Escrito por Eric Zuesse para The Saker Blog,
INTRODUCCIÓN A ESTA REPUBLICACIÓN ACTUALIZADA
Aunque Hillary Clinton, por supuesto, será el tema directo aquí, ahora estamos en la temporada de las primarias para las elecciones de 2020, y Casi todos los candidatos a la nominación del Partido Demócrata, y especialmente Biden, Buttigieg y todos los demás, excepto Sanders y Gabbard, son clones de política exterior de Clinton y de su antiguo jefe, Obama.. Por lo tanto, los demócratas deberían saber por qué tipo de política exterior votarían, si votarán por ese candidato, como lo hicieron ella y Obama. Las políticas exteriores, que se documentan aquí, eran, después de todo, su políticas exteriores, no su campañaretórica, pero el real, entregado, realidad. Este artículo describe esa realidad, hasta el final del primer mandato de Obama. Todas estas políticas continuaron en el segundo mandato de Obama, que comenzó en 2013.
Este artículo fue, en una versión más corta, publicado por primera vez en Huffington Post el 16 de agosto de 2013, que había sido copiado a la Máquina Wayback 198 veces antes de ser derribados por HuffPo en algún momento después 4 de noviembre de 2019, la última copia que se hizo de él en Wayback Machine. Ese artículo fue, sin embargo, actualizado y ampliado el 21 de febrero de 2016 en RINF.com y algunos otros sitios. Entre 2016 y ahora, alrededor de la mitad de los enlaces en esa versión actualizada dejaron de funcionar; y, por lo tanto, la versión del 21 de febrero de 2016 ahora se está restaurando nuevamente, ya que ahora tiene enlaces 100% funcionales a las fuentes.
Estas fueron las políticas exteriores reales de Hillary Clinton, y son las políticas exteriores de Biden, Buttigieg, Warren y la mayoría de los demás candidatos presidenciales demócratas. Los republicanos pueden ser aún peores, pero este artículo representa las políticas exteriores del Partido Demócrata de hoy: las verdades feas, no las bonitas promesas. Como verán, desafortunadamente hay un método en su locura. Sin embargo, los votantes del Partido Demócrata son tan cerrados sobre el Partido Demócrata como los votantes del Partido Republicano son sobre el Partido Republicano: por ejemplo, el Comentarios de los lectores a este artículo, cuando fue extraído el 22 de febrero de 2016 en el sitio web del Partido Demócrata Daily Kos, culpó a algunos de los funcionarios nombrados del artículo, subordinados, pero no a los directores (Hillary Clinton y Barack Obama), y no al Partido Demócrata, cuyas políticas fueron estas: las políticas de su propio Partido. Siempre es solamente "la otra parte "que está podrida, no también" mi fiesta"- no ambas mitades de ‘nuestra' Gobierno. Siempre es solo "el otro tipo" el que necesita ser reemplazado, no el podrido y corrupto, en realidad dictatorial, sistema. Y así es como continúa la podredumbre, en lugar de ser reemplazado. Es ese autoengaño, lo que permite que esta podredumbre continúe.
Aquí está el artículo.:
LAS SEIS CATÁSTROFAS DE POLÍTICA EXTERIOR DE HILLARY CLINTON
Muchos comentaristas tienen aquí y aquí y aquí y aquí) que Hillary Clinton no dejó ningún logro importante como Secretaria de Estado de los Estados Unidos; pero, en realidad, lo hizo. Desafortunadamente, todos sus logros principales fueron malos, y algunos fueron catastróficos. Seis países estuvieron especialmente involucrados: Honduras, Haití, Afganistán, Libia, Siriay Ucrania. El daño que ella hizo a cada país no era del interés del pueblo estadounidense, y fue desastroso para los residentes allí.
Hillary Clinton en cada debate de campaña dice "Tengo un mejor historial" y que ella es "una progresista que hace las cosas". Esto es lo que tiene actualmente hecho, cuando era secretaria de Estado; Aquí está su historial cuando en realidad tenía la responsabilidad ejecutiva de los asuntos exteriores de Estados Unidos. Esto mostrará sus valores reales, no solo su reclamado valores:
RESUMEN DEL CASO A PRESENTAR
La nación centroamericana de Honduras está gobernado hoy por un gobierno extremista de extrema derecha, un gobierno fascista impuesto por la junta, debido a lo que Hillary Clinton y Barack Obama hicieron en 2009. La vida de todos menos el 0.001% de la población allí es un infierno debido a esto. Pero a la aristocracia u "oligarquía" del país le está yendo bien.
El asunto en Haití fue similar pero menos dramático, por lo que recibió incluso menos atención de la prensa estadounidense.
Además, bajo el Secretario de Estado Clinton, las fallas en el Departamento de Estado de los EE. UU. También causaron la base de un odio hacia los Estados Unidos. Afganistán después de que Estados Unidos haya retirado sus tropas allí. Este fracaso también ha recibido poca cobertura en la prensa estadounidense, pero nuestra nación pagará mucho a largo plazo.
Hillary Clinton fue la principal defensora de la administración del cambio de régimen, derrocando a Muammar Gaddafi en Libia. Eso funcionó desastrosamente.
Clinton también era el Secretario de Estado cuando la sequía de 2006-2010 estaba causando reubicaciones masivas de población en Siria y los cables del Departamento de Estado de EE. UU. pasaron por la cadena de mando, y el gobierno de EE. UU. los ignoró, la solicitud urgente del gobierno de Assad de ayuda de gobiernos extranjeros para ayudar a los agricultores a evitar el hambre. El Departamento de Estado de Clinton ignoró las solicitudes y trató esto como una oportunidad para fomentar la revolución allí. No fue solo la Primavera Árabe, en Siria, lo que condujo a las manifestaciones contra Assad allí. Los combatientes yihadistas sunitas ingresaron a Siria, de todo el mundo, respaldados por Estados Unidos, Arabia Saudita, Qatar y Turquía. En efecto, Estados Unidos estaba ayudando a los yihadistas a expulsar al líder chiíta secular no sectario de Siria y reemplazarlo por un dictador fundamentalista sunita.
La base para un golpe de estado en Ucrania fue contratada por Hillary Clinton, cuando nombró a Victoria Nuland, portavoz oficial del Departamento de Estado, quien había sido la principal asesora de asuntos exteriores del vicepresidente Dick Cheney. Nuland luego se convirtió en el organizador del golpe de estado del 20 de febrero de 2014 en Ucrania, que reemplazó al líder neutralista de Ucrania, Viktor Yanukovich, con un títere rabiosamente antirruso de EE. UU., Arseniy Yatsenyuk, y una sangrienta guerra civil. Nuland está obsesionado con el odio a Rusia.
Además de todo eso, Hillary Clinton es increíblemente corrupto. Y ella trata a los subordinados como basura.
Ningún demócrata bien informado votará por ella en las primarias del Partido Demócrata. Esto es lo que los votantes en las primarias demócratas deben saber, antes de votar:
HONDURAS
El 28 de junio de 2009, el ejército hondureño agarró al popular presidente progresista democráticamente elegido de su país, Manuel Zelaya, y lo llevó al exilio.
La AP encabezó desde Tegucigalpa al día siguiente, "Los líderes mundiales presionan a Honduras para que revierta el golpe" e informó: "Los líderes de Hugo Chávez a Barack Obama pidieron la restitución de Manuel Zelaya, quien fue arrestado en pijama el domingo por la mañana por soldados que asaltaron su residencia y lo llevaron al exilio".
Secretario Clinton, en la conferencia de prensa al día siguiente del golpe, "Comentarios en la parte superior de la rueda de prensa diaria", se negó a comprometer a los Estados Unidos a la restauración del Presidente de Honduras elegido democráticamente. Incluso se negó a comprometer a los EE. UU. A usar la enorme influencia que tenía sobre el gobierno hondureño para lograrlo.
Aquí estaban las preguntas y respuestas relevantes:
Mary Beth Sheridan. PREGUNTA: Señora Secretaria, lo siento, si pudiera regresar por un segundo a Honduras, solo para aclarar el punto de Arshad, entonces, quiero decir, Estados Unidos proporciona ayuda tanto en virtud de la Ley de Asistencia Exterior como del desafío del Milenio. Entonces, aunque hay desencadenantes en esos; que los países deben comportarse: no tener golpes de estado, ¿no van a cortar esa ayuda?
SECRETARIO CLINTON: Bueno, Mary Beth, estamos evaluando cuál será el resultado final de estas acciones. Este ha sido un conjunto de circunstancias en rápido movimiento durante los últimos días, y estamos analizando esa pregunta ahora. Gran parte de nuestra asistencia está condicionada a la integridad del sistema democrático. Pero si pudiéramos llegar a un status quo que volviera al estado de derecho y al orden constitucional en un período de tiempo relativamente corto, creo que sería un buen resultado. Así que estamos viendo todo esto. Estamos considerando las implicaciones de esto. Pero nuestra prioridad es tratar de trabajar con nuestros socios para restaurar el orden constitucional en Honduras.
PREGUNTA: ¿Y eso significa devolver el mismo Zelaya? Insistirías en eso para …
SECRETARIO CLINTON: Estamos trabajando con nuestros socios.
Ella se negó a responder la pregunta, a pesar de que Zelaya había sido un aliado de los Estados Unidos, un demócrata progresista. (Aunque los republicanos denunciaron a Zelaya por impulsar la reforma agraria, el hecho es que Honduras es virtualmente propiedad de dos docenas de familias, y necesita drásticamente salir de su sistema feudal. Hacer eso no es antiamericano; es pro estadounidense. Es lo que Zelaya estaba tratando de hacer, pacífica y democráticamente.
Los fundadores de nuestra nación lucharon contra una revolución para derrocar el feudalismo, británico, en nuestro propio país. Hillary, por lo tanto, era antiamericana, no solo antidemocrática, aquí. Esto es deslumbrante. Estados Unidos incluso había sido bombardeado por los fascistas, en el "día que vivirá en la infamia", el 7 de diciembre de 1941; y, luego, derramamos mucha sangre para vencer a esos fascistas en la Segunda Guerra Mundial. ¿De qué se trataba esa guerra, si no de oponerse al fascismo y los fascistas, y defender la democracia y los demócratas? Un aliado pacífico y democrático de los EE. UU. Ahora había sido derrocado por un golpe fascista en Honduras, pero la respuesta de Hillary Clinton fue: ¿no comprometida?
El gobierno golpista no hizo ningún comentario sobre su antidemocrático. El 4 de julio de 2009, Al Giordano en Narcosphere Narconews se asoció. "El golpe de Estado de Honduras elige el camino del narcotraficante rebelde"e informó que, "Anoche, alrededor de las 10 p.m. Hora de Tegucigalpa, CNN Español interrumpió su programación de noticias deportivas para un anuncio de conferencia de prensa en vivo ("sin preguntas, por favor") por el golpista "presidente" Micheletti. Allí, anunció que su "gobierno" golpista de Honduras se retira de la Carta Democrática de la Organización de los Estados Americanos. … El comportamiento del golpe de Estado de Honduras prácticamente garantiza que el lunes, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos lo definirá como un "golpe militar", que desencadenará el corte de la ayuda de los Estados Unidos, uniéndose al Banco Mundial, el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, PetroCaribe, la ONU y el resto del mundo en retirar el apoyo económico al régimen golpista ”. Pero eso no sucedió. Estados Unidos simplemente permaneció en silencio. ¿Por qué estaba en silencio nuestro Secretario de Estado, incluso ahora?
Ciertamente no podría haber sido así debido a su agente en Honduras, el embajador de EE. UU. En ese país: no fue nada comprometido. Estaba completamente
Americano, nada neutral o pro-fascista.
Aquí estaba su cable de la Embajada de los Estados Unidos, revisando la situación, para Washington, después de casi un mes de silencio de la Administración:
De: Embajador Hugo Llorens, Embajada de los Estados Unidos, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 24 de julio de 2009.
A: Secretario de Estado, Casa Blanca y Consejo de Seguridad Nacional.
"ASUNTO: TFHO1: ABIERTO Y CERRADO: EL CASO DEL HONDURAN COUP ”
Este largo mensaje del Embajador cerró:
"Las acciones del 28 de junio solo pueden considerarse un golpe de estado por parte del poder legislativo, con el apoyo del poder judicial y el ejército, contra el poder ejecutivo. Cabe mencionar que, si bien la resolución adoptada el 28 de junio se refiere solo a Zelaya, su efecto fue eliminar todo el poder ejecutivo. Ambas acciones claramente excedieron la autoridad del Congreso. … No importa cuáles sean los méritos del caso contra Zelaya, su expulsión forzada por parte de los militares fue claramente ilegal, y el ascenso del (líder títere Roberto) Micheletti como "presidente interino" fue totalmente ilegítimo. "
El mismo día en que el embajador envió ese cable, AFP encabezó "Zelaya" imprudente "para regresar a Honduras: Clinton"e informó que nuestro Secretario de Estado criticó a Zelaya ese día por tratar de regresar a su propio país. "El esfuerzo del presidente Zelaya para llegar a la frontera es imprudente", dijo Clinton durante una conferencia de prensa con el primer ministro iraquí, Nouri al-Maliki. … Washington apoya "una solución pacífica negociada a la crisis hondureña", dijo Clinton. "No fue" el golpe hondureño ", no lo llamaría un" golpe ", fue" la crisis hondureña "; entonces, aceptó el encuadre del tema por parte de la junta, no el enmarcado por Zelaya y todos los demás, excepto los fascistas. Ella quería "una solución pacífica negociada" para la remoción forzada a punta de pistola del popular presidente democráticamente elegido de Honduras. Además, la declaración de Hillary aquí fue poco diplomática: si ella tuviera un consejo sobre lo que el Presidente electo de Honduras debería estar haciendo, eso debería haberle sido comunicado de manera privada, no pública, y le habría dicho sugiriendo lo que debería hacer, no insultando lo que él ya estaba haciendo, llamándolo públicamente "imprudente". Tal declaración de ella claramente no fue un consejo para ayudar a Zelaya; estaba destinado a humillarlo, y lo hizo; y diplomáticos de todo el mundo podrían ver esto. Manifiestamente ahora, Hillary Clinton apoyó a los fascistas. Sin embargo, su jefe, el presidente de los Estados Unidos, permaneció en silencio.
Durante las cruciales dos semanas siguientes, Obama consideró qué hacer. Luego, el 6 de agosto de 2009, los periódicos McClatchy prohibieron "NOSOTROS. Retira la llamada para restaurar al derrocado líder hondureño ” y Tyler Bridges informaron que Zelaya no recibiría el respaldo de Estados Unidos en su intento de ser restaurado al poder. Aunque todas las organizaciones internacionales calificaron el golpe hondureño como ilegítimo, y se negaron a reconocer al líder elegido por su junta, la Administración de Obama, después de más de un mes de indecisión sobre este asunto, finalmente salió en favor de los fascistas de Honduras. Según James Rosen, de McClatchy Newspapers, tres días después, el senador republicano de extrema derecha estadounidense Jim DeMint tenía "Colocó a dos candidatos a puestos de alto nivel del Departamento de Estado para protestar Obama está presionando para que el presidente hondureño derrocado, Manuel Zalaya, vuelva al poder, lo que la administración rechazó la semana pasada ". Obama, después de un mes de silencio, cedió en silencio. En lugar de usar el púlpito intimidante para difuminar públicamente al fascista DeMint con su fascismo, Obama simplemente se unió a él en silencio. ¿Por qué?
Quizás fue porque el cabildero principal contratado en los Estados Unidos por la aristocracia hondureña (cuyos matones habían instalado este nuevo gobierno hondureño), era el viejo amigo de Hillary, Lanny Davis. Como slate.com había dicho el 27 de agosto de 2008, encabezando "Un día en la vida del fanático más grande de Hillary": "Cuando se trata de defender a Hillary Clinton, Lanny Davis no tiene rival."Él era el fascista" fijador dentro de la administración de Obama. El 9 de julio de 2009 La colina bannered “Cabildeo hondureño contra líder depuesto” e informó que el equivalente hondureño de la Cámara de Comercio de los Estados Unidos (que estaba controlada por esas dos docenas de familias) había contratado a "Lanny Davis, el ex asesor especial del presidente Bill Clinton", y que "el bombardeo de cabildeo comenzó (6 de julio) El lunes, un día antes de que Zelaya se reuniera con Clinton como parte de su presión para ser reincorporado ”. Lanny Davis había tenido su aportación a Hillary incluso antes que el presidente Zelaya. Además, La colina informó que "17 senadores republicanos, incluido el líder de la minoría Mitch McConnell (Ky.) (y DeMint) escribieron al secretario Clinton y le pidieron que se reuniera con funcionarios del gobierno interino de Honduras". El liderazgo republicano de Estados Unidos apoyó de inmediato y con firmeza a los fascistas de Honduras. Esta Carta de los senadores republicanos atacó "la prisa por etiquetar los eventos del 28 de junio como un golpe de estado" y dijo que, en cambio, reflejaba "el principio universal de que la gente debería elegir a sus propios líderes". En una votación de 125-3, el Congreso hondureño aprobó las acciones tomadas para destituir al Sr. Zelaya de su cargo e instalar al Sr. Micheletti ". (El artículo "Golpe de Estado hondureño 2009" en wikipedia dice que después de que los militares tomaron al Presidente el 28 de junio, "Más tarde ese día, el Congreso hondureño, en una sesión extraordinaria, votó para destituir a Zelaya de su cargo, después de leer una carta de renuncia falsa atribuida al Presidente Zelaya". Se proporcionó la carta falsificada. Para los republicanos, así es como se supone que debe funcionar la democracia, no un "golpe de Estado". Simplemente enmascararon a hombres con ametralladoras, y luego falsificaron documentos y cabilderos extranjeros bien conectados. El cable del embajador de los Estados Unidos el 24 de julio enfatizó que el "Carta de renuncia falsa del 25 de junio que surgió después del golpe" debe ser reconocido públicamente como falso. Pero no fue así).
Entonces, la aristocracia hondureña (principalmente los clanes Facussé, Ferrari, Canahuati, Atala, Lamas, Nasser, Kattan, Lippman y Flores.) había comprado una línea directa al Secretario de Estado de los EE. UU., a través del Sr. Davis. Y Obama cedió. El 13 de agosto de 2009, Mark Weisbrot, del Centro de Investigación Económica y Política, encabezó un Sacramento Bee artículo de opinión "Obama respalda tácitamente la toma del poder militar de la democracia hondureña" e informó que las recientes "declaraciones de la Administración fueron ampliamente publicitadas en los medios hondureños y ayudaron a reforzar la dictadura". Quizás de manera más inquietante, el gobierno de Obama no ha dicho una sola palabra sobre las atrocidades y los abusos contra los derechos humanos perpetrados por el gobierno golpista. Activistas políticos han sido asesinados, las estaciones de radio y televisión independientes han sido cerradas, los periodistas han sido detenidos e intimidados, y cientos de personas arrestadas ”. Hubo ahora, nuevamente bajo Bush, una repulsión generalizada contra Estados Unidos en toda América Latina. También el día 13, Dick Emanuelson, en el Programa de las Américas del Centro de Política Internacional, encabezó “Fuerzas militares siembran terror y miedo en Honduras” y describió en Honduras una situación muy parecida a la que había ocurrido en Argentina cuando los generales allí tomaron el poder en 1976 y rodearon y "desaparecieron" a los líderes que constituían una amenaza para el gobierno continuo de la aristocracia en ese país.
Estados Unidos era ahora el único poder que sostenía al gobierno de la junta hondureña. Hillary había dicho "Estamos trabajando con nuestros socios", pero ella mintió. Resultó que Estados Unidos estaba trabajando en contra "Nuestros socios" – contra prácticamente todas las naciones democráticas del mundo. Revista Brasil encabezado el 13 de agosto, "Brasil insta a Obama a apretar el tornillo en Honduras para recuperar a Zelaya" e informó que el presidente brasileño, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, había instado al presidente Obama a presentarse públicamente para la restauración "inmediata e incondicional" de Zelaya a su cargo. Sin embargo, no sucedió; y el viernes 21 de agosto, Mark Weisbrot se asoció en Gran Bretaña guardián, "El silencio ensordecedor de Obama sobre Honduras: Siete semanas después del golpe de Estado en Honduras, Estados Unidos está obstaculizando los esfuerzos para restaurar el poder del presidente Manuel Zelaya ”. Weisbrot documentó mentiras de la Administración de Obama sobre el golpe; y señaló: "De lo único de lo que podemos estar seguros es de que ningún medio de comunicación importante de EE. UU. investigará más este asunto". Suponía que EE. UU. tenía una prensa controlada, y parece que estaba en lo correcto, excepto por la cadena de periódicos McClatchy, que informó valientemente sobre los horrores hondureños.
Obama estaba mintiendo, sin siquiera reconocer que el golpe fue un golpe de estado, aunque (como señaló Weisbrot) “el miércoles, Amnistía Internacional emitió un informe que documentaba las palizas y la brutalidad policiales generalizadas contra manifestaciones pacíficas, detenciones arbitrarias masivas y otros abusos contra los derechos humanos bajo la dictadura. El gobierno de Obama ha guardado silencio sobre estos abusos, así como sobre los asesinatos de activistas y la censura e intimidación de la prensa. Hasta la fecha, ningún medio de comunicación importante (de EE. UU.) Se ha molestado en perseguirlos ”. La aristocracia de Estados Unidos claramente apoyaba a Honduras.
Casi un centenar de académicos firmaron una carta pública que decía que si solo Estados Unidos se manifestara claramente en contra del golpe, "El golpe podría ser fácilmente revocado", porque solo Estados Unidos mantenía el régimen golpista en el poder (a través de la banca y otra cooperación crucial con el gobierno golpista). Estados Unidos fue clave, y eligió abrir la cerradura de la prisión hondureña y dejar que sus víctimas fueran asesinadas.
Durante los meses siguientes, a medida que la vergüenza de la posición de Estados Unidos sobre esto se hizo cada vez más insostenible, Obama parecía estar gradualmente alejándose del golpe en Honduras. Sin embargo, el senador DeMint y algunos otros republicanos viajaron a Honduras y hablaron públicamente allí contra el gobierno de EE. UU., Y respaldaron el liderazgo hondureño instalado por el golpe. DeMint encabezado en Rupert Murdoch Wall Street Journal, el 10 de octubre de 2009, "Lo que escuché en Honduras" y escribió: "En los últimos tres meses, se ha hecho mucho de un supuesto" golpe "militar que sacó del poder al ex presidente hondureño Manuel Zelaya y al supuesto caos que creó. Después de visitar Tegucigalpa la semana pasada y reunirme con una sección transversal de líderes, … puedo informar que no hay caos allí. … Como hacen todas las democracias fuertes después de limpiarse de usurpadores, Honduras ha seguido adelante ”. Todos gobiernos en el hemisferio, excepto los EE. UU., calificaron el golpe como un "golpe", pero DeMint y otros republicanos importantes como Mitch McConnell simplemente negaron que lo fuera. DeMint recibió ovaciones en Washington, en la extrema derecha Heritage Foundation, que ahora dirige. Este senador de EE. UU. condenado Zelaya allí como "un supuesto dictador marxista depuesto", y se refirió a la junta como "amigos de la libertad". Condenó a Obama por indirecta, como el enemigo, que lideró "una política exterior estadounidense libre de nuestro compromiso con los humanos derechos y libertad humana y vinculados en su lugar a la ambición personal del presidente ”, quizás comunista. Obama permaneció en silencio, frente a estas mentiras contra Zelaya y contra sí mismo.
La afirmación de los republicanos de que el golpe no fue un "golpe" fue una mentira descarada. Todos en todo el mundo, excepto los republicanos de Estados Unidos (y el régimen oficial de los Estados Unidos) se refirieron a él como un "golpe de estado". Además, el embajador Llorens en Tegucigalpa hablaba constantemente con líderes (pero solo líderes) de organizaciones empresariales, religiosas, cívicas y de otro tipo en todo Honduras, y todos con los que habló expresaron su posición con respecto al "golpe". Por ejemplo (de los cables de la Embajada), "Monseñor Juan José Pineda, el obispo auxiliar de Tegucigalpa … declaró que la Iglesia no había tomado partido en relación con el golpe de estado ", sino que" condenó vociferantemente el mal trato a la Iglesia por lo que él creía que eran elementos del movimiento contra el golpe ". Y los líderes de dos partidos políticos conservadores. "Argumentó que las protestas contra el golpe no han sido pacíficos ". Solo los republicanos de Estados Unidos mintieron diciendo que no había sido un" golpe de estado ". Ni siquiera los amigos de los republicanos en Honduras, los fascistas allí, lo hicieron. Fue un golpe de estado. Los republicanos simplemente mintieron, como siempre. (Por eso Fox "Noticias" se ha encontrado en cada estudio tener la audiencia más mal informada de cualquier medio de noticias importante: se les está mintiendo constantemente).
El 5 de octubre de 2009, Jason Beaubien de NPR encabezó "Rico contra pobre en la raíz de la crisis política hondureña"E informó que, aunque los conservadores hondureños estaban acusando de que Zelaya tenía la intención secreta de convertir a Honduras en una dictadura comunista, la situación real en Honduras era, como lo explicó un profesor de economía allí, que "el poder en Honduras está en manos de unos 100 personas de aproximadamente 25 familias. Otros estiman que la élite hondureña es un poco más grande, pero aún así es un grupo pequeño ". Este profesor" dice que la élite del país siempre ha seleccionado al presidente de la nación. Inicialmente ayudaron a Zelaya a asumir el cargo, y luego organizaron su destitución ”cuando el presidente Zelaya presionó reformas de tierras y de otro tipo. Si los comunistas alguna vez llegaran al poder en Honduras, sería por la intransigencia de los fascistas allí, no por los intentos de los progresistas de poner fin al bloqueo de los señores feudales locales.
Adolf Hitler usó de manera similar el miedo popular al comunismo para persuadir a los tontos conservadores a votar por sí mismo y por otros fascistas; pero los fascistas y los comunistas son iguales: enemigos de la democracia. Esto no ha cambiado. Tampoco la técnica The Big Lie que los fascistas todavía usan.
Luego, el 6 de octubre de 2009, Los New York Times bannered "Fuerzas de seguridad hondureñas acusadas de abuso". ("Abuso" también había sido el término que el Veces y otros medios importantes empleados para la tortura cuando George W. Bush lo hizo, pero ahora aplicaron este eufemismo a los asesinatos directos perpetrados por la junta de Honduras.) Tal "abuso" fue "noticia" para las personas dentro de los Estados Unidos, pero no para el personas en otras naciones del mundo, donde los horrores en Honduras fueron ampliamente publicitados. También el 6 de octubre, narcosphere.narconews.com/
Un visitante estadounidense a Honduras publicado en línea fotos del pais antes de la Presidencia de Zelaya, y él los describió: “Me tomó un tiempo acostumbrarme a ver a guardias y policías fuertemente armados en todas partes. … Cada supermercado que visitamos tenía un guardia armado, con una escopeta, patrullando el estacionamiento. La mayoría de los restaurantes o establecimientos de comida rápida que visitamos, como Pizza Hut, tenían un guardia armado en el estacionamiento. … Sólo el 30% de las personas tienen riqueza. El otro 70% son pobres. Ser rico en Honduras puede ser peligroso. Es por eso que la mayoría de las personas ricas viven en compuestos vallados o vallados. … Y todos tienen guardias armados en el terreno ". Este es el tipo de sociedad que Wayne LaPierre y otros funcionarios de la NRA describen como el ideal – Cada hombre para sí mismo, armado hasta los dientes. Los republicanos, como los aristócratas de Honduras, quieren mantener ese paraíso tal como está; pero la gran mayoría de los hondureños no lo hacen, quieren progreso.
Naturalmente, por lo tanto, el Partido Republicano de los Estados Unidos se opuso abrumadoramente a Zelaya, y por lo tanto se opuso al público hondureño, a quien no le gustó su paraíso feudal. Obama permaneció notablemente silencioso sobre el asunto. La Administración de Obama negoció un supuesto acuerdo de reparto de poder entre Zelaya y el gobierno golpista, pero se desmoronó cuando Zelaya se enteró de que Obama realmente apoyaba a los fascistas al permitir que el gobierno golpista supervisara la inminente elección del próximo presidente de Honduras, lo que daría " elección ”al títere de los fascistas. El 5 de noviembre de 2009, el Los Angeles Times titulado un editorial "Obama debe mantenerse firme en la crisis hondureña: Un acuerdo negociado por los Estados Unidos para devolver al presidente hondureño, Manuel Zelaya, se está desmoronando, y la administración de Obama parece estar vacilando ". Cerraron diciendo:" Si la administración de Obama elige reconocer las elecciones (ganadoras de las próximas) sin Zelaya primero siendo reinstalado (con poderes para participar en la supervisión del conteo de votos), se encontrará en desacuerdo con el resto de América Latina. Eso sería un revés para la democracia y para Estados Unidos ". Pero es exactamente lo que hizo Obama. El 9 de noviembre de 2009, los periódicos McClatchy se prohibieron "El acuerdo hondureño se derrumba y los partidarios de Zelaya culpan a Estados Unidos" Tyler Bridges informó que el senador DeMint ahora dejó caer sus objeciones a una cita clave del Departamento de Estado, cuando el designado, Thomas Shannon (y también la propia Secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton), dejaron en claro que la Administración de Obama estuvo de acuerdo con DeMint. Por lo tanto, "los partidarios de Zelaya, que han estado organizando protestas callejeras contra el régimen de Micheletti (instalado por el golpe), han llegado a su última carta: pedir a los hondureños que boicoteen las elecciones".
El 12 de noviembre de 2009, el El Correo de Washington bannered "Acuerdo de Honduras está al borde del colapso" y citó a un portavoz del senador estadounidense John Kerry, jefe del Comité de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado, diciendo: "El cambio abrupto en la política del Departamento de Estado la semana pasada, reconociendo las elecciones programadas para el 29 de noviembre, incluso si el régimen golpista no cumple con sus compromisos bajo el Acuerdo de Tegucigalpa-San José: provocó el colapso de un acuerdo que ayudó a negociar ”. (Esperemos que Kerry resulte ser un mejor Secretario de Estado que su predecesor).
Una semana después, el 19 de noviembre, el Grupo de Trabajo Latinoamericano se unió “Honduras: las cosas se desmoronan” y resumió la culpabilidad conjunta de la administración Obama y de los fascistas hondureños.
El 29 de noviembre de 2009, la Fundación Heritage prohibió "Herencia en Honduras:" Creo en la democracia "," y Big Brother propagandizaron: “Hoy el pueblo hondureño vota en una elección histórica con consecuencias para toda la región. Izzy Ortega, de Heritage, está en el terreno como observadora oficial de elecciones hablando con hondureños que practican su derecho al voto. Mire su primera entrevista a continuación ". Un típico comentario de un lector publicado allí fue" Quiero que NOSOTROS LA GENTE regrese a los Estados Unidos. ¡Por una vez en mi vida estoy celoso de otro país! ”Los conservadores querían el fascismo en los Estados Unidos, no solo en Honduras. Por supuesto, el títere de la aristocracia fue "elegido" en Honduras. (Zelaya ni siquiera era un candidato en esta "elección". La mayoría de los países democráticos en todo el mundo no reconocieron los resultados de esta "elección". Sin embargo, Estados Unidos sí; y también Israel, Italia, Alemania, Japón, Perú, Costa Rica y Panamá.)
Por el contrario, el mismo día, Costa Rica Tico Times encabezado "Marchas pacíficas" represión brutal "en San Pedro Sula" Honduras. Mike Faulk informó que "alrededor de 500 personas que marchaban pacíficamente en la ciudad noroccidental de San Pedro Sula fueron reprimidas por gases lacrimógenos y cañones de agua el día de las elecciones hoy". Al día siguiente, la agencia France Presse tituló "Los conservadores ganan las elecciones hondureñas" e informó que "el conservador Porfirio Lobo ha reclamado una victoria sólida. … Estados Unidos se apresuró a subrayar su apoyo ". Barack Obama fue el principal (prácticamente único) jefe de Estado que apoyó la transferencia de poder fascista hondureño a su nuevo presidente hondureño" elegido ". Los principales medios de "noticias" en los Estados Unidos criticaron profundamente lo que estaba sucediendo en Honduras, pero la situación hondureña se informó ampliamente en otros lugares. Típico de la leve cobertura que recibió en los Estados Unidos, el Wall Street Journal bannered on November 26th, “Honduras Lurches Toward Crisis Over Election”, and their “reporter,” Jose de Cordoba, opened, “Honduran President Manuel Zelaya’s push to rewrite the constitution, and pave the way for his potential re-election, has plunged one of Latin America’s poorest countries into a potentially violent political crisis.” Rupert Murdoch’s rag never reported the gangster-government’s violence. Moreover, Zelaya had never pushed “to rewrite the constitution”; he had wanted to hold a plebiscite on whether there should be a constitutional convention held to rewrite the nation’s existing Constitution, which everyone but the Honduran aristocracy said contained profound defects that made democracy dysfunctional there. The editors of the former U.S.S.R.’s newspaper Pravda would have chuckled at Murdoch’s “reporting.” By contrast, for example, blog.AFLCIO.org had headlined on 16 November 2009, “Trumka: Free Elections Not Possible Now in Honduras.” The American labor movement was reporting on events in Honduras, but had been defeated by the U.S. aristocracy increasingly since 40 years earlier (Reagan), and therefore no longer constituted a major source of news for the American people. Richard Trumka was the AFL-CIO President, but was by now just a marginal character in the new fascist Amerika.
On 9 January 2010, the Honduras Coup 2009 blog translated from a Honduran newspaper published that day, and headlined “Honduras Is Broke.” Honduras’s Finance Minister, Gabriela Nuñez, was quoted as saying that international aid must keep coming in order for the nation to continue paying its bills, and that avoiding default is “a work from week to week.”
A few months later, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs headlined on 5 March 2010, “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Does Latin America” and reported that, “While in Buenos Aires, she carelessly stated, ‘The Honduras crisis has been managed to a successful conclusion … It was done without violence.’ This is being labeled as a misguided statement considering the physical violence including murders, beatings, torture that the coup government used in order to repress the opposition. Many of these tactics are still being used. This diplomatic stumble is expected to draw significant attention to the multiple errors in the U.S. approach.” Moreover, while there, she was “announcing that the Obama administration will restore aid that had been previously suspended.” The commentator said that this drew attention to “a political decision that once again may have served to isolate the U.S. from much of Latin America.” Furthermore, “While in Costa Rica, … Clinton said the post-coup (Honduran) government … was, in fact, democratically elected,” which made a mockery of the term “democracy.” That election was perhaps even less democratic than the “elections” in Iran have recently been, but it was remarkably similar, with the main difference being that in Honduras the aristocracy controlled the “election,” whereas in Iran the theocracy did. Anyway, Hillary approved.
On 1 May 2010, Britain’s guardián headlined regarding Honduras, “Cocaine Trade Turns Backwater into Hideout for Brutal Assassins: The Central American nation is on the brink of becoming a fully-fledged narco-state,” and reported that, “Corrupt police and drug gangs are blamed, with the government unable or unwilling to crack down on them.”
The Herald of Tegucigalpa, El Heraldo, headlined on 26 January 2011, “Presidente Asigna Medalla de Honor al Mérito a J. J. Rendón,” and reported that President Porfirio Lobo had decorated with the Order of Merit the master-propagandist who had deceived enough Honduran voters to “elect” Lobo (with the assistance of vote-rigging and terror). That was the same “John Rendon” (or actually Juan José Rendón) who had been hired by the George W. Bush Administration to deceive the American public into invading Iraq in 2003. This time, he was working for Barack Obama, instead of for George W. Bush, but it was fascism just the same.
Without Obama, Honduras’s fascists would have been defeated. Obama’s refusal to employ either his financial and banking power or his bully pulpit, and Hillary’s outright support of the fascist junta, together sealed the deaths of many thousands of Hondurans. The U.S. thus, single-handedly among all nations, kept Honduras’s newly-installed fascist regime in power. A U.S. professor who specialized in Honduras, Orlando Perez, said that Obama did this probably because he concluded “that Honduras’ political, military and economic elite wouldn’t accept Zelaya’s return”; in other words, that Obama wanted to serve Honduras’s aristocracy, regardless of the Honduran public, and even regardless of the increased contempt that Latin Americans would inevitably feel toward the U.S. from this matter.
The results for Hondurans were hellish. On 11 April 2011, McClatchy Newspapers bannered “Honduran Police Ignore Rise in Attacks on Journalists, Gays” and reported that within just those almost-two years, Honduras had become “the deadliest country in the hemisphere,” because of the soaring crime-rate, especially against homosexuals and against journalists. The new fascist government tacitly “sends a message to the criminals, the paramilitaries and the hit men that they can do as they please.”
Hondurans were by then five times likelier to be murdered than Mexicans were. Honduras’s aristocrats, however, were safe, because they hired their own private security forces, and also because the government’s security-apparatus was controlled by the aristocracy. Only the public were unprotected.
Fox “News” Latina bannered, on 7 October 2011, “Honduras Led World in Homicides in 2010” and (since Rupert Murdoch’s Fox is a Republican front) pretended that this had happened because Latin America was violent – not because Fox’s Republican friends had had their way in policy on Honduras, and had thus caused the Honduran murder-rate to soar. (During the latest year, whereas homicides had declined in all of the other high-homicide nations, homicides had skyrocketed 22% in Honduras – and that’s why Honduras now led the world in homicides, but Fox “News” didn’t mention any of these facts.)
The actual problem was that the U.S. had a Republican government under nominal “Democratic” leadership, both at the White House and at the State Department (not to mention at Treasury, Justice, and Education). Obama not only gave Rupert Murdoch a nice foil to gin-up his hate-machine; he also gave Murdoch the most politically gifted Republican in the country: Obama, a Republican in “Democratic” clothing. It certainly was so with regard to Honduran policy, in which Obama seemed to be following Hillary Clinton’s lead to the right.
On 21 October 2011, The Nation bannered “Wikileaks Honduras: US Linked to Brutal Businessman” and Dana Frank reported that, “Miguel Facussé Barjum, in the embassy’s words, is ‘the wealthiest, most powerful businessman in the country,’ one of the country’s ‘political heavyweights.’” He owned a 22,000-acre palm-oil plantation, including lots of vacant land that thousands of peasants or “campesinos” wanted to farm and make their homes. “The campesinos’ efforts have been met with swift and brutal retaliation,” hired killers – a cost of doing business (like exterminators). Furthermore, wikileaks cables from during George W. Bush’s Presidency indicated that “a known drug trafficking flight with a 1,000 kilo cocaine shipment from Colombia … successfully landed … on the private property of Miguel Facusse. … Its cargo was off-loaded onto a convoy of vehicles that was guarded by about 30 heavily armed men.” The plane was burned and bulldozed into the ground, and the U.S. Ambassador said that this probably couldn’t have happened without Facussé’s participation. But now, the U.S. was actually on the side of such people. Not only was the U.S. continuing as before in Honduras, but “The US has allocated $45 million in new funds for military construction,” including expansion of the U.S. air base that had participated in the 2009 coup. Other wikileaks cables indicated that someone from the U.S. Embassy met with Facussé on 7 September 2009. Furthermore, “A new US ambassador, Lisa Kubiske, arrived in Honduras this August. She is an expert on biofuels – the center of Miguel Facussé’s African palm empire.” Moreover, on 13 August 2009, hondurascoup2009.blogspot had headlined “Get to Know the 10 Families that Financed the Coup”, and cited a study by Leticia Salomón of the Autonomous University of Honduras, which said that, “A fundamental person in the conspiracy was the magnate Miguel Facussé, decorated by the Colombian Senate in 2004 with the Orden Mérito a la Democracia, and who today monopolizes the business of palm oil and in 1992 supported the purchase of land from campesinos at less than 10% of its actual value.” Furthermore, the coup “was planned by a business group lead (led) by Carlos Flores Facussé, ex-president of Honduras (1998-2002) and owner of the newspaper La Tribuna, which together with La Prensa, El Heraldo, TV channels 2, 3, 5 and 9 were the fundamental pillar of the coup.” Moreover, on 10 February 2010, the Honduras Culture and Politics blog headlined “Mario Canahuati Goes to Washington,” and reported that Honduras’s new Foreign Minister, Mario, was related to Jorge Canahuati, “owner of La Prensa and El Heraldo,” and also to Jesus Canahuati, who was the VP of the Honduran chamber-of-commerce organization that hired Lanny Davis. Meanwhile, Mario’s father, Juan Canahuati, owned textile factories that assembled clothing for major U.S. labels, and which would thus benefit greatly from the fascists’ roll-back of Zelaya’s increase in the minimum wage. (Other articles were also posted to the web, listing mainly the same families behind the coup.)
So, as such examples show, the aristocracy were greatly enriched by the Honduran coup, even though the non-criminal (or “legitimate”) Honduran economy shriveled. By supporting this new Honduran regime, Obama and Hillary assisted the outsourcing of clothes-manufacturing jobs, etc., to such police-states. International corporations would be more profitable, and their top executives and controlling stockholders would reap higher stock-values and capital gains and bigger executive bonuses, because of such fascist operations as the 2009 coup. If workers or campesinos didn’t like it, they could leave – for the U.S., where they would be competing directly against the poorest of our own country’s poor.
An artículo quoted Jose Luis Galdamez, a journalist for Radio Globo (a Honduran station briefly shut down by the junta) explaining how that nation’s elite impunity functions: “The rich simply send you out to kill … and then kill with impunity. They never investigate into who killed who, because the groups in power control the media, control the judiciary, and now control the government (the Executive Branch) again.” This is to say: In Honduras, hired killers are safe. The Government represents the aristocracy, not the public; so, aristocrats are free to kill. America’s congressional Republicans like this “Freedom.” It’s maximum liberty – for aristocrats: the people these “Representatives” actually serve.
On 18 November 2011, Mark Weisbrot in Britain’s guardián headlined “Honduras: America’s Great Foreign Policy Disgrace”, and he reported that, when the junta’s man “Porfirio Lobo took office in January 2020, … most of the hemisphere refused to recognize the government because his election took place under conditions of serious human rights violations. In May 2011, an agreement was finally brokered in Cartagena, Colombia, which allowed Honduras back into the Organization of American States. But the Lobo government has not complied with its part of the Cartagena accords, which included human rights guarantees for the political opposition.” The frequent murders of non-fascist political and labor union leaders “in broad daylight” (so as to terrorize anyone who might consider to replace them) had continued, despite the accords. Weisbrot noted that, “when President Porfirio Lobo of Honduras came to Washington last month, President Obama Greeted him warmly” and Obama said, “What we’ve been seeing is a restoration of democratic practices and a commitment to reconciliation.” How nice. However, Lobo did comply with one aspect of the Cartagena agreement: he let Manuel Zelaya and his wife back into Honduras.
Honduras was now (even more than before Zelaya) under a “libertarian” government – a government that respected only property-rights of approved people, no personal or other rights for anyone (such as Facussé’s propertyless campesinos). Paul Romer, the husband of Obama’s former chief economist Christina Romer, was joining with other libertarians to promote the idea of a totally “free market” model city in Honduras. On 10 December 2011, Britain’s libertarian ECONOMIST magazine bannered “Hong Kong in Honduras,” y “Honduras Shrugged (a play on Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged): Two Start-Ups Want to Try Out Libertarian Ideas in the Country’s New Special Development Regions.” Then, on 6 September 2012, Britain’s guardián bannered “Honduras to Build New City with Its Own Laws and Tax System.” However, the entrepreneur aiming to develop this new Honduran city freed from the law, the grandson of the far-right economist Milton Friedman, Patri Friedman, headlined at his Future Cities Development Inc., on 19 October 2012, “Closing Statement From Future Cities Development, Inc.” and he announced that though “passing with a vote of 126-1” in the Honduran legislature, his project was ruled unconstitutional by a judge, because it would remove that land from the Honduran legal system. Patri had been fundraising for this project ever since he had publicly announced at the libertarian Koch brothers’ Cato Institute, on 6 April 2009, “Democracy Is Not The Answer,” and he then said, “Democracy is rigged against libertarians.” He ended his statement by announcing “my proposal,” which was to “build new city-states,” where there would be no democracy, and only the investors would have any rights at all – an extreme gated community. Just months later, the new Honduran President, a libertarian like Patri, invited him to do it, but this judge killed the idea.
Inasmuch as Honduras was becoming too dangerous for Americans, the AP headlined on 19 January 2012, “Peace Corps Pullout a New Blow to Honduras,” and reported that, “The U.S. government’s decision to pull out all its Peace Corps volunteers from Honduras for safety reasons is yet another blow to a nation still battered by a coup and recently labeled (by the U.N. as) the world’s most deadly country.” Three days later, on the 22nd, Frances Robles of the Miami Herald, headlined “Graft, Greed, Mayhem Turn Honduras into Murder Capital of World,” and reported the details of a nation where aristocrats were protected by their own private guards, the public were on their own, and all new entrants into the aristocracy were drug traffickers and the soldiers and police who worked for those traffickers. Narcotics were now by far the most booming industry in Honduras, if not the only booming industry there post-coup. Robles reported, “Everybody has been bought,” in this paradise of anarchism, or libertarianism (i.e.: in this aristocratically controlled country).
On 12 February 2012, NPR headlined “Who Rules in Honduras? Coup’s Legacy of Violence.” The ruling families weren’t even noted here, much less mentioned, in this supposed news-report on the subject of “Who Rules in Honduras?” However, this story did note that, “Many experts say things got markedly worse after the 2009 coup.” (That was a severe understatement.)
Jim DeMint, who has since left the Senate, and who recently took over as the head of the far-right Heritage Foundation where he had formerly been a star, got everything he wanted in Honduras, and so did Hillary Clinton’s friend Lanny Davis – the aristocrats’ paid hand in the affair, on the “Democratic” side. (The aristocrats had many other agents lobbying their friends on the Republican side.) Honduras’s public got only hell. Four days later, on February 16th, Reuters headlined “Honduras Under Fire After Huge Prison Blaze”, and reported: “Survivors of a Honduran jailhouse fire that killed more than 350 inmates (some not yet tried, much less convicted), accused guards of leaving prisoners to die trapped inside their cells and even firing on others when they tried to escape.”
This was how law operated, in a supremely fascist nation. Dwight Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers had done a similar thing to the Iranians in 1953, and then to the Guatemalans in 1954; Obama now, though passively, did it to the Hondurans. When Ike did it in Iran, who would have guessed at the whirlwind that would result there 26 years later, in 1979? (Ironically, when Ike did it, the mullahs were delighted that the elected Iranian President, Mossadegh, whom they hated, had been overthrown. America now reaps their whirlwind.)
This is the type of hypocritical leadership that has caused the United States to decline in public approval throughout the world under Obama – ironic after his Nobel Peace Prize awarded within just months of his becoming President. On 10 December 2010, Gallup bannered “U.S. Leadership Ratings Suffer in Latin America”, and reported that approval of “the job performance of the leadership of the United States” had declined since 2009 in 14 of 18 nations in the Western Hemisphere. It had declined steepest in Mexico, Argentina, Honduras, and Venezuela. Honduras, however, was the only country where approval of the U.S. was now even lower than it had been under George W. Bush in 2008. This Honduran plunge since the 2009 coup had been that steep. Then, on 19 April 2012, Gallup headlined “U.S. Leadership Losing Some Status”, and reported that across 136 countries, approval of the U.S. had peaked in 2009 when George W. Bush was replaced by Obama, but that “the U.S. has lost some of its status” since 2009, and that the “U.S. Image Sinks in the Americas,” down one-quarter from its 2009 high, though still not yet quite as low in most countries as it had been under Bush. Then, three months later, on June 13th, the PewResearch Global Attitudes Project headlined “Global Opinion of Obama Slips, International Policies Faulted”, and reported that favorable opinion of the U.S. had sunk during Obama’s first term. It declined 7% in Europe, 10% in Muslim countries, 13% in Mexico, and 4% in China. However, it increased 8% in Russia, and 13% in Japan. It went down in eight countries, and up in two, and changed only 2% or less in three nations.
The global fascist push to eliminate Zelaya’s Presidency had first been well outlined by Greg Grandin in The Nation on 28 July 2009, headlining “Waiting for Zelaya”. He wrote: “The business community didn’t like Zelaya because he raised the minimum wage. Conservative evangelicals and Catholics – including Opus Dei, a formidable presence in Honduras – detested him because he refused to ban the ‘morning after’ pill. The mining, hydroelectric and biofuel sector didn’t like him because he didn’t put state funds and land at their disposal. The law-and-order crowd hated him because he apologized on behalf of the state for a program of ‘social cleansing’ that took place in the 1990s. … Zelaya likewise moved to draw down Washington’s military presence; Honduras, alone among Central American countries, hosts a permanent detachment of US troops.” Later that same year (2009), John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, came out with his new Hoodwinked, in which he said (p. 213): “I was told by a Panamanian bank vice president who wanted to remain anonymous, ‘Every multinational knows that if Honduras raises its hourly (minimum-wage) rate, the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean will have to follow. Haiti and Honduras have always set the bottom.’” The increase in Honduras’s minimum wage was widely cited as having probably been the coup’s chief source.
Zelaya offered an explanation as to why the U.S. helped the fascists. On 31 May 2011, “Democracy Now” radio headlined “Exclusive Interview with Manuel Zelaya on the U.S. Role in Honduran Coup”, and Zelaya revealed that when he was abducted from his house, “We landed in the U.S. military base of Palmerola,” before being flown from there out of the country, and that “Otto Reich started this.” Reich had been the fanatical far-right Cuban-American who ran U.S. Latin-American policy for the Republican Reagan and both the father and son Bush Administrations, including Iran-Contra against Nicaragua (which helped Iran’s mullahs), and the fascist 2002 coup against Venezuela’s popular elected President Hugo Chavez, which coup was then peacefully overturned and reversed, due to worldwide repudiation of the junta everywhere except the U.S. Government. Zelaya said that the coup against himself had been organized via both Reich and the previous, George W. Bush-appointed, U.S. Ambassador to Honduras, Charles Vado, who had subsequently been appointed to the U.S. Southern Command. Zelaya didn’t personally blame Obama. Zelaya said, “Even though Obama would be against the coup, the process toward the coup was already moving forward. … They are even able to bend the arm of the President of the United States, President Obama, and the State Department.” Zelaya portrayed a weak President Obama, not a complicit one. If this was true, then Lanny Davis was pushing against a weak leader, not against strong resistance within the then-new Democratic U.S. Administration. Hillary Clinton’s press conference the day after the coup reflected unconcern regarding democracy, not (like with Republicans such as Sen. DeMint) outright support of fascism. The situation that was portrayed by Zelaya was a U.S. Government that was heavily infiltrated by fascists throughout the bureacracy, and a new Democratic President and Secretary of State who had no stomach to oppose fascists – an Administration who were mere figureheads.
On 15 March 2012, Laura Carlson, at Foreign Policy In Focus, bannered “Honduras: When Engagement Becomes Complicity,” and she opened: “U.S. Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Honduras on March 6 with a double mission: to quell talk of drug legalization and reinforce the U.S.-sponsored drug war in Central America, and to bolster the presidency of Porfirio Lobo. The Honduran government issued a statement that during the one-hour closed-door conversation between Biden and Lobo, the vice president ‘reiterated the U.S. commitment to intensify aid to the government and people of Honduras, and exalted the efforts undertaken and implemented over the past two years by President Lobo.’ In a March 1 press briefing, U.S. National Security Advisor Tony Blinken cited ‘the tremendous leadership President Lobo has displayed in advancing national reconciliation and democratic and constitutional order.’ You’d think they were talking about a different country from the one we visited just weeks before on a fact-finding mission on violence against women. What we found was a nation submerged in violence and lawlessness, a president incapable or unwilling to do much about it, and a justice system in shambles.”
Carlson went on to note: “Land grabs to transfer land and resources from small-scale farmers, indigenous peoples, and poor urban residents into the hands of large-scale developers and megaprojects have generated violence throughout the country. Many of the testimonies of violence and sexual abuse that we heard from Honduran women regarded conflicts over land, where the regime actively supports wealthy interests against poor people in illegal land occupations for tourism, mining, and infrastructure projects, such as palm oil magnate Miguel Facusse’s actions.” She noted: “The United States helped deliver a serious blow to the Honduran political system and society. The United States has a tremendous responsibility for the disastrous situation.” And she closed: “There’s no excuse for spending U.S. taxpayer dollars on security assistance to Honduras as human rights violations pile up.” She called this “A Coup for Criminals.”
What Iran and Guatemala became to the historical record of Eisenhower’s Presidency, Honduras will be to that of Obama. Sometimes even a small country, even a banana republic, can leave a big black mark on a President’s record. Though Czechoslovakia was just a small and weak country, it’s even what Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain is primarily remembered for nowadays – his yielding it to the fascists in 1938.
In November 2013, the Center for Economic Policy Research bannered a study, “Honduras Since the Coup”, and among the highlights they reported were:
“Economic growth has slowed since the 2009 coup. From 2006-2008 average annual GDP growth was 5.7 percent. In 2009 Honduras’ GDP, as with most countries in Central America, contracted due to the world recession. From 2010-2013, average annual growth has been only 3.5 percent.”
“Economic inequality, which decreased for four consecutive years starting in 2006, began trending upward in 2010. Honduras now has the most unequal distribution of income in Latin America.”
“In the two years after the coup, over 100 percent of all real income gains went to the wealthiest 10 percent of Hondurans.”
“Poverty and extreme poverty rates decreased by 7.7 and 20.9 percent respectively during the Zelaya administration. From 2010-2012, the poverty rate increased by 13.2 percent while the extreme poverty rate increased by 26.3 percent.”
“The unemployment situation has worsened from 2010-2012.”
Crime rates and other non-economic factors were unfortunately ignored in this study, but it indicated clearly that, from at least the economic standpoint, the public in Honduras suffered while the elite did not. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had done to Honduras something rather similar to what George W. Bush and his team did to Iraq, but with this major difference: Zelaya was a good and democratic leader of Honduras, whereas Saddam was a tyrant (though Iraq was even worse after his reign than during it). This “Democratic” U.S. Administration turned out to support fascism, much as its Republican predecessor had done.
The soaring murder-rate after the U.S.-supported coup caused a soaring number of escapees from the violence; they’re flooding into the U.S. now as illegal immigrants.
HAITI
In Haiti, the situation is similar as an example of the U.S. backing aristocrats, so as to keep the masses in poverty and for American aristocrats to profit from doing so. On 1 June 2011, The Nation headlined “WikiLeaks Haiti: Let Them Live on $3 a Day”, and Dan Coughlin and Kim Ives reported that, “Contractors for Fruit of the Loom, Hanes and Levi’s worked in close concert with the US Embassy when they aggressively moved to block a minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest-paid in the hemisphere, according to secret State Department cables. … The factory owners told the Haitian Parliament that they were willing to give workers a 9-cents-per-hour pay increase to 31 cents per hour to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for US clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica. But the factory owners refused to pay 62 cents per hour, or $5 per day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian Parliament in June 2009 would have mandated. And they had the vigorous backing of the US Agency for International Development and the US Embassy when they took that stand.” Hillary Clinton’s State Department pushed hard to reverse the new law. “A deputy chief of mission, David E. Lindwall, said the $5 per day minimum ‘did not take economic reality into account’ but was a populist measure aimed at appealing to ‘the unemployed and underpaid masses.'” An “Editor’s Note” from The Nation added: “In keeping with the industry’s usual practice, the brand name US companies kept their own hands clean, letting their contractors do the work of making Haiti safe for the sweatshops from which they derive their profits — with help from US officials.” Those “officials” were ultimately Clinton and Obama. On 3 June 2011, Ryan Chittum at Columbia Journalism Review headlined “A Pulled Scoop Shows U.S. Fought to Keep Haitian Wages Down”, and he added some perspective to the story: “Hanesbrands CEO Richard Noll … could pay for the raises for those 3,200 t-shirt makers with just one-sixth of the $10 million in salary and bonus he raked in last year.” And then, when the U.S. turns away “boat people,” trying to escape the “voluntary” slavery of the Haitian masses, the standard excuse is that it’s done so as to “protect American jobs.” But is that really where Hillary Clinton gets her campaign funds?
AFGHANISTAN
On 26 July 2009, Marisa Taylor bannered at McClatchy Newspapers, “Why Are U.S.-Allied Refugees Still Branded as ‘Terrorists?’,” and she reported that “DHS (Department of Homeland Security) is working with other agencies, such as the State Department, to come up with a solution” to the routine refusal of the United States to grant U.S. visas to translators and other local employees of the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan who wanted to move to the U.S. and who had overwhelming reason to fear retaliation from anti-Americans in their home countries after we left. The State Department did nothing. Then, Human Rights First headlined on 13 August 2009, “Senator Leahy on ‘Material Support’ Bars”, and reported that, “In a powerful statement submitted for the Congressional Record on August 5, 2009, Senator Leahy (D-VT) reaffirmed his commitment to ‘restore common sense’ to the bars to refugee and asylum status based on associations with what the Immigration and Nationality Act defines as terrorism,” which was “written so broadly” that it applied even to “children who were recruited against their will and forced to undergo military training, doctors (acting in accordance with the Hippocratic oath) … and those who fought against the armies of repressive governments in their home countries.”
The State Department failed to act. On 2 February 2013, the El Correo de Washington bannered “Alleged Terrorism Ties Foil Some Afghan Interpreters’ U.S. Visa Hopes”, and Kevin Sieff in Kabul reported that, “As the American military draws down its forces in Afghanistan and more than 6,000 Afghan interpreters seek U.S. visas, the problem is threatening to obstruct the applications of Afghans who risked their lives to serve the U.S. government.” What kind of lesson is this teaching to interpreters and other local employees of the U.S. missions in unstable foreign countries? Helping the U.S. could be terminally dangerous.
LIBYA
And what happened afterwards?
(And what happened antes de?)
But what happened afterwards is even worse than people know: as Wayne Madsen recently reported, Hillary’s success at overthrowing Gaddafi served brilliantly the purposes of the U.S. aristocracy and of the jihadists who are financed by the Saud family and the other fundamentalist Sunni royal families in Arabia. Even if she doesn’t become President, she has already done enough favors for those royals so as to be able to fill to the brim the coffers of the Clinton Foundation.
SYRIA
A record drought in Syria during 2008-2010 produced results like this:
“Two years before the ‘Arab Spring’ even began:
In the past three years, 160 Syrian farming villages have been abandoned near Aleppo as crop failures have forced over 200,000 rural Syrians to leave for the cities. This news is distressing enough, but when put into a long-term perspective, its implications are staggering: many of these villages have been continuously farmed for 8000 years.
That source had been published on 16 January 2010.”
The drought continued on through 2010 and sporadically afterwards, and it intensified in Syria the already widespread ‘Arab Spring’ demonstrations against the existing regimes.
Even before the ‘Arab Spring’ demonstrations in 2011, the Syrian government was pleading with foreign governments for food aid, and these pleas were reported to Secretary of State Clinton, but she ignored them.
Obama grabbed this opportunity to dust off an old CIA 1957 plan to overthrow the Ba’athist Party that ruled Syria — the only secular, non-sectarian, party in Syria, and the only political force there that insisted upon separation between church and state. The Ba’athists were allied with Russia, and the U.S. aristocracy wanted to conquer Russia even after the end of communism there in 1990. Replacing a secular government by a fundamentalist Sunni Sharia law regime would end Syria’s alliance with Russia; so, Obama worked with other fundamentalist Sunni dictatorships in the region — Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, and Turkey — to perpetrate a sarin gas attack in Syria that they’d all blame on Syria’s Ba’athist leader, Bashar al-Assad, even though the U.S. and its Arab partners had actually perpetrated it.
On 12 November 2011, Secretary of State Clinton said:
The failure of the Assad regime, once again, to heed the call of regional states and the international community underscores the fact that it has lost all credibility. The United States reiterates its calls for an immediate end to the violence, for free unfettered access for human rights monitors and journalists to deter and document grave human rights abuses and for Asad to step aside.
In other words: she was already demanding “regime change” in Syria. Back in 2002, she had similarly demanded “regime change in Iraq,” because the Ba’athist, Russia-allied, anti-sectarian, Saddam Hussein ruled there. She did it again in Syria — just as she had done it in Lybia in order to get rid of the non-sectarian Russia-allied dictator there, Muammar Gaddafi.
During the Democratic primary debate on 20 December 2015, her opponent Bernie Sanders said:
I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be.
Yes, we could get rid of Saddam Hussein, but that destabilized the entire region. Yes, we could get rid of Gadhafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS. Yes, we could get rid of Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS.
He said that defeating the jihadists in Syria should be completed before the issue of what to do about Assad is addressed. The questioner, David Muir, asked Clinton whether she agreed with that. She replied:
We are doing both at the same time.
MUIR: But that’s what he’s saying, we should put that aside for now and go after ISIS.
CLINTON: Well, I don’t agree with that.
She is obsessed with serving the desires of the U.S. aristocracy — even if that means the U.S. helps supply sarin gas to the rebels in Syria to be blamed on Assad, and even if it also means that the existing, Ba’athist, government in Syria will be replaced by a jihadist Sunni government that serves the Saud family and the other Arabic royal families.
UKRAINE
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose as being the State Department’s chief spokesperson Victoria Nuland who was previously the Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney from 2003 to 2005, after having been appointed by President George W. Bush as the U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative to the anti-Russian military club NATO from 2000 until 2003. Her big passion, and her college-major, as a person who ever since childhood hated Russia, was Russian studies, and she “was twice a visiting fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations — as a ‘Next Generation’ Fellow looking at the effects of anti-Americanism on U.S. relations around the world, and as a State Department Fellow directing a task force on ‘Russia, its Neighbors and an Expanding NATO.’” Although her career started after the Soviet Union and its communism ended in 1990, it has nonetheless been obsessed with her hatred of Russia and with her passion for the U.S. aristocracy to take it over, as if communism hadn’t really been a factor in the “Cold War” — and she has been promoted in her career on that basis.
V.P. Cheney liked her “neo-conservatism,” which she shared with her husband, Robert Kagan, who had been one of the leading proponents for “regime change in Iraq.” (“Neo-conservatism” is the group of policy intellectuals who passionately argued for “regime change in Iraq” during the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations, and who support every policy to overthrow the leaders of any nation that’s at all friendly toward Russia.)
When Hillary Clinton retired in 2013, Obama made Nuland the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Nuland’s first assignment (she was already at work on it by no later than 1 March 2013, which was before the U.S. Senate had even confirmed her appointment) was to overthrow the democratically elected government of Ukraine because Ukraine is next door to Russia and the U.S. aristocracy has, since communism ended in the Soviet Union in 1990, been trying to surround Russia by NATO missiles, most especially in Ukraine. President Obama hid from the public his hostility toward Russia until he became re-elected in 2012 (he even mocked his opponent, Mitt Romney, for saying, at 0:40 on this video, that Russia is “our number one geopolitical foe”), but then, once he was safely re-elected, immediately set to work to take over Ukraine and to add it to NATO. Then, in his National Security Strategy 2015, he identified Russia as being by far the world’s most “aggressive” nation. Hillary Clinton is determined to carry this anti-Russian hostility through as President, even though she lies as Obama does and so, similarly, won’t say it during the Democratic primaries. But the takeover of Ukraine was an Obama operation in which she played an important role, to set it up.
Here is the recording of Nuland on 4 February 2014, telling the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, whom to place at the top of the Ukrainian government when the coup will be completed, which occurred 22 days later. It was to be the culmination of her efforts, which had started even prior to 1 March 2013.
Here is the broader video of that coup.
Here is the head of the “private CIA” firm Stratfor saying it was “the most blatant coup in history.”
Here is the electoral map showing the voting percentages in each region of Ukraine for the election that had chosen the President, “Janukovych,” whom Obama overthrew in that coup. The region in purple on that map had voted 90% for “Janukovych.” It’s called Donbass and consists of Donetsk and Luhansk. It refused to accept the coup-imposed leaders. Obama wanted the residents there bombed into submission. Here’s a video of that bombing-campaign. Here’s another — specifically of firebombings (which are illegal). The money for that bombing-campaign came from taxpayers in U.S. and EU, and also from the IMF, in the form of loans that saddled Ukraine with so much debt it went bankrupt on 4 October 2015, as determined by a unanimous vote of the 15 international banks that collectively make this decision. The infamously high corruption in Ukraine went even higher after the U.S.-EU takeover of Ukraine. After Ukraine’s bankrupttcy, the IMF changed its rules so that it could continue to lend money there, until the people in Donbass are either exterminated or expelled. The U.S. President controls the IMF. For the international aristocracy, the U.S. President is the most important servant there is. Hillary Clinton wants to become that servant. It’s why her top twenty financial backers represent the U.S. aristocracy.
OTHER MATTERS
Finally, it should also be noted that Hillary’s record as the chief administrator at the State Department was also poor. The State Department’s own Accountability Review Board Report on Benghazi Attack said: “In the months leading up to September 11, 2012, security in Benghazi was not recognized and implemented as a ‘shared responsibility’ in Washington, resulting in stove-piped discussions and decisions on policy and security. Key decisions … or non-decisions in Washington, such as the failure to establish standards for Benghazi and to meet them, or the lack of a cohesive staffing plan, essentially set up Benghazi.” That’s failure at the very top. It’s not in Libya. It’s not even in Africa. It’s in “Washington.”
Who, at the State Department in “Washington,” had “buck stops here” authority and power? Hillary Clinton.
Republicans are obsessed with the Benghazi failure, because it reflects negatively upon her but not on themselves. However, Hillary’s real and important failures reflected negatively upon Republicans also, because these failures (such as her supporting fascists in Honduras) culminated actually Republican foreign-policy objectives, and dashed Democratic (y democratic) policy-objectives. This is the real reason why Republicans focus instead upon Hillary’s Benghazi mess.
Hillary Clinton also was a notoriously poor administrator of her own 2007-2008 presidential primary campaign. Even coming into 2014, some leading Democrats were afraid that if she were to become the Party’s candidate, then the entire Party would get “Mark Penned,” which is the euphemism for her inability to select top-flight people for key posts. Obama had a far higher-skilled campaign-operation than she did, even though she started out with an enormous head-start against Obama in 2008.
Back in 2006, the encyclopedic Democrat Jack Beatty headlined in The Atlantic, “Run, Barack, Run,” and he contrasted the “enthralling” presence and speaking-style of Barack Obama to the presence and speaking-style of the Party’s presumptive 2008 nominee. He said of Clinton: “As she showed in her speech at the memorial service for Coretta Scott King, Hillary Clinton is a boring, flat-voiced, false-gesturing platform speaker. She shouts into the microphone; Obama talks into it. Her borrowed words inspire no trust – they remind us of her borrowed foundation – and her clenched personality inspires little affection. Money can’t buy her love, nor buzz protect her political glass jaw. The question for Democrats is, Who will break it first? Will it be one of her Democratic challengers – Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards – or John McCain?” He was hoping that it would turn out to be one of the Democrats, especially Obama, so as to avoid a continuation of the Bush years. He got his wish, even if not his intended result. (Obama was so gifted a con-man that even the brightest Democrats, such as Beatty, couldn’t see through his con. Nobody could – so, the Republicans had to invent an ‘Obama’-demon that was almost diametrically opposite to the real one, in order to provide a punching-bag that their suckers would hate. Republicans ended up punching actually the most gifted Republican since the time of Ronald Reagan — a black and charismatic version of Mitt Romney, the man who lost to Obama in 2012 though having created the model both for Obamacare and for Obama’s policies toward Wall Street, and even toward Russia.)
At the start of the present campaign, it had seemed almost inevitable that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2016. A Quinnipiac poll released on 7 March 2013 was headlined “Clinton, Christie Lead The Pack In Early Look At 2016,” and reported that, “Former First Lady, and Secretary of State Clinton wins easily against any” opponent, from either Party.
Her public statements aren’t consistent, because she changes them whenever politically convenient to do so; but the statements of a liar are simply ignored by intelligent people, anyway. Her statements are ignored by intelligent voters. What matters is her actions, her actual record, which is lengthy, and ugly. Her record is, moreover, consistent. So, it leaves no doubt as to what her real policies are: only fools will listen to anything that a liar such as she is, says on the stump, because she’s a con-person who is selling, essentially, a toxic dump, and trying to get top-dollar for it by describing the pretty land covering it over, and by crossing her fingers that not many people will smell any stench percolating up from down below. The only people who can intelligently trust her verbal commitments are her big donors, who hear those commitments in private, not in public, and who understand how to interpret them. Her voters are there merely to be conned, not to be served. She needs them to be the rug she walks upon in order to get back into the White House, where she intends to be serving real gold to her big donors, to make their bets, on her, profitable for them.
Y aquí are her big donors — the people she seeks to serve there.
This presentation will now close with a brief update on the situation in Honduras, because that catastrophe was Hillary Clinton’s first one as the Secretary of State:
On 15 February 2016, Alexander Main, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, headlined an op-ed in Los New York Times, “An Anti-Corruption Charade in Honduras,” and he wrote there:
In Honduras, protests erupted when a local journalist revealed that millions of dollars of public funds from the country’s health care system had been funneled to the ruling National Party and the election campaign of President Juan Orlando Hernández. A handful of administrators and business executives have been indicted for other corruption in the health system, but no charges have been brought against Mr. Hernández or other top party officials over the diversion of funds to the party. … The country’s security forces are heavily infiltrated by organized crime — ‘rotten to the core,’ a former police official told The Miami Herald. Two weeks later, the official was shot dead. Scores of journalists, lawyers, land rights activists, gay rights advocates and opposition figures have been assassinated, without consequence for their killers. …
Sadly, the American government is ill positioned to offer help. In 2009, the State Department under Secretary Hillary Clinton helped a military coup in Honduras succeed by blocking efforts to restore the left-leaning president, Manuel Zelaya, to power. Since then, Washington’s diplomatic efforts have focused on shoring up a series of corrupt post-coup governments. More than 100 members of Congress have called on the Obama administration to condemn human rights violations by security forces, and have questioned America’s security assistance to Honduras.
Yet Washington continues to back Mr. Hernández.
Hillary Clinton did, indeed, have an impact as the Secretary of State, and it continues to this day, and will live on as a curse, probably for decades to come — especially in the lands that she played a principal role in helping to destroy.
She prides herself on her “experience,” as if having a title, “Secretary of State,” and performing miserably in that function, qualifies someone to be a good U.S. President. America’s press hasn’t challenged her on the claim, either. Thus, many people, who trust both her and the American press, think that there must be truth to her claim: that she has achieved a lot, and that what she has achieved was terrific for the American people, and for the world. They’ve been successfully deceived.
There is an alternative, within the Democratic Party: Bernie Sanders. Here is his experience. Y aquí are his top donors.
CONCLUSION
Only fools vote for her. Her campaigns are targeting especially fools who are either female or black or Hispanic, but she (and her financial backers) will welcome any fool to vote for her, because clearly no non-fool (except those financial backers) will.
* * *
PostScript:
This article was submitted to the major print news-media, and major online news-media, with the question: “Would you want this as an exclusive?” None replied even to say something like, “Maybe, give us a week to check out the linked sources.” None replied at all. Consequently, this article is now being provided free of charge to the public, and free of charge to all media to publish, but that’s the choice a journalist must make in order to present a truthful and reasonably comprehensive picture of Hillary Clinton’s record as the U.S. Secretary of State. Republican ‘news’ media don’t want this article, because it shows her as being hardly different from the Republicans on international matters; and Democratic ‘news’ media don’t want it, because it shows her as being hardly different from the Republicans on international matters. So, only the few news-media that are neither Republican nor Democratic, and are dedicated only to honestly and truthfully informing the public about the candidates for the U.S. Presidency, will publish it, even if it’s offered free-of-charge. About foreign affairs, there’s no truth in any of the large U.S. ‘news’ media: they’re all controlled by the U.S. aristocracy, who (in both Parties) agree overwhelmingly with the neoconservative (or American-imperialist) position on foreign-policy matters, and who are united against the interests of the publics in every nation, in favor of their own, personal, interests.
Here below are the news-media that had received the article, submitted to them for consideration as an exclusive, and all of which media rejected this article, without comment, so that you can see that the editors there know the information that’s revealed here (they have read it here, even if they didn’t already know it before and simply hid it from their readership). The reason they don’t want their readers to know these facts is that they don’t want the public to know that (except on purely groupist issues concerning women, Blacks and Hispanics — her voting-base) Hillary Clinton is actually a Republican in ‘Democratic’ verbal garb. Neither Republican, nor Democratic, ‘news’ media, want their readers to know that she’s actually a Republican — even more than her husband was. Anyway: here, you’ll see that though the information that has been included in this article is ignored in the reporting by all of the big reporters and by the talking heads on TV ‘news’, they’re not actually unaware of it; they’re simply not allowed to let the public know it.
Those media are: Vanity Fair, National Review, Rolling Stone, Harper’s, BusinessWeek and Bloomberg News, McClatchy newspapers, New York Times, Guardian, Washington Post, Mother Jones, The Nation, Progressive, The New Republic, New Yorker, Foreign Policy, Politico, Salon, Huffington Post, and Slate. (If any of your friends subscribe to or read those, why not pass this along to them, so that they’ll know what they don’t know about Hillary Clinton. Maybe they already know how bad the Republicans are, but do they know how bad the Clintons and Obama really are? Perhaps they don’t know it, from sources that want them not to know it.)
* * *
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.