Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kamala Harris and the RFK assassination


Recommended Posts

Meanwhile, outside the bubble of Obama-bashers, Donald Trump has declared his intention to cripple the postal service for the express purpose of denying millions the right to vote.

It’s a brazen attack on the American people by a scumbag who aspires to one man rule.
 
https://www.salon.com/2020/08/14/forget-ads-speeches-poll-numbers--this-election-will-be-determined-by-whether-trump-can-steal-it/

As predicted, the habitual Obama-bashers give Trump a pass.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 296
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I should add there was one other disappointing point about Obama.

One of his talking points was that he would have voted against the Iraq War, and he did make a good speech against the invasion at an anti war rally.

But yet today, I think we all know that the Iraq invasion was something that was manufactured, created, fabricated by certain people in the executive branch and then ramrodded through congress with all kinds of pressure.

The cost of that war to Iraq  cannot be calculated.  The invasion and the occupation were a disaster not just for the US and Iraq, but it helped expand terrorist groups in the  Middle East.

Should there not have been investigations of how and why this was done?  Should not people have been called to account for such a debacle? Not a whiff of this from Obama.  After all his wife is buds with W.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I should add there was one other disappointing point about Obama.

One of his talking points was that he would have voted against the Iraq War, and he did make a good speech against the invasion at an anti war rally.

But yet today, I think we all know that the Iraq invasion was something that was manufactured, created, fabricated by certain people in the executive branch and then ramrodded through congress with all kinds of pressure.

The cost of that war to Iraq  cannot be calculated.  The invasion and the occupation were a disaster not just for the US and Iraq, but it helped expand terrorist groups in the  Middle East.

Should there not have been investigations of how and why this was done?  Should not people have been called to account for such a debacle? Not a whiff of this from Obama.  After all his wife is buds with W.

As predicted...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/08/trump-proves-biden-right-on-usps-funding-mail-in-ballots/

In late June, Joe Biden claimed President Donald Trump “wants to cut off money for the post office so they cannot deliver mail-in ballots.” At the time, we wrote that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee had no evidence of Trump’s ulterior motive — but now he does. 

In an Aug. 13 interview, Trump admitted that he opposes a coronavirus pandemic relief bill crafted by the House Democrats because it includes funding the U.S. Postal Service and state election officials — funding that Trump said is needed to allow the Postal Service to handle an expected surge in mail-in voting.

Maria Bartiromo, the host of “Mornings with Maria” on Fox Business, asked Trump “what specifically are [the Democrats] pushing for that is causing this breakdown in any deals.” The president singled out two provisions in the  HEROES Act, or the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act. 

Trump, Aug. 13: They want $3.5 billion for something that will turn out to be fraudulent, that’s election money basically. They want $3.5 trillion — billion dollars for the mail-in votes, OK, universal mail-in ballots, $3.5 trillion. They want $25 billion, billion, for the Post Office. Now they need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots. Now, in the meantime, they aren’t getting there. By the way, those are just two items. But if they don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting because they’re not equipped to have it.

The bill, which passed the Democratic-controlled House in May with only one Republican vote, includes $3.6 billion for states to pay for “contingency planning, preparation, and resilience of elections for Federal office,” according to a summary of the act. It also contains $25 billion for USPS to replace revenues “forgone due to the coronavirus pandemic.”

Hours after his interview with Bartiromo, Trump said he wouldn’t veto the bill if it includes money for the Postal Service and state election planning — but he repeated his statement about the agency being unable to handle mail-in ballots without it.

“But if the bill isn’t going to get done, that would mean the Post Office isn’t going to get funded, and that would also mean that the three and a half billion dollars isn’t going to be taken care of,” he said at an Aug. 14 press briefing. “So I don’t know how you can possibly use these ballots, these mail-in ballots.”

The perpetually cash-strapped Postal Service has been hurt by COVID-19. Earlier this year, the Postal Service had asked Congress for, among other things, $25 billion in emergency appropriations and $25 billion in loans from the Treasury Department.

At a June 23 virtual fundraiser, Biden accused Trump (at about 1:13:00 into the video) of undermining democracy and urged viewers to register to vote and volunteer to be poll workers. Biden then added this about mail-in ballots (at 1:14:10): “Making sure we tell the American public what the president is doing, saying he wants to cut off money for the post office so they cannot deliver mail-in ballots.”

It was true at the time — and even more so now — that the president has engaged in a repetitive and misleading campaign against the expanded use of mail-in ballots for this year’s elections.

But it is equally true that the president for years has criticized the Postal Service for losing money and has insisted that it should increase fees for packages, repeatedly singling out Amazon. The Postal Service has been caught up in the president’s feud with Amazon’s CEO and founder, Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post — which the president frequently targets in tweets for its news coverage.

And, despite Trump’s criticisms of the Postal Service’s years of red ink, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, which the president signed March 27, provided two forms of relief: deferred payments of the employer share of Social Security and the ability to borrow up to $10 billion from the Treasury Department.

On July 29, the recently appointed postmaster general — Louis DeJoy, a Republican fundraiser and Trump ally —  announced that the Postal Service had reached an agreement with Treasury to access the $10 billion borrowing authority, which DeJoy said “will delay the approaching liquidity crisis.”

As we wrote at the time, we found no instance of Trump saying he wants to thwart the Postal Service’s ability to deliver mail-in ballots, and the Biden campaign didn’t provide us with any. Biden appeared to have conflated the two issues — Trump’s criticism of both the Postal Service and mail-in-ballots — to accuse the president of wanting to “cut off money for the post office so they cannot deliver mail-in ballots.”

But that’s moot now. Trump provided Biden with the evidence that he earlier had lacked. 

What we don’t know is if denying the Postal Service additional funding “means you can’t have universal mail-in voting because they’re not equipped to have it,” as Trump said. 

The Postal Service has repeatedly said that funding issues will not prevent mail carriers from making their appointed rounds throughout the 2020 election.

“Regarding our role in elections, our current financial condition is not going to impact our ability to deliver election and political mail this year,” Postal Service spokesman David Partenheimer told us in late June.

More recently, the postmaster general said at an Aug. 7 board of governors meeting that the USPS can handle the expected increased volume of mail-in ballots. 

“Although there will likely be an unprecedented increase in election mail volume due to the pandemic,” DeJoy said, “the Postal Service has ample capacity to deliver all election mail securely and on-time in accordance with our delivery standards, and we will do so.”

DeJoy made those remarks even after it was reported that he had instituted cost-cutting measures that will result in mail delivery delays.

In a July 10 memo to all employees, the Postal Service directed mail carriers to begin and end their routes on time — even if it means leaving behind some unsorted mail at processing and distribution centers — because “late trips” and “extra trips are no longer authorized or accepted.” The memo said late and extra trips cost the agency about $200 million a year in additional costs.

“One aspect of these changes that may be difficult for employees is that — temporarily — we may see mail left behind or mail on the workroom floor or docks (in P&DCs), which is not typical,” according to a copy of the memo obtained by Federal News Network.

Whether these temporary changes have an impact on the delivery of mail-in ballots also remains to be seen. As we have written before, about a quarter of ballots cast in the 2018 general elections nationwide were by mail, according to the Election Assistance Commission. But some states — including key swing states, such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — have had low volumes of mail-in ballots in past elections.

But we do know at this point that Biden’s earlier remarks that Trump “wants to cut off money for the post office so they cannot deliver mail-in ballots” have been confirmed — by the president himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I should add there was one other disappointing point about Obama.

One of his talking points was that he would have voted against the Iraq War, and he did make a good speech against the invasion at an anti war rally.

But yet today, I think we all know that the Iraq invasion was something that was manufactured, created, fabricated by certain people in the executive branch and then ramrodded through congress with all kinds of pressure.

The cost of that war to Iraq  cannot be calculated.  The invasion and the occupation were a disaster not just for the US and Iraq, but it helped expand terrorist groups in the  Middle East.

Should there not have been investigations of how and why this was done?  Should not people have been called to account for such a debacle? Not a whiff of this from Obama.  After all his wife is buds with W.

Both Gulf Wars were, the first one they had that girl sobbing in a hearing and talking about Iraqi soldiers taking babies from incubators and dropping them on the hard floor. It transpired that she was the daughter of a Kuwaiti diplomatic and that the whole testimony was a rehearsed fabrication. Bush Snr used it to drum up public support got the first Gulf war. The actual invasion in 2003, they'd more or less starved the country with sanctions before hand and implemented that oil for food program. At the time, I was totally bought into the WMD propaganda, how wrong we all were. There absolutely should have been people called out and an investigation but, the MO was straight out of the playbook which started with Mosadek. If you investigate one, you have to do the lot right? I wonder if Obama had benefactors, people who financially supported and mentored his rise?! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, don't forget April Glaspie. And I agree about the awful effect of the sanctions.

 

I haven't read any of the extremist views about Obama.  Although I have heard about them.

But I think its pretty clear that he was a part of the club.

 Ray McGovern tells a good story about him.  Someone asked him, I think towards the beginning of his second term, "What happened to all the Hope and Change?" Obama replied,

"You saw what happened to Dr. King didn't you?"

At least the guy's honest.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I should add there was one other disappointing point about Obama.

One of his talking points was that he would have voted against the Iraq War, and he did make a good speech against the invasion at an anti war rally.

But yet today, I think we all know that the Iraq invasion was something that was manufactured, created, fabricated by certain people in the executive branch and then ramrodded through congress with all kinds of pressure.

The cost of that war to Iraq  cannot be calculated.  The invasion and the occupation were a disaster not just for the US and Iraq, but it helped expand terrorist groups in the  Middle East.

Should there not have been investigations of how and why this was done?  Should not people have been called to account for such a debacle? Not a whiff of this from Obama.  After all his wife is buds with W.

     This question gets at the essence of the largely untold history of the Neocon/PNAC establishment in the Bush-Cheney administration-- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and the "Prince of Darkness," Richard Perle.  These are the guys who coordinated the 9/11 Black Op-- their "new Pearl Harbor"-- as a pretext for implementing the PNAC "Wolfowitz Doctrine" in the Middle East.

      What was Obama's relationship with the Neocons?

      He pilloried John McCain in the 2008 Presidential debates for supporting the Iraq War debacle.  But, much to my surprise, Obama retained Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, and largely went along with the PNAC playbook to de-stabilize Libya and Syria, even signing off on the CIA's Operation Timber Sycamore-- arming Sunni proxy militias (Al Qaeda, et.al.) to overthrow Assad, while ostensibly fighting "ISIS."

       Behind the scenes, Obama and Netanyahu could hardly stand to be in the same room together, but Obama seemed to begrudgingly acquiesce in the phony CIA/Neocon "War on Terror."  Nor did he pursue any bona fide investigations of Bush, Cheney, 9/11, or the Iraq WMD scam.  If he had, he would have been deep sixed.

     I read somewhere that Leon Panetta told Obama early on in his presidency that, "You can't just say, 'no,' to these guys"-- i.e., the CIA and Joint Chiefs.

    The last POTUS who did that was JFK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2020 at 10:05 PM, Chris Barnard said:

Both Gulf Wars were, the first one they had that girl sobbing in a hearing and talking about Iraqi soldiers taking babies from incubators and dropping them on the hard floor. It transpired that she was the daughter of a Kuwaiti diplomatic and that the whole testimony was a rehearsed fabrication. Bush Snr used it to drum up public support got the first Gulf war. The actual invasion in 2003, they'd more or less starved the country with sanctions before hand and implemented that oil for food program. At the time, I was totally bought into the WMD propaganda, how wrong we all were. There absolutely should have been people called out and an investigation but, the MO was straight out of the playbook which started with Mosadek. If you investigate one, you have to do the lot right? I wonder if Obama had benefactors, people who financially supported and mentored his rise?! 

 

The playbook goes back to WWI with the "Rape of Belgium."

The Huns are bayoneting Belgian babies, America must join the war!

Bill deBlasio's (aka Warren Wilhelm Jr.) father and uncle (Warren Sr. and Donald George Wilhelm Jr.) helped install the Shah for Texaco and the CIA, respectively. Donald George Jr. would ghost write the Shah's memoirs in 1961.

The grandfather, Donald George Sr. worked the American side of the Belgian rape narrative for Herbert Hoover as a member of the Creel Commission, along with Edward Bernays.

On the Belgian side were the Lambert's and Prud'hommes, among others. It would be more accurate to call them agents of the London Rothschilds.

Hector P. Prud'homme helped lead the WWI effort and his son, Hector C., shows up in Iran in 1953 representing the World Bank's loan department, along with former Texaco CEO, Torkild Reiber.. 

Hector C. was also married to Richard Bissels sister. (Richard Bissell and Bob Mueller's mother were first cousins as well.)

Bringing things back to 2020, Bill DeBlasio is not the buffoonish clown he has been playing on TV during "Corona."

Belgian-Coke-Info-Graphic-1024x576.png?s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Chris, don't forget April Glaspie. And I agree about the awful effect of the sanctions.

 

I haven't read any of the extremist views about Obama.  Although I have heard about them.

But I think its pretty clear that he was a part of the club.

 Ray McGovern tells a good story about him.  Someone asked him, I think towards the beginning of his second term, "What happened to all the Hope and Change?" Obama replied,

"You saw what happened to Dr. King didn't you?"

At least the guy's honest.

That's a great quote and I am sure true. We can all scrutinise here from our armchairs but, when put in that position to do tremendous good for humanity at high risk to yourself/immediate family or, to be a 'yes' man and have a very comfortable life at the cost of people you don't know, I wonder how many of us looking at our children would choose to go against the grain? There is overwhelming data in psychology that power corrupts and so many start with all of the ideals in the world and the higher they climb, the more the reasons they started out with evaporate. 
But, I guess if you choose to be the 'yes' man, you don't get your place in history as a hero or a notable legacy. I think with JFK, the influence of god, his fatalism, with his historical heroes and having been told since a child that illness could take him at any time, I think he had a unique or rare outlook on life, shaping some of his behaviours. Another significant factor could have been that he was born with money, never wanted for anything in his life and the one thing he needed which was health, couldn't be bought. The one sure thing about people who have a tough upbringing is that when they get some money, they never want to experience those tough times again and will do anything to avoid that. So, candidates who started humble and are bankrolled by others, are much more or a sure thing when elected, their behaviour is predictable. I read a bit about Nixon and he was the opposite of JFK, he had his more modest upbringing and he resented having to play 'butler monkey' to the east coast power brokers with their old money and entitlement, or people like Prescott Bush, Allen Dulles (who I believe Nixon visited hoping for a job). In contrast Nixon would do all he could to hang on to the life he'd toiled for, he was more of a known quantity. Maybe Obama was too, nice family, made it to the number one job, nice bit of money put away, why rock the boat? Hope & change, did vanish and became business as usual. 

I heard a Bill Burr interview not so long ago and he succinctly described US politics in a few sentences. (2mins 58secs - 3mins 59secs)

It makes you wonder if the scene in Dallas was just the crudeness of a Texan murder or if it was setting an example? I mean, surely Max Jacobsen could have given JFK a dodgy dose including some of those fast acting cancer cells procured in New Orleans that potentially got Ruby? Or a plane crash? There are many ways that could potentially create less suspicion than bullets whizzing around in a Dealey Plaza full of witnesses. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

The playbook goes back to WWI with the "Rape of Belgium."

The Huns are bayoneting Belgian babies, America must join the war!

Bill deBlasio's (aka Warren Wilhelm Jr.) father and uncle (Warren Sr. and Donald George Wilhelm Jr.) helped install the Shah for Texaco and the CIA, respectively. Donald George Jr. would ghost write the Shah's memoirs in 1961.

The grandfather, Donald George Sr. worked the American side of the Belgian rape narrative for Herbert Hoover as a member of the Creel Commission, along with Edward Bernays.

On the Belgian side were the Lambert's and Prud'hommes, among others. It would be more accurate to call them agents of the London Rothschilds.

Hector P. Prud'homme helped lead the WWI effort and his son, Hector C., shows up in Iran in 1953 representing the World Bank's loan department, along with former Texaco CEO, Torkild Reiber.. 

Hector C. was also married to Richard Bissels sister. (Richard Bissell and Bob Mueller's mother were first cousins as well.)

Bringing things back to 2020, Bill DeBlasio is not the buffoonish clown he has been playing on TV during "Corona."

Belgian-Coke-Info-Graphic-1024x576.png?s

That's very interesting Robert, thank you.  I am told I should read Carroll Quigley's 'Tragedy & Hope' which potentially outlines this earlier stuff. I knew about the 'Bayonets & Babies' in WW1. Hitlers WW2 propaganda campaign was based largely on the highly effective British use of propaganda in the Boer Wars and WW1. It's no surprise that governments seeing how effective these tools were in wartime, began to incorporate a greater use of propaganda in peacetime. I am sure I read Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernay's was hired by the US government to assist them with this. He wrote the famous book 'Propaganda' in 1928.
Richard Bissell is actually someone I know very little about (aside from his firing) but, straight away I see he is a pal of Averell Harriman and another Yale alumni. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand, Bernay's book was a model for Goebbels.

And the plan to get us to invade Iraq might well have been drawn up by Bernays. It was that extensive and forceful..

I am just saying, IMO, there should have been an inquiry into this.

Nobody notices the irony?  Trump gets impeached over a quid pro quo phone call to Ukraine.

W ends up killing 600,000 Iraquis and 5,000 Americans over a pack of lies and Pelosi says, "Impeachment is off the table."

That is the kind of political culture we live in,.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is the kind of political culture we live in.

The kind of political culture where Trump can make a brazen dictatorial move to scuttle the 2020 election and many people can only bitch about Obama.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

 

      What was Obama's relationship with the Neocons?

      He pilloried John McCain in the 2008 Presidential debates for supporting the Iraq War debacle.  But, much to my surprise, Obama retained Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, and largely went along with the PNAC playbook to de-stabilize Libya and Syria, even signing off on the CIA's Operation Timber Sycamore-- arming Sunni proxy militias (Al Qaeda, et.al.) to overthrow Assad, while ostensibly fighting "ISIS."   

Are you sure about that?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-nixed-cia-plan-could-have-stopped-isis-officials-n549111

The CIA in 2012 proposed a detailed covert action plan designed to remove Syrian President Bashar Assad from power, but President Obama declined to approve it, current and former U.S. officials tell NBC News.

It’s long been known that then-CIA Director David Petraeus recommended a program to secretly arm and train moderate Syrian rebels in 2012 to pressure Assad. But a book to be published Tuesday by a former CIA operative goes further, revealing that senior CIA officials were pushing a multi-tiered plan to engineer the dictator’s ouster. Former American officials involved in the discussions confirmed that to NBC News.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/obamas-syrian-chemical-weapons-legacy-so-bad-17512?nopaging=1

To critics of the entire "red-line" episode, the joint UN/OPCW report is proof that the Obama administration was made to look like a fool—that entering into an agreement and trusting that a dictator would willingly give up his most powerful weapons was the very definition of aloofness. But what these very same critics cannot answer is whether the alternative they were advocating at the time—using coordinated military force on Assad's chemical-weapons facilities—would have produced a better result than stepping back and negotiating the arsenal away. Would military force have destroyed 1,300 tons of sarin and VX nerve agent? Would it have allowed international inspectors to investigate Syria's chemical-weapons program for the first time in a very long time? Would military force have convinced the Assad regime to stop committing war crimes and crimes against humanity on its own people, especially when taking into account that a military campaign would not have consisted of a regime-changing mission?</q>
 
The attacks on Obama in this thread — especially in light of the current crisis — are absurd.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...