Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Radio Silence On The Clinton's Connections To The Panama Papers

Ever since the Panama Papers story broke, I have routinely combed the Internet in search of breaking news and stories. In less than a week, the political fall out outside the U.S. was immense and continues to grow. Except, not really. 

After their initial release, stories about connections to major political and financial figures linked to Mossack Fonseca, trickled to one agonizing drip at a time. 

Perhaps this wasn’t noticed much by mainstream America because even at its height, most of the major television news networks (CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) provided almost no coverage of the stories except the smallest little blurps. 

Unlike China’s immediate censorship of their own links to high-ranking figures connected to the firms off shore tax havens, the American media has not been so honest.  Of course, no formal censorship plan was announced by the corporately owned media, they just didn’t cover it much- end of story. 

Though there has been some crying foul at the suspicious lack of American’s listed in the Panama Papers, two names have surfaced, not once, but twice, in two separate incidences. 

Can you guess who they might be?  Our very own Bill and Hillary Clinton. 

The first story revolved around The Podesta Group, a big time lobbying group in D.C.  The CEO is Tony Podesta and his company is touted as one of the best-connected Democratic insider groups in the country.  His brother, John, was the former chief of staff to Bill Clinton and then moved on to become a counselor to President Obama. 

Today, the Podesta brothers are hard at work on the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential bid with Tony being the big money bundler for the campaign while John sits at the helm as Hillary’s campaign manager. 

The Podesta Group was found to have ties to one of the shadiest banks in Russia as well.

Three days ago, the second story broke. Inside Panama Papers: Multiple Clinton Connections. 

Some issues highlighted include ties that stretch back more than 40 years to Bill and Hillary Clinton as well as donors to the Clinton foundation who used the Panamanian law firm. 

And we are talking, big, big money here. 

Of course, with three days until the New York primaries, the Clinton connections to the Panama Papers were plastered all over the news networks – NOT!  

Wouldn’t want the voters to actually have a glimpse at whom – and what - they might be voting for.  There’s more ways to rig an election than one might suspect and not telling people what is really going on with the candidates is a great place to start. 

Since it’s probably to late to inform many New Yorker’s before they cast their ballots today, there’s still time left for the remaining states to learn a little more about Secretary Clinton before they head to their own polls. 

I ran into a great article that has more info and links than I have time to compile and provides some excellent food for thought.  Check out 27 Honest Questions For Hillary Supporters.  

Here's a glimpse of what it contains: 
Consider that we never got the full picture.  Consider that, due to the accessibility of information that's now available to us, previously obscured facts can now be found with relative ease - with a bit of (Hashtag-HillaryResearch).  Consider that not every attack on Clinton's record is coming from the right-wing or is due to her being a woman, but may actually be rooted in reality.  Consider that we've been sold a public personality - one that's managed by strategists and public relations masters.  Consider that the U.S. ranks 49th in the world in terms of freedom of the press, that our media options are limited (Time Warner, CNN's parent company, is the 8th largest contributor to Clinton's campaign), and that they have their own agenda (see: $$). Consider that when Clinton's record is viewed as a whole, there's a consistent narrative that can be understood.   
We must ask ourselves:  at what point are we willing to let go of the image we've been sold and instead look at valid criticisms?  What does it say about our society when we're more loyal to a party that's been sold to corporate interests than we are towards our own human interests? 
As for waiting to hear more from the mainstream media about the Clinton's connections to the Panama Papers, don't hold your breath.

Sunday, April 17, 2016

The New York Daily News, Secretary Clinton & New York Values

Last week, the New York Daily News endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in the 2016 Presidential campaign. 

Touting her as a “cauldron-tested globalist” and extolling her virtues, they begin winding down their argument for their support by announcing “These truths about America’s most well-known public figure are long past debating among Democrats.”

Well, I’m a long-time registered Democrat and the vetting of Secretary Clinton is NOT long past.  In fact, based on the NY Daily News arguments, they haven’t even begun to tell the truth about Secretary Clinton.

Despite their own Juan Gonzalez calling out Clinton on her pivotal blood-curdling role in the Honduran coup of 2009 during the Editorial Boards interview, and despite Mr. Gonzalez penning his own views about Secretary Clinton a few days later in, “Hillary Clinton’s Policy Was A Latin American Crime Story,”  somehow these guys feel it’s okay to look the other way at her direct orchestration of the ongoing genocide of the Honduran and Latin American people.

In a recent Democracy Now! segment that began with Mr. Gonzalez asking Secretary Clinton about her leadership in Honduras, guest Dana Frank goes on to lay Clinton bare for the “mind-boggling lies” presented in her response.

Despite clear-cut evidence proving Secretary Clinton knew it was a military coup of the democratically elected President Zelaya, or that our own American Ambassador to Honduras detailed the illegal and illegitimate take-over of the country in a point-by-point explanation, Clinton covered it up to keep American tax dollars flowing to the new regime.

Apparently, the New York Daily News Editorial Board thinks it’s okay that Secretary Clinton committed completely illegal actions when she refused to tell the us – or the world - the truth about what had occurred in Honduras.  And based on her response to the Board, she’s still lying through her teeth.

I have considered myself a reasonably educated person with respect to American politics and foreign policy, have spent a lot of time watching and reading a wide variety of news from as many sources as I can find about a lot of different issues.  But somehow, the tragedy of Honduras managed to completely slip under my radar.  So I set about to learn more.

As I peeled back layer upon layer of Secretary Clinton’s involvement in the propping up of the current horrendous regime, I discovered a whole lot of information is out there about what happened, and continues to happen, because of her choices. 

To summarize these events would be doing a disservice to both the Honduran and American people. The story reads like a bad déjà vu of what has already occurred for too long in Latin America.

It’s filled with the usual American interference in democratically elected leaders who aspire to provide more for their people, how that aspiration threatens U.S. economic and military interests, and how our policies are used to prop up brutal dictators to steal wealth from the people in exchange for increased American military presence and flourishing multi-national privatization policies.

As Honduran refugees have streamed out of the country by the tens of thousands in efforts to escape what Clinton helped create, she has had zero sympathy for their plight.

But it’s not just Secretary Clinton’s activities in Honduras that should send a chill down your spine. It also spreads to much of Latin America as highlighted in a recent article from The Nation titled, “A Voter’s Guide To Hillary Clinton’s Policies In Latin America."

While reflecting on Secretary Clinton’s policy “to send them back” regarding the Latin America refugee crisis, I was struck by the similarity between her and Donald Trumps anti-immigrant platform, a platform he recently choose to exploit in the small New York town of Patchogue, just yards away “from the site of a deadly hate crime attack” on unsuspecting Hispanics as highlighted in the Rachael Maddows Show aired on April 14, 2016.

From there it didn’t take too long to connect the dots.  Both Clinton and Trump are leading in the New York polls ahead of Tuesday’s primaries.  Both Clinton and Trump have, and continue to support, dehumanizing policies with respect to Latinos and other minorities.

While I’ve always considered the deep South to be the ugliest root of racism in America, by contrast, I had imagined New York a progressive, cutting edge whirlwind of diversity. 

But with New Yorks' long standing stop-and-frisk policies levied against the black community, Clintons direct involvement in establishing and fostering governments who routinely commit genocide against Latino’s in Honduras and elsewhere in Latin America, (not to mention her views on "super-predators") and The Donalds' unabashed pro-persecution stance on migrants, suddenly I began to see New Yorkers in a totally different light.  

Now the “Empire State” has a whole new meaning for me.

If promoting hate crimes, racism, imperialism and genocide are what “New York values” stand for, count me out! 


For More "On Honduras" Click Here