(1)>>So why then are so many billionaires running for president in the 2020 cycle or shopping for the office? Naturally, the presence of another billionaire in the race for the White House has irked other candidates who balk at the idea of buying one’s way to the presidency. After all, for all intents and purposes, the United States is already run by its billionaires. They should care about us enough to make things official.But hey, billionaires: Running for president is actually a bad idea. You’re very unlikely to win, it’s not clear that you have the skills to do the job well, and there are much, much better ways to make a difference in the world with your billions. If you like America, you should put a ring on it! Faux billionaire Donald Trump is obviously in again. (He’s been running since he was elected the first time.) There’s a billionaire in the White House and two of the top Democratic rivals for Trump’s job That hasn’t stopped another billionaire, hedge-fund mogul (1.2)>>Tom Steyer, running for the Democratic nomination. And now former New York mayor (2)>>Mike Bloomberg, founder of the eponymous media empire, is also making moves to enter the race, fired up by the billionaire bashing. Ironically, Bloomberg (net worth $52.3bn) signaled his intention to get in the race by getting his name on the ballot in Alabama, one of the poorest states in the union with a median household income of $48,123. The most troubling aspect of this is the prospect that Bloomberg might actually think this could happen—that he has enough name recognition (and positive name recognition at that), enough broadly appealing ideas, enough political wizardry, and enough money to pull it off . (2.1)>>The myth of the political outsider has given raise to these ultra rich wannabes . A billionaires' takeover of the U.S. government was not one of Trump's signature campaign promises, but in retrospect it was obvious he wasn't going to bring in the sustainability MBAs—he doesn't know any. Instead, he set up a government of, by and for his peers (or men the famously insecure Trump wishes to call his peers). (3)>>His Cabinet of millionaires and billionaires is the richest in American history. The New York billionaires, though, have more in common with Russian oligarchs and Nigerian petro-magnates than with almost any other Americans—whether they are flipping burgers at McDonald's. One of the Bloomberg ads, titled “Promise”, explains: “Mike is running for president to beat Trump and have the wealthy pay their fair share to build an economy that works for everyone.” But many see Bloomberg’s entry into the race as further evidence of anxiety among the ultra-wealthy about the prospect of Sanders or Warren raising their taxes … somewhat. The phenomenon has become very real in the past few years. While Ross Perot was considered a curiosity when he ran as an independent in 1992 and 1996, brand-name business figures no longer seem unusual in presidential politics. In this election cycle alone, Schultz, Michael Bloomberg, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Steyer, Mark Zuckerberg and Mark Cuban have all been floated as potential challengers to Trump. Name recognition, an apparent record of success in business and personal resources were enough for Trump, these candidates seem to say, so why wouldn’t it be enough for them? Trump spent $66.1 million of his own money on his 2016 campaign. For billionaires with a bigger bottom line and a larger sense of themselves, such a price seems a bargain too good to ignore. But Mr. Bloomberg could also reshape the race in other ways, intensifying the Democrats’ existing debates about economic inequality and corporate power, and offering fodder to the party’s rising populist wing, led by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who contend that the extremely rich already wield far too much influence in politics. Mr. Bloomberg has repeatedly expressed discomfort with certain policies favored by both Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders. (4)>>The 2020 election was already slated to be a record-breaking political advertising event. Now that Bloomberg and Steyer have both jumped into the race, advertising spend on the presidential race alone could exceed the $3 billion predicted by experts. Billionaires often have high approval ratings, but their image tends to take a battering when they enter the public arena. In part, that’s because people were evaluating them as (hugely successful) people, not as politicians, and they’ll inevitably turn off many voters as they start to take stances on the issues. In part, it’s because negative stories that probably wouldn’t have come out had they stayed off the political radar are now more likely to emerge. The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll bears out how uncomfortable Democrats are with a wealthy self-funding candidate possibly leading their ticket. When asked what type of candidate they'd be most excited about as a presidential candidate, a majority of Republicans said a business executive. Among Democrats, that choice was near the bottom. The American public’s mounting frustration with this corrupt system has, in part, led to the rise of populist candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Now has to welcome Bloomberg and Steyer on the ticket . American political system is no longer a democracy but rather a plutocracy.
NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(1)>>So why then are so many billionaires running for president in the 2020 cycle. Compared to the professional presidential candidates who have achieved maximum political socialization by running for city councils, working in state legislatures or other governments, or serving in Congress, the billionaire candidate stands as a loner, somebody who has gotten good at balancing at the top of the hierarchy and barking orders to underlings.The U.S. has also long passed the point at which it was a democracy, since the DNC and the intelligence agencies are proving with this "resistance" and "impeachment" that our elections do not matter anymore. Meanwhile, the neolibs/neocons continue to pump unlimited funds into the foreign empire and the domestic patronage (aka our massively overleveraged welfare state). I wonder how long the U.S. has. We desperately need bad times to produce strong people, as the gravy train of good times has run for far too long on borrowed time and has produced the weakest people imaginable. Billionaire or not, the politicians and leaders we need really have to start leveling with the American public, and folks need to stop with the magical thinking that somehow we can escape all of the bad times that lay ahead. (1.2)>>Tom Steyer. Steyer, meanwhile, has attracted attention spending millions on a campaign to impeach the president. The former hedge fund manager – who’s said he’ll decide on a White House run early in the new year – kicked off a town hall tour this month in South Carolina, the first southern state to vote in the primary and caucus calendar. That tour will also bring him to New Hampshire, Iowa and Nevada, other early-voting states. Steyer has also built up a vast email distribution list through his “Need to impeach” drive and NextGenAmerica, the grassroots advocacy organization he created five years ago. In an announcement video, he talked about how corporations have “bought our democracy” and “we’re trying to make democracy work by pushing power down to the people.” His policy positions have much in common with those of Sanders and of Warren, who he’s spoken positively of — but he’s still decided to run against both of them. (2)>>Mike Bloomberg. Is already bombarding the airwaves with his commercials, for a guy who has not participating in a public debate is rather troubling , and arrogant by standards . Mike Bloomberg is throwing another $9.5 million into television ads in select competitive districts to boost his presidential run — less than a week after purchasing $30 million in spots to launch the long-shot 2020 bid. A CNBC analysis of data provided by Advertising Analytics found that Bloomberg has put $13.2 million of those dollars to work on television ads across the 14 Super Tuesday states. That sum is more than any other candidate’s total spend for the primary so far, and is nearly as much as the rest of the field combined. In the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, on the other hand, Bloomberg has spent only $21,480, less than any other candidate and a mere 0.06% of his total TV spend across the country. (2.1)>>The myth of the political outsider has given raise to these ultra rich wannabes . A candidate like Trump, an "outsider", came to the forefront because voters were sick of Democrats and Republicans doing nothing for them and doing everything for corporations and for the most wealthy. Steyer, an "outsider", comes to forefront because voters and most Democratic voters specifically are sick of Democratic "leadership" doing nothing.The Democratic Party is especially vulnerable for failing to bring impeachment charges against Trump after running on "hold Trump accountable". People are still in love with the "run government like a business" trope that has been proven, time and again, to not be a magic bullet. I thought the GWB administration would, once and for all, lay to rest the BS notion of a CEO president. Nope. Along comes the worst businessman and biggest con man in America to win over a swath of people for reasons that still escape me. In theory, any American citizen meeting the specified qualifications for office can become President. This is a good thing, and wealth, or lack of it, should not in itself impede anyone's access to the office. Not all millionaires and billionaires are made equally: some are ethical, humane, and philanthropic, while others are selfish, entitled, and mean (for example, see Donald John Trump). A very wealthy person can be an effective, even exemplary President, should they enter office with enough humility to learn what they did not know going in, and exercise their powers with sincere intent to serve the public good. I believe Steyer would do all those things were he to gain any office of public trust, quite unlike the current President. I do believe it is fallacious to try to govern the country as if it were a business. The country was not set up as such, and discrete monetary profit is not the goal of the unfolding of the republic and its affairs. But one need not be a very wealthy individual to make this mistake, and a very wealthy person will not necessarily regard the nation as if it were a business. (3)>>His Cabinet of millionaires and billionaires is the richest in American history. That Trump has a predilection for the super-rich in his inner circle is hardly a secret. Even though he denounced the oppressive power of Wall Street during the campaign, he has chosen many of its leading figures to serve by his side. Among the billionaires and multimillionaires in his cabinet are Betsy DeVos (estimated family net worth: $5.6 billion) as education secretary, Wilbur Ross ($2.5 billion) as commerce secretary, Steve Mnuchin ($500 million) as Treasury secretary, and Rex Tillerson ($325 million) as secretary of state. Trump has also scoured the executive ranks of the banking giant Goldman Sachs for many of his senior advisers, including Gary Cohn as his top economic adviser and Dina Powell as a special adviser on economic initiatives. (4)>>The 2020 election was already slated to be a record-breaking political advertising event. I find also Ironic while these wealthy American oligarchs have money to self sustain a campaign but the The New York Times published a terrifying study on how just 158 wealthy families have provided nearly 50 percent of the funds raised for presidential candidates with their eye on the White House. They were mostly white, rich, older, and male, and hailed from the finance and energy sectors.
RUSSIA PHOBIA
AN
AMERICAN BRAINWASHING
Dr . Fiona Hills testimony was perhaps the best look at what exactly "propaganda" is really is. While the impeachment hearings are a amusing look at what is wrong with our government , most of Adam Schiff's testimonials bare a striking resembles to McCarthyism of the 1950s . While Trump may looked at in my word as part of a huge distraction machine at work . Dr. Hill echoed that a dire warning that Russian intelligence and its proxies are gearing up to interfere again in 2020 — and that the U.S. is "running out of time to stop them." . After hearing this from her . I had sudden flash of insight into this new Russian scare . It seems that who ever is creating the myth of Russian meddling is vary much trying to scare the American voter from voting ! [ keep reading] Yet Many of the Die hard gullible actually believe that Donald Trump is working for Putin , he won the 2016 election with Russia's help . The whole thing is nullifying even for me who can see through the smoke and mirrors of what is really going on . Someone [ collective outfit] wants the average American to think that Russia is our enemy . I got tired of hearing “bad Russia” “bad Putin” amongst people around me who thought of themselves as “smart” and “clued in”. We right now since 2015 our relations with Russia have hit a dangerously low point thanks to the Obama- Clinton Democrats in Washington D.C. These crazies , have thrown out diplomacy . These vary same people also hate (1)>> Tulsi Gabbard who is right on the mark regarding the endless wars , she had been the target of many of the Democrats who sit along with some Republicans allied with the Military Complex . Gabbard though is only polling at around two percent and stands little chance of winning the nomination. As I explain here the Meddling theory is false narrative being played out to the American public to take the focus away from our corrupt system and blame someone else : Russia .
Media Brainwashing .
I used to tune in to (2)>>Rachel Maddow several years ago when she was Bashing George Bush's war of regime change in Iraq . I admit she was really good at digging in on things back then , but since the 2016 election MSNBC has become so leftist , it just as bad as FOX news spewing propaganda . I don’t know whether the saddest part is seeing my peers fall for it all over again, or seeing a supposedly “woke” younger generation so easily succumb to such blatant cultural demonizing. This obsession with Russia has had a palpable effect on the national conversation. Maddow is one of the most influential and popular voices for American liberals, and her theorizing on the Russia/Trump connection is part of a larger theory connecting the alleged collusion between the two to every world and national event. Look no further than the reactions to Trump’s bombing of a Syrian government airfield on April 6 for proof of that—despite the fact that Bashar al-Assad is openly backed by Russia, some liberal commentators refuse to see the missile strike as at all possibly opposed to Russian interests. That’s life on the small screen, and while it’s easy to rue the melodrama and the superficiality, Russia has been the moneymaker since Trump was elected, and it’s not going to change. “Donald Trump, Who’s Totally Not Vladimir Putin’s Puppet, Warned Russia Before Airstrikes on Syria,” was Salon’s sarcastic headline. The war rhetoric fits into a larger narrative developed by Democrats and liberal media, in which Trump is presented as being compromised by Russia and soft on the Kremlin. Russo phobia, like any irrational hatred, plays directly into unscrupulous hands. It works by frighting Americans that Russia's so called "Meddling" has in effect canceling out American votes in the election system . Yes , it so subliminal if you can't pick up . What these slick propagandists are doing , they are trying to keep Americans from voting in next years election .The rationality is vary challenging , but many Americans who are Democrats really believe it . When we hear our elected politicians , both Republicans and Democrats both babbling " Russia compromised our election" I think they don't believe it either . If a comparison between the 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans and the still unproven allegations of Russian meddling seems outrageous, it is precisely such an analogy that has been made by Russiagate’s own biggest proponents, from neoconservative columnist Max Boot to Hillary Clinton herself. (3)>>American Russophobia brainwash (ver heard of “Russiagate”?) and feeds off of the many campaigns of hatred for Russia and Russians. Mind you this is not done for honest reasons, but to defend the status quo dominated by 0.0001% of the population, who are filthy rich and own everything worth owning—from media, academia, and Hollywood to the politicians themselves. Russophobia was on full display during Democratic Party debate, with ominous repercussions for the future of American foreign policy. Why would any one who is pacifist Democrat want top vote for any of these candidates who are already reading the playbook of the Military Industrial complex? Russia-baiting reflects in part an attempt by the corporatists to try and channel popular enmity away from the domestic plutocrats who have rigged the American political-economy in their favor, and onto a phantom foreign enemy whose existence can be used to justify large-scale military expenditures. This one of the "dangers" of this hyped new cold war that was started by the Obama- Clinton cronies . Unless we wake up , we cold be heading to war for no reason . There is no such possibility. The Democrats are screaming “coverup” and demanding the resignation of attorney general Barr and Trump’s impeachment. The presstitutes are claiming that the Mueller report vindicates their reporting. Trump continues to use US foreign policy to commit criminal acts. He has declared that the president of Venezuela is the person he picked, not the one Venezuelans elected. He has given to Israel part of Syria as if Syrian territory is his to give. He threatens Iran with war as Israel requires. In other words, American arrogance rises to ever higher heights.Without explicitly saying so, the report shows that neither the US government nor the American media has a nanoparticle of integrity. Both are criminal organizations that are willing to risk war with Russia in their pursuit of narrow policitized agendas?
NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(1)>> Tulsi Gabbard . Because I'm a little confused but in this country if you are critical of our foreign policy and if you speak against the military-industrial complex you are smeared as anti-american and worse the country has painted those who speak up against endless wars seemed to demonized and who preferred diplomacy such as meeting with Bashar al-assad or Kim Jong un as Russian assets so think about that for a minute if you talk about peace and diplomacy are now Russian asset, whose talking points so what does that say about us it shows us that when Tulsi Gabbard says the Democratic Party is no longer for of and by the people she is right when Democrat after Democrat leader after leader media personality have read from the same war playbook even after media personality have taken to smear only candidate brave enough to stand up to the war industry and they have committed character assassination meanwhile as her message continues to spread guess what it actually resonates with the American people her individual contributions have continued to roll in and she's climbing in the polls (2)>>Rachel Maddow.Maddow referenced Russia repeatedly in March. She still does , yes brainwashing her audience. The highest number of mentions we found was 105 on March 9, the lowest was days earlier on March 6, when it came up only eight times. On average, the country was mentioned around 53 times a show—or over once a minute, once you subtract commercials from the airtime—and Maddow did not let a single opening segment go by for the entire month without at least a mention of Russia’s alleged ties to Trump. Maddow has been the worst of the anti-Russia media propagandist . Last year on live TV she made a false and deceiving statement trying to frighten Americans during the worst winter storm . MSNBC host Rachel Maddow used the current polar vortex to hypothesize a Russian attack on the power grid. This vary act so irrational , if the power grid by accident of a storm where to go off , the blame would go to Russia , as pretext that the US was attacked . So Insane . So, again, in the absence any actual connection to actual Russian attacks on our grid, what on earth is Maddow up to here? Is she just using a nasty weather event to stoke the fear that Russia could make it worse? Because that’s definitely what it seems like she’s doing! And fear mongering on that level, with no evidence to support her wild speculation, is deeply irresponsible and extremely reminiscent of the conspiratorial ravings you’d see on Infowars or any other alternative right-wing media source. It’s building an enemy from scratch, and while the Russian government is not a choir of angels, Maddow’s insular red-baiting does no favors to anyone, on any side, and only encourages tribalistic thinking. (3)>>American Russophobia. But strikingly Russophobic statements by former chief US intelligence officials in 2017 caused Cohen to reconsider this factor: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who said on NBC national television, “the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor”; and CIA Director John Brennan, who warned that Russians “try to suborn individuals and they try to get individuals, including US citizens, to act on their behalf either wittingly or unwittingly…. Individuals going on a treasonous path often do not realize it until it is too late.” Former FBI director James Comey added, “They’re coming after America.” And there is Senator John McCain’s often quoted characterization of Russia as “a gas station masquerading as a country.” Such comments by top intelligence officials, whose profession requires rigorous objectivity, and by influential political figures, set Cohen on a search for other such statements by leading opinion-makers and publications. He gives only a few of many representative examples. This is important information for Americans and the rest of the world to have. Every person, every government and every private organization that supports Washington’s Russophobic policies is contributing to the growing threat of nuclear war.
It's beginning to look like a Political Satire . My last post was about the possibility of President Nancy Pelosi . That would be too far realistic for now . There is a strong possibility our nation is heading for trouble . There are lot of things I am going to cover for this one post besides the impeachment hearings . We are into an impeachment inquiry . In the middle of this , there is so much chaos that is consuming the nation that the only thing we can do is to PRAY FOR AMERICA ! Congressional Democrats and Republicans each appear to face a challenge moving public opinion on impeachment as public hearings begin, Tensions between Congress and the White House have been high since Trump took office. It’s not unusual for a White House to work at cross-purposes with a hostile Congress, as we saw most recently in the Mueller probe, but to flatly ignore its requests in this way seems, well, different. AND now, with a whistle blower from the bureaucracy nudging Congress toward impeachment, his presidency is really actually actually in peril? It was Democrats who declared to the (1)>>American public the importance of an impeachment garnering bipartisan support. However, House Democrats have nonetheless stormed forward with the impeachment inquiry without gaining the vote of one single House Republican. The only bipartisan vote in the House, albeit slight, was a vote against the impeachment inquiry resolution. Trump-Ukraine scandal and the tale of Donald Trump apparently abusing the office of the (2)>>president to obtain political dirt that could influence the 2020 election. Sure, there are a lot of other issues that Democrats have previously raised as possible grounds for impeachment—Trump allegedly obstructing justice (per the Robert Mueller report), Trump regularly violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Plenty of Democratic voters and officials on the left think they've already got the goods for impeachment in the transcript of a July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump badgered the foreign power to look into his domestic rival and tested US law that forbids candidates from seeking anything of value from foreign powers. Trump himself said he had a beautiful conversation with the president of Ukraine and he denied not hold backing the military aid, then witnesses said the president held back the military aid for his 2020 campaign to investigate Joe Biden and his son. To say this , President Trump was wrong to "ask the favor " . Secondly I have my own reservations against sending nearly a billion tax payer American dollars [ weapons] to Ukraine to fight the Russians , when 90 % of all Ukrainians are Russians themselves , we are in fact meddling in Ukraine casing more tensions with the Russian Federation . There’s no real consensus on the big question of whether we’re facing a genuine constitutional crisis. Some experts think we’ve already crossed that threshold; others say we’ll get there when and if the administration ignores a court order.Nearly everyone agrees about one thing: We’re entering dangerous territory.Trump has rejected the impeachment inquiry as a "kangaroo court,"There's no indication yet that the impeachment effort will push Trump out of office, but there's every indication it is going to be a historical test for the Constitution. I also ponder if the (3)>>WHISTLE BLOWER IS REAL ? One thing the impeachment inquiry has produced a lot of "witnesses" based on he she said , or overheard the President via a third party information [ I thought as it was originally presented that someone overheard Trump on the Phone] Adam Schiff , as the story that we are being spoon fed daily was vary different when The New York Times broke the story on Oct. 2 that Schiff knew about “the outlines” of the whistleblower’s concerns before the Aug. 12 complaint was filed. The whistle blower had contacted an intelligence committee aide after passing along concerns to the CIA’s top lawyer and being “[c]oncerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding,” the Times reported. However, with the impeachment vote, the House has moved beyond the realm of administrative procedures, and into the rarified air of high politics. This public, political process — based mainly on (4)>>the whistleblower’s complaint — must necessarily subject the whistleblower’s intentions and behaviors to scrutiny. Thus the whole impeachment inquiry the Democrats under Adam Schiff had produced dozens of witnesses !!! and NOT THAT ORIGINAL INFORMANT . So are any of you beginning to see what the hype is all about ? The Republicans have a strong case in regards to how the impeachment effort is being handled . The Democrats want to remove Trump as obvious, Donald Trump is giving them what they want .
Bloombergs Democratic Upset .
The Democratic field is enormous and unprecedentedly diverse. It features several women, multiple candidates of African and Asian descent, one Latino and a gay man, Buttigieg, who at age 37 is less than half as old as the front-runner, Biden. But majorities of Democrats say those characteristics make no difference to their level of enthusiasm about a presidential candidate. Four in 10 Democratic voters said they would be more excited about voting for a woman for president, and 36% said the same of a younger candidate. Only about a quarter were more excited at the idea of supporting a candidate who is black or Latino, while roughly 2 in 10 said they’d be more excited to support an Asian candidate or lesbian, gay or bisexual candidate . The Democrats have a huge field of verity Oh, and here is a former Republican. And he’s a terrible campaigner whose signature move is awkwardly asking kids to give him high fives. The late entry into the race would force (5)>>Bloomberg to play a quick game of catch-up to build the sort of campaign infrastructure his rivals have spent months constructing. And he says he’s not sure how true all the accusations against Charlie Rose are. But … he does have close to $50 billion. And he did spend Saturday night in New Hampshire.So Mike Bloomberg can maybe run for president as a Democrat?With Bloomberg is now flirting with a bid for the presidency and filed paperwork to qualify for the presidential primary in Alabama. Bloomberg still has not formally announced that he’s a candidate. He has previously contemplated runs for the White House, as an Independent candidate, in both the 2008 and 2016 election cycles. Bloomberg is just another Trumpian billionaire. As news of Bloomberg’s plans broke on Thursday, their presidential campaigns pounced, declaring that the former mayor’s potential candidacy was a form of backlash to their progressive proposals. There’s the real possibility that a Bloomberg 2020 primary run would go down much like Meg Whitman’s 2010 campaign for California governor, when she dumped $144 million into losing by 13 points to an old liberal who had already held the job for eight years 30 years before. Oddly Bloomberg could be competitive in the general election as a sort of anti-Trump. Super bland and boring so the suburban soccer moms cam vote for him. But there is no way the whacked out TDS afflicted democrats base would choose him in the primary.Why are Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick flirting with jumping into the 2020 presidential primary this late in the game? But these late entrants and their supporters might be underestimating the challenges ahead. Most primary candidates spend the better part of the year (or in John Delaney’s case, years) building up a campaign infrastructure, gathering donors, carving out a base, finding a unique message and rebooting when necessary. Late entrants usually fail — they try to scale up too much in just a couple months, make mistakes and don’t have time to recalibrate. (6)>>If Democrats really wanted to introduce a new variable — someone who could either win or knock a couple people out of the top four — they need to look outside the box. And beyond the fact that most of those wild card candidates absolutely, positively aren’t running, many of their potential candidacies have real pitfalls. The thought of Hillary Clinton 2020 isn’t nearly as fun for Democratic voters — most don’t want to relive the 2016 election — but her entry into the race could shake things up. Clinton could (correctly) point out that she won the popular vote.Analysts say a Bloomberg candidacy could do the most damage to the prospects of Democratic front runner Joe Biden, but the former vice-president put on a brave face on Friday and said he was not worried that Bloomberg would draw away centrist voters.With less than 100 days to go before the Iowa caucuses, Democrats do not express dissatisfaction with their available candidates. Some 85% of the party’s primary voters said they were satisfied with the candidates, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found late last month. Just 13% said they were unsatisfied.
ADDENDUM:
The Strange Case of Ukraine .
While Donald Trump gets the the "bad rap" for his Quid Pro Quo , trying to buy some dirt on his political opponent . Our nations government officials , if they be Democrat or Republican have been conducting themselves selling weapons to Ukraine in its proxy war with Russia , at the same time conducting a similar Quid Pro Quo fashion , by conducting a lucrative deal with exploiting oil in that country. There is something off beat how the United States has conducted its business relations in Ukraine for the last decade . The extent of the Obama administration’s meddling in Ukraine’s politics was breathtaking. Russian intelligence intercepted and leaked to the international media a Nuland telephone call in which she and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt discussed in detail their preferences for specific personnel in a post-Yanukovych government. The U.S-favored candidates included Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the man who became prime minister once Yanukovych was ousted from power. During the telephone call, Nuland stated enthusiastically that “Yats is the guy” who would do the best job. The Biden's are an example of American foreign policy gone amok. If Trump pointed the finger at the Bid ens for corruption , he may have tipped the domino's down . This is going to blow your minds . Recently U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry proposed political backer Michael Bleyzer as an adviser to Ukraine’s president, the Houston man and a former University of Texas System regent “secured a potentially lucrative” energy deal from the Ukrainian government, the Associated Press reported Monday.Perry, the former Texas governor, attended Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s inauguration this year and gave him a list of people who could serve as energy advisers, which included Bleyzer, according to the AP. More than a month later, Ukraine awarded an oil and gas exploration contract to Bleyzer and his partner Alex Cranberg, the news agency reported. Perry appointed Cranberg to the UT Board of Regents shortly after the man registered to vote in Texas following a move from Colorado. Cranberg served from 2011 to 2017 and was a controversial figure on the system's governing board. Did you all read this ? It appears our government has been trying to export Ukrainian oil to the United States . The resignation of U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry is connected vary much to our own Nation meddling in the Russian spheres of control. The US support, both overt and covert, for Ukrainian politicians is grounded in an anti-Soviet (now anti-Russian) ideology. We have convinced ourselves that Russia is hell bent on world domination. Therefore we must do whatever is necessary to stop Russia, which includes uncritical, blind support for elements in Ukraine that also detest the Russians. But in doing so we have closed our eyes to the filthy underbelly of the virulent anti-Semitism that lurks in western Ukraine. US meddling in the Ukraine is astonishing in its breadth. It ranges from the fact that the wife of former President Viktor Yuschenko was an American citizen and former senior official in the US State Department. Do you think there would be no complaints if Melania Trump was born in Russia and had served in the Russian Foreign Ministry? Yet, most Americans are happily ignorant of such facts.? US meddling in Ukraine is at the center of Trump's problems , but not just a Republican issue , its a Democrat's issue in regards to what we call "meddling" .
NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(1)>>American public the importance of an impeachment. On the day of House Democrats’ first public impeachment hearing into President Trump this week, as leaders of some of the conservative movement’s most prominent organizations dialed into a briefing call hosted by the White House to coordinate their message, their activists were hard at work. Some of the nation’s leading conservative groups — the Club For Growth, FreedomWorks, Citizens United, and Tea Party Patriots — have locked arms to serve as an unofficial war room for the president during the impeachment inquiry, the third such proceeding in modern history, but the first of the social media age. The coalition of more than 100 organizations, including traditional conservative fund-raisers and public relations firms, is banking on a coordinated divide-and-conquer strategy that seeks to harness its grass-roots networks’ outrage — and raise money crucial to its own survival. Many of the conservative groups that have joined the “Trump Defense Team” effort have a history of using politically charged debates as fund-raising tools, and several of them are doing so now. Activists are invited to sign a petition to declare their “full support” for Mr. Trump and “reject Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats’ efforts to overturn the free and fair presidential election.” Signers are then prompted to donate to the group, “so we can continue to push back against the Deranged Democrats.” (2)>>president to obtain political dirt that could influence the 2020 election. Let's address two diversions from Schiff and Biden's .1) Biden was suffering from the death of his son Beau so that is why he knew nothing about Hunter's business. Fact: Beau did in May of 2015. Hunter closed the 1.4 billion deal in China days after he and his father visited that country in 2013.Fact: Hunter joined the board of Burisma in mid 2014.So we are supposed to believe that Joe knew nothing about his son's business dealings that both began immediately after he visited China and Ukraine as Obama's economic point man with Hunter. He demanded the firing of the prosecutor who had been investigating Burisma but that apparently we are to believe was just a coincidence. Hunter, by the way, said he did tell Joe about his Burisma business and his father just said " I hope you know what you are doing." and then apparently Joe contracted amnesia.The bottom line is that Joe is either lying or he is too stupid to know what is going around immediately around him.2) Trump says he didn't know about Donald Jr.s meeting with the Russians Who cares? It was perfectly legal and investigated by the Mueller team. Curiously enough, the Russian lawyer at the meeting met twice in a 72 hour period immediately before and after the Trump Tower meeting with Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS which had been hired by the Hillary campaign to get dirt on Trump .(3)>>WHISTLE BLOWER IS REAL ? My PERSONAL THEORY is that the whistleblower was a "agent" set up by the Schiff- Comey CIA basically to "spy" on Trump, because of his supposed Russian connection . The New York Times to be a male CIA employee, filed a complaint expressing urgent concern that “the president of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.” Trump may have been monitored , this call with Ukriane may have been the trap the Democrats needed , anyway Schiff doesn't know the identity of the whistleblower but anyone with access to a network device does. Also, Joe Biden didn't know anything about his son's Hunter's business activities although everyone in the Obama State Dept did. As for the committee’s contact with the whistleblower, we don’t know if the complainant had “spoken” to any committee staffers or contacted the committee through email or letter. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said he does not believe House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s claim that he does not know the identity of an anonymous whistleblower, whose complaint against President Trump launched the impeachment investigation. “Yes,” the California Republican said when a reporter asked if he believes Schiff is lying. “And I don’t think it’s the first time he lied to us, either. Given the information that has come to light in the past several weeks, it is quite likely that Schiff is lying. Indeed, MSNBC contributor Sam Stein: First off, have you heard from the whistleblower? Are you — do you want to hear from the whistleblower? What protections could you provide to the whistleblower? And then, you also said that the DNI is refusing to turn over the stuff, citing a request from a higher authority — the insinuation left, at least for me and others, was that the President himself had intervened. Is that the insinuation you sought to provide and, if so, what basis do you have for making that insinuation? Schiff: We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to, but I’m sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the inspector general or the director of national intelligence, just as to how he is to communicate with Congress. And so the risk for the whistleblower is retaliation. Will the whistleblower be protected under the statute if the offices that are supposed to come to his assistance and provide the mechanism are unwilling to do so? But yes, we would love to talk directly with the whistleblower.(4)>>the whistleblower’s complaint — It got almost no attention, but in May, CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.” So, it’s okay for Democratic senators to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump, but it’s not okay for the president to allegedly encourage Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden.(5)>>Bloomberg to play a quick game of catch-up. Don't laugh. If Bloomie can get the Democratic nomination, he would be a formidable candidate. He would also probably attract Independent opposition - probably Bernie Sanders. But can he get the nomination? Not by winning the primaries. But he doesn't have to. If the Democrats are going to have a Brokered Convention (very likely), Bloomie just needs a few hundred delegates and truckloads full of money to convince the Superdelegates the he is their man. Then when he gets the nod, Bernie storms out in a huff and runs Indie. Ranked by Forbes as the eighth-richest American with an estimated worth of $53.4 billion, his potential bid drew immediate criticism that he was just another wealthy businessman trying to buy an election. (6)>>If Democrats really wanted to introduce a new variable — too many — candidates are still in the race. In total, there are 20 0r so Democrats still running, several of whom look like the exact same white guy copied and pasted over and over. There are also two Republicans who have made the bold decision to seek their party’s nomination over Donald Trump.If you can remember more than 15 candidates off the top of your head, that’s impressive. If you can’t, here’s a guide to who’s still in the running.You can see it in the policy positions being discussed and embraced by Democrats, many of which go well beyond the positions taken by previous Democratic presidents and nominees — from banning private insurance to free college to a wealth tax to the Green New Deal. You can see it in the left-populist worldviews and solid poll numbers of two of the three leading candidates, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. And you can see it in the substantial popularity among the Democratic rank-and-file of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her allies in Congress. The current politics of the Democratic Party make it less likely than usual that the nominee will be a centrist in the traditional mold. During the Democrats’ long losing streaks in the late 20th century, the party ritualistically engaged in postmortems that propelled it toward the center. That was the natural cycle of politics: Getting repeatedly clubbed by conservatives suggested trekking in a more conservative direction. But as a candidate, Trump placed little priority on traditional conservative positions, and often flouted them. His victory suggests a very different set of lessons, lessons in tune with the mood of the Democratic Party’s base.
