How Trump Represents a Protest Vote
against the Elite Corporate Media







 By Jacqueline Marcus

According to a recent Gallop poll article entitled, Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low, Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history.

Now consider the following observation made by Terry Gross, host of NPR's Fresh Air, Gross asked her guest, Atlantic reporter, James Fallows:

Correct me if I'm wrong on this…only one daily newspaper wrote an editorial endorsing Donald Trump, and several places that don't usually editorialize wrote editorials opposing him…so you have the mainstream newspapers and magazines taking a more emphatic stance against Trump than I have ever seen in my lifetime…What impact did the press have on the election?

I know why liberals rejected a Trump presidency, but the question I kept asking myself is: Why are the "establishment" mouthpieces at the corporate press hammering Trump? You'd think they'd love a guy who boasts about being an advocate for oil, gas, coal and "making the military stronger," as Trump put it. It's the equivalent of asking: why are the big banks, oil, gas, chemicals, weapon industries against Trump, including the corporate media that is sponsored by these multibillion dollar investors? Why is the old guard Republicans so adamantly opposed to him? Why do the industrial oligarchs, that have been shaping US domestic and foreign policy decisions for the last sixteen years, absolutely fear and loathe Trump?

That question dogged me—after all when was the last time that the corporate media elitists truly cared about profound moral issues, about working Americans, or income inequality, or ending unnecessary wars, or climate disruption, a question intentionally deleted from the corporate networks' list of tabloid questions during the debates. I know why liberal Democrats fear Trump, but I can't figure out why the establishment fears him to the extent that, in addition to the mainstream media, many of the Bush Republicans endorsed Hillary over Trump. I don't know if that did more harm than good for Hillary but it did suggest that Hillary was a safe bet for the ‘powers that be' over an unpredictable Trump.

We didn't see it coming…writes a NY Times columnist, an assertion that ricocheted in the media echo chamber after the Trump-train smashed into their supercilious predictions on Election night.

A stunning repudiation of the establishment…
True enough. But as for not seeing the outcome of a Trump victory, I don't know about you, dear reader, but I saw it coming. I saw it coming when Bernie Sanders had an estimated 50,000 supporters show up at his rallies compared to 2,000 or so for Hillary's rallies during the primary. In the aftermath, we learned through WikiLeaks that Hillary needed help to fight off the growing fire for Bernie, and she received it via the DNC that helped to "tip the scales for Clinton" in the primary. As reported in the Observer, "While Clinton received over two million more votes than Bernie Sanders in the primaries, her candidacy benefited from the Democratic Party leadership bending and breaking the rules to rig the primaries for her campaign."

Likewise, the corporate media did not report on the Bernie Sanders' campaign. They pushed the "ignore" button, but the crowds kept coming for the senator from Vermont. Instead, the press favored Hillary and they made sure that she received positive coverage.

This gives you an idea on why the majority of Americans have a low approval rating of the corporate media's coverage of politics and how the harsh reality for most Americans is deleted from the reporting.

Americans distrust corporate media political analyses for a lot of reasons, but the primary reason is that they know that network pundits don't work for the people. To the contrary, they work for the very corporations that have been oppressing the people. Americans distrust the corporate pundits just on arrogance, alone. The message conveyed from the media is:

We are the experts! We know better than the average American voter, and therefore, Americans will listen to what we have to say and they will be persuaded by our assessments.

The established media strategy is as follows: If we criticize candidate X, and praise candidate Y enough times, the result will be that candidate Y will win.


So now the media pundits are scrambling for excuses: the polls were wrong! The data was incorrect, never mind that they were in charge of conducting the polls, which is also a game of manipulation of sorts given the questions asked and the selected locations of polling.

Meanwhile, just like the Bernie Sanders' YUGE primary rallies, up to 50,000 at times, no one in the mainstream press acknowledged the bursting-at-the-seams crowds for Trump. Or let's put it this way: no one in the media chose to acknowledge those big crowds for Trump because the extraordinarily large number of people defied the corporate media's predictions. I saw the growing crowds for Trump but only on YouTube. The networks never showed the record-breaking crowds for Trump and the long lines of people waiting to attend the Trump rallies.

It's as if those tens of thousands of angry Americans who were fed up with business as usual at Lobbyist Land, D.C., fed up with a long trail of campaign promises that were either ignored or broken, fed up with the escalation of poverty and the rapid decline of the middle class economy from 2000-2016, fed up with endless tax dollars for endless wars, and fed up with President Obama and Hillary Clinton who continued to boast about Obama's "legacy" when working Americans did not see substantial changes in the last eight years.

In fact, Bernie supporters viewed the Obama administration's domestic and foreign policies as a continuation of the Bush-Cheney policies in terms of expanding offshore oil & gas drilling in the US and spreading chaos in the name of "regime change" throughout the Middle East region.

Reporters for the mainstream networks live in their own bubble of wealth and prognostications. They're isolated from the real America that is in deep decline for reasons that both Trump and Bernie Sanders alluded to: selling our country out to the billionaire bidders without giving a damn about the consequences of those decisions that benefited the few while American workers were slapped with pink slips by the thousands as their jobs were outsourced to cheap labor forces that oppressed the poor in third world countries as well due to slave wages and labor conditions. Both Republican and Democratic voters are angry about funding endless wars with their tax dollars that are supposed to be used for our eroding schools, highways, and diminished social services.

Once again, this leads to the ultimate question: Why are the establishment/corporate media elitists so adamantly opposed to Trump? Do you really believe it's because they're offended by Trump's impudence?

Think again. Maybe the oil and war profiteers are afraid that they'll lose their power over military decisions at the cost of endless contracts worth billions of dollars. Hillary made it clear that she was going to continue to "arm rebels" in Syria. In short, the war profiteering business would continue as it has for the last sixteen years under a Hillary Clinton administration. She's a "safe bet". And so the corporate media backed her every step of the way to the extent of brushing the WikiLeaks emails under the radar. Is it possible that Trump could be a threat to the military complex if he decided to shut down the Middle East occupations once and for all?

Americans may not be able to say exactly what's wrong, but they know that the country has been hijacked: the deplorable gap between the corporate oligarchs and the middle-class economy that has been sinking like the Titanic makes the obvious point. While CEOs of Wall St banks and the profiteers of war sail off into the sunset on their $80 million dollar yachts, catering to their hand-picked politicians, as they purchase new private jets to match their new limousines and mansions, hard-working Americans are scarcely able to pay for basic necessities; and that struggle of barely scraping by is the new definition of the US middle class economy.

So when Hillary tried to argue that Trump is wrong and that America is doing just fine, most Americans, including the author of this editorial, said, "Huh?" Fine for you, Hillary, and fine for all your wealthy friends—but not so fine with middle-class American workers.

Although Michael Moore supported Hillary Clinton, he got it right when he said on November 8th that if Trump wins it's the equivalent of Americans raising their middle fingers to the corporate elitists, and most of all—to the mainstream political pundits who labored under the illusion that they have the almighty power to persuade Americans through their own biased methods of persuasion. It seems to me that a vote for Trump was also a vote against the corporate media. It was their way of yelling FU to the establishment.

Americans sent a message to the mainstream press: You don't have as much control as you think you do over the American people. The voters made that point exceedingly clear on Election night.


Jacqueline Marcus' second collection of poems, Summer Rains, was recently published by Iris Press. Her first book of poems, Close to the Shore, was published by Michigan State University Press. Her essays/poems have been published in the Kenyon Review, North American Review, Antioch Review, and more. Her selected essays on the oil industry, Man Cannot Live on Oil Alone/Time to end our dependency on oil before it ends us is available at Amazon Kindle Books. She taught philosophy for 20 years at Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, California, and is the editor of and She is a contributing guest writer for



Trump Represents a New Party
that Threatens the Old Establishment


Trump Rally  
                                    Assassination of Caesar

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.

By Jacqueline Marcus



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
of disguise, and covered with various veils. 
His brows, his eyes, and very often his countenance,
are deceitful, and his speech is most commonly a lie.



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 She was a contributing writer for Buzzflash/Truthout for twelve years.