin’s unfitness for office. The Sochi Olympics were written up as a “typical” Russian catastrophe because that country simply can’t do anything right. Better the West destabilise the central government and take the place over. All the words are so lockstep, without a single syllable of protest or contrary opinion being allowed (such that famed Russian scholar Stephan Cohen is given only 3.5 minutes in the past two years to make a case on CNN at variance with the conventional wisdom), one is left to wonder whether they are all reading off a single script provided by the American government. Actually, all Cohen ever requests is simply an objective analysis of the facts and a reasoned debate about the foreign policy direction this country should take to maximize the probability of survival for the human race, because there’s none of that in the atmosphere being fostered by the Bipartisan War Hawk Party that controls everything most Americans (actually most of the English-speaking world) ever hear or read on the subject.

    Now that Trump, who was the only primary candidate on the Republican ticket seemingly interested in the continued existence of the human race and rationally communicating with Russia rather than confronting them, is the official party nominee–signed, sealed and delivered by the party convention and all its delegates, the opposition has decided to go full Joe McCarthy and conflate Trump with Putin, calling the former the “puppet” of the latter. And, since Putin has been effectively demonized without respite by our government and media over the past several years, the knee-jerk reaction of the voting public is supposed to assume that Trump is equally vile, repressive and anti-American as Commissar Putin. In fact, it was outright stated by Hillary and her party hacks–nay, even by President Obomber himself–that those damned Russkies hacked the DNC and outed all the dirty tricks used by Hillary’s people embedded throughout the organizational structure of the DNC, and they did this all in the service of Donald J. Trump, who will be the Kremlin’s man in the Whitehouse. Never mind that there was not a shred of evidence that the Russians were the hackers, that they provided the dirt on Hillary to Wiki-Leaks, or that any Russian officials ever spoke to Donald J. Trump in his life. Those words have no basis in fact. They are just a misdirect away from the unethical moves by Hillary and her minions to shaft Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries. And, Hillary’s supporters wonder why much of the public does not consider her trustworthy. What is amazing is that anyone does.

    The whole world knows what is going on here. These dirty politics are not a secret. They are out in the open and few in America seem to care. At least no one in the media seems to care. But the rest of the world will have little reason to respect Hillary should she win because she played dirty. Right now, most of the world dances to our tune, because they fear us. Even Europe, which would be much better off with an independent foreign policy, secure reliable trade with Russia, and its own defense establishment, is willing to be bossed around, quite to its own detriment, by Washington. But the day is coming when the camel’s back will be broken by that proverbial straw, and lack of respect and credibility will cost America its hegemony over Europe. Right now, Hillary is probably gloating that her accusations against Russia will only make them more angry and less likely to negotiate with her rather than fight, and it seems to be a fight that she wants. We never learn. We know how that always turns out. It’s so much easier to start a military conflict than to end one. Hillary will rue the day she started down this path (and so will all of us) when it is all so unnecessary. America is not looking for a “strong” leader, just a sane one. (Bill Clinton was full of it when he said it’s better to govern “wrong but strong” than “right but weak.”) We’ve been burned too many times by presidents who promise one thing (peace and prosperity) and deliver the exact opposite (war and penury). Obomber was the latest in a long line. A continuation of that madness is not preferable to whatever Trump may be offering. And, doubling down on the bellicosity, and the lies, may give Hillary a brief bump in the polls, but, hopefully, by November she will out herself as a shrieking, lying war hawk that the people reject. The debates are still on the horizon. If Trump can staunch the defections of the numerous neocon war hawks in his own party (who saw the Khan caper and the McCarthy gambit by Clinton as an excuse to defect), and get someone in the “mainstream” media to make the case for peace and associate him with that process, he and the country may stand a chance. He needs to emphasize that he is running as the peace candidate, talk up trade, jobs and the economy, and forget the nonsense about walls and immigration restrictions, if he is to convince enough level-headed people to vote his way.

    • Drew Hunkins
      August 4, 2016 at 12:20

      “What’s really incredible is the extent of anti-Russian solidarity in the Western media. No one who is not willing to twist the facts or make up new ones to bash Russia gets a word in edgewise.”

      Exactly! Exactly, Realist.

      It’s terrifying b/c it ranges across the political spectrum. In fact, know-it-all liberals are some of the staunchest anti-Putin, anti-Russian voices out there today. Try saying a nice word about Putin in respectable liberal company someday and see what happens.

    • Joe Tedesky
      August 5, 2016 at 01:33

      Realist You say it with your words so well. When you list the variety of things America has been taught to believe about Putin and Russia the list speaks for itself to what’s going on with America’s Russian foreign policy. It is reckless in to many ways to speak of. The system is way to overwhelming in it’s reach and power. It’s to a point where everything is nothing more than an American Presidential Reality show. It’s great material for political cartoonist and stand up comedy performers.

      I hope the American media Putin bashing stays, or decreases from it’s current level. I’m hoping that there is no false flag events to be blamed on the Russians. I’m also hoping that Putin’s reserve isn’t judged as any weakness by his fellow Russian states people. I also am watching how the game of chairs is playing out in the Middle East. Is it good news that Netanyahu so far this year has gone to Moscow to visit with Putin, and Israel is doing more trade with Russia due to all the Western sanctions.

      The whole world is hunkering down in anticipation of the coming of Queen Hillary. I read today how in Russia the advent of Hillary is a big media talking point to discuss. I get the opinion that strategist from both, or all sides are positioning themselves to a safe place for how to react to the Killary arrival. I would love to see Hillary do everything opposite to our speculated opinions, but I’m not getting my hopes up.

      Trump would be wise to take your suggestions.

      • Kiza
        August 6, 2016 at 04:15

        Excellent comment Joe, particularly “The whole world is hunkering down in anticipation of the coming of Queen Hillary”.

        It appears that almost none of the US people understand how the rest of the World would feel about President Hillary (I do not think they care either, but this is ok – they do not have to care, but to understand they should). In general, with its incessant wars and regime changes the US has used up all good will of the people of the World, and this is why when polled most foreigners say that the US is the main danger to peace. I know that many foreigners have let a sigh of relief when HRC resigned from the State Dept. But, an election of Hillary Clinton to the position of even more power is likely to be the beginning of the end of the World. Many people are apprehensive.

        I care to remind the US people that US alone (even without its NATO puppets) spends on military almost as much as the rest of the World put together. This can come to no good, no good at all!

        PS. A few Ukrainians, Poles etc drawing salaries from the US largesse would, of course, differ about the catastrophic US role in the World.

    • dahoit
      August 7, 2016 at 10:30

      What is incredible is allowing dual citizen traitors the permission to own every major newspaper in America,and just about every web site.
      They hate Trump and America First,and his statement on Israel Palestine unleashed the forces of the dark side,Zionism,on him and his campaign.
      I am very confident that American people can see this,and will rectify the situation in Nov.
      The scum better hope Trump doesn’t win,as the payback will be a bitch.

  29. exiled off mainstreet
    August 4, 2016 at 12:08

    It is another excellent article. Too bad the mainstream press and deep state appear to be all in on the armageddon scenario; too bad Trump says stuff which enables the power structure to paint him as dangerous, rather than the fascist policy the power structure is engaged in. If things go on as they now appear to be going, we are done for.

    • August 5, 2016 at 18:09

      Yes, IF there’s no higher power and he has no timetable.

    • dahoit
      August 7, 2016 at 10:26

      The MSM would say Trump calling for nuclear disarmament dangerous.
      You are either falling for their scam,or are a weak minded individual,who can’t see that the MSM is demonizing everything Trump says because they are Israeli mole traitors,and America First is the last thing on this earth they want implemented.
      I guarantee most Americans get it,but some,either Zionist themselves or the duped can’t.
      If one can’t see the fix is in,one is a moron,or deaf dumb and blind.
      November,and revolt.

  30. Chris Chuba
    August 4, 2016 at 11:41

    The problem with a Hillary Clinton victory is that she is vindictive and will want to demonstrate her superiority to both Trump and Putin. She will see this as an opportunity to gain political capital from the Republicans because it is one of the few issues where they both agree, winning the Second Cold War (that they started).

    At a minimum she will use all of the money that has already been authorized for lethal, military aid for Ukraine and will most likely seek an increase anywhere from $1B to $5B to ‘deter Russian aggression’. The fact that it will encourage and be used for the killing of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine will not bother her in the least.

    If Syria is not fully stabilized by the time she gets sworn in, she will re-start the killing fields there as well. At a minimum, she will funnel in lots of fancy new arms. I wouldn’t rule out a cruise missile attack and blockade of Syria but that is at the high end of her risk tolerance. If Syria is stable, she might settle for extremely, hostile, threatening rhetoric and then claim that her tough stance is what brought success (she is a reptile).

    • Drew Hunkins
      August 4, 2016 at 12:18

      Good points all Mr. Chuba.

      Just one very minor quibble: “If Syria is not fully stabilized by the time she gets sworn in, she will re-start the killing fields there as well.”

      It doesn’t necessarily need to be stabilized. With Killary being totally wedded to the Washington-Saudi-Zionist Terror Network her administration will trump up any little pretext to bomb Damascus and disembowel Assad.

      Hopefully the U.S. public is as astute as it was in 2013 by vociferously coming out against Obama’s planned bombing run on Damascus. U.S. public opinion in 2013 (along with Putin’s diplomatic skill in sitting down with Obama and talking him down from a bombing campaign that would’ve seen Islamic fundamentalists sweep into Damascus) was a prime reason a Middle Eastern nation does not currently have al Qaida and ISIS forces controlling its capital.

    • Ted Tripp
      August 4, 2016 at 15:46

      She can only do these awful things if we let her. The people have power.

      • Realist
        August 5, 2016 at 01:11

        Either that, or the people are able to do only what they allow us. Now, the military and the police unquestionably have power.

  31. Bill Cash
    August 4, 2016 at 11:28

    I agree with all you say about Russia but i could never vote for Trump. I truly believe he’s crazy. His other negatives include not believing in global warming, is against the Iran deal, pretty sure he has sold our mid east policy to Sheldon Adelson for 100 million dollars.
    His support for Russia only comes because Russia has helped him financially in the past and we don’t know how indebted he is to Russia. We need his tax returns. From what I’ve read he’s also indebted to the Deutsche Bank of Germany. We need his tax returns.

    He could easily turn against Russia if some billionaire buys out his good will. Everything done has to give something to Trump. His hand is always out there.

    He isn’t a rational human being and is only interested in enrichng himself.

    • D5-5
      August 4, 2016 at 11:37

      I don’t conclude that because Robert Parry is pointing to the crescendo of demonizing now descending onto Trump’s head that he or anybody else should conclude Trump is the one to vote for. The point, as I understand it, is that all this bashing specifically around Russia and the Ukraine is dangerous in further whipping up US public resistance to analyzing what took place in Ukraine and Putin’s role in lessening (as in Syria and the sarin gas problem), not increasing, dangers of further war generated by the US. In Disquss commentaries, for example, his position would immediately bring on a raving and howling response from JQ Public. And this is the kind of hysteria George W. Bush was able to whip up to get into Iraq etc. despite attempts back then to debunk what was even then the lack of evidence and shallowness of the WMD case. The point is, I think, that all this Trump hysteria inevitably waxes into more war hysteria and stupidity.

      • ms 57
        August 4, 2016 at 15:55

        If the danger is “whipping up public resistance,” perhaps it would have been wiser for Putin’s state security apparatus not to have hacked into the DNC’s and Clinton’s email accounts — and, curiously, left the GOP’s and Trump’s email accounts undisturbed. Does that not constitute efforts at “regime change?”

        • John
          August 4, 2016 at 20:51

          ms 57… are now the leader…..tell us what to do sir.

        • Realist
          August 5, 2016 at 01:08

          If you are to be believed, you have more evidence on the matter than James Clapper. Please share. You will probably win a Pulitzer Prize if your accusations can be substantiated with facts.

        • D5-5
          August 5, 2016 at 11:50

          The quotation was not “whipping up public resistance” but “whipping up US public resistance to analyzing what took place . . .”

          Your manipulation seems an example of what Robert Parry is talking about.

          PS: for an interesting alternative theory to who hacked the DNC you might want to consider, check out this notion from William Binney, expert on US intelligence. He maintains the NSA hacked the DNC, due to animosity toward Clinton:

      • August 5, 2016 at 18:06

        Ironically, Putin is acting much like JFK in relation to NATO’s aggression. JFK was a real dog (Give Seymour Hersch’s “Dark Side Of Camelot” a read. It’s such a departure from the usual Camelot JFK worship that is ubiquitous (and shows up on CN), but in relation to the Cuban missile crisis (See Sheldon Stearn’s “The Cuban Missile Crisis In American Memory.”) he did seem to be acutely aware that he and Kruschev could take the world into nuclear conflagration or not and, together ‘with’ Kruschev’s help, he steered us away from that. Which can’t absolve him of many other atrocities.

    • Ted Tripp
      August 4, 2016 at 15:44

      I believe the purpose of this thread is not to play election politics (that’s done), but to create a national consensus that I hope can derail neoconservative ambitions in the near, and elect a decent President in the far.

  32. ms 57
    August 4, 2016 at 11:02

    I am not a neo-con, whose aggression, thirst for “regime change,” dangerous meddling and outright failures are self-evident – though their intentions, influence and power are largely hidden from the citizenry. Nor am I a liberal interventionist; the citizens of nation-states have an absolute right to self-determination. I am aware of the pressure Putin’s Russia must feel with NATO having expanded to their borders.

    But the article above neglects to mention that there is a very long, cruel history in Ukraine and the Baltic States of Russian domination. These states, and western Ukraine in particular, hate Russia. They desire to be part of Europe; that they might be subject to Russian domination, a real possibility that Putin also thirsts for, is frightening and abhorrent to them. They join NATO and they look for ways to integrate into the European economy, and they do these things to secure more prosperity and security for themselves. It is their right.

    If Putin’s authoritarian mafia-state has “helped” Obama, whom Putin has called a n*****r, it is not out of goodwill but out of national self-interest. And I don’t recall any of these articles addressing the virulent and often unhinged nationalism that Putin thrives on. Is there any need to go through a list of journalists and anti-Putin politicians who have been arrested, imprisoned or murdered for their criticism of and opposition to Putin, foremost of them being Alexander Litvinenko, who the British concluded was killed by polonium poured in his drink by state security agents – in London? Ask Anne Applebaum. Ask Masha Gessen.

    Putin’s desires can best be summed up, in a short-handed way, as a desire to restore the greatness and power of Russia as a global player. A Russian who says the greatest catastrophe for Russians in the 20th century was not the Great Patriotic War but the collapse of the USSR has other things in mind.

    • onno
      August 4, 2016 at 11:26

      I wonder where you got this MSM wisdom from. First of all President Putin is ONLY defending his borders and protecting the Russian people from US/NATO aggression since they’re now at Moscow’s doorstep with nuclear BM’s. President Putin know his Russian history VERY well – you don’t – that his country was invaded twice before by Hitler and Napoleon where 23 million Russian lost their lives in WW II defeating the Nazi army. The Russian army FREED europe from the Nazi’s NOT the Allies landing in Normandy which was ONLY to stop the Russians to conquer the whole continent. The Normandy landing was a Hollywood show NOTHING more.And today 71 years after WW II ended the Americans are still occupying Europe with 67.000 US troops and 220 Nukes while the Russians, the French and British took their troops home. Today Washington is using its illegal position in Europe for its imperialistic foreign policy in the hope to conquer the largest nation on this globe, Russia. But Russia and China together have more military power than USA and also more firepower and nukes. So if Washington and the new president is smart enough -like Donald Trump and not an insane Clinton -he/she would withdraw their troops and NATO goons from the Russian border and NEGOTIATE a peaceful agreement instead of threatening the world with nukes and their 900+ military bases. But with No-brainers in the White House it becomes tense ONLY benefiting of course US defense industry!

      • Bart
        August 4, 2016 at 13:46


        Russia quite understandably needs a buffer between it and NATO’s eastern front.

      • ms 57
        August 4, 2016 at 13:46

        What NATO aggression? NATO expansion has been accomplished at the request of NATO members. The Baltic states were not coerced to request it; they requested it because of their direct experience of what Russian domination and coercion actually fees like, actually means to a free people who have every right to determine how they will govern themselves and with whom they chose to ally themselves.

        Yes, the Red Army defeated Hitler where upon they imposed an equally tyrannous regime, a fact you seem to forget or want to conveniently ignore. If it wasn’t tyrannous, why did the Hungarians rise in ’56, the Czechs in ’68, the Poles in ’81. Why were the Baltic states in ’91 the first to declare their independence? Were those signs of contentment with the Soviet regime?

        Washington has an illegal presence in Europe? What law has been broken? The fact that NATO members welcome its presence means nothing? How many countries have risen against the US as opposed to the USSR? It is not an illegal presence when NATO’s 28 European member states ask to join it and are perfectly free to leave it when they want to.
        You sound like nothing so much as a Russian troll trying to undermine accepted European norms. Democracy is a value to be protected. Putin’s nationalistic, anti-democratic, oligarchical mafia-state is an entity inimical to Western values. The Russians have every right in the world to support or reject Putin as they see fit, but I don’t see a single praiseworthy aspect of this rising Russian nationalism.

        • Algirdas
          August 4, 2016 at 14:58

          “I don’t see a single praiseworthy aspect of this rising Russian nationalism.”

          …then have a look at suicide rates, average lifespan, and birth rates in Russia, comparing Yeltsin’s “neoliberal” 90’s to Putin’s 21st century.

        • Brad Benson
          August 4, 2016 at 20:42

          Boy are you bought into a line of pure bullshit.

        • Demetri Politis
          August 4, 2016 at 20:52

          Ms57, you are confused. NATO is not a club that any who wants to join is admitted. We decide who comes in. As a New York Senator once said, people are entitled to their opinion, but not their facts.The facts are that President Bush I (the USA) made an agreement with Michael Gorbachev that the Soviet Union will allow the unification of Germany, but NATO will not go beyond the border of Germany. Bill Clinton disregarded it and got Poland in. Poland had no right to enter NATO. She was brought in for political reasons, I think to get the Polish-American vote. What ever the reason, this was a dishonest act.. In 1997 Gorbachev came to Rice University, James Baker Institute for foreign Policy, to receive the ENRON prize. In his acceptance speech Gorbachev, the man who freed the world from the Cold War said; In 1989 we made an agreement with the USA. We would allow the unification of Germany, but NATO would not go beyond the border of Germany. We did what we agreed. The USA did not keep its word. The USA cannot be trusted”. It was all on CSPAN, I saw it. And James Baker, an honorable gentleman, the architect of the agreement was sitting there quietly and embarrassed. I felt more than embarrassed. I thought only rogue nations do not keep their word. Would you blame Russia or any other country if they don’t trust the USA?

        • Bill Bodden
          August 4, 2016 at 21:36

          What NATO aggression? NATO expansion has been accomplished at the request of NATO members.

          This is like saying the baseball/football team didn’t want to win, but the players decided they would try to win.

          The Baltic states were not coerced to request it; …

          Don’t bet any money on that that you can’t afford to lose. As Robert Parry explained in this essay, our neocons have been aggressive for NATO expansion for a long time and there are many examples in American foreign policy since the end of World War 2 of US interference in the affairs of other nations. And it is a good bet that the leaders in the Baltic States learned from Serbia/Kosovo you either go along with Uncle Sam – or else.

          • Joe Tedesky
            August 4, 2016 at 22:56

            Your comment reminded me of John Perkins of ‘Economic Hitman’ fame. Mr Perkins describes in detail how there is a process unleashed upon a targeted sovereignty, and arms are twisted until submission is complete. State affairs are brutal as it turns out, but you already knew this.

            The even better news for the MIC is Blowback increases sales, and increased sales equal increased profits. Until smarter people than me gets off their preoccupation with all things war, and these elite profiteers start seeing profit in positive human endeavors we are all out of luck to soon live in a stable and peaceful world.

            On another note, I wish Trump would quit endorsing the good parts of his foreign policy outlook, because I’m afraid that after all is said and done our dependable MSM will trash everything, and including some of the good things Trump promoted. I’m really starting to believe this whole election is scripted. This is most surreal presidential election I can ever remember… What about you?

        • Bill Bodden
          August 4, 2016 at 21:40

          Yes, the Red Army defeated Hitler where upon they imposed an equally tyrannous regime, a fact you seem to forget or want to conveniently ignore. If it wasn’t tyrannous, why did the Hungarians rise in ’56, the Czechs in ’68, the Poles in ’81. Why were the Baltic states in ’91 the first to declare their independence? Were those signs of contentment with the Soviet regime?

          The Cold War initiated by President Truman and maintained by subsequent administrations didn’t help.

          • Gregory Herr
            August 4, 2016 at 22:28

            It might also be noted that Putin’s Russia and the former Soviet Union are different entities with some striking disimilarities.

        • Abe
          August 4, 2016 at 21:57

          Taking time out between porn surfing and comments at the Bellingcat blog, the Atlantic Council’s Future Europe Initiative sockpuppet chimes in with such gems as “You sound like nothing so much as a Russian troll trying to undermine accepted European norms.”

          • Kiza
            August 6, 2016 at 03:47


        • James
          August 6, 2016 at 17:06

          NATO members do not want them here! Its the freemasonry that is rife in the western military that puts them here & not the ppl. We don’t get to vote on it, & if we did they would be gone! Its a big racket! Making money of the taxpayer! For weapons that mostly never get used. & if they do its to kill kids in some 3rd world country.while Americans are blasé about it! If you look at all the revolutions & who was behind them, you will see how Evil they are,& know what’s coming to America! Good luck

      • Curious
        August 5, 2016 at 03:20

        Thank you, you did the reply for me. I think ms stands for Main Stream.
        I’m not sure where the information comes to put ms’ words in Putins’ mouth. I think what Putin did say however, is Russia has the right to defend itself. As far as the buzz words from ms goes, “imperialist ambitions” “thirsts for” “thrives on” etc. Not Russia. And there seems to be a historical disconnect between the USSR and the current Russia. I also believe Putin is more of a statesman than to use the ‘n’ word. What a baffling remark, but maybe not from someone stuck in the cold war mentality. The promises Reagan gave in Reykjavík seems to be also lost.

        To “sum up” ms seems to be proving the very point of the article from Mr Parry, and it seems to be lost on ms.

        Thanks onno.

    • D5-5
      August 4, 2016 at 11:30

      Since your commentary contradicts Robert Parry’s views dramatically I would say yes, there is a need to say more for you to make clearer why you’re not echoing (and I could say “virulent”) US mainstream propaganda against Putin. “Virulent and unhinged nationalism that Putin thrives on” etc. Please. Lay it out for us.

    • Wm. Boyce
      August 4, 2016 at 11:31

      Great comment on a great article.

      Mr. Parry’s concern : “But the principle of objectivity has been long since abandoned as the mainstream U.S. media transformed itself into little more than an outlet for U.S. government foreign-policy narratives, no matter how dishonest or implausible.” is a fact of life here. The mainstream press resembles Pravda more than not.

      But we have no business meddling in the Ukraine or numerous other places that could be mentioned. The U.S. is a dying, flailing empire that may collapse under its own weight.

    • exiled off mainstreet
      August 4, 2016 at 12:09

      It is another excellent article. Too bad the mainstream press and deep state appear to be all in on the armageddon scenario; too bad Trump says stuff which enables the power structure to paint him as dangerous, rather than the fascist policy the power structure is engaged in. If things go on as they now appear to be going, we are done for.

    • John
      August 4, 2016 at 14:32

      You meant to say the long history of hate was between the USSR and Ukraine and Baltics…..Russia is not the USSR no matter how much the MSM tries to associate the two. And yes Russia and China would like to OFFER the world an alternative other than Wall Street’s (Goldman) financial system. You talk of choice, isn’t that the responsible way to have the freedom to not choose Wall Street ?

      Also when you say “they” want to be part of Europe you meant to say the EU….Why would “they” choose the EU when many member nations would prefer to exit the EU….The real reason for forming the EU in the first place was to expand NATO eastward to claim the real neocon prize….Russia and China resources and market share……

      But, thank you for reminding us about choice

    • Ted Tripp
      August 4, 2016 at 15:34

      Russia started in Kiev, long, long ago. They are one people. Stalin, however, seems to have been particularly vicious or careless regarding Ukrainian farmers, many died, and he created the bad blood we see today. Surely, some Ukrainians want Western prosperity, but that was probably a mirage all along. Regardless, they do not have the right to murder their ethnic Russian cousins in the East, nor do the ethnic Russians have an obligation to recognize a coup government. None of this narrative involves “unhinged nationalism” of the part of Putin. I believe he rightly protected his naval base in Crimea; furthermore, aiding the Ukrainian ethnic Russians against rabid and murderous fascist attack is also not out of bounds. Remember, US media has been demonizing Putin for a long time, primarily, like Muammar Gaddafi, because he did not play along with the neoliberal program.

    • Abe
      August 4, 2016 at 17:51

      The commenter takes pains to declare “I am not a neo-con […] Nor am I a liberal interventionist”, then spews a torrent of neo-con and liberal interventionist anti-Russian propaganda.

      The BS comment from MS57 is undiluted Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Future Europe Initiative drivel from beginning to end.

    • Lisa
      August 4, 2016 at 17:52

      Dear “ms 57”,

      You seem to refer to the famine in Ukraine in the 30’s, but it was not something that the evil Russians imposed on Ukraine particularly. The Soviet Union was undergoing a huge change of the economic system, from an agricultural small farm country to an industrial country. Yes, it was cruel for everyone and I could tell some very sad individual stories from that period. No, I’m not Russian, nor Ukrainian, but have plenty of ties to those countries.

      One cannot say that the Baltic people and Ukrainians hate Russia. Yes, they wish to be independent, but this does not mean that they would totally turn their backs to Russia and build a wall between the countries. I think they have a somewhat rosy image of Europe and NATO. In the other former Soviet republics there are varied opinions of the collapse of the empire. It has caused some very negative and chaotic developments, in addition to the positive ones.

      Nations never act out of goodwill, but out of national interest. USA does not interfere in Eastern Europe for any other reasons but securing their own prosperity and resources, in the long run. Oil, energy and military issues are always lurking in the background.

      As for political murders, I notice that you have followed the main media sources who eagerly blame Russian government on everything. Sometimes it may be justified, sometimes not. For example, this “polonium in a tea cup” has become a generally accepted truth as it has been repeated in all media for countless times. I have spoken to a physics specialist who laughs at the theory and says that if polonium is poured in a tea cup in a restaurant, everyone in the premises would die of the vapours, plus half of the hotel guests on other floors. I understand that it is difficult to form an opinion independently when the media pushes an opinion from all directions, over and over again. Things are not always what they at first glance seem to be.

      Generally speaking, I get so depressed when events are immediately twisted and interpreted in other ways than they originally were. The serious DNC election fraud, seemingly stealing the victory in the primaries from Sanders, turned out to be a Russian government interference in the US elections. Trump’s hesitation of demonizing Russia has become proof of him being Putin’s lap dog, etc.

      When looking at some facts from Clinton Foundation history, one could suspect that it’s the Clintons who are lap dogs of Russians. Did you notice the article in the Wall Street Journal (!!!) a few days ago by Peter Schweizer about the financial ties of the Foundation to Russian donors? They have had much closer connections than Trump ever has. Millions and more millions flowed to the “charity” foundation.

    • Demetri Politis
      August 4, 2016 at 19:18

      To MS57
      Unfortunately, you do not understand Ukraine. There is no such thing as “Ukrainian Nation”. The fault line in Ukraine is What now refer to as “West Ukrain”. It is a geografic area that was under Austrohungarian empire control fro long time . The austrians, to “Cut down Russia” which they feard, brain washed citizens that they are “Part of the great Ukrainian people occupied by Russia and should fight to liberate they country from Russia”..In that process they converted them from Eastern Orthodox Christians to Catholics. apostates. After WWI that part was given to Poland, and the Russian state became “The soviet Union”. While Lenin was dividing the country into Soviet Socialist Republics, two communist “West Ukrainians” went to Lenin and demanded that he creates a Ukrainian State too. Lenin obliged, took his pencil out and drew a border for “Ukraine”.. How do i know this? I have the book the two Ukrainians wrote. And my wife was born in Ukraine, in Poltava. We have been talking about Ukraine in our house for 60 years and have hundreds of books on history. Look at the Encyclopeadia Britannica of 1911, one of the best editions according to Librarians, and look up “Ukrain”. You will find Four-4 lines that it ie the south part of Russia. No “Nation”, nothing. Find an Atlas published before WWI and try to find a geographic area indicated as “Ukraine”. There are none. Do you know that 40% of the people who live now in side the Russian federation are either born in Ukraine or have relatives in Ukraine.. The same for the people living in Ukraine. My wife was one of them, had relatives in Ukraine and Russia. Watch Russian TV and you will see how many Ukrainian names pop up all the time (if you know the typical Ukrainian name endings). The name of the Speaker of the Russian Duma (parliament) is Matvienko, typical Ukrainian. As for “Putin’s mafia state”, they have a free press, which we do not The American people live in an information ghetto. They are allowed to know what “they”want us to know. Read, get informed, before forming opinions and criticize.

      • Akech
        August 4, 2016 at 20:14

        American ruling elites believe very deeply in the ignorance of the masses. It has worked like a charm right from slavery period. By law, the slaves were forbidden from learning how to read or write. They could be brutally lynched if they secretly attempted to learn how to read/write. Short of killing a person, ignorance is an effective tool/weapon for controlling the ruled and the subjugated. The method is still in full swing through the MSM where it is called PROPAGANDA; this may explain why African American community is supporting Hillary despite her adverse record towards them.

        • John
          August 4, 2016 at 20:44

          It doesn’t matter the skin color Akech so don’t start a fire with your personal agenda…by the way why would you say that about African Americans…..Help us to understand……

          • Akech
            August 5, 2016 at 11:38

            Ignorance is a man’s/woman’s worst enemy!
            The only logical reason why anyone or a group of people would resort to keeping others ignorant using disinformation, propaganda, fear/intimidation, terrorism (to name only a few) must be to control, subjugate or govern the masses through fear and/or deceit. This is my opinion and I am entitled to express it in this forum. You may choose to give reasons why you prefer to call it a “personal agenda”.
            Innocent people are being slaughtered in the Middle East, North Africa, Turkey, Ukraine and Afghanistan; the lucky ones are fleeing for their lives and are rendered homeless and stateless. The reasons being given as to why this must happen is 1000% misinformation and/or propaganda!

            Imagine yourself in the shoes of one of these people and give a reason or two why must this be acceptable!

          • John
            August 5, 2016 at 20:31

            Okay…I’m trying to understand the American governing system. So far I see 20 trillion in debt yet America can give 5 billion to government of choice. Okay now I see, government is just like the banking system…I deposit $1.00….. bank can loan that dollar to 10 people….I’m just an ignorant German….. but I’m catching on

    • John
      August 4, 2016 at 20:38

      ms 57…do you hear that sound…hear it ?…..It’s you getting flushed… now

    • Tannenhouser
      August 4, 2016 at 21:18

      Wrong. Russia IS a global power. If one is to ‘put words’ in another’s mouth and assume a meaning from them it is best to supply, at minimum links to said words. Failure to do so suggests you may have other things in mind. Thanks in advance.

    • Abe
      August 4, 2016 at 21:32

      The anti-Russian propaganda doesn’t get more violent and unhinged than Anne Applebaum and Masha Gessen.

      Writing from Warsaw, Applebaum’s unquestionably hysterical “total war” rhetoric won her the 2014 Joseph Goebbels award:

      • Kiza
        August 6, 2016 at 03:51

        Just by chance, both are ardent Clinton supporters.

    • Crazyczar
      August 4, 2016 at 23:02

      Please enlighten your readers how Russian domination negatively effected the Baltic States and Ukraine that didn’t effect the Russian republic and the rest of the Soviet republics in the same way. I am sure that you will bring up the holodomor. I am sorry to inform you, but the famine of late 30s effected all of the Soviet Union. Was it more prevalent in Ukraine? Yes, but only because the fertile land called black earth, that once fed all of the Russian Empire, was largely located in the southwest. The grain that was left as a result of the drought, was sold to the West for hard currency. This left little food for the rest of the USSR. As for the Baltics, what exactly happened in the Baltics? Specifically please.

      When Putin said that the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was the collapse of the USSR what he meant was that USSR was working for a common goal – the betterment of the society through equality. The Soviet project was poorly managed and had unforgivable flaws. Many people perished mostly due to psychopathic leader named Stalin (Yoseph Dszugashvili). Unfortunately, people suffered throughout the Soviet Union not just the Baltics and Ukraine. Having said this, there was also a lot of good that was accomplished in the Soviet period. Education was free and widely available. Before the collapse, Soviet Union had one of the highest literacy rates in the world. The rapid industrialization achieved good infrastructure. Arts and sports was developed to compete on the world level. In the golden period of the 50s and early 60s people were generally happy.

      Of course all this changed in the 70s and 80s as the economy was mismanaged and the state ran out of money. U.S.A. didn’t win the cold war. Economic mismanagement destroyed the Soviet Union.

      So please, before you spout out the propaganda that is being fed in the West, educate yourself. Read some books. that usually helps.

    • August 5, 2016 at 17:57

      You need to flesh that out, not fling it out. Links? Putin called Obama a nigger? I almost don’t care. But, no, That’s not right. Just call him what he is, as Jeremy Scahill has done. He called him a murderer – on network tv. Of course, It’s worse even than that simple charge can convey.

    • dahoit
      August 7, 2016 at 10:10

      The British,under the control of their own zionist masters,say Litivenko was killed by Russia.I’d give that the credence it deserves which is none.
      I have a feeling that guy was a triple? agent,and the Zionists found out and murdered him,Dimona style.

  33. Drew Hunkins
    August 4, 2016 at 10:58

    Fantastic column by Mr. Parry as always.

    The way I see it is that with Trump’s foreign policy positions it’s essentially (essentially) coming down to three things:

    1.) He does not knee-jerk bash Putin unlike the mainstream media, Killary, liberal opinion generally and most rightwingers. Trump’s penchant to refrain from demonizing Moscow is obviously a good thing.
    2.) Unfortunately he does vilify Iran and asserts that he’ll rip up the Iran nuke deal. This is obviously a bad Trump position, it’s the one thing Obama got right, and Obama accomplished the Iran nuke accord in the face of vehement opposition from most of the Zionist power configuration.
    3.) Trump’s denounced the Iraq war (even in front of GOP debate audiences!). This is a terrific position.

    Killary on the other hand fares poorly on two of the three aforementioned categories, she gets some points for sticking by Obama’s Iran nuke deal but who knows how much she’ll genuflect to the rabid pro-Israel fanatics in Washington once she’s ensconced in the White House.

    Ergo, based on the quick little scorecard I’ve outlined above, one has to lean in the direction of Trump as far as keeping the world’s people from possibly dying in a nuclear conflagration with the Kremlin, which is the most dangerous potentiality facing the world today.

    Unfortunately as to be expected, both candidates vow to perform constant fellatio on Tel Aviv.

    • August 5, 2016 at 06:56

      Exactly Drew Hunkins!

      “Good for the rest of us. We are finding out on an almost daily basis how thoroughly corrupt and venal our political “leaders” are, and how the system is rigged for the wealthy and powerful. Perfect evidence of this is that the various “Democratic” offenders and fellow-travelers showed no contrition for rigging the nomination. Instead they tried to shift the attention to Russian president Vladimir Putin. ominously trying to build a case to take some action against him. Should Hillary Clinton become the next president, we can expect some kind of shenanigans to take place. Let’s hope it’s not World War III. She has never met a war she didn’t like, including future wars.” – Hamilton

    • August 5, 2016 at 17:51

      Well said. Nazi dick – hmm.

      • Drew Hunkins
        August 7, 2016 at 21:12

        I am not a Nazi! Nor is anything I’ve written above borderline fascist.

        Everything I’ve written is culled from the works of world renowned intellectuals; see the following sources for further information before having the audacity to smear me in such a cavalier manner: Mearsheimer and Walt’s “The Israel Lobby”, James Petras’ “The Power of Israel in the U.S.”, Paul Findley’s “They Dare to Speak Out”, and Allision Weir’s “Against Our Better Judgement.”

    • dahoit
      August 7, 2016 at 10:08

      Yes,his Iran stuff is stupid,but I think he just wants to throw a bone to the Zionists,to relieve their hatred,but of course it hasn’t worked.The American people,for some strange reason(:)),are anti Muslim of any persuasion.
      9-11,domestic attacks and subsequent propaganda and calumny from serial liars has an effect,especially when there is absolutely no counterbalance in the MSM,the result of Zionist possession of our info system.
      And the lights have gone out in many alternative web sites,as they all go Zionist.What a joke.

    • Brexiteer
      August 12, 2016 at 09:46

      I’m afraid all the talk about a Trump presidency is a waste of time. The fix is already in,he will be dumped on September 10th and Jeb Bush will be nominated instead with his son George Prescott Bush as vp pick. What are the odds?

  34. Charletta
    August 4, 2016 at 10:28

    Thank you for your usual well reasoned response to something very important that Mr Trump has somehow gotten right. It is frustrating that so few of us understand this. I hope you will present this information on Margaret Prescott’s show on KPFK again. Progressive commentators such as David Packman on Free Speech TV, are already attacking Trump on his presumed “ignorance” on this issue. RT is also being attacked. It is one of the few reliably progressive venues.

    • August 5, 2016 at 17:49

      Perhaps. Have you ever tried to have discussions or just comment on RT? It’s torture. It doesn’t lead me to believe that my feedback is terribly desired.

  35. Helga Fellay
    August 4, 2016 at 10:12

    Like some others, I suspect more and more that the Deep State has pre-determined that Clinton will be the next president, and Trump’s function is merely that of a carnival barker to assure that the highly unpopular Clinton will win in November as the “lesser of two evils” – making sure that the MSM focuses almost exclusively on Trump’s obnoxiousness so as to distract voters away from Clinton’s and the DNC’s criminal behavior. It also becomes more obvious every day that the Deep State’s objective is a military confrontation against Russia (think WWIII).

    • IAL
      August 4, 2016 at 12:02

      Spot on Helga! Could not have said it better myself. I would just add a couple of things. This government had better not start a war with Russia. If you think the American people are angry (but nonviolent) with government now just wait and see what they do if this incompetent government starts a war with Russia to prop up criminal bankers and a failed monetary system.

      The American people need to be asking who these people in government actually work for – many of us know – but many do not – but what is clear to many Americans now (especially Trump and Sanders supporters) is that this government does not work for the people of the United States. This evil government has destroyed the middle-class, destroyed our heathcare system, and destroyed our dignity and status in the world due to their warmongering. Perhaps those in the Deep State care to come clean now about their UN agendas for depopulation and order-out-of-chaos and their philosophies surrounding the occult so they can let the American people in on the fact that they are a bunch of sociopaths.

      At this point I am really quite tired of this “show” boys. We know what you are doing and the New World Order cult BS is OVER!
      We are not going along with your UN Agendas that kill millions – ANYMORE! Mark it. You are done.

      • Ted Tripp
        August 4, 2016 at 14:32

        I would be interested in more detail about ” UN agendas for depopulation”.

        • Monte George Jr
          August 4, 2016 at 21:46

          Ted Tripp: Google “Agenda 21” to get started – enough material is available to keep you busy for quite a while.

    • Sally Snyder
      August 4, 2016 at 14:05

      If you are not in the business of mind-reading, you should be. The MSM is feeding the sweaty masses a steaming pile of manure when it comes to covering Hillary Clinton and her soon-to-be Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland.

    • Kiza
      August 5, 2016 at 01:52

      Actually, things are much worse than you describe: general Allen’s speech at the DNC Convention leaves absolutely no doubt that Hillary Clinton is a pure War Candidate.

      Would you please run the following two videos in parallel in two browser windows or in two tabs of the same browser windows. You will find an amazingly identical oration technique between Hitler and Allen:

      If you understand the German or want to read English subtitles, you will also find a similarity in claiming the high moral ground: freedom, universal human values and the rest of what such demagogues typically use. Maybe General Allen wins on this sleaziness – Hitler is a much smaller BSer as people generally were in the previous century.

      • James
        August 6, 2016 at 16:54

        WW3 if you vote for Killary! And war with Iran! For what? Ask yourselves, what has Iran done? Your country is being played by Israel. And do not give up your GUNS! Or FEMA=Death

    • Daniele
      August 5, 2016 at 04:41

      Brava! Well stated!

    • Deadbeat
      August 5, 2016 at 23:12

      Trump is no “carnival barker”. That is the portrayal by the MSM. Unfortunately too many people with myopic perspectives are too easily swayed by the MSM.

Comments are closed.