A Study in Showboating-- Kamala Harris and the RFK Case

[Cliff Varnell]

21 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Just read part 2.

Again, it's too bad information like this regards Kamala Harris is being ignored by the main stream media.

It's too bad information about the unfolding Dominionst coup d'etat is being ignored by Kennedys & King and Black Op Radio.

Under Trump, Christian nationalists are playing to win — and liberals are finally fighting back "Dominionists" who want a theocratic America are pushing on many fronts. But they're not under the radar anymore

by Paul Rosenberg

https://www.salon.com/2019/07/07/under-trump-christian-nationalists-are-playing-to-win-and-liberals-are-finally-fighting-back/

    There is a difference between exercising religious beliefs and imposing them on others. Our Constitution fiercely protects the former and expressly prohibits the latter.
    -- Rep. Joseph Kennedy III

It’s easy for significant stories to get lost in the sound and fury of Donald Trump’s frontal assault on American democracy, epitomized by his militarized co-opting of Washington’s Fourth of July celebration.

As my interview with Angie Maxwell, co-author of “The Long Southern Strategy,” shows, Trump’s presidency was decades in the making, with racism, sexism. and fundamentalism all playing crucial roles. The forces that brought him to power are ultimately far more consequential than he is.

That's why a cluster of recent developments involving questions of religious privilege deserve far more attention from the public and the media than they have received. These events reflect both the advancement of a theocratic, "dominionist" worldview that elevates the state-sanctified religious liberty of some at the obvious expense of others — and a rising tide of liberal, secular resistance.  </q>

Those who routinely give Trump a pass and only launch detailed attacks on Democrats are dupes of Dominionism.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

I'll give you some of my critique on the piece.

Because of her Clintonesque politics and record, it is easy to explain why she is the darling of the MSM. They want more of Barack Obama. And that is who Harris really is: she is a combination of Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Yes an MSM created perfect clone, right Jim?

Do you guys really fall in line with that?  And just wholesale buy Jim' characterization here?  Never mind what differences there are between the 2, I'm no fan of Hilary, but HC's foreign policy  as President is pure speculation as she never became President.

At one point in 2016, well into Bernie's campaign, Jim actually endorsed Hilary Clinton here. This, to me is just more of Jim's paranoid MSM victimization garbage, which he knows now he can't defend.

Then Jim actually actually forays into giving us his education policy to correct education inequality. But where has he been for the last 2 years, but completely silent on Trump. Recently he's stepped out of the shadows to complain vaguely about Trump's "regressive policies".  As Cliff knows, I've called him out a number of times on a number of issues but Jim's never stood up, and just been another  Trump enabler. Ok, You can argue that none of us on this forum  have enough influence to be a Trump enabler, but IMO, in any forum, sometimes people have to speak up.  After a certain grace period, the people who stood up early are to be applauded, not ridiculed, by Jim and other know nothings.

Undoubtedly,  Jim was persuaded by Jeff Stone's brilliant forecast concocted in his bunker  (heh heh) in Jim's thread, "Trump was right" that Jim first started after Trump's first meeting with Putin, now available in the Trump section of the forum.

Jeff said:

I’m glad Hilary lost - she was assembling a national security team of neoliberal hegemonic globalists who gave every indication they were preparing to seize the moment and apply massive military force to reverse perceived geopolitical setbacks and directly confront Russia and China while they still held military superiority. The TPP trade agreement was also set to be ratified with no public debate or input, which would have codified a neoliberal corporatist economic structure resistant to any reform or reevaluation.

Yes literally an American hegemonic replay of 1962, when there there was also a window, but Jeff declines to tell us  just what that window was. As you can well understand, to Jeff we owe Trump our very existence. If he hadn't beat Hilary, he forecasts a certain apocalypse.

When pressed, Jeff provided nothing but  speculative rumblings about possible future HC Presidential foreign policy appointments who were a little more to the right of Obama's.  Speculation about such meetings with future possible appointees have always been a real political crap shoot anyway. Sorry to bring that up again, Jeff, but words do matter.

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway

[James DiEugenio]

Rumors about my demise have been greatly exaggerated Kirk.  So its not safe to do this anymore.

HRC was Secretary of State if you recall.  So she does have a record.  How anyone can excuse what she did in Libya escapes me.  There have been various critiques of that which show that if she really wanted to get rid of Gaddafi so badly, there were other options she could have taken which would not have resulted in something as bad as what she achieved--which was turn the country into a failed state from which terrorism can now strike across the sea.  Gaddafi even warned Blair that it would happen, and that Islamic fundamentalism was behind the rebellion started and supplemented by HRC.

Honduras?  Do you really want to go into that one?

She even tried to get Obama to go to war in Syria.  But I think what happened is that he realized he had been rolled twice already by the three witches--HRC, Power and Rice--and he was not going to play the sucker again.

Need I mention her vote for the Iraq War, like Biden.  At least Biden turned around on that one pretty fast. 

Any person today, with all we know about him, who confers with Kissinger on vacation in the Caribbean about foreign policy ought to have their head examined. As in noted in my recent piece on Jeff Greenfield and Jared Cohen and Condi Rice, Kissinger is a war criminal.  He was directly involved with three genocides: Bangladesh, East Timor and Cambodia.  This is all proven and documented today. In the first matter, he and Nixon were warned AT THE TIME IT WAS HAPPENING, that the USA should not stand by and watch innocent people being slaughtered because of their religion in Bangladesh.  Know what they did?  They sent the perps planes to help them.  (See the book The Blood Telegram.)

This is one reason I like Tulsi.  She understands that the neocon philosophy is simply nutty.  And HRC seemed to buy into it.  Why, I don't know.  But its another reason why I could never vote for her, or her hubby. 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

On 6/30/2019 at 9:00 AM, Paul Brancato said:

This article posted by Doug is a good companion piece to the one by Jim D. It makes absolutely clear that when Harris went after Biden during the debate she only scratched the surface. I hope Jim reads it and thinks about it. I’m not a Harris supporter, and I think Biden is a poor choice of candidate to run in 2020. 

Paul:

The idea that because I criticized Harris after that debate, that somehow I like Biden, I mean please.

I have never ever voted for either Bill Clinton, HRC, or Obama/Biden.  Can you say that?  I would rather vote Green than vote for some compromised Democrat.  Joe Biden showed who he was during the Anita Hill hearings, way back, well over two decades ago. I watched the whole thing.  I could not believe what he let that hearing devolve into.  It was a circus.  I mean when the GOP guys are complementing the Democratic chair on how fair he is?  

The worst part was when you had an unqualified purely affirmative action candidate, Thomas, saying he was the victim of a high tech lynching because he was an uppity black man, and Biden did not reply to that?  That was a disgrace.  Here was a candidate who was nominated for purely political reasons--he was the way the GOP would shove everything the Democrats did since JFK for civil rights into their faces.  And Biden let them do it, without barely a whimper, let alone a scream.

There were two ways Biden, a lawyer, could have gone after Thomas.  First, on his lack of qualifications.  This would have led to the fact that he was simply the GOP version of affirmative action, which Thomas claimed not to like.  That Biden never brought up the men who were passed over for Thomas shows what this was about.  He never even brought up Thomas' relationship with the late Jay Parker. Parker was essentially the godfather of the whole black opportunists' --some would call it the Uncle Tom--movement eg. Tom Sowell etc. 

Secondly, he let the GOP say that people like Angela Wright were scared to testify.  Which was not the case.  There was enough evidence to confirm and corroborate Hill's charges. But Biden did not want to go there. This showed me that he was more interested in keeping the comity of the senate than defending this poor woman who did not even really want to be doing what she was doing.  And his questioning of her was amateur night. Syracuse must have a lousy law school.

Biden was also one of these guys who praised Obama's candidacy as being their kind of African American.  This was, I think, a not so subtle swipe at Jessie Jackson. Which, again tells us where Biden is politically.  I would take Jackson any day over Obama.  

So please Paul, do not make the assumption that somehow I like Biden because I do not like Harris.  I don't fear Biden at all since I saw him implode twice. He is not built for the long haul. But Harris is a  relatively unknown on the national stage. No one should mistake her for being AOC, she is not, not by a long shot.  And I will be damned if I will remain silent about someone  who worked with Mel Ayton to cover up the murder of RFK.  And that is the way everyone on this forum should feel about her. 

 

Edited July 8, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Brancato]

38 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

The idea that because I criticized Harris after that debate, that somehow I like Biden, I mean please.

I have never ever voted for either Bill Clinton, HRC, or Obama/Biden.  Can you say that?  I would rather vote Green than vote for some compromised Democrat.  Joe Biden showed who he was during the Anita Hill hearings, way back, well over two decades ago. I watched the whole thing.  I could not believe what he let that hearing devolve into.  It was a circus.  I mean when the GOP guys are complementing the Democratic chair on how fair he is?  

The worst part was when you had an unqualified purely affirmative action candidate, Thomas, saying he was the victim of a high tech lynching because he was an uppity black man, and Biden did not reply to that?  That was a disgrace.  Here was a candidate who was nominated for purely political reasons--he was the way the GOP would shove everything the Democrats did since JFK for ciivl rights into their faces.  And Biden let them do it, without barely a whimper, let alone a scream.

There were two ways Biden, a lawyer, could have gone after Thomas.  First, on his lack of qualifications.  This would have led to the fact that he was simply the GOP version of affirmative action, which Thomas claimed not to like.  That Biden never brought up the men who were passed over for Thomas shows what this was about.  He never even brought up Thomas' relationship with the late Jay Parker. Parker was essentially the godfather of the whole black opportunists' --some would call it the Uncle Tom--movement eg. Tom Sowell etc. 

Secondly, he let the GOP say that people like Angela Wright were scared to testify.  Which was not the case.  There was enough evidence to confirm and corroborate Hill's charges. But Biden did not want to go there. This showed me that he was more interested in keeping the comity of the senate than defending this poor woman who did not even really want to be doing what she was doing.  And his questioning of her was amateur night. Syracuse must have a lousy law school.

Biden was also one of these guys who praised Obama's candidacy as being their kind of African American.  This was, I think, a not so subtle swipe at Jessie Jackson. Which, again tells us where Biden is politically.  I would take Jackson any day over Obama.  

So please Paul, do not make the assumption that somehow I like Biden because I do not like Harris.  I don't fear Biden at all since I saw him implode twice. He is not built for the long haul. But Harris is a  relatively unknown on the national stage. No one should mistake her for being AOC, she is not, not by a long shot.  And I will be damned if I will remain silent about someone  who worked with Mel Ayton to cover up the murder of RFK.  And that is the way everyone on this forum should feel about her. 

 

Thanks Jim. Your article on Harris was about much more than RFK/Sirhan. But on that portion I agree with you completely. However I won’t rule her out as a worthy candidate. You are right - I occasionally vote for the Democratic candidate even though I wish there was a better choice. I can see how you interpreted my post. I still think that Biden deserves a hit piece way more than Harris. Thanks for your take on Biden and the Thomas hearings. 

[Joe Bauer]

I think the Democratic candidate Trump's 1% fears most is Elizabeth Warren.

Hillary won 3 million more votes in the popular vote than Trump in 2016 and she did this with a bus load of heavy baggage.

Warren presents a more working class honest and attractive Trump alternative package than HRC without near the baggage.  Although HRC had very powerful interests backing her that Warren will not have.

Could you imagine Warren and Trump debating?

I think the huge majority of women voters of this country who would see Warren and Trump together on a debate stage wouldn't even need to consider their debate answers.

Just seeing the kind school teacher appearing Warren next to the bloated extreme Pu$$! grabbing bragging sexist Trump will make them cringe and make up their minds viscerally.

Trump is a turnoff to women in spades.  Physically and ideologically.

Hollywood couldn't come up with a more unattractive, lecherous looking character. 

I think the women vote count in a 2020 election would be even more in favor of candidate Elizabeth Warren than it was for Hillary in 2016.

 

[James DiEugenio]

i like to think I may have inspired this article:

https://truthout.org/articles/kamala-harris-has-a-distinguished-career-of-serving-injustice/

Although clearly, they are avoiding her reply to the Dusek/Pepper appeal for an evidentiary hearing in the RFK case.

The ideal ticket would I think be Sanders and Warren.  Although personally I would prefer Bernie and Tulsi. 

Welcome, Paul

[Cliff Varnell]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

  And I will be damned if I will remain silent about someone  who worked with Mel Ayton to cover up the murder of RFK.  And that is the way everyone on this forum should feel about her. 

 

DiEugenio has no problem remaining silent about the Dominionists' fascistic assault on the Constitution.

Trump is turning the Justice Dept. into a political action wing of his campaign -- meanwhile we're supposed to regard Kamala Harris as the biggest threat to the country?

Sorry not sorry I don't think the way DiEugenio says I "should."

Me, I'm opposed to authoritarianism no matter how it's manifested.

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

What are the chances today of the RFK case breaking into the American Cable News 24-hour (mid-morning to mid-morning) NEWS CYCLE?

Pretty much zero.

Unless someone in a townhall meeting asks Kamala Harris about her role in scotching a new RFK investigation.

I'm still for Elizabeth Warren/Stacey Abrams -- but the higher Harris rises the greater the chance of turning the RFK case into an issue.

[Cliff Varnell]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

HRC was Secretary of State if you recall.  So she does have a record.  How anyone can excuse what she did in Libya escapes me.

After Hillary left State Obama negotiated the removal of 93% of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, negotiated the Iran nuke deal, and opened up Cuba.

How anyone can ignore what Obama did escapes me.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

What are the chances today of the RFK case breaking into the American Cable News 24-hour (mid-morning to mid-morning) NEWS CYCLE?

Pretty much zero.

Unless someone in a townhall meeting asks Kamala Harris about her role in scotching a new RFK investigation.

I'm still for Elizabeth Warren/Stacey Abrams -- but the higher Harris rises the greater the chance of turning the RFK case into an issue.

Gentle reader, I have substantive, fact-based disagreements with Jim DiEugenio on the following issues:

1)  JFK's role in the Bay of Pigs

2) The partition of Laos in 1962

3) The overthrow of Diem in South Vietnam

4) The root facts of the JFK assassination (T3 back wound/throat entrance wound)

5) Modern American politics

I'm thankful that DiEugenio's once-steady attacks on my character have dwindled to a trickle.

\

Edited July 9, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Joseph McBride]

It's revealing that the CIA front Washington Post is now trying to demonize

Warren the way they did Bernie and before that, Howard Dean,

whom they set out to destroy and did. The Post did another

attack job on Warren and picked a closeup photo of her looking

wild-eyed (read: nutso) just like they liked to do with the other two they hate. The Post doesn't want any

candidate who might actually start trying to redistribute the wealth. The NY Times

does not like Bernie but for some reason still seems to respect

Warren despite the biases that paper holds similar to those of the Post. I could

tell the Post was out to get Dean early in the campaign when they ran a piece

emphasizing how he would become so passionate in his speeches that

he would get red in the face and scream. Then they destroyed him with

their hyped-up piece on his "scream," which was mostly due to an anomaly with a network microphone.

That piece, significantly, ran shortly after Dean announced he would break

up the monopolies of the major media if he became president. It's an old

media trick to use code words and loaded images to mean "craziness," for which they also use

the phrase "conspiracy theorist." Another word they use for "crazy" is "rambling."

Edited July 9, 2019 by Joseph McBride

[Kirk Gallaway]

Like we all can't notice that not once did  Jim mention his frightening "T' word. 

Jim for the last 2 years, you've been the forum Bill Krystol. (Though I'll grant a rather innocuous version) Have you gotten anything right for 2 years? You've ended up being just another lifeless Republican stiff frightened to death to speak up about Trump.

Oh but get him started about Kamala Harris!!!!!! He'll write you 10 pages on his website! Like the nation could face imminent danger!!!!!!!!  And everything was going so well! The stock markets going way up!  So of course, not a page about Trump for 2 years!!!!  Why rock the boat!!    I can see your priorities Jim, and I don't think Democracy is your bag,  Why don't you just stick to the JFKA?

You wrote a largely factual  piece on Harris, if her action about RFK is a deal breaker for you, than fine. But since you know so little about politics, I can tell you no politician is going to campaign on touching the JFKA. Read what I wrote. They'd all pass on it.

Do you ever think about just letting your facts speak for themselves? You lose your credibility in the end of your pieces . RFk ok, that's to be expected. But just how did the MSM create this situation? For my curiosity, did you wake in the middle of the night and have an epiphany that," Yes the MSM has created a  Hillary/ Obama clone!!!!" I'm not a particular Harris fan, but are you really being fair? 

Has the MSM also created the recent upsurge with Elizabeth Warren? If you think that, you're completely crazy.

It's simple Jim.  Harris made a play and got an opening and Biden was too dumbstruck to ask her the obvious. So what? The nomination was 14 months away!. And you become as obsessive with her as you were about Fred Litwin.

The MSM talked about the forced busing issue after the debate.  What do they have to go into an hour long documentary for the lemming voters who lived through it, but were asleep at the time? What do you want?. And they've since asked Harris the question. Would she favor busing to achieve racial balance?, and she said it might be just " one of a number of tools" . blah blah blah.

 

Edited July 9, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway

[Andrew Prutsok]

On 7/8/2019 at 12:50 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Rumors about my demise have been greatly exaggerated Kirk.  So its not safe to do this anymore.

HRC was Secretary of State if you recall.  So she does have a record.  How anyone can excuse what she did in Libya escapes me.  There have been various critiques of that which show that if she really wanted to get rid of Gaddafi so badly, there were other options she could have taken which would not have resulted in something as bad as what she achieved--which was turn the country into a failed state from which terrorism can now strike across the sea.  Gaddafi even warned Blair that it would happen, and that Islamic fundamentalism was behind the rebellion started and supplemented by HRC.

Honduras?  Do you really want to go into that one?

She even tried to get Obama to go to war in Syria.  But I think what happened is that he realized he had been rolled twice already by the three witches--HRC, Power and Rice--and he was not going to play the sucker again.

Need I mention her vote for the Iraq War, like Biden.  At least Biden turned around on that one pretty fast. 

Any person today, with all we know about him, who confers with Kissinger on vacation in the Caribbean about foreign policy ought to have their head examined. As in noted in my recent piece on Jeff Greenfield and Jared Cohen and Condi Rice, Kissinger is a war criminal.  He was directly involved with three genocides: Bangladesh, East Timor and Cambodia.  This is all proven and documented today. In the first matter, he and Nixon were warned AT THE TIME IT WAS HAPPENING, that the USA should not stand by and watch innocent people being slaughtered because of their religion in Bangladesh.  Know what they did?  They sent the perps planes to help them.  (See the book The Blood Telegram.)

This is one reason I like Tulsi.  She understands that the neocon philosophy is simply nutty.  And HRC seemed to buy into it.  Why, I don't know.  But its another reason why I could never vote for her, or her hubby. 

 

 

Trump has consulted Kissinger and heaped praise upon him.

[W. Niederhut]

    I think it was Michael Wolff who first said, in Fire and Fury, that Trump had been effectively bribed by Sheldon Adelson,  Paul Singer, et.al., to become an Israeli/Neocon mule.  It was another 180 degree flip-flop by Trump on a 2016 Trump campaign policy "position,"  because Trump had been highly critical of Hillary and the Obama administration's involvement in the Neocon wars in the Middle East, including the CIA's Operation Timber Sycamore, to overthrow the Assad regime with proxy Sunni militias, including "Al Qaeda."

    It was the only policy position in 2016 where I agreed with Trump rather than Hillary.   And Trump did, in fact, pull the funding plug on Timber Sycamore in July of 2017.  Then, in a surprising reversal, in the spring of 2018, Trump had appointed the Neocon war monger John Bolton as his National Security advisor!  Jimmy Carter presciently called Bolton's 2018 NSC appointment, "a disaster for this country." 

   I'm not privy to the longstanding political disputes here between various forum members, but I do believe that DiEugenio's latest Kamala Harris history is timely and important.  I interpret it in light of the role of the MSM in influencing our choices about viable alternatives to Trump, whose presidency has been, in my view, an unmitigated disaster for this country and the planet.