My sudden decision to support Hillary Clinton (albeit with nose held)

I disliked Bill Clinton until the Republicans hit him with a thousand smears, culminating in Whitewater. In 2007-8, my attitude was ABC -- Anyone But Clinton -- until the Obots started to game the blogs, emulating the same GOP attack-attack-attack strategy. The "darkened video" smear transformed this unenthusiastic Obama voter into a Hillary supporter.

As long-time readers know, Hillary has done nothing but piss me off throughout the past seven years. Sweartagod, when I woke up this morning, I was mapping out in my head a piece titled "The case for Martin O'Malley."

(Although the former Baltimore mayor has many problems -- I hold him largely responsible for what went wrong with the Baltimore police department -- his Middle East stances have pleased me more than anything I've heard from either Hillary or Sanders.)

But then -- today -- one article changed everything.

Okay, it was more than one article. We've been pummeled with nonsense about the "emailgate" pseudoscandal, as detailed in the preceding post. The steady stream of planted stories about Bill Clinton's former libido issues only made me recall how much more prosperous this country was in the 1990s. And nothing has pissed me off more than the innumerable hit pieces which pretend that the Clinton Foundation -- a charity -- is really some sort of political slush fund. (The foundation has a rep for being clean. If you have evidence -- as in evidence -- to the contrary, why not write it up and win the Pulitzer?)

But the proverbial straw-with-the-power-to-shatter-a-dromedary's-vertebrae came this morning. I'm talking about this piece by Corey Robin, published in Salon.

It may be a generational thing—I was born in 1967—but this is what Hillary and Bill Clinton will always mean to me: Sister Souljah, Ricky Ray Rector, welfare reform, and the crime bill. And beyond—really, behind—all that, the desperate desire to win over white voters by declaring to the American electorate: We are not the Party of Jesse Jackson, we are not the Rainbow Coalition.

Many of the liberal journalists who are supporting Hillary Clinton’s candidacy are too young to remember what the Clintons did to American politics and the Democratic Party in the 1990s. But even journalists who are old enough seem to have forgotten just how much the Clintons’ national ascendancy was premised on the repudiation of black voters and black interests.

I'm older than Robin, and I know revisionism when I see it. I know lying when I see it.

Robin has resurrected the Big Lie of 2008 -- "The Clintons hate black people" -- and I suspect that the effects will be even more toxic this time, because so many ill-educated young voters can't recall the Clinton era.

Here's the truth: There's a reason why Bill Clinton was called the "first black president" -- and there is a reason why Bill Clinton received overwhelming support from African Americans in 1992 and 1996.

And there is a reason why more black people approved of Bill Clinton at the end of his presidency than approved of Barack Obama in 2014 (the last year for which I can find numbers from Gallup).

Did the words in boldface startle you? Find them hard to believe? Look it up: At the end of his presidency, in 2000, black Americans gave Bill Clinton an 89 percent approval rating, down from 90 the year before. In 2014, only 84% of black Americans approved of Obama.

And I suspect that quite a few of those 84-percenters would be stumped if you asked them: "What has Barack Obama done for you?"

What Bill Clinton did for the black community is a matter of record -- a record which the smear merchants don't want young people to learn. He preserved Affirmative Action at a time when it was very unpopular. He took on the issue of racial profiling by police. He helped minority and woman-owned businesses via the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Act. He helped minority-owned businesses compete for government contracts.

As I have recounted at length in previous posts, Bill Clinton expended one hell of a lot of political capital when he ended redlining and made it much easier for members of minority groups to get home loans. If you're young and you don't know the meaning of the term "redlining," ask your elders. Or go to my earlier posts (here and here) and read about the battles over the Community Reinvestment Act.

Helping many black Americans get home loans was no token gesture. Enabling minority-owned businesses to get government contracts was not an exercise in symbolism. These things were and are real. Do not use the word "mere": There's nothing "mere" about any of this.

Redlining was a genuine obscenity. Any propagandist who attempts to minimize the profound changes wrought by Bill Clinton is either a blinkered fool or a paid liar.

That's one reason why Jesse Jackson Sr. came to Bill Clinton's defense when Clinton was "racist-baited" in 2008. (Sadly, one of the people who opportunistically attacked Clinton at that time was Jesse Jackson Jr.; we later learned that the younger Jackson hoped to be appointed to Obama's Senate seat -- which he coveted so dearly that he was willing to pay for it.)

I still recall Clinton's passionate response to the attacks in 2008 (the actual audio is embedded below)...

"I respect Jesse Jackson. He's a friend of mine, even though he endorsed Senator Obama. One of his sons and his wife endorsed Hillary. Their whole family's divided. But his campaign in 1988 was a seminal campaign in American history. It was the first campaign to ever to openly involve gays. Hillary's chief delegate counter, Harold Ickes, worked his heart out for Jesse Jackson. I frankly thought the way Obama campaign reacted was disrespectful to Jesse Jackson. And I called him and asked him if he found anything offensive, and he just laughed and he said, 'Of course I don't. We all know what's going on.'"

"I mean this is just, you know… You gotta go something to play the race card on me -- my office is in Harlem. And Harlem voted for Hillary, by the way. And I have 1.4 million people around the world, mostly people of color in Africa, the Caribbean, Asia and elsewhere, on the world's least expensive AIDS drugs. I appointed more African American, Hispanic and women judges and U.S. Attorneys than all previous presidents put together and had nine African American Cabinet members.

The Obot response to these words was pure Catch-22: The Obama forces said that Clinton had no right to defend himself, because only a racist would ever defend himself against charges of racism.

There's a certain beauty to this tactic: The target can neither return fire nor shield himself. He must passively accept the arrows, like St. Sebastian.

We all recall the smears of 2008. Absolutely everything Hillary or Bill said was interpreted as Racism Most Foul. They couldn't even cite a favorite recipe for bean soup without someone screeching: "That recipe is racist!"

Imagine how you would feel if you knew that thousands of people were parsing your every statement to find some way to make your words fit that preconceived narrative. Would you be able to say anything?

It's a trick. A scurrilous trick. And it works.

"We all know what's going on."

That was the assessment of Jesse Jackson Sr. (who never challenged the quote). Mr. Robin, you are the one who cited Jackson (for whom I proudly voted in 1988): What do you think he would say about your anti-Clinton hit piece? I can't be sure, but my strong suspicion is that he might say the exact same words: "We all know what's going on."

Yes, there are a lot of articles on the web which try to convince readers that Bill Clinton was more racist that George Lincoln Rockwell and Nathan Bedford Forrest put together. Fire up Google and look at the dates: These hit pieces all came out during the 2008 cycle.

We're getting another flurry right now. We all know what's going on.

From a 2002 Salon interview with DeWayne Wickham:

What makes Clinton special is that he found a way to connect with us that was personal and up close. He convinced us in words and in deeds that this relationship was at least partly in his heart, as well as in his head. This guy grew up in the back of his grandfather’s store in Hope, Ark., hanging out with black kids.

Do you think that his background, being from the South and from a working-class family, made him different in the eyes of African-Americans?

Very much so. He had great opportunity to be in close proximity to black folk. And he hung out with black folk, he understood our music, he understood our culture and he understood how to connect. So by the time he entered the political world, here was a white man who could say, not just “I have some black friends,” but say it and mean it.

A Clinton-hater might say that he just knew how to play the game. But there was something else that many of the people you interviewed touched on, something about his ease, that they could really sense? What was it?

It’s what we perceive. Black folk have a built-in radar for B.S., particularly when it’s racial B.S. It started with slavery, when the master would turn to the slave and say, “We need to clean this yard.” The slave knew that “we” weren’t going to clean this yard. That meant, “You better clean this yard.” We understood that there was a kind of a false sense of familiarity that many white folks have with black folks. And the key to Clinton was not so much what he sought to do, but how what he did was perceived by African-Americans. For most African-Americans, he was real, and he connected in a way that others didn’t.

Let’s go back to this whole pandering suggestion that comes from a lot of folk: “He was just playing to the black community.” OK, let’s say that that’s the case: Then he’s better at it than anyone else in the history of the presidency. If that’s all that there was — and I would argue that that’s not the case — but if that’s all that there was, then come on, whatever happened to the Gipper, the Great Communicator? Why couldn’t he pull that off?

Let me respond to the specific points made by Corey Robin:

People these days speak of the "Sister Souljah" moment as though it were pure political strategy. Few recall what was actually said. Political sharpies like Corey Robin refuse to talk specifics, because they hope to fool those who are too young to remember.

Sister Souljah advocated the killing of white people -- no ifs, ands, or buts: That is what she said. Bill Clinton -- speaking to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition -- quoted her words and said: "If you took the words ‘white’ and ‘black,’ and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech."

That is precisely what he ought to have said.

Please note: Clinton said those words while addressing the Rainbow Coalition, founded by his friend Jesse Jackson. The ever-deceptive Corey Robin would have you believe that Clinton won white votes by distancing himself from both Jackson and the Coalition. Not true.

In the mid-1990s, nearly everyone advocated some type of welfare reform. For Clinton and other politicians, endorsing reform was a sure-fire applause line even when addressing predominantly black audiences.

But Bill Clinton did not want the bill that passed in 1996. Today, many people forget that the 1996 legislation was enormously popular. A draconian reform measure was definitely going to pass, with or without Bill Clinton.

He vetoed it twice. On the third round, he got important concessions, including the preservation of food stamps.

If you happen to have used that little orange card to weather the recent economic storms, you have Bill Clinton to thank.

Clinton also preserved Medicaid. The Republican version of the act would have allowed states to use Medicaid funds for other purposes.

If you know of a poor child who received help from Medicaid during the last twenty years, you have Bill Clinton to thank.

If he had not signed the third version of that bill, one of two things would have happened: A purely Republican version of the bill would have passed with a veto-proof majority, or a third veto would have cost Clinton the 1996 election. Either of those outcomes would have resulted in the disappearance of that little orange card and the gutting of Medicaid.

Corey Robin may scoff at such concerns. Perhaps he doesn't need that little orange card. Other people aren't so lucky.

About the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill: People now forget how popular it was at the time. It was embraced by black leaders of that period.

This is an important point: Many black Americans, including black leaders, welcomed "tough-on-crime" policies as a way to protect their communities. A majority of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for the 1986 law that created the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. And in 1994, it was the CBC that saved President Clinton's crime bill after an unexpected loss on a procedural vote.

This is a history that's been largely forgotten, partly because many of these leaders regret their positions now or—like former Rep. Kweisi Mfume—deny that they supported the bill at all.

Yes, things have changed. Of the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994, Clinton himself recently said:

"I signed a bill that made the problem worse," Clinton told an audience at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's annual meeting in Philadelphia. "And I want to admit it."

The omnibus crime bill that Clinton signed included the federal "three strikes" provision, mandating life sentences for criminals convicted of a violent felony after two or more prior convictions, including drug crimes.

Clinton said Wednesday that he signed the law because "we had had a roaring decade of rising crime" when he entered the White House.

"We had gang warfare on the streets. We had little children being shot dead on the streets who were just innocent bystanders standing in the wrong place," he said.

In response, Clinton said, the bill increased the number of police on the streets and enacted gun control legislation. But decades later, Clinton believes the results of the law were mixed, at best.

"In that bill, there were longer sentences. And most of these people are in prison under state law, but the federal law set a trend," Clinton said. "And that was overdone. We were wrong about that. That percentage of it, we were wrong about. "

He added: "The good news is we had the biggest drop in crime in history. The bad news is we had a lot people who were locked up, who were minor actors, for way too long."

Hillary Clinton is on record as saying that she wants to reverse what the 1994 bill got wrong -- in fact, this was the topic of her first major speech of the campaign.

An empty promise? I don't know. But I do know two things:

1. Barack Obama has not advocated criminal justice reform in any politically risky way.

2. You will get neither the right actions nor the right words from any of the Republicans whom Corey Robin seems so eager to place in the White House. Their messages are clear: Support the cops no matter what. Get tough on crime. The Black Lives Matter movement is evil.

Bottom line: It has happened to me again. 1992, 1994, 2008 and now 2016. The media's inchoate Clinton-hate has turned a Clinton-disliker into a reluctant Clinton supporter.

Don't tell me that the Clintons pose no threat to the Establishment, that they are the Establishment. If such were the case, then why target the Clintons with so many smears and lies? If such were the case, why Whitewater? Why Ken Starr? Why the ceaseless cries of "BenGAAHHHHHHzi!!!"?

I remain infuriated by Hillary's neocon foreign policy, but the Republicans offer nothing better, and Sanders hasn't exactly been inspiring on that score. (Before you say it: Trump's foreign policy adviser is John Bolton, and Rand Paul simply ain't gonna win.) If an anti-neocon had a clear shot at the presidency, my feelings might be different. But as things stand, my sad and grudging support must go to Hillary.

I endorse her with a heavy heart. And I expect to oppose her fiercely (at least part of the time) if she wins.

On the other hand: I know that she has been (secretly) reading Max Blumenthal's works -- and I know that this fact horrifies the Israel-firsters. They have not expressed such horror about anyone else running for president. There is, I think, hope in that. I may not feel overly friendly toward the Clintons, but I do think that they have the right enemies.

If you disagree with my decision -- fine. I understand. Hell, I share my household with a Sanders supporter. (We still get along!)

If your disagreement leads you to seek the company of another blog, go with my blessings. Perhaps you would be so kind as to stop by again after the November election? We can compare notes.

If your disagreement makes you want to say something insulting about this blog's humble proprietor -- well, please re-read the rules for comments in the upper left-hand corner.

Again: The Clinton email pseudoscandal

Emailgate is bullshit.

We've seen "scoop" after "scoop," drip drip drip, over the course of months. The headlines have been carefully crafted to convey the impression that Hillary passed out classified documents as though they were Halloween treats. But every time I study the meat of the stories, I see no indication that she did anything wrong.

1. The alleged Top Seekrit info did not come from her; it was sent to her.

2. The alleged Top Seekrit info did not come from any government source.

3. The alleged Top Seekrit info was not labeled as classified at the time.

Here's the latest smear, via AP, with the exculpatory material buried deep in the body of the story.

Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, insists she never sent or received information on her personal email account that was classified at the time. No emails released so far were marked classified, but reviewers previously designated more than 1,000 messages at lower classification levels. Friday's will be the first at top secret level.

Even if Clinton didn't write or forward the messages, she still would have been required to report any classification slippages she recognized in emails she received. But without classification markings, that may have been difficult, especially if the information was publicly available.

"We firmly oppose the complete blocking of the release of these emails," Clinton campaign spokesman Brain Fallon said. "Since first providing her emails to the State Department more than one year ago, Hillary Clinton has urged that they be made available to the public. We feel no differently today."

Fallon accused the "loudest and leakiest participants" in a process of bureaucratic infighting for withholding the exchanges. The documents, he said, originated in the State Department's unclassified system before they ever reached Clinton, and "in at least one case, the emails appear to involve information from a published news article."

"This appears to be overclassification run amok," Fallon said.

Seriously, what are the right-wing press whores trying to get us to believe? Are we really supposed to accept the scenario that the CIA (for no discernible reason) sent classified information to Sidney Blumenthal -- a man not employed by the Agency, or by any other government agency? Are we also supposed to believe that Blumenthal (for no discernible reason) then relayed this classified info to Hillary Clinton via an insecure email system?

Not bloody likely.

Yet when you get right down to it, that is the storyline being pushed by the right-wing propaganda machine. Always remember that this is the same machine that gave us Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Fostergate and so many other ludicrous smears.

So how did Blumenthal and his partner -- former CIA guy Tyler Drumheller, who was "axed" to leave the Agency because he exposed Dubya's lies about Iraq -- get hold of information which the American intelligence community later classified?

We've known the truth for a while, although the smear articles rarely mention the key facts. I'll repeat what I've said before...

A guy named Mousa Kousa used to be the head spy and foreign minister for Libya, back when Khaddafy was running the joint. Kousa defected to the UK in 2011, around the time that email was sent. Before he skipped out, Kousa met with a CIA guy and divulged some information. I don't know what he said.

Kousa also spoke to Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA guy (one of the good ones, in my opinion) who had, after leaving the Agency, teamed up with Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary's friend. As everyone knows by now, Blumenthal and Drumheller were looking for business opportunities in Libya. Kousa told Drumheller about Khaddafy's planned response to a UN resolution.

And that's it. There's really nothing more to the story.

Look: Just because Kousa chose to talk to some local CIA guy doesn't mean that the Agency owned him. He's a foreign national. He was, and presumably still is, free to say what he pleases to anyone he likes.

I presume that he said what he said to Drumheller for reasons of his own. Drumheller relayed the information to Blumenthal, who sent it off to Hillary. There was no breach of classified information here.

Allow me to illustrate the point.

Let's say that you have lunch with a guy who, unknown to you, is a CIA operative. Let's say that you tell him: "I met a bigfoot on my last camping trip. Nice guy. We played chess and ate popcorn." Let us further say that this CIA guy (for whatever reason) includes your bigfoot story in a document that gets a big, fat classification stamp. That stamp applies only to that document. You are still free to talk about your dinner with bigfoot to anyone you like. You can tell it to the FSB or ISIS or Fox News or Sidney Blumenthal or Coast to Coast or anyone else. It's your choice. And if the people to whom you tell the story decide to tell others, they may do so without any worries that they have divulged classified information.

It seems that Khousa told Blumenthal about lots of stuff, not just about the Libyan response to that UN resolution. Beyond that, the words written above explain every "Emailgate" story we've seen.

Let's take this further.

It's very possible that the CIA's souce on the Khousa info dump was none other than Tyler Drumheller himself. (Not an unlikely scenario: Although he had pissed off the neocons, the late Mr. Drumheller probably still had friendly contacts back at the Agency.) Did Drumheller break security when he gave the same data to Blumenthal?

No. He was not an employee of the Agency at the time.

Yes, he was still bound by a security oath -- but only concerning matters he learned while receiving an Agency paycheck. He was free to blab to his heart's content -- to anyone -- about anything he learned after he became a private citizen.

Did Blumenthal and Drumheller develop Libyan sources other than Khousa? I'm sure they did. But none of the parties involved were government employees at the time -- not Blumenthal, not Drumheller, not their sources. Sidney and Tyler were therefore free to talk to anyone about anything they learned -- via email, via snail mail, via television, via blog post, via skywriting, via any medium they chose.

Hypothetically speaking: Suppose this Khousa fellow were to send me an email relaying every last data-shard that he shared with Blumenthal and Drumheller. Guess what? I can publish it. I can do so legally, even if the exact same data exists in a CIA document that has been stamped "ULTRA TOP SECRET TOTALLY COSMIC HOLY SHIT BREATHE ONE WORD ABOUT THIS TO ANYONE AND I'LL KILL EVERYONE WHO EVER LOVED YOU." Even then, I would have every legal right to let it all hang out. Why? Because I am not a government employee, and I am not bound by any secrecy agreements. Besides, how the heck would I know if the information was classified?

You want a real Hillary Clinton scandal? Google her name along with the phrase "Friends of Syria." Now that, in my opinion, is a scandal.

Emailgate is bullshit.

PS. It also appears that the Top Seekrit material included a discussion of a news article about drones. Drones are classified. Therefore, anyone anywhere who breathes one word about drones must be damaging the interests of the United States! Oh my God...are we committing espionage right here and now?

Again I say: Bullshit.

The John Lang mystery: Update

If you're not familiar with the Lang mystery, read the preceding post before you read this.

This article from April of last year puts the matter in a very different light. Now, at least, we have some idea as to why Lang spoke of heroin trafficking...

In the wake of news about Fresno’s deputy police chief Keith Foster being charged with conspiracy to distribute heroin, another story was being shared widely on social media about the Fresno police department by the daughter of late Fresno police lieutenant Jose Moralez.

Moralez, who was a cop in Fresno for 30 years, was found dead in 2004 not far from the home of the Chief of Police, Jerry Dyer.

In 2004, Dyer suspended Moralez for allegedly violating department policy, and took his badge and firearm from him. November 9, 2004, Moralez went to Dyer’s home to confront him after working out in his garage with his 13-year-old son. That was the last time anyone saw Jose Moralez alive.

It was reported at the time that a motorist saw Jose face down, near a truck, with an alleged self-inflicted gunshot wound to his chest.

Apparent in a statement made by then City Manager, Daniel G. Hobbs, not everyone believed Jose’s death was a suicide...

Jesus. This really is L.A. Confidential!

Jose Moralez was married to a woman who also worked in law enforcement -- and she, too, had stories to tell.

As a former Narcotics Officer, Yolanda Moralez explained how police officers routinely get away with a host of different crimes, or are at times investigated, but not much else is done.

Yolanda continued:

“Jerry Dyer lived right across the street from me, my husband and he started off very good friends. There were 2 instances, one in ‘87 another in ‘89, that Jerry Dyer was dropped off at his home early in the morning by underage girls, Jerry still drunk came over to my house. He could not be taken home to reveal his affairs with young girls to his wife.”

And that may explain where the pedophilia allegation comes from.

But I still have questions. Was John Lang simply reading and regurgitating the words of Yolanda Moralez and others? If so, then I can see no reason why crooked cops would target Lang, a Charlie Nobody with poor communication skills.

Maybe I'm missing something here -- in fact, I'm sure that I'm missing something. But right now, given the facts available to me at this time, I can't understand why the cops would murder John Lang. Such a move would be akin to the CIA killing someone who gave a good review to Rush to Judgment, while leaving Mark Lane alive.

The death of John Lang did not cover up any scandals involving the Fresno police. Quite the opposite: That man's corpse became a spotlight.

A mysterious murder -- or a paranoid's suicide?

The conspiracy buffs are going apewire over this story. Although the death of John Lang does appear to be a legitimate mystery, I would advise everyone to proceed with caution. (Also see here and here.)

Lang lived in his own home in Fresno, California, where he worked in marine repair and property management. The articles I've seen give his age only as "mid-40s." On the internet, he functioned as a self-proclaimed investigator and rabble-rouser, claiming that he had uncovered an organized crime ring run by crooked cops. In a scenario straight out of L.A. Confidential, the ring is supposedly led by the local police chief.

Until recently, very few took Lang's claims seriously. But on January 20th, he was found stabbed to death in his burning home.

The attempt to burn the house indicates that the assailants may have hoped to destroy the "best evidence" -- the victim's body.

Throughout the preceding week, John Lang had posted predictions of his own imminent demise. He had spotted vans outside of his home which he presumed to be surveillance vehicles -- and he took video of these vans which he uploaded to YouTube.

Do not be surprised if the local authorities claim that Lang's wounds were self-inflicted. To be frank, the man's writings indicate an unbalanced mind -- thus, I cannot dismiss the theory that he committed suicide while attempting to frame his imagined enemies. On the other hand, I can't see why a man staging his own murder would set fire to the "crime" scene.

Before you say it: Yes, I am well aware that corrupt coroners do exist. Marylanders will recall the example of John Paisley, the CIA analyst found floating in the Chesapeake. His death was hilariously ruled a suicide, despite scads of evidence to the contrary.

Since the local cops are the accused perpetrators, Governor Jerry Brown should make sure that all evidence is investigated by objective outside authorities.

Let's take a look at the video and the tweets in which John Lang forecast his own demise. One of his videos appears at the top of this post. (A YouTube commenter says that the phone number painted on the side of the van is non-functional, but this claim is not true: Both the company and the number are real.)

At the bottom of this post, I have embedded another video which appears to show a man in a van, holding a camera mounted to an elaborate stabilizing rig. This footage provides the best evidence that Lang's enemies were real -- or, at least, that someone had decided to play psychological games with the man. (Incidentally, modern stabilizers for camcorders are usually much smaller than the device seen here.)

From Lang's Facebook feed, January 14:

On January 15, he contacted a local news person:

Lang posted a large amount of material to the www.jodymurray.com website. The name of the website derives from an employee at the Fresno Bee who (according to Lang) had allegedly "censored" comments from citizen John Lang, a prolific participant in the online version of the newspaper.

Let's be honest: Lang's writings are often ultra-paranoid -- downright wacky. Many of his claims are impossible to take seriously. Of course, even paranoiacs may have actual enemies, and an actual enemy may drive a sane man into paranoia.

That said, it is difficult to believe that a simple tiff over a driving citation -- yes, that's how it all began -- could burgeon into a wild tale involving child porn and heroin. It's also quite difficult to believe that so many of Lang's acquaintances, neighbors and business associates could be "in on it."

Worth noting: Lang started down this path while emotionally distraught over a breakup.

No evidence indicates that a wide public had ever taken Lang's "investigations" seriously. Therefore, I cannot understand why the cops would mount an elaborate and expensive harassment campaign against Lang. The game's not worth the candle.

Too often, Lang refused to explain how he knew what he claimed to know. For example, how did he learn about Jody Murray's alleged relationship with law enforcement? Frankly, I would not be terribly surprised to learn that Lang acquired some of his information from voices in his head.

Most of you won't read the writings on that web site with any great care. Nevertheless, I think that you should expose yourself to the words of John Lang. To what degree does that text reflect reality? Is that website simply the diary of one man's battle with shadows?

Is Camille Paglia a serial killer? THE SHOCKING EVIDENCE!

Look, when I criticize Hillary, I give reasons. I feel obligated to cite specific actions, statements and policies. That's what writers do.

But that's not what Camille Paglia does.

Hillary has unfortunately adopted the Steinem brand of blame-men-first feminism, which defines women as perpetual victims requiring government protections. Hillary’s sometimes impatient or patronizing tone about men, which can perhaps be traced to key aspects of her personal history, may prove costly to her current campaign.

Come off it. Do you really think that a woman running for president would ever embrace a "blame-men-first" worldview? Seriously, is that the way to get ahead politically?

Anti-Hill haters usually argue (with greater plausibility) that she will say anything to get elected, that she will bend principle for the sake of advancement. Well, there's one thing you can say in favor of truly hard-core feminists: They do have principles. Even when I do not agree with a feminist of that sort, I must admire the depth of conviction.

So which is it -- is Hillary a firebrand zealot, or is she a weathervane who will spin with the political winds? You can't have it both ways.

Here's my main point. If you click on the link and read Paglia's article, you'll notice that it lacks one important thing: EXAMPLES.

Paglia refuses to back up her bullshit. She does not favor us with a single example demonstrating the existence of Hillary's alleged "blame men first" policy.

Instead, Paglia indulges in psycho-history. She gives us an exercise in surmise and fantasy -- mudslinging disguised by psychobabble. Anyone can play that game. Give me a few facts about Camille Paglia's girlhood and I can concoct all sorts of implausible narratives.

Off the top of my head, here's a first draft:

"When she was five, young Camille broke her mom's favorite vase and said 'damn.' As time went on, she did even worse things and said even worse words. In childhood, she blew up a latrine; during her college years, she physically assaulted a fellow student. What more evidence do we need? It is quite obvious that Camille Paglia -- her mind now a roiling thunderstorm of psychopathology -- became the accomplice of Wayne Williams in the Atlanta Child Murder spree of 1979-81."

Hey, this is fun! The magic of psycho-history allows me to "prove" any idea, however ludicrous. Wheee! (The latrine thing and the college assault are true, by the way.)

The real question is this: Why the hell would Salon publish a piece which falsely accuses Hillary Clinton of defining women "as perpetual victims requiring government protections"? That hysterical view of Big Gummint is something one would expect to see on a Breitbart site or Free Republic, not Salon.

Trump and Fox: Kayfabe or shooting?

Donald Trump, petulantly peeved by the participation of moderator Megyn Kelly (with whom he has feuded in the past), will not appear at the upcoming Fox-Google Republican debate.

His website carries a remarkable statement justifying this decision -- a statement obviously written by Trump himself, even though he refers to himself in the third person. One rarely sees such concentrated levels of vulgarity, bombast, narcissism and idiocy.

As someone who wrote one of the best-selling business books of all time, The Art of the Deal, who has built an incredible company, including some of the most valuable and iconic assets in the world, and as someone who has a personal net worth of many billions of dollars, Mr. Trump knows a bad deal when he sees one. FOX News is making tens of millions of dollars on debates, and setting ratings records (the highest in history), where as in previous years they were low-rated afterthoughts.

Unlike the very stupid, highly incompetent people running our country into the ground, Mr. Trump knows when to walk away. Roger Ailes and FOX News think they can toy with him, but Mr. Trump doesn’t play games. There have already been six debates, and according to all online debate polls including Drudge, Slate, Time Magazine, and many others, Mr. Trump has won all of them, in particular the last one. Whereas he has always been a job creator and not a debater, he nevertheless truly enjoys the debating process - and it has been very good for him, both in polls and popularity.

He will not be participating in the FOX News debate and will instead host an event in Iowa to raise money for the Veterans and Wounded Warriors, who have been treated so horribly by our all talk, no action politicians. Like running for office as an extremely successful person, this takes guts and it is the kind of mentality our country needs in order to Make America Great Again.

This isn't presidential politics. This is professional wrestling. 

Trump has often appeared at WWE events -- and not fleetingly: He has played a key role in elaborate narratives, including one bout in which the prize was, literally, Trump's hair. In fact, Trump was inducted into the WWE's hall of fame. You should watch the video at the other end of that link -- it will plunge you into an alien world. Also see here. (Fun fact: Trump dabbled in legitimate wrestling during his college days.)

On the other hand...

Wrestling is scripted. Trump's snit seems genuine. Mother Jones reports that Trump refuses to take calls from Roger Ailes, insisting on dealing with Rupert Murdoch directly. 

Fox's written statement is suitably firm: "Capitulating to politicians’ ultimatums about a debate moderator violates all journalistic standards, as do threats, including the one leveled by Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski toward Megyn Kelly."

Fox...invoking "journalistic standards"? Oh god. Pauly Shore would still have a career if he could make an audience laugh half as hard as I laughed when I read that.

On the OTHER other hand...

Let's expand upon the professional wrestling metaphor. In wrestling, there is a phenomenon called "the shoot" -- a old carny term which derives from the gun sights used in arcade games. (The sights are usually altered, but a few guns are "straight shooters.") Wrestlers "shoot" when they allow the real world to intrude into the script -- as when, for example, one wrestler (in an interview) refers to another by his birth name, not by his stage name.

A shoot breaks kayfabe. "Kayfabe" is a wrestling term of art referring to the suspension of disbelief. Whenever the public is watching, kayfabe dictates that the actors must always pretend that the script is real. The origin of the term is a matter of debate.

(The concepts of kayfabe and shooting may help us judge all political events, particularly those involving covert actions and foreign policy. These days, mainstream news coverage of Vladimir Putin is largely a matter of kayfabe. Don't be surprised if you see the word kayfabe appear in this humble blog long after the current election is over.)

Here's where it gets tricky: Wrestling occasionally includes the "worked shoot" -- an incident or statement which appears to be real-world, but which is actually a cleverly-disguised piece of kayfabe.

So here's your poser for the day: The Trump/Fox tiff -- shoot or kayfabe?

I go back and forth on that one myself.

But I do know this: We're talking about the presidency. We're talking about the person who will control the nuclear launch codes. The Bomb is The Ultimate Shoot.

Yet here we are, forced to use the language of professional wrestling.

What other language can we use? Trump's puerile approach to politics makes the metaphor inescapable. Hell, it barely even qualifies as metaphor.

By the way: If Trump really did write that piece, I can only presume that he skipped his remedial English class in favor of extra wrestling time.

FOX News is making tens of millions of dollars on debates, and setting ratings records (the highest in history), where as in previous years they were low-rated afterthoughts.

The pronoun usually refers to the preceding noun. Trump is saying that "ratings records" were "low-rated afterthoughts." Also, "where as" should be "whereas," a word he uses correctly elsewhere.

The real deal?

The FBI stopped an alleged Islamic terrorist named Samy Mohamed Hamzeh from shooting up a Masonic temple (calling Alex Jones!) in Milwaukee.

The amazing thing about this story is that it seems to be the real deal -- not the usual Feebie set-up job where undercover agents coax a mentally slow Muslim into doing something stupid and illegal.

According to the complaint:

They would enter with clothes over their heads, he said. It was important to quietly kill the receptionist, the first person they were likely to see, Hamzeh said.

"... If she was alone, it is OK, if there were two of them, shoot both of them, do not let the blood show, shoot her from the bottom, two or three shots in her stomach and let her sit on the chair and push her to the front, as if she is sleeping, did you understand?"

After killing those at the door, one attacker would remain there, Hamzeh said. "...One of us will stay at the door at the entrance and lock the door down, he will be at the main door down, two will get to the lift (elevator) up, they will enter the room, and spray everyone in the room. The one who is standing downstairs will spray anyone he finds. We will shoot them, kill them and get out."

Hamzeh said each of them would have to kill everyone around him, "to annihilate everyone, there is no one left, I mean when we go into a room, we will be killing everyone, that's it, this is our duty."

We've criticized the Feds often enough for the bullshit busts. Shouldn't we say "bravo" when they actually do something right?

We need a new word

Brian Beutler looks at the Bernie problem in The New Republic.

Polling this far removed from the general election means very little, which should chasten both Sanders supporters and critics. The polling that shows Sanders beating Republican candidates by wider margins than Clinton is just as suspect as polling that suggests a socialist is unelectable. The term “socialism” is highly unpopular, but it does far more damage when it’s deployed generically than when it’s rendered as an attack ad against a well-known candidate.

No evidence whatsoever buttresses that last statement. Only a fool would dismiss the importance of a poll like this one:

Voters lean solidly against electing a socialist, which is bad for self-described “democratric socialist” Bernie Sanders.

The one good thing for Sanders: The groups most open to a socialist include parts of the Democratic Party base most likely to vote in primaries. That includes liberals, with a plurality of 39 percent definitely willing to vote for a socialist, and “strong” Democrats, with a plurality of 37 percent.

But should he win the Democratic nomination, the general election could be hostile territory for his brand.

“Socialist is an automatic no,” said Ryan Uehling, 44, a Republican who works in pharmaceutical sales in Fresno, Calif. “It doesn’t work anywhere, it’s never worked.”

A solid 50 percent of voters say they would definitely vote against a socialist. That is driven by a solid no from 77 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of independents.

I'll say it again: Another poll, cited in earlier posts, holds that 69% of the country thinks that our greatest problem is Big Government. A socialist cannot win in such a culture.

Even though Trump is not popular with with much of his own party, and even though most Americans consider him a self-absorbed dolt, support for him will solidify if the alternative calls himself a socialist.

Yes, I know that Bernie isn't a real socialist, if we define that term to mean the advocacy of state ownership of the means of production. And yes, I know that socialism has always come in different flavors. I know these things and perhaps you know these things, but the people who live next door to you do not. And they will not listen to you if you try to set them straight.

Words have set meanings -- they are born of history; they fire off associations within the mind. Americans will always associate the word "socialism" with the USSR and China. When you say the S-word, Americans do not think of George Bernard Shaw, Martin Luther King, Helen Keller or Albert Einstein -- they think of Mao and Stalin.

This will always be so. This will never change.

Do not fool yourself into thinking that mere argument, mere logic can counter a century of indoctrination. Most Americans aren't fans of logic. If Sanders supporters think that they can re-educate the public on the meaning of the S-word, they are wrong. Hell, even the term "re-educate" conjures up images of tyrannical Bolshie robot factories.

Noam Chomsky and others have fixed on the label "Democratic socialism," but that won't do. We need a new word altogether. A different concept demands a different terminology. Do you want to convey the impression that what Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky stand for is somehow related to what Mao and and Stalin stood for? No, you do not. Therefore, you should try to come up with a completely unrelated label.

Suppose I said: "I'm a serial killer -- but I'm not like Ted Bundy or Jack the Ripper. I'm a nice serial killer -- a Democratic serial killer, a patriotic serial killer, a jovial serial killer, an anti-racist serial killer, a charitable serial killer." Would you continue to read this blog? Probably not (unless you work for the FBI). The term "serial killer" cannot be redeemed, even if that hated term comes garlanded with much nicer words. A serial killer will always have, at best, a niche popularity.

For a solid majority of your fellow Americans, the word "socialist" equals "serial killer." That's a reality. Instead of wasting your time trying to convince yourself that this reality is not real, you should spend the next few minutes trying to think of a better word.

Libertarians have poisoned children in Michigan

Foreign affairs are so compelling that one sometimes loses track of the outrages taking place here at home. But everything is connected: Neoconservatism and neoliberalism are siblings, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Neoliberalism -- a.k.a. libertarianism -- is the reason why you can't drink the water in Flint, Michigan.

Already pressured by a collapsing economy and a financial state of emergency, the people of Flint, Michigan, were also deprived of clean water in 2014, when the state decided to switch the city's water source to the notoriously mucky Flint River in a bid to save money. In the absence of proper treatment, the water eroded the lead service lines and put all residents in danger. Although the lead-poisoned locals and children are now forced to deal with the consequences of this reckless act for the rest of their lives, the city and state officials responsible have yet to pay any noteworthy price.

As another man-made disaster quietly turns into past, the nearby rundown areas of Detroit are faced with a similar threat. Alongside miserable poverty, bad pipes and neglected water treatment systems are dragging Detroit into third-world status.

Salon:

Lead poisoning was just the last straw, however. Earlier tests had detected E. coli and fecal bacteria in the water, and Flint’s water was found in violation of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act for high levels of total trihalomethanes, which according to the EPA can lead to “Liver, kidney or central nervous system problems; increased risk of cancer.” Flint residents had reported an ongoing litany of health problems—hair loss, vomiting, diarrhea to the point of dangerous dehydration—in addition to foul, discolored drinking water. Environmental activist Erin Brockovitch lent her support, calling broader attention to the problems. Eventually, this past March, the city council voted 7-1 to “do all things necessary” to reconnect Flint’s water system to Detroit’s, a move that emergency manager Jerry Ambrose dismissed as “incomprehensible” in a statement issued the next day.

The problem is simple: Emergency managers have overturned the city's ability to govern itself.

This anti-democratic system arose from legislation pushed by Republican governor Rick Snyder (who, during this period, weathered a scandal involving a secret money pool, delightfully called the NERD fund). Unfettered capitalism created an emergency situation, which became the justification for more unfettered capitalism.

As always, unregulated Big Money gave all authority to unelected forces. Elected officials became impotent.

The think tank pushing this "emergency management" scheme was the libertarian Mackinac Center for Public Policy. This institution receives funding from the Kochs, the Waltons, and the Devos family -- America's most beloved clans. Back to Salon:

But coming out of Mackinac, a sizable portion of the right has done just that, conceiving the struggle as a long-term process of shifting the framework of “reasonable” ideas so that crazy ideas they love become acceptable, while normal, time-tested ideas they hate become crazy. Whether a given “solution” actually works or not is immaterial in this model. In practice, failure is a feature, not a bug: it can be seized on to urge an even further shift in their preferred direction.

For more on the malign powers behind Mackinac, see here. The Mackinackers initiated their takeover plan by infiltrating the media. That's always step one.

In a previous post, we looked at a similar libertarian think tank called the Heartland Institute. These organizations are the reification of the ersatz: There's something not really real about them, despite the massive money flowing into them.

On their website, the Mackinackers try to define themselves without actually mentioning Ayn Rand or telling you to read Atlas Shrugged, even though Awful Ayn clearly rules over the intellectual realm they call home. I consider these words to be particularly cute:

Today no one calls an American political research institute a "democratic" institute because it has embraced democracy over monarchy. That battle was fought long ago, and democracy is deservedly the winner.

Coming from the Mackinackers, this sentiment is obscene. These creeps do not believe in democracy. True believers in democracy do not seek to replace elected officials with the unelected puppets of Big Money: Those emergency managers may not be monarchs, but are despots. True believers in democracy seek to keep Big Money out of politics, which the Mackinackers would never do.

We believe that the verdict is also in concerning economic systems, and the free market has won. To play on Churchill's famous quip, the free market system is the worst type of economy, except for all the others.

Oh really? From the libertarian perspective, "all the others" includes the Keynesian model which brought so much happiness and prosperity to the world for three decades following World War II. That's what works.

Throughout the "We're all Keynesians now" period, most Americans considered their system to be consonant with free market principles, broadly defined. That presumption no longer holds. A Big Lie will never die if you stuff it with enough long green -- and for decades, Libertarian pundits and "think tanks" have told us that Keynes and Marx were as alike as makes no difference. They tell us to accept the horrors of modern Flint, because the only alternative is a nightmare world of commissars and collective farms. Mogadishu or Moscow: No third choice.

We look forward to the day when the myths and fears of free-market capitalism are dispelled, along with the misplaced faith in a benevolent, omnipotent state. By focusing on the actual problems and understanding the proper role of public and private institutions, we can give all Michigan citizens the greatest opportunity for peace, prosperity, and freedom.

Peace? Prosperity? Tell that to the poisoned people of Flint. We know what happens when we place all our faith in a benevolent, omnipotent "free enterprise" system: Democracy goes bye-bye and little kids eat lead.

The disastrous reliance on "emergency managers" illustrates a larger principle: Democracy and libertarianism are not compatible. You can have one or the other, but not both. Libertarians despise government, and democracy is a form of government. Therefore, libertarians despise democracy -- although they rarely come right out and say so.

One libertarian who confesses the truth is Patri Friedman, Milton's son. I admire his honesty.

Democracy is the current industry standard political system, but unfortunately it is ill-suited for a libertarian state. It has substantial systemic flaws, which are well-covered elsewhere,[2] and it poses major problems specifically for libertarians:

1) Most people are not by nature libertarians. David Nolan reports that surveys show at most 16% of people have libertarian beliefs. Nolan, the man who founded the Libertarian Party back in 1971, now calls for libertarians to give up on the strategy of electing candidates! Even Ron Paul, who was enormously popular by libertarian standards and ran during a time of enormous backlash against the establishment, never had the slightest chance of winning the nomination. His “strong” showing got him 1.6% of the delegates to the Republican Party’s national convention. There are simply not enough of us to win elections unless we somehow concentrate our efforts.

2) Democracy is rigged against libertarians. Candidates bid for electoral victory partly by selling future political favors to raise funds and votes for their campaigns. Libertarians (and other honest candidates) who will not abuse their office can’t sell favors, thus have fewer resources to campaign with, and so have a huge intrinsic disadvantage in an election.

Libertarians are a minority, and we underperform in elections, so winning electoral victories is a hopeless endeavor.

Libertarians continually try to overcome what they consider the "defects" of democracy through the corrupting influence of The Almighty Dollar. But what happens when it becomes apparent that our political system has become diseased? That's when Libertarians resort to their sneakiest rhetorical ploy: "See? What did we tell you? Government is the problem!" When Big Money purchases your local politicians, the neoliberal answer is to get rid of politicians altogether. It's much more efficient to let Jeff Bezos and his ilk directly control your lives. Thrift, Horatio, thrift.

But the corruption of democracy does not mean that the underlying concept has failed. It means only that we must replace a sullied democracy with something purer.

The reason why libertarians hate democracy is clear: Libertarianism is the belief that The Rich Are Gods, and democracy is the only peaceful mechanism which gives poor people the power to tell the "Gods" to go to hell. When little kids eat lead, when toxins overpower the ecosystem, when cities become unlivable for anyone of modest means, our easily-bamboozled populace will finally begin to shake off their libertarian-induced state of trance. They will rediscover their love for democracy.

What is WITH the NYT?

First, this light note: Our little household has survived the Snowpacalypse quite nicely, thank you very much, although our poor pooch George would like to register a strong complaint with the Gods of Weather. There's one thing you have to understand about George: If he were a supervillain, he'd be The Piddler. This little guy streams more frequently than Netflix. The poor creature could not understand why he had to stay inside for an entire night -- and when he finally could not hold it in any longer, he strolled out the back door and landed in snow past his ears.

The Piddler was defeated by Mr. Freeze.

And now, the depressing news.

The New York Times published the following without the slightest quibble or question -- although, as we shall see, we have good reason to view this account with grave suspicion.

A 13-year-old Palestinian girl was fatally shot by an Israeli security guard at the entrance to a West Bank settlement on Saturday after she ran at him with a knife, according to the Israeli police.

The girl was identified by the official Palestinian news agency Wafa as Ruqayya Eid Abu Eid, a resident of the Palestinian village of Anata. The village is about a mile from the settlement of Anatot, where the attempted stabbing and killing occurred.

Ms. Abu Eid quarreled with her family on Saturday morning and then left her home with a knife “intending to die,” the police said in a statement. She arrived at the settlement at about 8 a.m., the police said, and ran toward the civilian guard at the entrance, who opened fire.

According to the NYT, Israelis have had to face battalions of knife-wielding Palestinian maniacs in recent times...

The shooting on Saturday came amid a wave of Palestinian stabbings and attempted stabbings, car rammings and gun attacks that have killed about 25 Israelis, an American student and one Palestinian bystander since Oct. 1. About 150 Palestinians have been killed during the same period. Up to two-thirds of them have been described by Israel as assailants.

The NYT then quotes Netanyahu with deep respect (as the NYT is wont to do):

“People are defending themselves against assailants wielding knives who are about to stab them to death, and they shoot the people, and that’s extrajudicial killings?” he said, noting that “a knife-wielding terrorist” had also recently been shot to death in Paris.

Do we have the grounds for suspecting that there is more to this story -- something that the NYT refuses to discuss? Yes. Yes we do.

Last week a video of illegal Israeli settlers shoot a Palestinian teen in the West Bank went viral. The video showed the illegal settlers yelling to the teen “die you son of a whore!” over and over.

The boy in the video was writhing in pain, dying surrounded by settlers, and apparently a police officer or soldier who seemed to show no concern for any weapon being nearby. Indeed, in the video there is no sign of a knife that settlers and the IDF would later claim the boy had.

But now, a new video published on Facebook by Youth Against Settlements shows the moments after another illegal Israeli settler shot yet another Palestinian teenager dead in Hebron, Saturday.

Shortly into the video, after about 12 seconds we can see a soldier pass an object that seems to be a knife to another soldier. The soldier then appears to drop the knife by the body.

This has raised questions as to whether earlier videos of settlers shooting Palestinian teens – where no knife seems to be in the frame – are also instances of such knife-planting by police, IDF soldiers and settlers.

Also see here. The victim, it seems, was an 18 year-old named Fadel al-Kawasmeh.

That was in October. The same month, a similar "planted knife" video was uploaded to YouTube. showing the death of one Israa Aabed.

Here is video of a separate "knife planting" incident, uploaded to YouTube in early December. The pattern is established.

Why does the NYT refuse to publish this side of the story?

Below, I will embed two or three of the relevant videos, although I encourage you to click on the links provided above for more context. I would prefer not to subject you to such grisly material -- not on this white weekend, not on a day when I had hoped to write a lighthearted post for folks in fuzzy bathrobes to read while sipping hot coffee. But what choice is there? The mainstream media won't show this evidence to you. They won't even discuss it.

For an excellent overview of what is really happening in fascist Israel, read this piece by Uri Avnery.

In Israel proper, the government belongs to the extreme Right, with some elements that would be called "fascist" anywhere else. The Center and Left are impotent. The only real political fight is between the radical Right and the even more radical extreme Right.

And speaking of media manipulation...

Speaking about divine intervention: last week the Swedish Foreign Minister, Margot Wallstrom, criticized Israel’s legal system for having different laws for Jews and Arabs. Netanyahu reacted sharply, and lo and behold – by sheer accident, a few days later the Swedish press was full of stories about the corruption of Wallstrom, who did pay less rent for her government apartment than she should have.

How does a fascist state become untouchable? Spying, blackmail, and bribes -- applied ruthlessly.

And now, I invite you to look at the videos that Israel doesn't want you to see. In fact, Israel has been trying to force Google to take such videos offline.

Bernie's super ad

We are told (by Brent Budowski, no less) that this is the great political ad of our time.

Color me unpersuaded. When a candidate faces an age problem, why use music fondly remembered only by the gray of hair? This new ad is a lot like Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America" campaign: Pretty-pretty and idea-free.

Facts are facts. I am going to state the key fact again: Most people in this country think that Big Gummint is our biggest problem. In such a culture, a self-proclaimed socialist cannot win. Bernie's new ad, with its images of flags and farmers and cognate examples of all-American iconography, will only be perceived as devious Marxist trickery.

Speaking of trickery: I admire Robert Reich, but this riposte to "the Bernie skeptics" is infuriating.

“America would never elect a socialist.”

P-l-e-a-s-e. America’s most successful and beloved government programs are social insurance – Social Security and Medicare. A highway is a shared social expenditure, as is the military and public parks and schools. The problem is we now have excessive socialism for the rich...

And so on; you know where he's going with that. The fact remains: America will never elect a socialist who calls himself a socialist. America is a nutty country where people carry signs that warn the government to keep its hands off of "my Medicare."

Once again: 69% of our citizenry thinks that big government is the biggest problem facing our culture. No, I am not among that 69%. But I am realistic enough to recognize the power of propaganda. Like it or not, if it comes to a match-up between Bernie and The Donald, this nation will choose the candidate who promises to keep government limited. That candidate will be Trump. (And no-one will notice that Trump has also promised that, as president, he will force department store employees to say "Merry Christmas." Americans are good at rationalizing contradictions of that sort.)

(And yes, I am aware of polls that place Sanders ahead of Trump. Now. Those numbers will change. There has been no nationwide hate campaign against Sanders -- yet. There has been a nationwide hate campaign against Hillary.)

Back to Reich:

“He couldn’t get any of his ideas implemented because Congress would reject them.”

If both house of Congress remain in Republican hands, no Democrat will be able to get much legislation through Congress, and will have to rely instead on executive orders and regulations. But there’s a higher likelihood of kicking Republicans out if Bernie’s “political revolution” continues to surge around America, bringing with it millions of young people and other voters, and keeping them politically engaged.

"Millions of young people..." Where have I heard an argument like this before?

Ah, yes: In September of 1972, a slim, black paperback book suddenly showed up on the spinner rack of my local supermarket, titled "How McGovern Won the Presidency & Why the Polls Were Wrong." I remember it well. (I'm also old enough to recall when Simon & Garfunkel were new.) The text blathered on about millions of highly energized young people surging into the political system and changing history and installing perpetual grooviness throughout the land. Like wow. Trippy.

Wish I had purchased a copy instead of reading it in the store: That book is now an ultra-rare collector's item.

There will be no Bernie revolution; the grooviness battalions will remain un-mobilized. If he were elected -- which he won't be -- I shudder to think of the counter-revolution. Remember how the election of Obama gave rise to the Tea Party?  Obama was no socialist (propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding), yet a vast segment of our citizenry absolutely freaked out. Now imagine an even worse freak-out, spreading throughout our military...

“His single-payer healthcare proposal would cost so much it would require raising taxes on the middle class.”

This is a duplicitous argument. Studies show that a single-payer system would be far cheaper than our current system, which relies on private for-profit health insurers, because a single-payer system wouldn’t spend huge sums on advertising, marketing, executive pay, and billing...

Reich's words are both true and ridiculous. I would prefer single-payer, but we no longer live in a time when such a thing is politically do-able. (Many would say that it was never do-able.) Congress is not going to vote for such a system. Just not possible.

And even if a wave of perpetually groovy new congressfolk were to jaunt toward Capitol Hill (perhaps doing an imitation of R. Crumb's "Keep On Truckin'" poster), we would have another problem: A right-wing Supreme Court.

Preserving Obamacare suddenly matters a lot to me. If you still can't see the seriousness of the situation, may I suggest that you have a heart attack? Do not belittle the educational value of such an event.

If any Republican gets in, Obamacare goes. And I don't even want to think about what will happen to the Supreme Court.

Can I weigh in on this Ted Cruz business?

Look, I like the idea of a Ted Cruz presidency about as much as I like the idea of mackerel-n-arsenic ice cream. Any candidate endorsed by Glenn Beck and advised by John Bolton might as well have the biohazard symbol embossed on his forehead -- right between two tiny little horns.

But that doesn't mean I buy into this analysis by a Harvard law prof named Einer Elhauge, who argues that Cruz is not eligible to run because he does not meet the "natural-born citizen" requirement.

I'm no law professor. I visit law libraries only when fighting landlords. But a lawyer did once inform me of this general principle: If the law does not offer a specific definition for a term or word, then a simple dictionary definition will usually suffice.

As nearly everyone who has followed the Cruz controversy understands, the big problemo is that the Constitution uses the term "natural born citizen" without defining just what that phrase means. Professor Elhauge says:

Moreover, when the Constitution was enacted, the word “natural” meant something not created by statute, as with natural rights or natural law, which instead were part of the common law.

At common law, “natural born” meant someone born within the sovereign territory with one narrow exception.

One would think that the good professor would be thoughtful enough to offer a citation. I'd feel more inclined to accept his argument if he named a big, authoritative book which would prove what common law was in 1787. If he can't point to a big, authoritative book, then let's at least have a link to a web site. I'm not picky.

No such luck: The prof is simply asking us to take his word for it. Sorry. Not good enough.

So let us see what happens when we follow the course of relying on normal dictionary definitions. The most important dictionary to appear at the end of the 18th century was the one produced by Samuel Johnson -- and although it showed up about a decade after the Constitution was signed, I feel confident that James Madison would have recognized the authority of Johnson's masterpiece. Johnson offered ten definitions of the word "natural." I list them here, omitting most of the examples (as well as the long S, which I hate):

1. Produced or effected by nature; not artificial.

2. Illegitimate; not legal. [This definition is obsolete. I think it refers to a birth out of wedlock.]

3. Bestowed by nature; not acquired.

4. Not forced; not far-fetched; dictated by nature.

5. Following the stated course of things.

6. Consonant to natural notions.

7. Discoverable by reason; not revealed.

8. Tender; affectionate by nature.

9. Unaffected; according to truth and reality.

10. Opposed to violent; as a natural death.

I see nothing here that would preclude one from using the term "natural born citizen" to describe a child born of an American woman in a foreign country. If we apply definition 3 -- "not acquired" -- to the question of citizenship, then we can say that a natural born citizen is anyone who was born a citizen. Cruz qualifies: He never acquired citizenship.

Frankly, I don't see any validation for the professor's contention that "natural" means "something not created by statute." If that is how the word was defined at the time, someone forgot to inform Dr. Johnson.

A kind of coup

Here are some overdue and all-too-brief words about the Iranian capture of those ten Navy personnel.

The whole event is mysterious. The shifting explanations we have received heretofore tend to indicate that this event was a covert operation -- one that occurred without White House approval.

Glenn Greenwald may have been the first to note the suspicious narrative drift. The media repeatedly told us that the two US ships suffered from mechanical failure and drifted into Iranian waters. Then came the new story: The boats were in fine shape; a navigational error led them into the wrong place

So now we're supposed to believe that seamanship has not advanced since the 19th century. We are supposed to believe that, in this era of GPS, no loud electronic signals warned the sailors that they were heading into a no-go area.

We are also supposed to believe in the theory of simultaneous instrument failure on two vessels.

Justin Raimondo has written extensively about this incident -- here, here, and here. From his most recent piece, we learn that the GPS devices were, in fact, quite functional.

To make matters worse for Washington, the Iranians returned everything on the ships with the exception of “two SIM cards that appear to have been removed from two handheld satellite phones," as the Pentagon statement avers. Those cards will tell the Iranians whom the crew members were communicating with on their sojourn, when those communications took place – and, perhaps, what the Americans’ real mission was all about.

Another factor in all this is the peculiar timing: it just so happened that those sailors wandered into Iranian waters – a few miles from the highly sensitive military base on Farsi Island – on “Implementation Day,” the day Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal was officially confirmed and the lifting of sanctions was scheduled to take place. This incident couldn’t have been a better pretext for the US to cancel the lifting of sanctions if it had been designed to do so.

Which raises the question: was it so designed – and, if so, by whom?

All of which brings me to my main point.

It seems clear to me that we are dealing with some type of covert operation -- a conspiracy, if that word pleases you. But it is also quite clear that the Obama administration did not benefit from this op.

Obama was the target.

That assertion will not sit well with those of you committed to the proposition that All Dems Are Evil. But let's apply common sense: This incident caused nothing but grief for the President and his party. It occurred on the eve of the deal with Iran, a deal which neocons see as a despicable betrayal. It occurred just before Obama's final State of the Union address. And it provided another opening for the Republicans to make outrageous, dangerous and nonsensical statements about Iran.

It seems quite apparent to me that ten Navy personnel were used in a propaganda exercise -- an exercise directed against the current Commander in Chief.

That's important.

Whether or not you like Obama is irrelevant. If my theory is correct, then whoever engineered this event committed something worse than an act of insubordination. This was a kind of coup.

The prisoners. Raimondo also casts a suspicious eye on some of the prisoners released from Iranian custody. We're entering very spooky territory here, especially when it comes to this guy...

Another surprise was the release of Matthew Trevithick, 29, yet another prisoner no one (except his parents and our government) knew was behind bars in Iran. His resume is quite impressive: an intern at the Wilson Center, a stint in Kurdistan at the American University in Sulaymaniyah, four years at the American University in Kabul, later co-founder of the Syria Research and Evaluation Organization (SREO) with headquarters in Turkey. SREO, which the State Department calls “a valuable partner,” appears to be involved in transporting Syrian refugees into Europe. They also appear to be part of the joint US-Islamist effort to overthrow Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad: a poster distributed by SREO reads “ISIS and Assad are one and the same” – a revelation the Christian and Alawite citizens of Syria would no doubt dispute.

Like US intelligence operations since the beginning of the cold war, aside from its “humanitarian” façade, SREO has its tentacles into American cultural organizations, in this case the PEN/Faulkner Foundation, a gaggle of Washington-based literary do-gooders and thinly disguised spooks with literary pretensions. Trevithick co-authored the autobiography of the Afghan puppet government’s first Minister of Education, which was graced with an introduction by US ambassador Ryan Crocker.

What was Trevithick doing in Iran? He was there ostensibly to study Dari – President Obama described him as a “student” – but he apparently already knew Dari, and it looks like the Iranians figured he was studying something else.

"ISIS and Assad are one and the same": As we've seen in a number of previous posts, this outrageously false claim has done immeasurable harm. The people who tell this lie know damned well that they are lying.

The “prisoner swap” was in reality a spy exchange, as anyone with a lick of sense would have to conclude. Yet the US media won’t breathe the word “spy” in connection with anything having to do with our activities overseas: in this, like Mr. Trevithick’s SREO, they can be considered “a valuable partner” by our State Department.

Raimondo links to this article (in Men's Journal!) about SREO. Trevithick's partner was another young-ish guy named Daniel Seckman. MJ refers to them as -- get this! -- "American entrepreneurs." As if there was something entrepreneurial about setting up shop in Turkey to spread bullshit stories about a government that DC, Saudi Arabia and Israel hope to topple.  

SREO's research is now being used to justify the allocation of tens of millions of dollars from both governmental and nongovernmental organizations; everyone from the U.S. State Department to Save the Children relies on its access to Syrian locals. Nicolette Boehland, a researcher on Syria at Amnesty International, calls its work "an essential view on developments inside of Syria." An official at the State Department says SREO is a valuable partner, and "with regard to the situation of looting and trafficking of cultural property from Syria and Iraq, the data that SREO is producing is truly enlightening."

Despite contracts adding up to more than a million dollars, SREO remains remarkably small. Its offices are a two-story cement house in a residential neighborhood in a city in southern Turkey. Trevithick and Seckman, two of the five full-time employees, sleep in the basement.

And we're supposed to believe that this guy just happened to wander into Iran for ridiculous reasons? In the middle of the Syrian war, this "entrepreneur" suddenly took a vacay from this enterprise in Turkey -- in order to study Dari, a language he already knew? IN FREAKIN' IRAN? A country which SREO pronouncements had often assailed?

Bullshit.

He's not a student: He's a spy. Simple as that. I'll say it on TV. I'll say it to his goddamned smirking face in public. You'd have to be kid, a retarded kid, to believe for one second that this creep was anything other than a spy.

So: Amnesty International was getting the alleged inside scoop on Syria from a goddamned spook. Think about that, next time Amnesty asks you for money.

(For more on the "What happened to Amnesty" issue, go here. SREO receives a prominent mention.)

If Trevithick is spooked up, then what are we to think of his partner Dan Seckman? Is it not likely that both of these BFFs were spookier than Caspar?

Raimondo doesn't tell you that Seckman writes for the Daily Beast, as well as the Christian Science Monitor and The Atlantic and Foreign Policy.

The spookification of our media is also a kind of coup.

Who made ISIS? More proof

This speaks for itself:

Speaking at the Institute for National Security Studies' (INSS) conference in Tel Aviv, Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon stressed that "Iran is our main enemy,” and if he were to choose between Iran and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in an open conflict, he would "prefer ISIS."

Why is the Obama administration going after the guy who shot Osama Bin Laden?

When we first learned of Osama Bin Laden's death, I wrote: "The Obama administration had to dump the corpse prematurely, in order to comply with the Conspiracy Theorist Full Employment Act of 2002."

That was a joke. But I'm starting to think that there really is a program to keep this country's conspiracy community as hyperactive as possible. Can you think of a simpler explanation for what we've seen?

For the longest time, the government would not reveal the name of the Navy SEAL who actually shot Bin Laden. Odd decision, that. Ronald Reagan, with his Hollywood instincts, would not have missed the opportunity to construct a spectacular narrative around a new American hero.

In 2012, we received a more complete version of the event from Matthew Bissonnette, who wrote No Easy Day (a book about the operation) under the name Mark Owen. The book created much controversy, not least because the the Department of Defense claimed that classified information lurked within its pages. (I have yet to discover which specific cat was de-bagged.)

It appears that fellow SEAL Rob O'Neil took the shot that killed Bin Laden, although he and Bissonnette fired in close succession. (Nota bene: My headline says that Bissonnette shot Bin Laden, not that he killed Bin Laden.)

A DOD review of the No Easy Day would be have been extremely time-consuming and probably would have focused on protecting the brass. I suspect that the administration did not appreciate the fact that the SEAL told a story which differed from the narrative first released to the public. Example:

While defense officials report that bin Laden was killed in his bedroom, Bissonnette says the Al Qaeda mastermind was first shot in a hallway, when he peeked around a corner.

Therefore, he was already gravely injured--not on the run--when SEALs delivered the “double tap” that killed him.

Actually, the contradiction was worse than that. In 2011, we were told that

Osama bin Laden used his wife as a human shield in a last desperate attempt to save his own life before he was gunned down by US special forces in his hideout in Pakistan.

Armed with an automatic weapon, the al-Qaeda leader's last act was to force his young bride to sacrifice her life as he tried to fire back at the US Navy Seals storming the compound.

White House adviser John Brennan had assured the public that Bin Laden was armed and engaged in a firefight.

These early accounts bore scant relationship to the truth (to the extent that we can now claim to know the truth, given the Rashomon-like way the facts have come out). Bin Laden did not hide behind a woman and did not fire back: He did not, in fact, have a weapon. According to this revised version by AP, the only person in the compound who had a gun was a courier named Aby Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.

The afore-linked AP story goes on to state that the SEALS methodically killed all of the unarmed inhabitants of the compound, a claim later contradicted by government officials. In fact, that schizophrenic article contradicts itself within the space of a few paragraphs...

White House and Defense Department and CIA officials through the week have offered varying and foggy versions of the operation, though the dominant focus was on a firefight that officials said consumed most of the 40 minutes on the ground after midnight Monday morning in Pakistan, Sunday in Washington.

"There were many other people who were armed ... in the compound," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday when asked if bin Laden was armed. "There was a firefight."

The mind boggles. If the President and his key advisers were following events in real time, why would the White House give official approval to multiple accounts? If the people in the compound were unarmed, then why tell the public that there was a 40 minute gun battle?

In March of 2015, Seymour Hersh published an important investigation of the event.

One of bin Laden’s wives was screaming hysterically and a bullet – perhaps a stray round – struck her knee. Aside from those that hit bin Laden, no other shots were fired. (The Obama administration’s account would hold otherwise.)

‘They knew where the target was – third floor, second door on the right,’ the retired official said. ‘Go straight there. Osama was cowering and retreated into the bedroom. Two shooters followed him and opened up. Very simple, very straightforward, very professional hit.’ Some of the Seals were appalled later at the White House’s initial insistence that they had shot bin Laden in self-defence, the retired official said. ‘Six of the Seals’ finest, most experienced NCOs, faced with an unarmed elderly civilian, had to kill him in self-defence?

Al Jazeera -- a propaganda organ of the Sunnis -- saw fit to attack Hersh's contention that Pakistan's ISI knew of Bin Laden's compound, which happened to be within walking distance (literally) of Pakistan's version of West Point. Personally, I never had any trouble accepting Hersh's claim that ISI guarded the compound, and that the watchmen not-so-mysteriously vanished on the night of the raid.

Hersh also says that an ISI officer flew with the SEALS. This detail coalesces with a little-known story published in Pakistan the day after the raid.

Here's the latest wrinkle in this case, courtesy of The Intercept...

Matthew Bissonnette, the former SEAL and author of No Easy Day, a firsthand account of the 2011 bin Laden operation, had already been under investigation by both the Justice Department and the Navy for revealing classified information. The two people familiar with the probe said the current investigation, led by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, expanded after Bissonnette agreed to hand over a hard drive containing an unauthorized photo of the al Qaeda leader’s corpse. The government has fought to keep pictures of bin Laden’s body from being made public for what it claims are national security reasons.

What national security reasons?

In 2011, we were told that at least one photo was taken, and that it was extremely gruesome. A few members of Congress have, reportedly, seen this photographic evidence. A desire to avoid churning the stomachs of people around the world may or may not be laudable, but is it really a matter of national security?

The retired SEAL voluntarily provided investigators with a copy of his hard drive as part of an agreement not to prosecute him for unlawfully possessing classified material, according to the two people familiar with the deal.

The two people who spoke about the case, and other former SEALs The Intercept interviewed about Bissonnette, asked that their names not be used because they were describing an ongoing investigation and classified matters.

“I can confirm that the criminal investigation of Mr. Bissonnette for alleged wrongful handling or disclosure of classified information was closed through declination by the DOJ in August 2015,” said Robert Luskin, an attorney who represents Bissonnette.

Luskin said that he had negotiated a deal in 2014 with the Pentagon and the Justice Department to hand over to the government some of the millions of dollars in book profits Bissonnette had received.

He would not confirm Bissonnette’s possession of the bin Laden photo or whether any investigation still remains open.

We all know that the Obama administration has been ultra-zealous when it comes to the prosecution of whistleblowers and leakers. But one would think that this government would want to avoid the public relations nightmare of mounting a case against the guy who shot Bin Laden.

The Intercept article then goes on to outline Bissonnette's subsequent business dealings: He set up a company called Element Group which designed "prototypes" for sporting and tactical equipment. The article hints, but does not state, that Bissonnette was helping the private market make the same stuff that SEALs use. But the same company also did business with a Navy contractor called Atlantic Diving Supply.

Frankly, I can't yet see how any of this business reflects poorly on Bissonnette, or why it would prompt legal action against a man whom many Americans consider a hero. Apparently, someone at the Pentagon or the White House got pissed off at Bissonnette for some other reason, and went searching for something, anything, to use against him. They went fishing -- and they found diving equipment.

What caused this epic rancor? The book, obviously. However, I don't know which part of that book caused such a vindictive reaction. And I don't know if Bissonnette's account tells the final truth about the strange death of Osama Bin Laden.

I do know that we were told multiple stories, and that we have yet to learn why we were told multiple stories.

I also know this. A few of my readers are now dying to sing a tune which many conspiracy buffs have been singing for years:

"You fool! Don't you know that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001?"

Alternatively:

"You fool! Don't you know that Osama Bin Laden is still alive and well, enjoying his retirement on the Riviera?"

There are many variants of those two melodies. I have heard both songs before. Many times.

If you are a singer of those songs, let me stop you in mid-warble: No, I do not know such things, and neither do you. Please stop pretending to know things that you really don't, and please try to understand the difference between provable fact and a scenario that tickles your fancy.

Also, please try to answer the following questions:

1. If Bin Laden is still alive (or if he died many years before 2011), then why were there contradictory accounts of his death? If the "raid on the compound" story was a complete hoax -- if the government faked the death of Osama Bin Laden -- the hoaxers would have come up with a better story. A smooth, seamless, credible and problem-free story. A bulletproof story.

2. If the raid was a hoax, why crash a secret stealth chopper on foreign soil?

3. If the entire story is fraudulent, why stage a raid in Pakistan (within spitting distance of the Pakistani military academy), thereby creating an enormous backlash from both the people and government of that country?

4. If the entire story is fraudulent, why would Hersh's military contacts make claims which do not match the official accounts?

5. Why would Bissonnette tell a story that does not match the initial official accounts?

6. If Matt Bissonnette is part of some grand cover-up, why would the government drum up bullshit charges against the guy?

7. And why give so much grief to Rob O'Neill (whose account does not fully match Bissonnette's)?