The Hillary Balloon Has Already Popped

Wall Street Had Already Bet on a Loser, How Much More Will They Bet on This Bad Candidate?

Region:
In-depth Report:

 

hillary-clinton-400x301

 

What the chart shows is that Hillary Clinton’s Presidential appeal to the electorate that will matter on Election Day in November 2016 has been plunging ever since around January of 2013 — or more than two years ago. She was vastly more attractive to the American electorate as a prospective President two years ago than she is today.

Hillary-Clinton-Favorable-Rating

Here are the latest ten of those polls:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

Those net to 37% unfavorable and 16% favorable, over the ten polls, or a per-poll average of 2.1% higher unfavorable ratings than favorable ratings per poll for the most recent ten polls; and this is covering all ten polls that were taken during the month-long period starting from March 21 and extending through April 21. 

So: Hillary Clinton, fairly consistently during the latest available month, is viewed significantly more unfavorably than she is viewed favorably. These polls reflect voter-sentiment among the entire American electorate instead of only within the Democratic Party; and, so, they have no bearing on whether Ms. Clinton will win the Democratic primaries, which are elections in which almost all of the voters will be Democrats.

And, finally, on Thursday, 30 April 2015, she will start to have a competitor in the Democratic primary race, when the progressive Independent U.S. Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, will make official his entry into that contest. His name-recognition is far lower than is Ms. Clinton’s, and he could hardly be more different than she is, in terms of his assets and liabilities as a candidate at the start of the Democratic Presidential primary race; so, there is no scientific way of knowing how that will turn out.

But, given Ms. Clinton’s clearly demonstrated trend thus far, at least between January 2013 and today, anyone who would say — as almost all pundits are saying — that she has the Democratic Presidential nomination all but locked up, is merely pretending to an expertise that no one really has, bloviating instead of analyzing about the 2016 Democratic Presidential race.

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, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

 

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s).  Unruly Hearts will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.

Joseph Beuys, the artist that hugged a Coyote

 

German artist, sculptor, and professor Joseph Beuys

German artist, sculptor, and professor Joseph Beuys

30 April 2015 –

Joseph Beuys (German: born 12 May 1921 – 23 January 1986) was a German Fluxus, happening and performance artist as well as a sculptor, installation artist, graphic artist, art theorist and pedagogue of art.

His extensive work is grounded in concepts of humanism, social philosophy and anthroposophy; it culminates in his “extended definition of art” and the idea of social sculpture as a gesamtkunstwerk, for which he claimed a creative, participatory role in shaping society and politics. His career was characterized by passionate, even acrimonious public debate. He is now regarded as one of the most influential artists of the second half of the 20th century.

Beuys, sculptor, teacher, performance artist, maverick politician and one of the most influential and controversial men of his generation in Europe, died of heart failure in January 1986 at his home in Dusseldorf, West Germany. He was 64 years old.

Beuys began to attract worldwide attention in 1961. He was a charismatic teacher, in the Academy of Arts in Dusseldorf and elsewhere, and one who consistently subverted the stiff traditional ways of academe. As a sculptor, he had a gift for the bizarre and unforgettable image, made with no less bizarre and unforgettable materials, that made him a favorite with European museum directors. To more than one generation of young people, he was indispensable both for the freedom and independence of his thought and for his readiness to spend unlimited amounts of time in open-ended discussion.

As early as 1960, he made a sculpture out of the metal tub in which he had been bathed as a child. Though enriched with sticking plaster, and with gauze soaked in fat, it was still self-evidently a tub – ”a kind of autobiographical key,” Beuys said later, ”an object from the outer world, a solid material thing invested with energy of a spiritual nature.” Attracted Extreme Responses.

Later, and at a time when European life was still permeated by the memory of times when a quick and unwilling getaway was the fate of hundreds of thousands of people, Beuys epitomized that memory by producing a sculpture made up of a small-size toboggan on which were strapped the bare necessities of life on the run.

At every stage in his life, Beuys attracted extremes of admiration and contempt, with little in between in the way of objective assessment. As he grew older, he was preoccupied above all by what he called ”direct democracy.” The essence of that democracy was that all citizens should make their views known by direct referendum, rather than through what he regarded as an outmoded political party system. He also envisaged, however impractically, a parliamentary system in which the voice of the unaligned voter would be heard and could have some effect.

It was, however, as a maker of large-scale and often disconcerting three-dimensional images that he may be longest remembered. His work can be seen to advantage in the Pompidou Center in Paris and the Kunstmuseum in Basel, Switzerland, as well as in museums throughout Germany. Instruments of Expression

Joseph Beuys was born in Krefeld, now West Germany, on May 12, 1921. Raised in the nearby town of Kleve, a Celtic and Catholic community not far from the Dutch border, he joined the Luftwaffe in 1940 after graduation from secondary school and became a pilot. In 1943, when his aircraft crashed in the Crimean mountains, he was saved by Tatars who wrapped him in layers of fat and felt to keep him from freezing to death. Thereafter, these two materials stayed with him as symbols of regeneration. Not only did he see them as predestined instruments of expression in his work, as bronze and marble had been to earlier sculptors, but they stood for warmth, comfort and consolation.

By the end of the WWII, Beuys had been wounded five times. Eventually he was taken prisoner by the British. He had a long, slow, checkered apprenticeship as an artist, but in 1961 he was appointed professor of sculpture at the Academy of Arts in Dusseldorf. An inspiring teacher and a sculptor who soon won an international reputation, he became notorious for the ritual performances of an enigmatic sort with which he sought to bind up the wounds of central Europe and release what he regarded as beneficent forces of feeling, understanding and orientation.

Whether in conventional art galleries or on the stump in a variety of makeshift locations, Beuys left an unforgettable impression, though not one that earned him universal approbation. In 1974, on his first visit to the United States, he did not mount a conventional exhibition, but spent a week in his dealer’s gallery, fenced in with a live coyote. The performance in question, ”Coyote: I like America and America likes me,” aroused widespread astonishment and was intended as a healing ritual that related to the American Indians’ regard for the coyote. In the winter of 1979-80 he had a full-scale retrospective of his sculptures at the Guggenheim Museum.

Eight years after his death, one of best- known figures of the German art world in the second half of this century, the Pompidou Center played host to the retrospective of his work that was on view in Zurich and Madrid.

The Proa Foundation in Buenos Aires held a retrospective exhibition of Beuys as one of the key figures in the development of contemporary art and remembered for his particular conception of man, politics and the world, and concern for the environment and to promote social openness of art.

Joseph Beuys and a coyote - New York 1974

Joseph Beuys and a coyote – New York 1974

 Since its early association with the Fluxus group, which made several collective works, Beuys pushed the opening of art to all social sectors, resisting the exclusive and elitist approaches.

In 1965, with a dead hare in his arms which he explained the contemporary art (How to explain pictures to a dead hare“), Beuys claimed the idea of art and the artist as therapeutics for a sick society and rejected the effectiveness of academic training of artists.

Determined to contribute to building a more humane society, she went looking for philosophical, religious, mythological or doctors (both academic and popular) to serve for this purpose elements. A constant that can be seen in his drawings, actions, videos and conferences.

Beuys, who died at the age of 64, was a lanky, frail, but manically active figure who, with his permanently affixed felt hat and multipocket vest, could occasionally call to mind Buster Keaton performing under the guidance of Samuel Beckett.

The hat was ostensibly there when his Stuka crashed in the Crimea in 1943 – and like Andy Warhol’s silver wig, it also served to advertise its wearer.

Though the Pompidou Center does a pretty good job of enshrining Beuys’s often cumbersome relics, most of it is predictably devoid of aesthetic quality. Characteristic elements include massive bolts of gray felt, piles of rocks, lumps of animal fat, etc., which may be regarded as no more than vestiges of Beuys’s actions.

In one such action, he flew to New York in 1974, had himself wrapped in a felt blanket and driven in an ambulance to an art gallery where he spent three days inside a cage with a coyote. He was then once more wrapped up, taken back to the airport and loaded onto the plane.

 When Beuys locked himself three days with a coyote on a room by Rene Block Gallery in New York, which had newspapers, felt and straw only. Beuys had a crook and around his neck triangle. That coexistence with the animal and control components creation I Like America and America likes me” emerged.

In the course of this experience, the artist and the coyote are known, are accustomed to each other and trust each otherIsolation, albeit brief, given the opportunity of harmony, like the one that had existed in natural and primitive past that tried to restore Beuys believed that better and healthier. Towards the end of the coexistence of the temporary utopia, the artist embraces the coyote.

When Beuys locked himself three days with a coyote on a room by Rene Block Gallery in New York, which had newspapers, felt and straw only. Beuys had a crook and around his neck triangle. That coexistence with the animal and control components creation I Like America and America likes me” emerged.

In the course of this experience, the artist and the coyote are known, are accustomed to each other and trust each other. Isolation, albeit brief, given the opportunity of harmony, like the one that had existed in natural and primitive past that tried to restore Beuys believed that better and healthier. Towards the end of the coexistence of the temporary utopia, the artist embraces the coyote.

In some native American cultures, it was the Coyote who, in the beginning of time, taught humans to survive.  For Beuys choosing the coyote was not  accidental. Pursued, fought, center extermination campaigns, the coyote is perhaps the most successful American mammal in regard to survival.

Beuys liked to say that “everybody is an artist” and “everything is art.” Such notions can easily become demagogic and they hardly hold up under scrutiny. – though it has been demonstrated in our present century that practically anything can be used to make art.

As for Beuys’s works and actions, while they were not really art, as he maintained, they were quite obviously something else.

What they were may appear more clearly in the light of another “action”: Here is a man who takes a linen belt, carries it out to the banks of a broad river, folds it carefully and slips it into a crack in a rock. Some time later he returns to the spot, removes the belt, unfolds it and “exhibits” it to show that it has become mildewed and rotten.

What makes this action noteworthy is that it happened in the sixth or seventh century B.C., the “artist” in question being the prophet Jeremiah. Prophets used this kind of procedure to dramatize a mystical and ethical lesson. Jeremiah did several other similar actions. So did his colleagues Ezekiel and Amos.

My point is that Beuys’s works were prophetic actions both in form and in intent, and one may argue that like circumstances produce like effects: Jeremiah and Ezekiel were active at an exceptionally dramatic time – and so was Beuys.

Jeremiah witnessed the siege and fall of Jerusalem and the deportation of much of the city’s population to Babylon. Beuys witnessed the defeat and destruction of Germany and he was aware of the collapse of values and meaning that followed this event.

He also realized that one could no longer call for a return to traditional values. Precisely such a call, under a perverse form, had, after all, been largely responsible for the recent national disaster. So he chose a peculiar way of his own, using his idiosyncratic images and unusual materials, elucidating his choice by commentaries with an obvious ethical content.

At a time when young people were troubled by the nihilistic view of art they assumed to be inherent in the work of Marcel Duchamp, Beuys’s speeches, if not the frequently dreary objects he displayed, carried notions of social and human betterment and resurrection.

The difference between Beuys and the Hebrew prophets was that the latter assumed they were speaking at the behest of the divinity. Beuys, on the other hand, did not claim to be delegated by any divinity. He nonetheless felt “called upon” to do certain things and used the mechanisms of prophetism and even of shamanism to dramatize a moral lesson.

Not surprisingly, this orientation of his work occurred after Beuys had gone through a deep psychological and spiritual crisis in 1955-57, in his mid- 30s. From this crisis, which required treatment in a psychiatric clinic, emerged Beuys, the public figure – a man whose vocation it was to deal in contemporary terms with the German romantic heritage that had been radically polluted by National Socialism.

As “art” his work leaves much to be desired (there are some good drawings, however). But as a cultural or prophetic event, it has rather the same morbid aura as do the strange accumulations of offerings heaped around the shrine of St. Anthony in Padua.

Part cranky innocent, part virtuoso media star, Beuys was driven to serve something holy – the positive, human values of German culture, which then stood between a rock and a hard place.

“I Like America and America Likes Me” (performance, 1974)

Art historian Uwe Schneede considers this performance pivotal for the reception of German avant garde art in the United States, as it paved the way for the recognition of Beuys’ own work, but also that of contemporaries such as Lüpertz, Baselitz, Kiefer and many others in the 1980s.

In May 1974 Beuys flew to New York and was taken by ambulance to the site of the performance, a room in the René Block Gallery at 409 West Broadway. Beuys lay on the ambulance stretcher swathed in felt. He shared this room with a coyote, for eight hours over three days. At times he stood, wrapped in a thick, grey blanket of felt, leaning on a large shepherd’s staff.

At times he lay on the straw, at times he watched the coyote as the coyote watched him and cautiously circled the man, or shredded the blanket to pieces, and at times he engaged in symbolic gestures, such as striking a large triangle or tossing his leather gloves to the animal; the performance continuously shifted between elements that were required by the realities of the situation, and elements that had a purely symbolic character.

At the end of the three days, Beuys hugged the coyote that had grown quite tolerant of him, and was taken to the airport. Again he rode in a veiled ambulance, leaving America without having set foot on its ground. As Beuys later explained: ‘I wanted to isolate myself, insulate myself, see nothing of America other than the coyote.’

Photo of Joseph Beuys (AP)

More to be added.

Hillary on the brink of collapse

FOR SUNDAY NEWS: Man in suit paddling unbalanced boat, sinking boat

Man in suit paddling unbalanced boat, sinking boat

A passage from Ernest  Hemingway fits the moment. In “The Sun Also  Rises,” one character asks,  “How did you go bankrupt?” and another responds: “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”

The exchange captures Hillary Clinton’s red alert. She’s been going politically bankrupt for a long time, and now faces the prospect of sudden collapse.

If she’s got a winning defense, she’d better be quick about it. The ghosts of scandals past are gaining on her and time is not on her side.

The compelling claims that she and Bill Clinton sold favors while she was secretary of state for tens of millions of dollars for themselves and their foundation don’t need to meet the legal standard for bribery. She’s on political trial in a country where Clinton Fatigue alone could be a fatal verdict.

After 25 years of corner-cutting and dishonest behavior, accumulation is her enemy. Each day threatens to deliver the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It may already have happened and we’re just waiting for public opinion to catch up to the facts.

Meanwhile, her Houdini skills are being tested big time.

Her one big advantage is obvious — she’s the only serious contender for the Democratic nomination, and she beats most GOP opponents in head-to-head matchups. But everything else weighs against her, including momentum.

Start with the fact that the sizzling reports of corrupt deals are coming from major news organizations that reliably tilt left. With supposed friends making the case against her, the tired Clinton defense that the ­attacks are partisan hit jobs has been demolished.

And after digging up so much dirt, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Politico, Reuters, Bloomberg News and others are not likely to be content with stonewalling and half-truths, especially given her recent lies about missing emails. No wonder the Times editorial page called on her to provide “straightforward answers” to the accusations.

I don’t see how she can meet that test. The outlines of cozy relationships and key transactions are not in dispute. The only issue is whether the millions the Clintons got amount to a quid pro quo.

On the face of it, that’s certainly what they look like. There are several deals we know of, and more could emerge, that put money in the Clintons’ pockets while helping businesses, including some loathsome international figures, make a killing. It is preposterous to argue that it’s all a coincidence.

Her position was further undercut when the family foundation announced it would refile five years of tax returns. In one three-year period, it omitted tens of millions in foreign contributions, reporting “zero” to the IRS. In another two-year period, it admitted to over­reporting government grants by more than $100 million.

A foundation aide described the errors as “typographical,” which is bizarre — and par for the Clinton course. To concede the errors during the firestorm must mean keeping them quiet was an even greater liability.

Sooner rather than later, Hillary will have to meet the press — but what can she possibly say to alter the story lines?

If history is a guide, she’ll insist she did nothing wrong, offer ambiguous answers to specific questions, take offense at persistent reporters and end by playing the victim. She’ll follow up with a fundraising pitch for money to keep “fighting for ­everyday Americans.”

To imagine that scenario is to realize it won’t fly, but I’m not sure what other options she has. She can’t tell the truth. It will sink her.

Nor can she credibly demand to be trusted, given her past. A recent Quinnipiac poll finds 54 percent of Americans already say Clinton is not honest or trustworthy.

Swing-state surveys show similar lopsided findings and each new sordid revelation will deepen the trust deficit. At this point in her life, it would take a near-miracle to change people’s basic view of her.

Her best hope is that a missing ­ingredient remains missing — a Democrat who could take the nomination from her, the way Barack Obama did in 2008. None of those already in the race or committed to it — Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, even Joe Biden — comes close to measuring up.

The only possible rival who does is Elizabeth Warren, the fire-breathing senator from Massachusetts. Gender aside, she is everything Hillary isn’t — an anti-Wall Street conviction populist with a record to match her rhetoric.

A movement to draft her started before Hillary hit the fan, so Warren would begin with a built-in constituency. So far, though, she insists she’s not running.

Then again, that also could change suddenly.

Michael Goodwin – NY Post

The United States presidential election of 2016 will be the 58th quadrennial U.S. presidential election and is to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. Voters in the election will select presidential electors, who in turn will elect a new President and Vice President of the United States. The incumbent president, Barack Obama, is ineligible to be elected to a third term due to term limits in the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

LOVELY YOUNG FEMALE COYOTE WAS CAUGHT IN MANHATTAN

012515WolfOfStuyvesantTown_gnm003.jpg

Beautiful, sweet Roxy

Yes, it’s getting wild out there — this lovely coyote was found roaming the East Village Sunday. So what?  She doesn’t attack humans or other animals. She has good manners and gives you kisses.

Cops took down Roxy with a tranquilizer dart at about 7 a.m. in Stuyvesant Town, after spotting it stalking the streets near the Con Ed plant at the end of East 14th Street.

The cops put Roxy in a oversized dog cage and brought to Animal Care & Control.  She was examined and given a clean bill of health. And now what? AC&C will kill her? Why did you take Roxy to such dangerous place?  Why not to the ASPCA? If these poor Coyotes starving because they were kicked out of their habitat are taking to AC&C they will be put down.

I know Roxy very well. I live food for her at night in the forest. She waits for me and eats her dinner. Then I give her a kiss and a goodnight.

“Although it’s often called the concrete jungle, New York City has over 5,000 acres of forest land and is home to an abundance of wildlife,” Parks Commissioner Mitchell Silver said.  So then why the coyotes are being killed?  Why they are not let stay in the parks?

What is more important, to build luxury homes for the rich or to save the lives of these wonderful animals? I keep the animals and the hell with the rich!

After my complains, Roxy is expected to be released back into an “appropriate wilderness area.”  What the hell is an “appropriate wilderness area”? 

The coyotes know where to live and forage for food. They don’t have to be taken to an ‘appropriate wilderness area.”  Those are excuses.

Roxy is the second coyote sighting in Manhattan and enjoying her walks. A female coyote led cops on a 90-minute chase through Riverside Park Jan. 11, [hahahaha] and was caught and released. You don’t have to chase coyotes. They are sweet animals that will come to you if you don’t do any harm to them.

Please keep us posted. Thanks

 

Wave of assassinations in Ukraine targets critics of Kiev regime

POTROLAND

POTROLAND

 

In the lead-up to the May 9 celebration of the 70th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany at the end of World War II, there has been an accelerating wave of political assassinations targeting critics of the Western-backed, far-right regime in Kiev.

Yesterday evening, a group calling itself the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)—the name of a Ukrainian fascist militia that collaborated with Nazi forces in carrying out ethnic genocides of Jews and Poles during World War II—claimed responsibility for the killings. In a statement emailed to opposition legislators and political commentators, it also gave “anti-Ukrainian” persons 72 hours to leave the country or be killed if they stayed behind.

It pledged to carry out the “complete extermination” of enemies of Ukraine and a “merciless insurrectionary struggle against the anti-Ukrainian regime of traitors and Moscow toadies,” according to a report in Der Spiegel .

The killing spree began this week with the murder of journalist Sergey Sukhobok. On Wednesday evening, Oleg Kalashnykov was found dead in his home in Kiev. He was a former parliamentarian from the Party of Regions and a close ally of President Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian politician ousted in a NATO-backed, fascist-led putsch in February of 2014 that installed the current regime in Kiev.

According to Interior Ministry advisor Anton Heraschenko, killers were waiting for Kalashnykov outside his residence and shot him when he returned.

Before his death, Kalashnykov indicated that he had received death threats over his call to commemorate May 9. He addressed a letter to his friends warning that “open genocide on dissent, death threats, and constant dirty insults” had become the “norm” since he publicly raised the issue. He reportedly added in the letter that Ukraine was under Nazi occupation.

On Thursday, pro-Russian journalist Oles Buzyna was shot and killed near his house in Kiev by two unidentified masked gunmen firing from a car. Buzyna had edited the Segodnya newspaper, a pro-Russian publication financed by Ukraine’s richest oligarch, Rinat Akhmetov, a multi-billionaire who was also one of the leading sponsors of Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions. Also killed on Thursday was Neteshinskiy Vestnik editor Olga Moroz.

The killings were the latest in a spate of deaths of high-profile opponents of the Kiev regime. The victims have largely been political and media associates of the faction of the post-Soviet Ukrainian business oligarchy tied to Akhmetov, Yanukovych and the Kremlin oligarchy in Russia. Other deaths include:

* Aleksey Kolesnik, former chairman of the Kharkov regional government, found hanged on January 29;

*Stanislav Melnik, a Party of Regions member reportedly close to Akhmetov, found shot in the bathroom of his Kiev apartment on February 24;

*Sergey Valter, the mayor of Melitopol, found hanged before his trial on February 25, leaving no suicide note;

*Aleksandr Bordyuga, the deputy chief of Melitopol police, found dead the next day, in his garage;

*Mikhail Chechetov, a former member of the Party of Regions, who jumped from the window of his 17th floor apartment in Kiev on February 28, leaving a suicide note;

*Sergey Melnichuk, a prosecutor who fell from a 9th floor apartment in Odessa on March 14.

Russian and Ukrainian officials have traded accusations of responsibility for the killings. Speaking on a call-in television show, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his condolences to the families of the victims and said of Buzyna’s killing, “It is not the first political assassination, we have seen a series of such killings in Ukraine.”

Officials in Kiev offered up dubious arguments to blame the killings on Russia. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko called the killings “a deliberate provocation which plays into the hands of our enemies, destabilizing the political situation in Ukraine.”

In the meantime, officials and far-right parliamentarians in Kiev have openly endorsed and celebrated the murders. While lawmaker Borys Filatov rejoiced that “one more piece of sh*t” had been eliminated,” Irina Farion, a lawmaker of the fascist Svoboda Party, attacked Buzyna as a “degenerate” and hoped that his “death will somehow neutralize the dirt this [expletive] has spilled… Such ones go to history’s sewers.”

Political responsibility for the killings rests with the imperialist powers that oversaw and backed the Kiev putsch. They have encouraged Kiev to wage a bloody civil war against pro-Russian regions of eastern Ukraine and covered up its reliance on fascistic, anti-Russian forces. In the resulting political atmosphere, opponents of the Kiev states can be murdered without investigation and with political impunity.

What is occurring in Ukraine is a warning to the international working class. With the support of Washington and its European allies, which are moving to train the neo-Nazi militias that make up much of the Ukrainian regime’s National Guard, an ultra-right regime has emerged in a major European country.

With Ukraine’s economy disintegrating and its population resisting Kiev’s attempts to reinstate the draft to wage war against eastern Ukraine, Kiev is seeking to crush domestic dissent and relying ever more directly on the far right. Terrified that mass opposition might coalesce around the May 9 holiday, it has banned public discussion of communism. It also rehabilitated the UPA and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN).

This is the culmination of a series of police state measures by the Kiev regime that have enjoyed the full support of its NATO backers. During last year’s Ukrainian legislative elections, opposition candidates, including Pyotr Symonenko, the Stalinist Communist Party of Ukraine’s (KPU) former presidential candidate, were physically attacked by fascist thugs.

Even before the murder of Buzyna, Kiev regime officials and sympathizers were demanding draconian punishments of journalists who oppose the regime. Last month, Ukrainian Minister of Information Policy Yuri Stets demanded that journalists in the breakaway eastern Ukrainian Donbass region serve prison terms of eight to 15 years.

In an account on Facebook of a speech he had given at Harvard University, pro-Kiev regime commentator and political analyst Yuri Romanenko boasted that he had argued for murdering pro-Russian journalists and summarized his arguments.

“The Ukrainian army must selectively and carefully eliminate Russian journalists covering the situation in Donbass. We need to direct Ukrainian army snipers to shoot people wearing PRESS helmets, making them priority targets,” Romanenko wrote. “Since the media represent a destructive weapon and allow Russia to operate not only in the war zone but across Ukraine, taking out several dozen journalists in the conflict zone will reduce the quality of the picture presented in the Russian media and, therefore, reduce the effectiveness of their propaganda.”

The murder of Kalashnykov, Buzyna and their political associates emerges directly from the foul political atmosphere produced by such ranting. It is an indictment of the NATO powers backing the regime in Ukraine and the illusions peddled by the Western media and corrupt pseudo-left groups that the right-wing protests on the Maidan and the February 2014 putsch were part of a democratic revolution.

While these forces insisted, without any proof, that the murder of Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov was a crime carried out by the Russian government, they are maintaining a hypocritical silence as the Kiev regime’s internal opponents are gunned down in the streets.

Why Is No One Talking About The Political Assassinations In Ukraine?

Why Is No One Talking About The Political Assassinations In Ukraine?

 

 

 

Published on Sep 10, 2013

Gut recherchierter Dokumentarfilm, mittels dessen Leute erkären, warum sie nicht besonders scharf darauf sind, Hilary Rodham Clinton als zukünftige Präsidentin zu bekommen.  Gegen Hilary ist Bundesmutti eine nette ältere Dame.

Latest Political Assassinations in Ukraine:

Prominent pro-Russian journalist murdered by masked gunman in streets of Kyiv

 

Is Hillary Clinton Responsible For Civil War In Ukraine and The Possible War With Russia?

 

 

Hillary Clinton Exposed, Movie She Banned From Theaters Full Movie

 

Clinton Foundation: ‘We made mistakes’

 

150220_POL_Hillary.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge

Hillary Clinton running for president

 

 

There was Clinton (notably more at ease than during her first swing through Iowa a week earlier) in friendly New Hampshire last Monday and Tuesday, taking diligent caseworker notes as “everyday Americans” shared stories of economic anxiety. This is the empathetic, humble Hillary of the 2000 listening tour she took around New York state and her later, better primaries in 2008. (It’s not a subtle message: Every scheduling advisory issued by her fledgling 2016 campaign now ends with some version of this line, emailed to reporters this weekend in advance of Clinton’s next field trip: “The trip is the latest evidence that Hillary Clinton will work to earn every vote, run hard in the 2016 Nevada Caucus, and take nothing for granted.”)

But that effort is being undermined by a parallel storyline, and the well-executed New Hampshire trip was blown off basic cable by a barrage of stories Thursday documenting questionable practices by the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation — and illuminating once again what appeared to be the same old indifference to boundaries between charity, politics and wealth.

In the long term, the greatest beneficiary of Clinton’s struggles might be Marco Rubio, two decades her junior and hauling a much lighter baggage train than Clinton or Republican rival Jeb Bush. The 43-year-old first-term Florida senator surged (perhaps momentarily) to the head of the GOP pack a week after his entrance into the campaign, boosted by his capacity to run hard to the right without employing the polarizing hard-right language that scares off swing voters and big, mainstream donors. He’s new and knows how to play it up: The key line in his stump speech, borrowed from Obama ’08, is: “Yesterday is over, and we are never going back.”

It is precisely because most people don’t know enough about the young Florida Republican to ask whether there’s a less attractive Real Marco lurking behind that loquacious facade. That’s likely to change, especially when opponents begin highlighting his contortions on immigration reform, delving into his record as speaker of Florida’s House of Representatives and what the Tampa Bay Times described as a “pattern of blending personal and political spending” over the years in using state of Florida credit cards and political committee cash for travel and other expenses.

But the Clinton stories are a different order of magnitude, with no fewer than three big exposés breaking last Thursday alone: a New York Times investigation into a previously unreported Clinton family foundation donation by a Russian oligarch looking to get federal approval to expand U.S. operations (requiring Clinton State Department approval); a Reuters report that the foundation would have to refile years of tax returns because of errors and omissions; and a Washington Post story revealing that Bill Clinton earned $26 million in speaking fees from donors to the family’s foundation.

Most of the initial reports focused on her husband’s actions, and the Clinton campaign said there isn’t a “shred” of evidence she was involved, but no matter: Republicans sought to draw the clearest line possible to Hillary Clinton, whatever the paucity of public evidence. “There is every appearance that Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of, what, 20 percent of America’s uranium production to Russia? And then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals, and by erasing emails,” Mitt Romney told radio host Hugh Hewitt on the day the Times story appeared.

The Clinton people pointed out, rightly, that there’s not (yet) any paper trail linking any decision she made at Foggy Bottom to Bill Clinton’s machinations. But Romney wasn’t freelancing; he was capturing the Republican zeitgeist — and amplifying a GOP message (the Clintons are incorrigibly corrupt) — articulated to me by GOP operatives associated with three campaigns I talked with last week.

And several top Democrats told me they were worried, too, about the accumulation of stories — “at some point the weight just pulls everything down,” one told me. Then again, James Carville, who has spent decades fending off the kind of Clinton stories that popped up last week, thinks the recent stories fit into an old pattern of shoot-and-miss. “All of this is spaghetti journalism; throw some spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks,” he insists. “It’s always something that ends up with nothing.”

• • •

Hillary Clinton’s enemies, and more than a few of her friends, believe the story will resonate — if only because she has always been at the center of most of the family’s major financial decisions.

But that effort is being undermined by a parallel storyline, and the well-executed New Hampshire trip was blown off basic cable by a barrage of stories Thursday documenting questionable practices by the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation — and illuminating once again what appeared to be the same old indifference to boundaries between charity, politics and wealth.In the long term, the greatest beneficiary of Clinton’s struggles might be Marco Rubio, two decades her junior and hauling a much lighter baggage train than Clinton or Republican rival Jeb Bush. The 43-year-old first-term Florida senator surged (perhaps momentarily) to the head of the GOP pack a week after his entrance into the campaign, boosted by his capacity to run hard to the right without employing the polarizing hard-right language that scares off swing voters and big, mainstream donors. He’s new and knows how to play it up: The key line in his stump speech, borrowed from Obama ’08, is: “Yesterday is over, and we are never going back.”It is precisely because most people don’t know enough about the young Florida Republican to ask whether there’s a less attractive Real Marco lurking behind that loquacious facade. That’s likely to change, especially when opponents begin highlighting his contortions on immigration reform, delving into his record as speaker of Florida’s House of Representatives and what the Tampa Bay Times described as a “pattern of blending personal and political spending” over the years in using state of Florida credit cards and political committee cash for travel and other expenses.But the Clinton stories are a different order of magnitude, with no fewer than three big exposés breaking last Thursday alone: a New York Times investigation into a previously unreported Clinton family foundation donation by a Russian oligarch looking to get federal approval to expand U.S. operations (requiring Clinton State Department approval); a Reuters report that the foundation would have to refile years of tax returns because of errors and omissions; and a Washington Post story revealing that Bill Clinton earned $26 million in speaking fees from donors to the family’s foundation.Most of the initial reports focused on her husband’s actions, and the Clinton campaign said there isn’t a “shred” of evidence she was involved, but no matter: Republicans sought to draw the clearest line possible to Hillary Clinton, whatever the paucity of public evidence. “There is every appearance that Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of, what, 20 percent of America’s uranium production to Russia? And then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals, and by erasing emails,” Mitt Romney told radio host Hugh Hewitt on the day the Times story appeared.

The Clinton people pointed out, rightly, that there’s not (yet) any paper trail linking any decision she made at Foggy Bottom to Bill Clinton’s machinations. But Romney wasn’t freelancing; he was capturing the Republican zeitgeist — and amplifying a GOP message (the Clintons are incorrigibly corrupt) — articulated to me by GOP operatives associated with three campaigns I talked with last week.

And several top Democrats told me they were worried, too, about the accumulation of stories — “at some point the weight just pulls everything down,” one told me. Then again, James Carville, who has spent decades fending off the kind of Clinton stories that popped up last week, thinks the recent stories fit into an old pattern of shoot-and-miss. “All of this is spaghetti journalism; throw some spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks,” he insists. “It’s always something that ends up with nothing.”

Hillary Clinton’s enemies, and more than a few of her friends, believe the story will resonate — if only because she has always been at the center of most of the family’s major financial decisions.

 

Betrayal of the Public Trust: The Vince Foster Death Investigation Cover-Up

 

 

 

 

“Bill never gave a damn about money,” says Carl Bernstein, who penned a 2007 Hillary Clinton biography.

“From the start of her marriage … [Hillary] was the one worried about the money — they were not exactly living high on the hog in Arkansas. But there’s an apparent sense of entitlement there, too. They feel they have devoted their lives to public service, and they feel they had a right to [make money]. You saw it in Arkansas, but you also saw it when Chelsea was given $600,000 by NBC to be a reporter when she had absolutely no experience.”

Bernstein says he has never sought to psychoanalyze Clinton, but it’s hard not to read the first few chapters of his book, “A Woman in Charge,” without being struck by the value placed on saving money by her imperious, penny-pinching father, Hugh Rodham, who ran a small business in Chicago. One of the few times Hugh let his wife and daughter go on a shopping spree at a New York department store, he showed up 25 minutes before closing time to limit the damage — so Dorothy and Hillary Rodham took off their shoes to run through the store, collecting items as fast as they could.

During her husband’s years in government service, it was Hillary Clinton who paid most of the bills — initially as a partner in Little Rock’s Rose Law Firm — so many of the least flattering stories about the family’s finances featured her as the central player. Investigation after investigation proved the Clintons did nothing illegal in Whitewater, the complicated and doomed 1980s land deal that caused the first family so many pre-Monica Lewinsky headaches. But it was a sloppy affair, the result of Hillary Rodham’s push to supplement her husband’s meager government salary with a clever investment. The same held true for a questionable (and legal) $1,000 investment in cattle futures that yielded a 100-fold return.

Clinton invited ridicule last year when she said she and her husband were “dead broke” upon leaving the White House despite the fact that she had received an $8 million advance to write her first memoir, “Living History,” a month before her husband’s presidency ended. But that was, perhaps, the “realest Hillary,” expressing her persistent anxieties about money, however misplaced. And in fact, when Bill Clinton left the presidency, in debt to his lawyers after the Lewinsky impeachment and trial and all the sundry other investigations of his White House tenure, the couple found it so hard to get a loan for their new mansion in Chappaqua, New York, they had to prevail on buddy Terry McAuliffe for a bridge loan — prompting another bevy of negative headlines. Then there was the $190,000 in sundry household items the Clintons took from the White House in 2001 — $114,000 of which they later returned or reimbursed the government for.The slow-motion rollout of Peter Schweizer’s upcoming book “Clinton Cash,” from which some of the recent Clinton stories emanated, is excruciating for Clinton’s team, which has girded for its launch since March. It doesn’t prove a direct connection between Bill Clinton’s actions and his wife’s decisions as secretary of state, according to people who have reviewed the book. But it’s like an ever-present heckler — shouting down the campaign’s carefully planned Hillary-cares-about-all-of-us events.One top Clinton fundraiser, echoing sentiments inside the campaign, said he believes the “kill Hillary moment” will pass after Jeb Bush formally announces his candidacy — and the Republican candidates start savaging one another in debates. “We have to grit our teeth and get past this,” he said.