US allies quickly fall in line echoing US line blaming Assad for alleged Syrian chemical attack

U.S. allies fall in line giving support for Trump's missile attack on a Syrian air base to punish Assad even though there was no independent investigation as to who was to blame, nor any UN motion of support, nor U.S. Congress approval either.

Trump acted solely on his own. He did not bother with the UN. He did not try to involve NATO, as often happens when the UN does not do what the U.S. wants. He did not create a coalition of allies to spread the responsibility. He did not consult his own Congress even though he claimed that president Obama had to do so when he was contemplating a strike. He also advised Obama not to bomb Syria. However, Trump now agrees with Hillary Clinton that bombing a Syrian air base is a good idea. All those supporting the U.S. simply assume Assad is guilty even though this has not been concluded through any objective investigation. I have argued in a recent Digital Journal article that Trump's action was against international law. There is evidence that does not fit with the U.S. evidence against Assad such as that of retired U.S. former intelligence officer Colonel Patrick Lang but it is studiously ignored by the mainstream press. The assumption of Assad's guilt in leaders' statements is just reported "objectively". They can also report objectively that Russia and Iran claim the strikes are against international law. No need to ascertain whether it is true or false since most people will reject the statements as simply propaganda that is not true. Amazingly, Trump, the mentally ill, moron, and inveterate liar suddenly has newspapers who had consistently condemned him singing his praises with the top five papers running 18 favorable opinion pieces on Trump's strikes and none against.

I already wrote an article about the response of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. After an earlier statement in which he suggested there needed to be an investigation and a number of questions needed to be answered after the strikes and a phone call from Trump he immediately came out in support of the attacks. It is almost as if he were acting under instruction. Trudeau said:Canada fully supports the United States’ limited and focused action to degrade the Assad regime’s ability to launch chemical weapons attacks against innocent civilians, including many children. President Assad’s use of chemical weapons and the crimes the Syrian regime has committed against its own people cannot be ignored. These gruesome attacks cannot be permitted to continue with impunity."Note not the slightest suggestion that there might be any doubt about who is guilty. No talk of an investigation nor of lack of a UN motion nor the status of the attacks under international law.

Of course, Israel's Netanyahu who is able to carry out attacks on Syria almost below the radar of the press does not mention international law either. The Israeli PM said:“President Trump sent a strong and clear message today that the use and spread of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. Israel fully supports President Trump’s decision and hopes that this message of resolve in the face of the Assad regime’s horrific actions will resonate not only in Damascus, but in Tehran, Pyongyang and elsewhere.”

Israel has both chemical and nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia joined in with Israel saying that it fully supported the missile strike and that Trump made a courageous decision in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons against citizens.

Some countries, such as China and Sweden did not approve or disapprove but Sweden at least raised questions about Trump's actions. Foreign Minister of Sweden Margot Wallstrom said that the attack "raises questions about how the attack could be compatible with international law". However, for those who favor the strikes that question is a non-starter as is the question of Assad's guilt. China's response by Hua Chunyung of the Chinese Foreign Ministry said: “We hope all sides will stay calm and exercise restraint to prevent the escalation of tension.” A courageous response.

Iran, not surprisingly is opposed to the strikes and does bring up the question of Assad's guilt. A Foreign Ministry spokesperson Bahram Qasemi said "We strongly condemn any unilateral military action and the missile attack on the Al Shayrat air base in Syria by the U.S. Navy and believe that such actions, which use the excuse of a suspicious chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib, whose timing and perpetrators are shrouded in a cloud of doubt, only strengthens terrorists who were already weak and adds to the complexity in Syria and the region."

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, put the Russian position succinctly as "an aggression against a sovereign state in violation of the norms of international law, and under a trumped-up pretext at that." So far the Russians have responded only by shutting down any cooperation with U.S. military forces, a move that makes accidents more probable

Indonesia, with the world's largest Muslim population, condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but Foreign Ministry spokesperson said: "At the same time, Indonesia is concerned with unilateral actions by any parties, including the use of Tomahawk missiles, in responding to the chemical weapon attack tragedy in Syria. Military actions, undertaken without prior authorization of the U.N. Security Council, are not in line with international legal principles in the peaceful settlement of disputes, as stipulated in the U.N. Charter." Why is it Indonesia can see this while Canada and other supporters of the US are blind to what are obvious facts and choose to ignore them?

The Bolivian ambassador to the UN, Sacha Llorenti pointed out that the US had previously attacked and invaded Iraq on the basis of Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction. He summed up the situation quite well: "Now the U.S. believe that they are investigators, they are attorneys, judges and they are the executioners." This is not that surprising but what is quite surprising, shameful, and dangerous for world peace is that US allies uncritically accept this situation. This can only encourage the U.S., especially under Donald Trump, to continue with its same policy without worrying about the response of its allies. The next move might be against North Korea.

Just hours before Trump bombs Syrain airbase Hilllary Clinton called for the same thing

(April 7) The common narrative now is that Trump is in cahoots with Putin and that Russia helped Trump win and that Putin and Donald are good friends.

However, Trump seems to have done almost nothing to help Russia. He has praised NATO and is cooperating with moves to place more NATO troops on Russia's doorstep. He has not even tried to remove sanctions. He has made no moves towards detente with Russia in spite of his earlier rhetoric and campaign promises. Now he has blamed Assad for a gas attack in northern Syria before there has been any investigation or attempts by the UN to find out exactly what happened. Not satisfied with blaming Assad, whom Putin supports, Trump went on to attack an air base where Russians were present. As the saying goes: "With friends like that, who needs enemies?

The decision to strike Assad's airbase had surprising support in that Hillary Clinton had just hours before the announcement recommended there be attacks on Assad's air force: “Assad has an air force, and that air force is the cause of most of these civilian deaths as we have seen over the years and as we saw again in the last few days. And I really believe that we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them.” Perhaps, Trump's missile strike has not gone far enough. There are already voices clamoruing for more, But at least it is a start. This may be the beginning of a new friendship between the defeated Hillary and the triumphant Trump. Both may find their ratings start to soar. Many of those who just a day or so ago were calling Trump a Putin Puppet see his bombing before any investigation, without UN or Congressional approval, and against international law as worthy of praise and as presidential. The same people had just days earlier been searching out his lies, and demonizing him at every turn. Trump is not the only one who can forget what they previously said and change direction within days. RememberTrump had warned Obama that he should not bomb Assad and he should get Congressional approval to do so if he did.

There has been much activity on Twitter regarding Trumps attack. Some supporters of Trump were aghast as during his campaign Trump had said that he would not involve himself in wars that were costly and not really essential to US interests and often involved huge wasteful expenditures. One tweet said: "I guess Trump wasn't "Putin's puppet" after all, he was just another deep state/Neo-Con puppet. I'm officially OFF the Trump train." Anne Coulter the well-known right-wing commentator tweeted: "Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies & creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV." Another tweet emphasized the hypocrisy involved in the decision: "US aids Saddam's use of CW against Iran in 80's; then resorts to military force over bogus CW allegations: 1st in 2003 and now in Syria." 2003 allegations refer to Saddam having chemical weapons (CW).

More faithless US college of elctors members vote against Clinton than Trump

In the U.S. system the President and Vice-President are not directly elected according to whether they receive the most votes but are elected by 535 members of the electoral college who are supposed to vote according to the results in each state.

	1 of 2
Each state is assigned a certain number of electoral college members. The electors are expected to vote in line with the results in the state elections. In the 2016 election Donald Trump won 306 electors and Hillary Clinton 232. Trump needed just 270 votes to win and he easily achieved that. However, he did not receive 306 votes when the electors actually voted but just 304 and Hillary Clinton lost even more votes receiving just 227.

While expected to vote in line with state results electors can vote for anyone they want except in states that have laws forcing them to vote according to the results. In the 2016 election there turned out to be seven "faithless electors", five pledged to vote for Clinton and two for trump. This is the largest number of faithless electors since back in the 1800's. In the last century there has never been more than one in each election. The seven faithless electors were from just three states:2016: four of the seven "faithless" (or "rogue") Electors were in Washington State (which had gone for Mrs. Clinton in the General Election this past 8 November); one (who voted for Senator Sanders) was in Hawaii (which had also gone for Mrs. Clinton); and the remaining two were in Texas (a State which had gone for Mr. Trump in the November Election).

Critics of president-elect Trump had been holding out hope for weeks that his election could be stopped through having enough of those pledged to vote for him under the system turn into faithless electors. There was never even any mention of the fact that electors might not vote for Clinton either. In fact, faithless electors are often those of the candidate who lost the electoral vote. A faithless elector can at least rationalize that the vote will not likely effect the outcome. Not only did Clinton suffer more defections than Trump, she could have suffered even more:One otherwise Hillary Clinton Elector in Colorado attempted to vote for John Kasich and was replaced by an alternate who, instead, voted for Mrs. Clinton; another otherwise Clinton Elector in Maine attempted to vote for Bernie Sanders, but was ruled Out of Order and, instead, thereafter voted for Mrs. Clinton; and yet another Clinton Elector in Minnesota also attempted to vote for Senator Sanders but, as a result, was also replaced by another person who voted for Mrs. Clinton.

Politico claims that the previous record number of faithless electors was in 1808 when six electors opposed James Madison. However, this does not count defections in voting for vice-presidential candidates nor elections with special circumstances. In 1872, 63 Democratic electors did not vote for candidate Horace Greeley since he had died. In 1832 32 electors were faithless but only two with respect to the president.

Of the four votes against Clinton in Washington State, three were for retired general Colin Powell, a Republican. They had hoped to convince Republican electors to follow suit and vote for Powell as a compromise candidate. It never happened. The other elector Robert Satiacum voted for Native American activist Faith Spotted Eagle. The final vote against Clinton was for Bernie Sanders and came from Hawaii. Both faithless electors against Trump came from Texas, with Chris Suprun voting for Ohio Governor John Kasich as was expected. Another elector voted for former Representative Ron Paul a libertarian which was unexpected.

Clinton donors gather to plan fight against Trump

(November 14) Rich liberals attended a three-day closed door meeting at an expensive Washington hotel. After spending tens of millions in a failed attempt to elect Hillary Clinton the group is laying plans to fight back against Donald Trump.

The meeting is taking place at the expensive Mandarin Oriental luxury hotel in Washington. The meeting is sponsored by the influential Democracy Alliance(DA) donor club.

Wikipedia describes the Alliance:As of 2015, the organization has approximately 110 partners who are required to contribute at least $200,000 a year to groups the Democracy Alliance vets and recommends. The Alliance has helped distribute approximately $500 million to liberal organizations since its founding in 2005. Members of the Democracy Alliance include billionaires George Soros and Tom Steyer.[5]The group has its own website.

The Washington meeting will include House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, leaders of some main trade unions and liberal groups, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Keith Ellison Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair. Some of the sessions appear to be focusing on 2017 and 18 elections but others are designed to try and thwart Trump's 100-day plan which the group says is "a terrifying assault on President Obama's achievements--and our progressive visions for an equitable and just nation". Some liberals are reassessing their approach to politics after the failure to elect Clinton.

The DA has had a strategy of orienting some key organizations around Clinton, and by adopting a strategy of appealing to minorities and women whom they thought were a "rising American electorate" that would enable Democrats to win elections. This may have helped to elect Obama but did not take into account the strong anti-establishment vote that Trump was able to attract. In many areas where the white working class had voted for Obama and union leaders supported Clinton this election Trump won out. Issues such as climate change which Democrats emphasize turned out not to be capable of bringing enough votes to Clinton to beat Trump — though some critics outside the party believe not enough was done to emphasize issues over character-based attacks during the election.

One Democratic strategist, active at the grass roots level complained: “The DA itself should be called into question. You can make a very good case it’s nothing more than a social club for a handful wealthy white donors and labor union officials to drink wine and read memos, as the Democratic Party burns down around them.” However, another liberal strategist said that Clinton won the popular vote. What was needed he said was to have Democrats vote in greater numbers. Democratic candidates needed to inspire voters to vote for them on election day. Gara Lemarche, president of the DA said that at least some reassessment was in order saying: “You don’t lose an election you were supposed to win, with so much at stake, without making some big mistakes, in assumptions, strategy and tactics.” He also said that reassessment should take place without recrimination or "finger-pointing" and should not be rushed.

Some sessions focused on protecting Obamacare and other key Obama programs. Trump is considering amending Obamacare rather than repealing it outright. It is possible that some compromise can be worked out on the issue. There will also be sessions on winning the working-class vote as well as sessions stressing the importance of providing cash for state races where Republicans made big gains this election. Keith Ellison spoke today on winning working-class votes. He has been a leader in pressing for a type of economic populism, a strategy that no doubt helped Trump. Ellison is a top candidate to head the Democratic National Committee.

Since it began in 2005 the DA has donated up to half a billion to several groups including Media Matters, Center for American Progress and Catalyst, all run by Clinton allies and who will have sent representatives to the DA meeting. Business magnate George Soros committed or donated $25 million to boosting Clinton and other Democratic candidates in 2016. During the primaries Soros said that Trump along with his rival Ted Cruz "were doing the work of ISIS". Soros will give a speech on Tuesday morning apparently dealing with his experiences living through the Holocaust and then under Soviet rule in Hungary. However, president of the DA, LaMarche claimed that Soros would not compare Trump with Hitler. Some items for the conference had to be changed because Clinton lost.

Hillary Clinton gives hawkish speech before American Legion

In a recent speech before the American Legion, Clinton took a hawkish stance that shows she is committed to U.S. intervention throughout the world, and is a strong defender of American exceptionalism.

Justin Raimondo, who describes himself as a "conservative-paleo-libertarian" and is editor of antiwar.com, has a long article analyzing and commenting on her speech.

Given the audience, it is not too surprising that the speech should defend US militarism but it reveals Clinton's strong support for U.S. interventionism around the world. The speech is filled with patriotic boiler plate phraseology. Here is a good sample:If there’s one core belief that has guided and inspired me every step of the way, it is this. The United States is an exceptional nation. I believe we are still Lincoln’s last, best hope of Earth. We’re still Reagan’s shining city on a hill. We’re still Robert Kennedy’s great, unselfish, compassionate country.This surely could not be the country that dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, that carpet bombed and used napalm on Vietnam, that had black sites, and runs Guantanamo, or sells arms to Saudi Arabia just to cite a few items that seem to contradict Clinton.

As Raimondo points out Clinton goes on to characterize the United States as an indispensable nation:“And part of what makes America an exceptional nation, is that we are also an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation. People all over the world look to us and follow our lead...Now all of this may seem evident, especially to men and women who have worn the uniform. You may wonder how anyone could disagree. ”

Raimondo points out that the concept of the U.S. as an "indispensable nation" comes from Madeleine Albright who told Matt Lauer on "The Today Show": "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future." This was in 1998 when Bill Clinton announced he would start bombing Iraq because Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Economic sanctions were causing hardships and death among children and the elderly in Iraq. Albright said that it was worth it. It was left for Clinton's Republican successor to actually invade and occupy Iraq but the Democrats had laid the groundwork. Clinton had avidly supported the war but because of its unpopularity no doubt changed her viewpoint.

As Raimondo points out as defined by Hillary "American exceptionalism" is an exceptionally arrogant stance meaning that America "not only has the right but the moral responsibility to intervene in every conflict, no matter how far from our shores or how removed from our actual interests."

Not surprisingly, Clinton criticizes Trump for approving of Putin's critique of this "exceptionalism": “But, in fact, my opponent in this race has said very clearly that he thinks American exceptionalism is insulting to the rest of the world." No doubt it is insulting to many in other parts of the world no matter how well it plays to an American legion audience. According to Clinton, U.S. exceptionalism means: ".. that we recognize America’s unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress, a champion for freedom and opportunity. Our power comes with a responsibility to lead, humbly, thoughtfully, and with a fierce commitment to our values.” This hardly fits in with any objective account of U.S. actions on the world stage. As with other countries, America acts in what it takes to be its own interests. Or as Raimondo puts it:This nonsense about our “unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress” demonstrates either ignorance of history, or else contempt for it. The British Empire imagined itself playing an identical role — and where are they now?All empires portray themselves in glowing moral terms including that of the former Soviet Union.

Intervention knows no limits for Clinton: “No matter how hard it gets, no matter how great the challenge, America must lead.” Yet it is this policy which has cost the U.S. so many in lives lost and so much money spent. Clinton will brook no requirements that caps be put on military spending as with the recent sequester rules:But we cannot impose arbitrary limits on something as important as our military. That makes no sense at all. The sequester makes our country less secure. Let’s end it and get a budget deal that supports America’s military, our families, and our country.You can expect more foreign intervention under Clinton and more military spending to pay for it. Raimondo points out that the American public is getting tired of paying for all these foreign adventures and would prefer to put America first even if this meant "isolationism".

Near the end of her speech, Clinton launches an attack on Russia and China for their cyber attacks, including the alleged Russian attack on the Democratic National Committee which showed the committee was favoring Clinton over her rival Sanders.

Clinton said: "As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses.” As for her opponent, Clinton's campaign manager has said that Trump is Putin's puppet. Surely Putin can find a better speech writer for his puppet.

Surprisingly, Raimondo does not suggest who we should vote for. You would think that he would suggest voting for the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. He finds that Clinton is very scary. Maybe he thinks it might be best to vote for Donald Trump as the less scary of the two but he doesn't commit himself in his article.

How media spins Trumps' remarks on Hillary emails

Donald Trump says many bizarre things, and often reverses his positions on matters, or even lies. Nevertheless some in the press are so anxious to make him look bad that they interpret what he says in the worst possible light.

	1 of 2
Recently Trump made remarks about the emails deleted from Hillary's personal email account and thus could not be accessed by the FBI. His actual remarks were: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Trump first said he was joking. But the joke probably indirectly makes reference to the now-common position that the Russians were involved in hacking the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and releasing them to damage Hillary Clinton's nomination campaign. Russian involvement is widely reported as being confirmed by experts even though other experts point out as in USA Today :Computer security researchers say it’s difficult to definitively say the cyber theft of files from the Democratic National Committee subsequently posted online by Wikileaks was the work of Russian hackers, as some media outlets have reported.Such details will be more and more left out as the drive to demonize Trump along with Russia becomes more urgent apparently.

Note that the emails Trump refers to were deleted. If, as the new narrative goes, Russians are busy hacking everything to do with US politics, perhaps they hacked into Hillary's personal email account and have the emails. There is nothing to do with encouraging the Russians to hack Hillary's email, just that if they did then they should reveal them to the press. Later Trump says they should reveal them to the FBI. The entire short episode simply takes a jibe at Clinton's 30,000 deleted emails that the FBI cannot examine and the view that the Russians have been busy hacking US politicians accounts. It appears to be nothing but a contrived joke as Trump first declared.

There is no mention of encouraging Russians to hack Clinton. They could not do it anyway to get the emails since they are deleted. They must already have done it.

Nevertheless many press responses ignore all this. Consider the Digital Journal article headline: "Trump encourages Russia to hack Clinton emails." The New York Times is not much better as in an article it says: Donald Trump sensationally challenged Russia on Wednesday to hack into Hillary Clinton's emails as a furious Democratic campaign accused the Republican nominee of inviting foreign spies to meddle in the US presidential election.

He did not challenge Russia to hack into Hillary Clinton's emails. They are deleted. He implied that if they did, if they released them the press would be interested and later mentioned the FBI as well. Another prestigious outlet, The Atlantic, goes on:Even as some Trump supporters insisted he was just joking, several national security experts said they could not recall another instance of a major party candidate calling on a foreign power to spy on a U.S. citizen, much less on a political opponent. "Leaders who are serious about national security do not, even in jest, encourage foreign powers to spy on us," said Timothy Naftali, co-director of New York University's Center for the United States and the Cold War.But Trump said nothing suggesting Russia should spy on the United States. What you have is more development of narratives linking up Trump and Russia in a bid to damage the Clinton candidacy. Maybe there is such a conspiracy but Trump's remarks do not provide any evidence for it.

Whether by design or incompetence, Trumps' words are deliberately misconstrued to fit in with the pattern of demonizing Trump that appears to be common in much press coverage of him. He is surely bad enough that his words need not be twisted just to make him look bad.

Sanders fails to have Democratic Platform directly oppose Trans-Pacific Partnership

Bernie Sanders supporters lost a fight to introduce language into the Democratic Platform that would directly oppose the giant Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal.

The TPP is strongly supported by the Obama administration and business groups but opposed by Sanders supporters and many prominent people including the Nobel Prize winner in Economics Joseph Stiglitz and Elizabeth Warren. Hillary Clinton was originally in favor of the deal but now opposes it. Yet her supporters were instrumental in ensuring that language specifically against the TPP did not make it into the platform.

The platform committee came up with a compromise motion that was critical of "trade agreements that do not support good American jobs." The compromise was reached by labor groups supporting Clinton. The compromise motion was passed by a vote of 116 to 64. Clinton campaign director Maya Harris said:"We are proud to stand with our friends in organized labor in passing a strong amendment to the Democratic platform on all trade deals, including the TPP." The labor leaders did not mention that an anti-TPP vote would embarrass Obama, a strong supporter of the TPP but said the compromise language would do plenty to damage Republican efforts to run on trade. Quite the opposite, the compromise language which does not explicitly condemn the TPP, allows Trump to correctly call.the Democrats complete hypocrites who are not even willing to condemn what they say they do not support. Trump can say that the move shows that Clinton and her supporters do not really oppose the TPP but want to appear to do so in order to get votes. For once, Trump appears to be correct.

In a classic example of goofy spin-doctoring American Federation of Teachers President, Randi Weingartien, said: "We take what Trump has used as a sound bite, and we turn it into a standard." In order that Weingarten not be alone in hypocritical spinning, Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County,. and Municipal employees, which sponsored the compromise language said: "The trade union movement does not take a back seat to anybody regarding its opposition to bad trade deals." Well surely anyone who is in the front seat must understand that if you oppose the TPP as you do you must be willing to assert that you are, otherwise you will be in the back seat compared to someone like Trump or Sanders, Warren, or Stiglitz who come out and directly oppose it. The trade union leaders responsible for this nonsense congratulated themselves on the motion evading any direct repudiation of the TPP in a joint statement: "Our bold statement in support of fair trade standards for working people passed overwhelmingly, by a count of 117 to 64.”

The Sanders' campaign had generated more than 800,000 anti-TPP signatures but it made no difference. The Sanders forces tried to amend the compromise resolution simply by adding "and thats why we oppose the TPP." After all Clinton herself claims to oppose the TPP. Why can't her platform say it? According to the Washington Post, 90 delegates were supportive of Clinton 72 supported Sanders, and 25 were uncommitted. Sanders' supporters thought that enough of the uncommitted would see the merits of opposing the TPP to pass the amendment.

Ben Jealous, former president of the NAACP introduced the brief amendment, arguing that the party would give away an electoral advantage if it were too slippery on trade. It would create an opening for Donald Trump as a Republican who could campaign for the first time on a bad trade deal. Jealous said: "The majority of Democrats, like the majority of Americans, are against the TPP, Hillary is against the TPP. Bernie is against the TPP. Let’s not be bureaucrats — let’s be leaders." Jealous' amendment garnered just 74 votes. The press always goes on about the failings of Trump, will they similarly rail against the Democratic Party and Clinton who can't bring themselves to put a plank in the party platform that says what they claim, opposition to the TPP.

Jim Hightower, Sanders delegate from Texas moved that there not be any TPP vote in Congress. it was defeated with 71 for and 104 against. Immediately, there was active spinning of what had just happened. Maya Harris, senior policy adviser to the Clinton campaign said that Clinton "is not interested in tinkering around with the margins of the TPP and that the TPP fails the test now laid out in the platform." Clinton does not need to tinker around the margins she just has to come out and oppose the TPP.. No wonder people get fed up with a political establishment that ignores the obvious and tries to manipulate public opinion in a completely hypocritical way and with nonsensical spinning of what happens.

The nonsensical spin was evident too on the Sanders' side, a sign of what the Sanders campaign may be all about. Warren Gunnels, Sanders' policy director said:"The good news is that virtually everyone who spoke during the debate on trade made it clear that they opposed this unfettered free trade agreement.Sen. Sanders, Sec. Clinton and the overwhelming majority of Democrats agree: The TPP should not come up for a vote after the election. If Democrats are going to prevail in November we must make clear to the American people that we stand firmly against the TPP. We will continue fighting to protect American jobs and to ensure Congress does not pass this disastrous trade agreement."The bad news is that Clinton refused to have the Democratic Party clearly say that it opposes the TPP and has left a clear opening for Trump to criticize such rank hypocrisy. As Sanders delegate Robert Kraig put it: "We've had no speech here in favor of TPP, but we can't bring ourselves to say we oppose TPP."

Sanders supporters are expected to bring the issue up for a vote again at the Democratic Convention to be held in Philadelphia July 25th to 28th.

Guantanamo unlikely to close before Obama's term ends

A sign that Guantanamo Bay is not set to close anytime soon are new construction contracts to build new facilities and repair old buildings at the naval base in Cuba.

There has been $240 million budgeted for improvements and repairs to buildings used by personnel assigned to work on the base. Contracts awarded to five different firms stretch over five years.

One contract awarded to Munilla Construction Management of Miami is for $63 million to build a new school for children of civilians and military working on the island. Even though there are already two schools for those at the base, U.S. officials claim that the facilities are not enough for the 6,000 people at the base.

Base Commander Captain David Culpepper said: "The quality of life for our residents and their families is of the utmost importance and the new school will provide a great opportunity for our children for many years," Construction at the base would indicate that the prison is not to be closed soon or there would not be the need to build a new school. If the base were being closed soon one would think that the present two schools would be more than enough for those who remained working at the base. Cuba has repeatedly asked for the return of the territory as part of normalizing relations between the two countries but there is no sign of that happening. Obama promised to close the base during his 2008 presidential campaign but has yet to do so.

Donald Trump has condemned Obama's plan to close the base and claimed he would keep it open. In February Obama outlined his plans to Congress for closing the base but it immediately was criticized by many Republicans and even some Democrats mostly because it involves bringing some of those held to the continental United States. Congress is vehemently against such a move even though as Obama points out on the appended video, there are a number of convicted terrorists already held in the continental United States without any problems. However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he was not willing to accept bringing suspected terrorists to the US. He said: “The bipartisan will of congress has already been expressed against that proposal.” The plan does not set out exactly where the prisoners might go but even the suggestion to where they might go brought rejections and outcry from the areas named.

Hillary Clinton, who claims to support the closing of Guantanamo, said that she backed Obama's effort to close the prison but also stressed that terrorist suspects would not necessarily be transferred to a military jail here. She is obviously trying to avoid the fact that Obama is intending to relocate some prisoners to the continental U.S.

Senator John McCain, who has been generally supportive of Obama in his attempt to close Guantanamo, was nevertheless critical of his plan. “What we received today is a vague menu of options, not a credible plan for closing Guantanamo, let alone a coherent policy to deal with future terrorist detainees. The president has missed a major chance to convince the Congress and the American people that he has a responsible plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.”

Some have pointed out that Obama could simply use his executive power to close the base and transfer the prisoners to the U.S. However, such a move is too politically dangerous for him to try. It could damage the chances of Hillary Clinton to be elected president and create a huge outcry in Congress, and even give rise to court challenges. An article earlier this year in Time,goes through the reasons why Obama will not be able to close Guantanamo and concludes:... expect the President and his Team to publicly anguish over closing Guantanamo unilaterally; expect them to decide in the end that the rule of law — which the President holds dear and will play up in his memoirs — forbids it; and expect fifty or so dangerous terrorists to be locked up in indefinite military detention in Guantanamo when the next President assumes office on January 20, 2017.

In the appended video, Obama speaks of Guantanamo violating American values. However moving the suspects to the US and closing down the facility does not change the fact that he is still violating the basic right to be charged if you commit a crime and be able to defend yourself in a court of law. Obama's plan continues the scheme of indefinite detention of those thought a danger to the US with no charge being brought against them and no way for those accused to prove their innocence. If you are a terror suspect you are guilty until those who arrested you think you are no longer a danger and can be released.

US bill on Puerto Rico bailout described as "colonial-style takeover"

A U.S. House committee has just approved the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act last Wednesday. The legislation gives control of the country's financial institutions to a board whose members are appointed by the U.S. government.

Activists and journalists warn that the bill would constitute a "colonial-style takeover" of Puerto Rico by the U.S. amid the country's crippling debt crisis. Journalist Juan Gonzalez explained: “The bill has provoked a furor among many island residents because it imposes a seven-member oversight board with dictatorial powers that harken back to colonial days.”

At one time, Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony and later a U.S. colony. There is disagreement in Puerto Rico about the relationship the country should have with the U.S. The two main parties differ — the Popular Democratic Party (PPD) wants the country to maintain the island's status with the US as a commonwealth while the New Progressive Party (PNP) wants Puerto Rico to be a state. The Puerto Rico Independence Party ( PIP) wants a separate country independent of the US. The PIP gets only about 5 percent of the vote while the other two get about 47 percent each. As long ago as 1914 Puerto Rico tried to gain independence from the US: In 1914, the Puerto Rican House of Delegates voted unanimously in favor of independence from the United States, but this was rejected by the U.S. Congress as "unconstitutional," and in violation of the 1900 Foraker Act.[59]

Puerto Rican activists condemn the present bill because it is meant just to protect bondholders, while "paving the way for massive cuts in public services." Gonzalez called the bill a poison pill that will involve a virtual takeover of the Puerto Rican economy. The board will have control of a five-year fiscal plan for Puerto Rico and would likely impose harsh cuts on social service spending and government pension funds. The bill would force the Puerto Rico government to reduce its minimum wage to $4.25 per hour for those under 25. The board would have to approve any new laws that are passed in Puerto Rico, and would also control capital investments in the country. As Gonzalez summed it up: “So you’re in essence creating … a control board that will be of nonresidents of the island running the financial affairs of Puerto Rico for the next five, possibly 10 years.” The bill has strong bi-partisan support, including from Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration. However, Bernie Sanders has condemned the bill as a gift for Wall Street. In a speech in the capital of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Sanders said:“It is unacceptable to me for the United States government to treat Puerto Rico like a colony during a time when its people are facing the worst fiscal and economic crisis in its history. In my view, the people of Puerto Rico must be empowered to determine their own destiny. When you establish a federal control board that says these unelected officials have the power to make major, major decisions impacting millions of people and they are accountable to nobody … that’s wrong.”

The bill is meant as a solution to Puerto Rico's long-standing debt crisis. The $72 billion in debt is unpayable according to the governor and has to be restructured. Much of the country's debt is owned by hedge funds. Sanders spoke out against what he called the "vulture capitalists" who wanted to impose crippling austerity measures on Puerto Rico that would hurt most the poor and working class. He said the hedge funds could afford to take a "massive haircut." Sanders said: “In the midst of this massive human crisis, it is morally unacceptable that billionaire hedge-fund managers have been calling for even more austerity in Puerto Rico. Austerity will not solve this crisis. As we all know from throughout the world, austerity will cause more suffering for working people and make the rich richer. We must vigorously oppose all efforts at austerity.It is unacceptable to me that vulture funds on Wall Street are demanding that Puerto Rico fire teachers, close schools, cut pensions and abolish the minimum wage so that they can reap huge profits off the suffering and the misery of the children and the people of Puerto Rico. We cannot allow that to happen. We will not allow that to happen.”The House will vote on the bill in June.

In contrast to Sanders, Clinton expressed support for the bill in spite of some reservations:“While I have serious concerns about several provisions in this bill, including the creation of an oversight board that would exert substantial control over Puerto Rico, I believe that we must move forward with this legislation,Otherwise, without any means of addressing this crisis, too many Puerto Ricans will continue to suffer. As this bill moves forward, I will work to ensure that concerns about the oversight board are addressed and any such entity includes members that will act in the best interest of Puerto Ricans — protecting their health, their pensions and their well-being.We can no longer sit idly by while hedge funds seek to maximize their profits at the island's expense.".

Sanders wants Congress to allow Puerto Rico to declare bankruptcy on its debt. The reworked version of the bill has the backing of the White House, Republican Speaker Paul Ryan, Democratic House Minority leader Nacy Pelosi, and progressive and conservative wings of both parties.

Hillary Clinton supports US special forces in Libya

Hillary Clinton said she supports the Obama Administration's use of U.S. special forces to defeat the Islamic State in Libya.

Clinton's remarks give further confirmation of reports that U.S. special forces are already operating in Libya. UK and French special forces are also reported to be in Libya. Clinton said on Fox News:

“We already are, as you know from the headlines and the stories, using special forces, using air strikes to go after ISIS leaders, We ought to be supporting [Libyans], not only with special forces and air strikes against terrorists, but helping them secure their borders and deal with some of the internal challenges they face.”Clinton has already faced a barrage of criticism for the earlier intervention by the U.S. in Libya that helped overthrow Gadaffi, and her reaction to the attack on the U.S. consular office in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador.

The U.S. special forces are said to be there in an advisory role. Clinton did not make it clear whether in a Clinton administration they could have a combat role. She said she opposes the use of ground troops in Libya. As with the Obama administration, if Clinton becomes president, the special forces will not be issued boots so that there will be no boots on the ground in Libya.

Clinton also defended her support for the overthrow of Gadaffi, claiming there is less strife and fewer casualties than Syria, where Assad remains in power. Though Bernie Sanders actually voted in favor of a resolution calling for an end to the Gadaffi regime, he criticized Clinton on Twitter, saying the U.S. intervention had made the U.S. less safe. As the appended video shows, Hillary admits she was wrong on Iraq.

While Clinton admitted that the Islamic State is now a presence in Libya, she claimed the situation would be much worse it the U.S. had not intervened if the U.S. had not intervened while she was Secretary of State:The current situation is "deeply regrettable," Clinton said at a Fox News televised town hall, with instability created by "squabbling" among Libyan leaders and "forces from the outside." Even so, she pointed out, "the Libyan people have voted twice in free and fair elections for moderate leaders."The turnout for the second election in June of 2014 was 18 per cent according to Wikipedia. In November the Libyan Supreme Constitutional Court declared the elections unconstitutional and the House of Representatives (HoR), the internationally recognized government, invalid. The international community and the HoR dismissed the ruling as having been forced upon the court. There is no mention of Haftar's attempted coup.

Clinton claimed that if it had not been for the U.S. intervention, Libya would be like Syria:"When I look at this, an absence of action by NATO, by Arab League members, would have probably turned Libya into Syria, which I think would have been an even more dangerous situation. I think maybe 1,500 people were killed last year [in Libya] compared to probably 150,000 in Syria."She also noted the UN was leading an effort to create a "unity government" in Libya "enabling the people of Libya to get what they voted for." She does not point out that they will not get to vote on the UN-brokered Government of National Accord (GNA) or that the the government they did vote for the HoR has failed several times to vote confidence in the GNA.

Bernie Sanders' campaign gains ground among younger women

As if to prove Sanders is right and Wall Street and other money interests control U.S. elections, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) overturned a ban on federal lobbyists, introduced by Obama in 2008, restricting donations from super-PACs.

A political action committee (PAC) is an organization that collects contributions from members and uses those funds to campaign for or against candidates for election or legislation. Only Hillary Clinton will benefit from the move, since she is the only candidate who takes such donations. Sanders refuses to take any funds from super-PACS. The move may help Sanders though, as it shows Hillary is dependent upon lobbyists for support.

According to the New York Times, Clinton received a total of $47.9 million from super-PACs in 2015 at the same time as she advocated campaign finance reform. The chair of the DNC, Debbie Schultz, also accepts money from super-PACs and corporate interests. As more and more Americans are asking their politicians to break off monetary dependence on wealthy individuals and corporations, the DNC is moving to gain increased funding from those sources to defeat Sanders who is attempting to reform the system. Shultz's seeming favoritism towards Clinton has led to calls for her resignation in some quarters.

A joint fund-raising group between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, named the Hillary Victory Fund, rose $26.9 million as of the the end of 2015. Thirty-three state Democratic parties signed pacts with Hillary's campaign. The Clinton campaign is said to control the funds and decide which states receive the funds. According to Bloomberg, New Hampshire received $124,000. Another factor that worked against Sanders in New Hampshire are that six super-delegates voted for Hillary even though Sanders received 60 percent of the vote in the primary election. Super-delegates are automatically seated and are free to vote for whomever they want.

The super-delegate system was started in the 1980s as a way of giving the party establishment more influence on determining who was the presidential nominee. Sanders will have an uphill battle to win. The Democratic establishment together with wealthy individual and corporate interests that bankroll the party are doing their best to defeat him.

The Sanders campaign and his policies have even caused splits among renowned elite economists. Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, provided data to explain the costs and benefits of Sanders economic agenda. These include his Medicare-for-all health plan, $15 an hour wage plan, equal gender pay program, and other programs. Four economists, Alan Krueger, Christina Romer, Austan Goolsbee, and Laura Tyson wrote an open letter to Friedman accusing him of "extreme claims" and claimed he undermined the whole progressive economic agenda. The Nobel Prize laureate Paul Krugman then set out in several blogs to criticize Friedman and Sanders. Citing the letter against Friedman, Krugman said Sanders was engaging in "fantasy" and "voodoo."

The attacks caused former Joint Economic Committee Executive Director, James Galbraith to defend Friedman. Galbraith, who teaches at the University of Texas, said none of Friedman's critics had actually crunched the numbers to show where Friedman was wrong. He directly accused all five prominent economists of dishonestly smearing Friedman to gain political points for Hillary Clinton. Galbraith said of the letter from the four economists:"You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans .On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman's study. I found nothing there."The criticism of Friedman is rather ironic since he himself supports Clinton, not Sanders. Galbraith concluded there were quite significant results from Sanders program because of their scale and that they were not fantasy. Galbraith concludes: "What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders' proposals stems from their scale and ambition. When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result. It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman's methods are extreme. Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman's paper a rigorous review. You have not."

Galbraith is particularly angry that Paul Krugman has used his "high perch to airily dismiss the Friedman paper as 'nonsense.'" Many people rely on Krugman to make careful assessments, Galbraith claims, but in this case he has made no such assessment. Friedman's work in this case is far more careful than Krugman's casual dismissal of his work itself, based upon an analysis by the four economists that did not carefully analyze Friedman's work.

Along with the division about Sanders and his programs among economists, the polls vary as well. However, Sanders definitely appears to be gaining in popularity while Hillary's popularity is sliding. Ironically, Hillary is failing to gain the support of many women, especially younger women. Policies are trumping gender. The result has been some very flawed attempts to help Hillary by prominent feminists such as Gloria Steinem.

A recent poll by Fox News shows Sanders with 47 percent support to Clinton's 44 percent. This is a 10 percent gain over the same poll taken in January. While this is the first poll showing Clinton as trailing, in the last two Quinniplac University tracking polls Clinton led Sanders by only two per cent. The Hill blog notes:It's unclear whether the numbers are outliers or indicative of a dramatic change in the race. Outside of the Quinnipiac poll, Clinton posted double-digit leads in all three national polls conducted in February, with the largest lead coming in at 21 percentage points.

The Democratic establishment is getting more and more worried. Sanders was supposed to be the sheepherder who would help bring leftists back into the Democratic fold. The only problem is that he brought in too many sheep and it now looks as if they could take over the party and Clinton could lose the nomination.