How Trump Represents a Protest Vote
How corporate players and the mainstream media are using liberals to remove from power a legitimately elected president by the people of the United States.
Rely on principles—Epictetus
Hillary's Loss: Make the judgment call on Obama's decisions, not by his speeches:
I understand why Trump was elected. After all, if Obama had shut down the occupation of Iraq, if he had taken the trillions of dollars that went directly to the weapon contractors and used those funds to rebuild an eroding infrastructure instead of creating mass suffering in the Middle East by invading not one, but six sovereign countries in the name of "Regime Change", had he begun the process of replacing oil with solar instead of promoting fracking and oil drilling beyond Dick Cheney’s wildest dreams, had he not been obsessed with the perverted desire to spy on every single person and leader in the world, perhaps Hillary would have won when she boasted to continue Obama’s legacy.
The truth is—most Americans were fed up with the Obama years: endless wars and endless poverty and the demise of the middle class.
I felt terribly betrayed by Obama and the Democratic Party. Consequently, I voted for Senator Bernie Sanders who had far larger crowds at rallies than did Hillary Clinton, which led one to question if he had won the primary, but that still remains to be seen, no? It’s an inquiry that my liberal colleagues have brushed aside, including Bernie, himself.
So—like an addict withdrawing from the ugliness of politics, I’ve taken a long hiatus from the media and the press to gain a bit of clarity during the last six months.
And then I made the stupid mistake of returning to the ugly world of politics because I could no longer remain silent.
I’ve watched with disgust the ruthless and corrupt tactics that both the liberals and the mainstream media have being using against Trump in their attempt to remove from power a legitimately elected president by the people of the United States.
To be clear: This is not about Trump on whether you approve or disapprove of his policies for America. It’s about upholding our constitutional laws. Presidents come and go, but principles last forever.
The War against Trump...
In my improvable opinion (for now, anyway), I believe the war on Trump is about a group of oligarchs that placed their bets on Hillary Clinton, and the billions of dollars that they had planned to make in the glorified name of globalization at the expense of our nation’s sovereignty. By sovereignty I mean a nation's autonomy, independence, self-government. Our Constitution is the foundation of the United States' sovereignty.
I’ll return to that subject on the real meaning behind globalization in a minute, and how my liberal journalist colleagues have been duped again by the master imposter, Barack Obama.
Although the corporate media commentators and U.S. press make it appear as though Trump is hated here and abroad, in reality, the war against Trump has been launched by a small circle of political players that refuse to accept the legitimate outcome of the election.
But above all else, it’s about the Trump Phenomenon of creating a new moderate Party that is a serious threat to the old establishment, viz. the two Parties. However, it's quite obvious that both Parties are funded by the same corporate masters. Think of Hillary hugging G.W. Bush and his father as a symbolic gesture there is only one elitist club so to speak.
Trump managed to create a new Party by obliterating the two-Party establishment. We know that moderate and frustrated Democratic and Republican voters rolled the dice for Trump.
Every man’s nature is concealed with many folds
Obama's Legacy: Why Trump won
For years I wrote about the sins committed by a president that I voted for—not just once, but on the second round, reluctantly. Obama raised the "act" of saying one thing to the public and doing just the opposite in private to new and abominable heights.
Example? I could give dozens.
For starters Obama boasted during the 2008 campaign that he wanted transparency in the White House. As it turned out, Obama made most of his decisions behind closed doors. Take BP’s 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil explosion, the world’s worst oil disaster to date: Barack Obama allowed BP to take full control, including giving BP's Macondo well priority over the protection of an ocean teeming with a huge diversity of marine life.
The Gulf of Mexico is now a toxic dead zone with very little chance of regeneration due to the thick layer of oil the size of Rhode Island, 3,000 miles long over the seafloor.
But you’d never know that by Obama’s speeches. In fact, to this day, Obama still refers to the BP oil explosion that killed eleven workers as merely an “oil leak”. This horrific ecological tragedy created a domino effect of severe consequences that destroyed multibillion dollar family businesses in tourism and the fishing industry. To this day, the toxins that killed the marine life created an endless deadly chain of chronic illnesses, cancers and deaths with every year that passes. That sad narrative remains censored in the media. But the Macando is alive and well and as dangerous a threat as ever. Mr. Obama learned nothing from this horrific tragedy: not only did he approve of re-opening the Macondo, secretly, he permitted 30 or more deepwater wells for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. It's just a matter of time before it happens again because no safety regulations were enforced.
To be clear, if there were an award for Who Can Best Fool the People, Barack Obama would win it, hands down. After Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, the Board asked him to return it when they realized that Obama was a war-monger. They too came to the realization that they were fooled by an imposter.
To imagine that five hundred men, drawn from
every corner of the kingdom, will make a good law! Is it not a dreary joke,
for which the people will sooner or later have to pay? They have a change of
masters; that is all.
Obama’s oratory talent of pulling the wool over most people’s eyes comes sadly at the expense of our sovereignty as a nation. Our sovereignty is protected under the United States Constitution, our Bill of Rights.
I'll never forget the day Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, January 2012, on New Year’s Day, as if it were a celebration. With a single stroke of the pen, he relinquished what little rights we had left after the Patriot Act was passed in 2003, which began the rapid elimination of our privacy and independence. Indeed, without privacy, there can be no such thing as freedom or independence.
The NDAA is decadent from its very inception. For instance, it allows the president of the U.S. to be a hit man without any legal ramifications. He/she can assassinate whomever he wants—whether the said “person of interest” has committed a crime or not is irrelevant since the NDAA does away with due process and burden of proof.
As I said, Mr. Obama signed this wretched piece of legislation on New Year’s Day, 2012—as if the demise of the Bill of Rights were something to celebrate. In fact, he was quite happy that day if I recall. To add insult to injury, right after he signed it, he played football on the beach at a multimillion dollar Hawaiian resort home.
For someone who taught constitutional law, this came as a shock to those of us who knew that we had mistakenly elected an imposter. But this was also part of the deception, the lie, the public face—after all, how could we not trust a Harvard professor of constitutional law?
Candidate Obama spoke solemnly about the invasion of Iraq—in 2007—he argued that it was a mistake, and that he did not endorse the illegal, pre-emptive attacks orchestrated by the Bush-Cheney administration. His speeches led us to believe that he opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq and that he would end the suffering, the torture, the perpetual and futile desecration of a defenseless people that did nothing to us. Over a million Iraqis were bombed to death under U.S weapons of mass destruction, obliterating the cradle of civilization.
For eight years, I watched president Obama, the candidate who boasted that it’s best to rely on diplomacy, enforce G.W. Bush’s violence of mass destruction, misery and suffering across the entire Middle East. Iraq wasn’t enough for him. He and Hillary Clinton proceeded to spread the chaos and anarchy from Iraq and Afghanistan to Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Egypt and worst of all—Syria.
The other day, I happened to come across a poignant YouTube clip that was made by a liberal, like myself, intended for Rachel Maddow and the liberal intelligentsia who are soooo outraged over Donald Trump’s immigration policy: He raised the question: Where was the outrage when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were creating a massive refugee crisis, driving millions of families out of their homes and countries in the Middle East with endless drone bombings and CIA operations?
Where were you, Rachel, and my liberal friends when Obama was obliterating one country after another? No outrage?
If Obama cares so deeply about open borders, about the families forced from their homes, then why did he make them victims of his wars for eight years?
The suffering that Obama-Hillary Clinton created in that region can be characterized as nothing less than crimes against humanity. Make no mistake about it: both Obama and Hillary Clinton are war criminals—far more so than even G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Bush obliterated Iraq, which was bad enough, but Obama went on to destroy six more sovereign countries.
Barack Obama’s “regime change” doctrine led to the worst refugee crises since WWII. He was an ideal salesman for the weapon industry, having sold more weapons to the Saudis than any administration since WWII.
We, not the Obama family, we, the people of the world, are now paying the deadly price for his ruthless and irresponsible decisions: perpetual terrorist attacks throughout Europe and the United States. Furthermore, the creation of ISIS emerged as a direct consequence of Obama’s CIA infiltration of every one of those countries. The CIA gave away trucks, guns, bags of money, and all sorts of weapons to anyone willing to stir up the flames and suffering. And then they call the mayhem they created in those countries, “The Peoples' Revolution”.
One is forced to ask the inevitable question: why did the Obama administration create this horrific bloodbath in the Middle East? One’s first reply would be for oil control. But there is something even more sinister than stealing oil behind this “operation” that is difficult to decipher.
Sovereignty vs. Globalization
Perhaps the answer has something to do with globalization: What exactly does globalization mean? Eliminate countries? Eliminate sovereignty? Eliminate borders? Eliminate individuality and independence. Reduce the people of the world to one big ant heap? Eliminate unique cultures, languages, religious and political beliefs? And worst of all, delete each country’s history and their laws.
So while liberals preach the song of diversity, what they haven’t caught on to yet is that their endorsement of no borders and globalization is a deadly threat to diversity and sovereignty.
In other words: Create the McDonaldization of the world, as George Ritzer put it. The principles of McDonaldization are predictability, calculability, efficiency, and control.
This is how, like good little sheep, my liberal friends have fallen victim to Obama’s hypnotic optimistic view of globalization as a humane and beautiful vision; think John Lennon’s Imagine or Bob Marley’s One World.
Given his track record of brutal wars and occupation, the players that are pushing for globalization intend to establish a totalitarian world order; Peace and Love are not exactly what they have in mind.
This explains why Barack Obama paved the way for the oligarchs that have hatched the globalization plan by approving a world-wide surveillance network via the NSA, CIA and other agencies.
What blows me away is that everything seems to be turned upside down. A few conservatives appear to be the only ones willing to speak out about Obama's illegal surveillance crimes. With the exception of former rep (D)Dennis Kucinich, Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange of Wikileaks, the liberals pretend that it never happened.
I could never have predicted in the past that I'd have to turn to Sean Hannity on FOX, but he's the last brave commentator to discuss it--and he's paying a high price for it as his job hangs in the balance. Two investigative reporters that published their research at Circa News, a conservative news journal, wrote the following about the illegal global surveillance operation initiated under Barack Obama's administration:
"The National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community."
It is by far the most invasive surveillance operation in the history of the world, something that Hitler and Stalin would applaud with envy.
The corporate media perpetually protects Obama on the "spying on Trump" issue. I can't tell you how many times reporters have denied that Obama spied on Trump's advisors during the 2016 campaign.
Let me get this straight: It's been proven that Obama's NSA and CIA agencies have spied on just about everything that moves on earth EXCEPT for Donald Trump? Yeah, right.
I'm sorry, but that's like the old joke about the wife that walks in on her husband naked in bed with another woman, and while his mistress is getting dressed, he keeps asking his wife, "What woman? I don't see anyone? What? There's no woman!" as his mistress quickly runs out the door, the husband continues to deny the affair right before his wife's eyes.
The fact that Obama was illegally spying on world leaders, and recently Donald Trump’s campaign advisors, is the real crime that should be investigated—not some phony accusation about the Russians interfering with the 2016 presidential election, in search of a crime based on rumors and scandals.
Allow me to remind my liberal friends that you don’t hire a special prosecutor unless there’s actually a crime that was committed. But who cares if such a witch hunt is illegal or unconstitutional if it serves the purpose of deposing Trump, right?
What’s more important: the preservation of the Bill of Rights or ousting Trump?
The strongest man in the world is he who
stands most alone.
The corporate media's distorted interpretation of Trump's speech: First make America great again
The media's relentless accusations against Donald Trump is beyond anything that I’ve witnessed in my lifetime. Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow! continues to imply that Trump is a Nazi (nationalist) because he has repeated the mantra: America first! Once again, I must part ways with a journalist that I have long admired because I think she's got it wrong and has no clue why she's wrong.
What am I missing here? What's wrong with taking pride in your country? What's wrong with wanting your country to be a beacon of light on the hill? John F. Kennedy said, "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." I suppose if Trump had uttered those words, Amy would have interpreted it to mean that Trump is being tyrannical with the demand that they relinquish their freedoms to serve the State.
What is obvious to me is something that no one else seems to notice.
The same oligarchs that sponsor the corporate media networks are the same elitists that attempted to impeach President Bill Clinton. They are also the same oligarchs that prevented Al Gore from becoming president. Now they’re going after Trump: Only this time they’re using the liberal press to accomplish that task.
Why? Maybe it has something to do with Trump’s plans to invest in the United States and to strengthen the U.S. dollar? Maybe it has something to do with protecting the sovereignty of the United States from the economics of globalization that benefit the Few at the expense of the many?
The last thing this group of oligarchs wants is to see the people’s taxes they’ve been stealing through the back door for decades go towards a American Renaissance of development, the rebuilding of our eroding infrastructure, new schools, highways, hospitals, and the creation of more jobs for unemployed Americans. When Trump speaks about America first--these are the issues that he's talking about. Both the nutcases on the right and on the left have completely distorted and perverted his message.
I'm not a Trump fan, believe me, his views on global warming and deregulation, his budget cuts for those in need, are troubling to say the least, but I had to ask the question, Why are the 'powers that be', and that includes oil executives and their shareholders, not pleased with Trump's pro fossil fuel position? Why are they attacking him as well?
While my liberal friends were busy bashing Trump over silly scandals, I took the time to listen to his speeches, and one of things that stood out for me is that unlike Obama, Hillary and Bush, Trump discussed plans on using a certain percentage of oil profits for rebuilding our aging infrastructure. I wouldn't go so far as to say that he advocated nationalizing oil, (Lord forbid!) pardon my cynicism, but even the mere mention of sharing profits must have hit a chilling nerve.
No wonder oil investors wanted to go for his throat! Didn't Trump know the sacred capitalistic rule that oil and gas profits are never, never, NEVER to be used for the benefit of the country or to be shared with Americans!? Profits go to the select Few! Period. The alarm bells must have been going off at CIA headquarters.
Moreover, Trump demanded that the pipes for oil be made in the U.S. He also said that the oil that comes from our country must be used for our country. You can imagine the anger coming from Wall St shareholders on that one.
Furthermore, defense contractors do not like a president that negotiates for lower prices. When weapon contractors presented the bill to Obama, Obama didn't blink. Here's the federal check, boys! You can understand why they miss him.
The old establishment, this same group of insiders, is betting against the United States. They planned on getting rich by letting the country’s economy sink deeper into poverty equal with that of Mexico's. Hence, “open borders”. In this sense, they’re international traitors who intentionally want our working class economy to collapse.
This group of globalization-oligarchs could care less about Americans or the United States. They don't want money that could be stolen and transferred to their accounts to go towards improving the middle class working economy. That would be going against their bet worth trillions of dollars on letting the United States drop down to a borderless, failed state of decline and poverty. That's why they betted on Hillary: she was supposed to finish the job for them.
Sovereignty? Those days are over, according to this perverted group of elitists that hate Trump. They're mad as hell at Trump for wanting to invest in the United States via job creation and development. Again, many may not agree with his methods, but Trump is determined to get that old, rusty, dying engine of our economy back up and running again. Obama's 2008 stimulus package was a joke: I give him credit for good intentions, but all that money was swallowed up by official state crooks. Name one bridge, one highway, one school that was built?
As I mentioned, the oligarchs that betted on Hillary were banking on getting more wealth and control on the economics of corporate globalization. That’s why Hillary and Obama were selling the global trade agreement, the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) so passionately. Trump and Bernie Sanders opposed the TPP.
The globalization cheerleaders are betting on the decline of the United States, not progress. And the more poor and dependent immigrants that they can bring in to the country, the easier it is for the economy to crash from overpopulation, lack of resources, lack of jobs, which inevitably creates despair, crime and violence. This is the reason why many countries have strict immigration policies such as New Zealand: there are only so many jobs, so much land, housing and resources to go around. It has nothing to do with racism or bigotry.
Example: When the 2008 crash happened, Wall St bank vultures betted on defaulted loans and got rich off millions of Americans losing their homes.
Every day there’s a new scandal, a new rumor against Trump who believes in restoring America’s working economy and increasing the value of the American dollar. Ironically, the oligarchs, with anti-Trump billionaire, George Soros, as their leader, are now using liberals to block Trump from increasing job opportunities for middle-class working Americans.
How are the oligarchs using liberals to oust Trump illegally?
The other day, Jeremy Scahill, a journalist that I have long admired, appeared on Democracy Now! explained that he received secret transcripts between Philippines’ president Rodrigo Duterte and Trump and that Trump was congratulating Duterte for his war on drugs, a deadly order that comes down to committing mass murder against drug addicts and dealers. Clearly Duterte is a thug. But that’s not my point. Scahill admitted that he could not reveal his sources.
Question: What if the CIA fabricated those transcripts and a covert agent, unbeknownst to Scahill, intentionally passed on false transcripts to him, knowing that it would create more scandals against Trump?
More importantly, let’s say that the transcripts are authentic, I find it astonishing that this reporter who works with Glenn Greenwald at the “Intercept” (the title referring to illegal wiretapping), something that we should all oppose, is not at all disturbed about secretly recording private conversations between two leaders without their consent!
Or—take what I heard this morning on NPR’s Sunday Morning Edition pertaining to David Folkenflik’s criticisms of FOXTV’s political commentator, Sean Hannity, and his attempt to learn more about the Seth Rich murder mystery.
Folkenflik characterized Hannity’s suspicions as a “conspiracy theory”. Why? Because Hannity did not provide facts linking Rich, who supposedly passed on information to WikiLeaks which proved that the DNC manipulated the primary results in Hillary’s favor over Bernie Sanders’, and Seth Rich’s murder.
Incidentally, inquiries into Seth Rich’s murder have been completely hushed up and censored over the mainstream media. The only one willing to discuss it is—Sean Hannity.
Consequently, Hannity may be given the axe at FOX for simply raising questions about "motives" behind the Seth Rich murder.
Folkenflik went on to say that FOX is falling apart because the majority of Americans disdain Donald Trump, and given FOX’s favorable perspective of the president, FOX’s ratings are withering on the vine.
Really? I find that a bit hard to believe…
There’s only one small detail that makes that explanation sound absurd: Folkenflik failed to mention that Trump won every state except for five, and that includes 53% white Democratic women.
As for Hannity raising questions on the murder of Seth Rich, it’s rather amusing that NPR’s staff has perpetuated one scandal after another (Russian collusion charges that the Russians interfered with the 2016 presidential election results) based on, guess what? mere innuendo, accusations and rumors. No facts. No evidence.
This corporate media’s ruthless assassination of Trump orchestrated by the same group of oligarchs that impeached Bill Clinton, a punishment against Clinton for wanting to grow the economy for working Americans, and by the liberal intelligentsia that is being used by this group of oligarchs to impeach a President that has only been in office for less than five months is shameless. Worse, the fact that my liberal colleagues are willing to abuse our constitutional rights and principles of decency simply because they don’t like Trump is shocking beyond comprehension to me.
As for the Resist Movement, the majority Americans did resist. They resisted against the two-Party corrupt system that is actually one Party feeding from the same polluted trough. And that's why they chose Trump over Hillary.
Jacqueline Marcus taught political philosophy at Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, California, and is the author of Close to the Shore, (poems) Michigan State University Press, and Summer Rains (poems) Iris Press. She is the editor of ForPoetry.com. She was a contributing writer for Buzzflash/Truthout for twelve years.