Hillary Clinton Declared Guilty by GOP Convention, but Story Is Even Bigger Than That
By Daily Bell Staff - July 20, 2016

Chris Christie Made a Case Against Hillary Clinton. We Fact-Checked. … … Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, whom Donald J. Trump passed over to be his running mate, was one of the stars of the Republican convention’s second night on Tuesday, delivering a detailed case against Hillary Clinton with a prosecutorial zeal … Like many indictments, the facts presented to the Republican jury were sometimes selective: not necessarily false, but often ignoring exculpatory evidence. Below is a closer look at Mr. Christie’s case.  – New York Times

The pro-Hillary mainstream media has been shocked by the GOP convention and often cited suggestions that Hillary Clinton ought to be in jail rather than running for president.

The New York Times even “fact-checked” Christie’s allegations and made a fool of itself doing so. But the GOP didn’t do much better.

Let us provide some disclaimers before moving forward:  We don’t necessarily agree that Hillary ought to be in jail.

Like the passport/visa system, the system of Western, precedent-based justice is a fairly new arrival.

Full-fledged authoritarianism, which involves jailing millions at any given time, is a modern invention.

We’d like to see the current US justice system jettisoned rather than applied.

Of course, Hillary ought not to be running for president either. In a normal society Bill and Hillary Clinton would not have been able to amass the power they have.

They would have been long ago exiled from positions of power – and maybe driven from the country.

On the other hand, the “national security” issues she transgressed (as opposed to the installation of the private, home-based server itself) are a proverbial “red herring.”

Western intelligence agencies have created most of the political and military tension in the world. If people’s lives are at risk as a result, the causes are usually artificial.

For instance, even most DC politicians will likely admit that the vast majority of US “classified” documents are subject to unnecessary classification.

And the Cold War itself was at least partially artificial.

As we often point out, G. Edward Griffin’s great book, The Creature From Jekyll Island, shows clearly that Wall Street funded and supported the creation and evolution of the USSR and communism generally.

There are even photos in the book of Wall Street tycoons dressing up in Red Cross uniforms to visit Russia covertly.

During the convention, the GOP’s Christie accused Clinton of fighting for two years to “keep an Al Qaeda affiliate off the terrorist watch list.”

In fact, the US and the CIA – with the secret support of Congress – helped create Al Qaeda. Clinton’s particular manipulation is simply part of this larger issue.

Christie “reminded the crowd that Mrs. Clinton had called President Bashar al-Assad a reformer and a different kind of leader.”

Hillary thus was involved in the deaths of the 400,000 people in the current civil war: “dead at the hands of the man that Hillary defended.”

In fact, the US has been interfering in Syria at least since March 1949 when a bloodless coup d’état supported by the CIA overthrew democratic rule. The Assads, father and son, are an outgrowth of this initial interference.

On Iran,  Christie delivered a familiar critique of the signature agreement of the Obama administration, though it was reached a year ago last week, or two and a half years after Mrs. Clinton left the State Department.

“She launched the negotiations that brought about the worst nuclear deal in history,” he said.

But Christie neglects to mention that the CIA has been directly meddling in Iran since the 1950s. In fact there are suspicions that the US put the current Iranian government into power. See HERE.

There is no doubt America under Jimmy Carter destabilized the secular regime of the Shah of Iran. [Then] Ruhollah Khomeini, stored in France, was put on plane back to Iran (where he apparently groused to reporters that he much disliked Iranians). This was not surprising either from our point of view as Khomeini’s father is reported to have been British intelligence.

On Russia, Christie accused Mrs. Clinton of giving President Vladimir V. Putin “that stupid, symbolic reset button,” and said she had harmed the United States’ security and sought instead to strengthen Russia.

But Putin has been exercising restrain in the face of Western aggression and has been complaining that NATO is aggressively pursuing a shooting war against Russia.

On Cuba  Mr. Christie said that Mrs. Clinton had “supported concessions to the Castro brothers” as part of the Obama administration’s outreach to Cuba.

In fact, there are emerging suspicions that the US actually was involved in overthrowing Cuba – predictably to create yet another US enemy.

Castro may have been financed by American interests and even received training in guerrilla warfare from US Army Special Forces. The Bay of Pigs invasion may have been engineered to fail.

We can see the above GOP national security accusations are far more simplistic than they should be.

A more hefty allegation has to do with the accusations regarding Clinton’s private email server.

This was an entirely egregious action within the context of current law.

Here the Times does an even worse job of justifying Hillary’s conduct than elsewhere in its article.

Instead of dealing with the obvious reality, the Times makes the argument that Clinton’s motivations for “setting up the personal server have never been entirely clear.”

She said it was for her “convenience,” so she would not have to use multiple devices, though the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said recently that she had used several devices anyway. The F.B.I. investigation did find that Mrs. Clinton sent email over the unsecured network while in adversarial countries, though it did not determine whether she “cared more” about protecting her own secrets.

This last statement is just another example of why the mainstream media and its most luminous facilities continue to leak credibility.

To anyone with even a cursory knowledge, Hillary obviously needed to preserve the secrecy of her dealings because she was reportedly selling state secrets and influence to the highest bidder.

The Clinton’s charitable foundation was then used as the vehicle, apparently to receive payments.

The Times article doesn’t explain Hillary’s seemingly massive and institutionalized criminality.

It also doesn’t explain her involvement in the wounding and murder of millions in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

It doesn’t explain the plan for Hillary to be the point person in the establishment of the upcoming technocratic – corporate run – globalist state.

Neither the Times nor the GOP cover themselves with glory. Christie never fully explains the REAL reason Clinton wanted the home-based server.

The result once more:US politics have literally nothing to do with the reality of the sociopolitical, economic and military stance of the US as regards the larger world.

Conclusion: The entire election, like so many before it, is based on easily disprovable rhetoric. GOP accusations are almost entirely removed from what the CIA has actually done to other countries. But a second, less embracing point – one the GOP’s rhetoric gets right – is that is that Bill and Hillary Clinton are ruthless and evil people who manipulate every part of the federal political environment for personal gain. Trump has not done nearly the damage to other people that the Clintons have. One can argue that alone makes him preferable within the current presidential context.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Tagged with:
  • Goldcoaster

    you people need a better copy editor.
    every thought is a single sentence. try to learn to string sentences TOGETHER to make paragraphs.
    if you don’t, I for one will stop reading. It is EXTREMELY annoying.

    • Dimitri Ledkovsky

      I find it refreshing. It’s so uncomplicated. You can always read German Philosophers if you like paragraphs. They make them REALLY long.

    • It’s a style. Read a newspaper, you’ll see.

  • Bernz

    Great article.

    I like the way you list your points one after another.

    Thank you for not confusing the points in “strung together paragraphs”.

    That’s really annoying and would cause me to stop reading. 😉

    • FEEuser

      My thought also, well said. Nothing like a good old checklist to clear the air.

  • Frank McDuff

    Well written article, food for thought.

  • Dimitri Ledkovsky

    To turn the Clinton Foundation into a cash cow Hillary had to get the Secretary of State job. The GOP should expose any deals that were made to realize this appointment – if indeed they were made. How could they not have? Surely there were others around more capable and less controversial than Hillary. Obama had to know this.

    • Praetor

      The foundation is the criminal organization, money laundering is a crime!!!

      • gringott

        RICO act. It is a corrupt influence peddling organization.

  • gringott

    Yes, she should be charged and tried. On the face of it, given the evidence to date, she certainly did violate various laws and regulations with her private communications system. Others in the employ of the FedGov are sitting in prison as we speak for less. As for Christie’s speech, the bit I heard was mostly some neocon prattle, confusing the issue needlessly. If this is a foreshadowing of things to come, a Trump administration will just be more of the same.

    • disqussted999

      “As for Christie’s speech, the bit I heard was mostly some neocon prattle, confusing the issue needlessly.”

      I completely agree that what Christie stated was highly planned out so as to highlight some of the weakest of charges and to be as irritatingly political as possible (so as to irritate rather than indict) and indeed was camouflaged “neocon prattle.” Christie stands with and has supported the neocons. Therefore he wasn’t “confusing the issue needlessly”…he was without any doubt in my mind confusing the issues purposefully. The neocons stand behind their blackhearted, sociopathic, available-for-hire neocon-militarism-supporting girl Hillary, and this was the best way to protect her–pretend to attack her by whipping her to death with wet spaghetti.

      • gringott

        I agree with you. It was written to do exactly what they wanted. I meant “needlessly” from my point of view. If he was really after Clinton, he could have cited her actual real crimes, not BS about Iran etc. Like you said, he pretended to attack her.

    • mary

      Agree except i don’t think that he was “confusing the issue needlessly.” It’s vital that they all confuse the issue. One side can attack the other on POLICY, but never on the CORRUPTION. They should, of course, expose her extortion racket, but that’s the corruption they must keep covered because it’s rampant throughout the gov’t and always has been. It’s the essence of government.

  • Praetor

    Agree! The server is a red herring. The convention is bread and circus, and mob rule for people like Christie. The Clintons are criminals in many ways, and should be in jail for that.

    I saw Ben Carson’s take on Hillary on you-tube. Being a follower of satan could be a chargeable offense, but only after she has passed from this earthly realm!!!

  • Bruce C.

    The DB says, “We don’t necessarily agree that Hillary ought to be in jail,” and then accuses her of some of the worst crimes against humanity that one can do. I don’t get it. Maybe the PTB are Libertarians too so that’s why she walked.

    • You have to read the article.

      • Bruce C.

        I did. My guess is that your saying that you don’t think she should be put in jail for most of the reasons expressed by Comey and Christie, and that precedence shouldn’t matter, and that the US justice system should be jettisoned instead of applied.

        I don’t think either of us want to argue those points right now in this thread, except to say that Hillary/the Clintons chose to operate within that system knowlingly and so to apply your ideals after the fact seems outrageous to me.

        Besides, you could have written, “we don’t necessarily agree… ought to be in jail [for the reasons Christie cited.]”

        I hope you think the Clintons should be in jail (or executed if jail abhors) for the stuff they really have done.

        • It’s not that hard to understand, Bruce. We wrote clearly, “We’d like to see the current US justice system jettisoned rather than applied.” So to suggest it ought to be applied to Hillary would be hypocritical, not “outrageous.” Additionally, we made it clear that in normal course of events, citizens themselves would have dealt with Hillary and Bill and perhaps exiled them or worse. Instead, predictably, thanks to the enormously corrupt penitentiary-judicial complex, nothing has happened. You may support such a horrible system but we do not. That’s the point.

          • Bruce C.

            But what difference the form of justice system used?

            If in your system the Clintons would have been stopped or exiled “or worse” then why would you say that she/they shouldn’t be “punished” in this system?

            The outcome is roughly the same, although in your system it may have happened sooner. But why do you think she/they shouldn’t be “jailed” now? Is “jail” your issue?

          • Yes, Bruce, the system is the issue. We are a libertarian publication and make distinctions between systems. It’s part of a larger analysis of dominant social themes. How can you not understand that by now? You are a regular reader for years. You can read back issues if you want.

          • Bruce C.

            But that has nothing to do with whether or not you think they should be censored. Forget about the mechanism, I’m talking about consequences. They would be substantially the same would they not (assuming the extant system weren’t corrupted)? There is a difference between a system and its implementation, so you shouldn’t conflate those issues into one.

          • OK.

          • alaska3636

            I don’t think there is a difference between a system and its implementation, Bruce. That is the old trope that communism was never applied correctly.

            Human action is the basis for a system of governance based on the non-aggression principle. If you accept the basic tenets of human action, then communism is both a system and its implementation. The consequences can be derived a priori from the set of incentives laid forth.

            I understand the DB has a nuanced approach to legal systems and their implementation, but it is no different from the analysis of communist or socialist regimes. Legal systems based on precedent are basically arbitrary and through the incentives of bureaucracy eventually grow to support that which feeds it at the expense of those it would serve.

            A broader issue is that some people seek to live at the expense of others. They enact and manipulate promotions to keep the gentry from catching on to the fact that any system of governance that does not respect the non-aggression principle and the predictable results of human action and economic law are bound to collectivize power and incentivize capital destruction. It is incumbent to promote the idea that civilization comes from contracts written by wise and benevolent people and that the proletariat is otherwise one dirty look away from natural selection. The internet has given people a lens with which to view history that does not support or propagate an elite cast of rulers and the DB often approaches this rather large idea as the daily news allows opportunity for reflection on different aspects of it.

            The difference between the DB and other libertarian publications is an understanding of human action and history. It takes a great deal of intellectual honesty and consistency to follow the ideas of libertarianism and realize that a new era of history requires people to imagine a different premise on which to build a system for people to govern their worst instincts that isn’t inherently arbitrary, prone to ratchet effects and wild swings in the business cycle and the destruction this brings.

            If the DB says something like Hillary shouldn’t go to jail, we should take into consideration that under a different system of governance, this Hillary monster we are dealing with now would never have had the opportunity to rise through an increasingly corrupt system of governance. Hillary is exactly the kind of scum you would expect to rise to the top of a system like the US has become. Or do you believe she represents a unique evil? I think her brand of high-time preference shenanigan is just plain, old, mundane evil.

            I have a great deal of respect for the analysis that the DB does, even in those moments of weakness when I think they are a mega-elite promotion themselves. (:

          • Thanks. Very good.

          • Bruce C.

            I get the “different framework” POV. But what I’m saying is if the DB would be okay with some “Libertarian civilian” deciding to open a can of whoop-ass on the Clintons (human action, anarchy, personal agreements, etc.) in which they end up dead (“or worse”) then why would they have a problem with them ending up doing, say, hard labor after a procedure of American due process? The only intellectually honest thing would be to say we don’t think she should be in PRISON, that they’d prefer some other form of punishment (maybe having to hear recordings of her laugh, ad nauseum). They’re not arguing against punishment but only how it’s arrived at. I say, given the framework that THEY operated in, “justice” within that system is just. They seem hung up on the process instead of the result. Woop-ass vs forced Hillary laugh recordings. Makes sense to me.

            Of course there’s a difference between a system and it’s implementation. The “only” problem with communism is that it’s not sustainable. People seem to mistake that for poor implementation. The US justice system is not like that. It doesn’t depend upon other people’s money or altruism, it just requires intellectual honesty and political will.

            If people want to give up on the US system then so be it, but woe to them and the rest of the world if that happens. Imagine, the rest of the world consciously rejecting the ideals of the Declaration and Constitution… for what?

            Beam me up.

          • alaska3636

            Thanks for elaborating.

            The Bell presents a uniform view and I don’t often catch them muddying the water with practical compromises. In the long run, I don’t think we are just dead; I think we leave a legacy for our posterity who by an act of sympathy we should act in ways that make the world easier for them in the same way that generations of our forebears did for us.

            We come to this impasse: history is the record of constructing systems that we know end tragically, but with an upward arc and downward trend that is unpredictable; even in hindsight, it is hard to predict the exact moment that a system reaches the event horizon of decline.

            A thoroughgoing review of the historical record suggests that methodological individualism is perhaps the best hope of constructing a system that is robust enough to withstand encroaching centralization and flexible enough to adapt to unforeseen circumstances.

            In short, we are currently throwing wood on a fire that has attracted wolves in order to repel those wolves. That is how the past and present social contracts have worked.

            Many people commenting on this situation propose new sources of fuel for the fire; but one way or the other, the more we build the fire, the more wolves are arriving.

            I am not saying that your comment lacks merit from the perspective of contemporary politics, just pointing out that the DB (and me when I have time), offer the Miseian point of view that contemporary politics arrives as a result of individuals acting on specific ideas that they think will help them achieve their goals. We need people to learn that Hillary is the logical outcome of a system of central governance; that history is the logical outcome of continuing the same POV, but with slight adjustments; and that risk is as important a value as security.

            Hillary is playing the system like a violin and the system is respecting her life choices. The fact that we recognize a breach of “justice” is because we know intuitively that the system is crooked (or inefficient if we are judging means to the ends people generally strive after). But by the very unstated laws of the system, Hillary is a pharaoh and pharaoh is not going to prison when she is so useful to the priest class which justifies the very system that both classes benefit from.

            And so what if she goes to prison, there isn’t another bloodthirsty, unscrupulous Hillary waiting in the shadows for a chance to usurp some of the awesome power of government for herself? You keep the fire and you get the wolves to go with it.

            I say screw the fire, screw the wolves, and screw everyone telling me that it takes a village to keep the wolves at bay. The village is the problem and making it bigger doesn’t solve anything.

          • Bruce C.

            Well, “your” or “the” challenge is to come up with the equivalent of a new Declaration of Independence and a new “Constitution” (although it sounds like you don’t want a government per se, but some script of guidelines just so every one is on the same page.)

            Maybe “the problem” is that things haven’t gotten bad enough. How many people would agree with a list of grievances for today that are equivalent to those listed in the Declaration in 1776? Isn’t that largely what this Presidential election is all about? The pundits think this election will be close – which means about half the population is ok with the status quo. Personally I think Trump will win big, but we’ll see.

            Anyway, “we” can talk forever about the shortcomings of the status quo (like Rush Limbau and Bill O’Reilly, except not get paid for it) but, personally, I don’t think the Constitution should be shelved so soon, especially since we have no replacement other than the god-awful systems in other countries and cultures.

          • alaska3636

            Valuable and conservative insight, Bruce.

            You put your thumb on my views: something closer to the Declaration than the Constitution, and something that encourages decentralized solutions and voluntary interactions.

            I have not read the document yet, but certainly, if we were to stick to Constitutional government (or simply roll back to it) we would be in a better position moving forward than we currently are.

            I know how tribal people can be, so the momentum of the current situation doesn’t look good for decentralization; but, for further centralization as the various tribes try to wring the last drops of capital out of this coughing and wheezing old Uncle Sam.

            Anyway, as usual, it has been nice chatting with you. Until next time!

          • FEEuser

            We have “no replacement”? That sounds like another power elite meme. There are PLENTY of replacements! They are called anarcho-capitalist societies. Descriptions of them are available in books, articles, here at DB, and at

          • Webforager

            The woe is already upon the world Bruce. The America you equate with the ideals of liberty does not exist.

          • FEEuser

            I’m sorry, Bruce, but the US justice system IS like that. It is the paragon of arbitrary power, taxation, and coercion.

            As Hans-Hermann Hoppe advises, “It is absurd to believe that an agency which may tax without consent can be a property protector. Likewise, it is absurd to believe that an agency with legislative power can preserve law and order.”

            Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Democracy: The God That Failed” (2001), p. 279

          • OK, thanks for the insights.

          • FEEuser

            Bruce, you yourself wrote the key proviso: “assuming the extant system weren’t corrupted.”

            But the extant system IS corrupt. Therefore, the consequences are NOT the same.

            So, why should a Libertarian waste his time falling into the trap of stressing out over minutiae, e.g., the difference between the really bad and the merely less bad, false dichotomies, red herrings, feints, and tempests in tea pots?

            Those constitute the endless mental mazes created to serve the purposes of Hegelian Dialectic, i.e., to mislead, mystify, confuse, and control via illogic, fallacy, and artificial barriers which block new thinking, eradicate fine distinctions, and enslave the unwary.

            The human mind gets nowhere with them. That is the whole point.

            Our society is FLOODED with this malicious, poisonous, dead end propaganda which masquerades as “thoughtful debate.” Let us NOT take it seriously.

          • Bruce C.

            Your argument is sort of what makes arguing in support of capitalism so difficult, at least by way of examples.

            Since the US and the world has a “mixed economy” – part free market capitalism and part government interference w/ crony capitalism – many people use that as proof of what capitalism IS or ultimately becomes.

            Similarly for what has become of the US Republic and the Constitution.

            One can go further and use the state of man and his propensities and morals today to be unchangeable “human nature” because that’s the way he became (or always has been). It’s sort of circular.

            Basically, your saying that the “Founder’s” hopes are failed because they ‘gave us a Republic and it was up to us to keep it’, but we didn’t or we may have lost it. Therefore, ALL such systems (I guess you would say) are doomed to disintegrate except for those based on individual behavior only (no social agreements) and assuming the lowest common denominator of character.

            You may be right. Sad but true. I just don’t think that’s been established yet.

  • Praetor

    No justice no peace! My problem with all this. My backside would be in jail for just one of the crimes Hillary committed, That’s my problem with all this!!!

  • tdupuy

    The author goes to absurd lengths to condemn the U.S. and Wall Street for the world’s conflicts. Then to suggest that therefore any later related misdeeds shouldn’t be punishable digs the absurdity even deeper.

    It may be true that some information is unnecessarily classified, but certainly not the “vast majority” as you ignorantly claim. Someone knowledgeable about the role of intelligence in national security would never make such an ignorant statement.

    The success or failure of operations and the life or death of good people are often at stake depending on how classified information is handled and safeguarded. That’s why the consequences for failure to properly safeguard such information are so harsh for all but the political elite. Operational failures and loss of American lives could very well be directly tied to Hillary Clinton’s gross negligence and dereliction of duty.

    Such glaring misstatements and distortions destroy the credibility of the entire article.

    • Here, from the New York Times:

      “Unfortunately, overclassification continues to be rampant. In fiscal year 2010, officials made 77 million decisions to classify information. Even the most security-minded government officials — including Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, and Porter J. Goss, the former director of national intelligence — have said that far too much information is classified. Defense Department and National Security Council experts have estimated that anywhere from 50 percent to 90 percent of classified documents could safely be made public.”

      For us, “90 percent” of classified material is the vast majority. Of course, maybe not to you.

      Beyond that, our comment was made within the context of DC inventions. From what we can tell, real “threats” to government individuals comes from the phony international tensions concocted by the CIA, MI6, etc. Absent these manufactured threats, there would probably be very little information that could cause a danger to someone’s life. But then the CIA itself might go out of business, and maybe even the Pentagon. We’d be happy to see them go. How about you?

      • tdupuy

        “Defense Department and National Security Council experts have estimated that anywhere from 50 percent to 90 percent of classified documents could safely be made public.” I’ve been in the intelligence business and I assure you I and my colleagues would not agree with the NYT’s unidentified “experts.” Further, a NYT quote by itself is hardly an unbiased or credible source. For you to accept their 90% number is willfully ignorant or incredibly naive.

        • Where do you work? We looked up your comments. You visit freedom oriented websites and then leave comments celebrating your massive military and intel sophistication while disparaging the website and its writers. For you, everyone is “ignorant” or “naive” or “unsophisticated.” Everyone is suffering from a loss of credibility except you. Are you instructed to present such opinions? Sounds like it.

          • tdupuy

            I’m 100% retired and neither work for nor represent anyone. I’m a constitutional conservative who believes our system of self government, though not perfect, is the best yet devised by mankind.

            I read freedom oriented blogs and generally agree with them. I seldom leave comments but when I see gross distortions and fabrications of the truth, I will speak out so that others know there’s an alternative opinion from someone with first hand experience. I believe that’s still allowed in some parts of our society.

            I’m also a realist who, like our founders, understands man is not perfect and, as a creature of survival, is prone to greed and to accumulating power. Thus the reason for our Constitutional Republic with government checks and balances as well as a national security mechanism capable of defending our immensely successful culture. I am proud to have been a part of that mechanism and consequently have an insight with which you may not agree but it is based on direct experience – not some unproven, illogical theory that too many Libertarians hold.

            I also subscribe to the Mises School and Austrian principles of economics. I do not however subscribe to the all too common Libertarian blind, utopian, trust that says most Americans are imagining the threats to our culture.

            Your mis-characterization of me and my comments are too typical of those libertarians who too often mis-characterize the national security effort and then attempt to discredit those who defend it as having ulterior motives. Cynical sarcasm and ad hominem attacks are a sign you have no credible response to my comments. It also undermines your claim to be an open and scholarly enlightened source.

          • Wow. You regularly leave sarcastic and juvenile comments on various websites. But now, suddenly, you sound much more grown up. “Our immensely successful culture.” That’s just great. Really appreciate that. Are you also “proud” to have been part of the defense/intel complex that injured and murdered millions in Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably so. Thanks.

          • tdupuy

            If you consider comments on an average of once or twice a month to be regular, then I’m guilty. If you can’t accept differing opinions you need to be in a different business or find a “safe space” in Berkeley. If you don’t like our culture, why are you still here? Your derisive responses are the pot calling the kettle black and prove my point. Surely you don’t believe your preposterous memes will change informed, common sense minds. I rest my case.

          • John

            “If you don’t like our culture”

            You Mean Your Corrupt Culture – Where Everyone At The Top Has A ‘Get Out Of Jail Free Card’.

          • tdupuy

            Obviously not. I said in my original comments our system is not perfect. If we get back to our original values and principles as stated in our founding document and codified by our Constitution, we can get back to the highly successful prevailing culture that made America the most productive and just society in the history of mankind. My glass is half full and we can make it full again. Where’s yours?

          • Isefree

            Would you describe these original values and principles, how are they being violated, and how do you propose we get back to them.

          • tdupuy

            A good place to start would be with the first two paragraphs of The Declaration of Independence. Our federal government violates them and the Constitution daily. The States and the People need to invoke our Tenth Amendment Rights and nullify unconstitutional federal laws, actions and court judgements. We also need to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments and eliminate the Federal reserve.

          • FEEuser

            “Our federal government violates them and the Constitution daily.”

            So what?

            The Constitution itself was a MISTAKE because it codifies COERCION, INVOLUNTARY TAXATION, and LEGISLATION, and all this meant to usurp the natural processes of human action and voluntary social cooperation, in a word, MARKETS. The Constitution allows government to tax and rule us WITHOUT OUR CONSENT!

            So, the issue of “getting back” to the Constitution is a red herring. The wicked, destructive status quo is a natural consequence of the US Constitution, and nobody should expect it to be otherwise.

            What we should be discussing is NULLIFICATION, DECENTRALIZATION, and SECESSION.

          • tdupuy

            Your criticism that The Constitution “codifies coercion, involuntary taxation and legislation,” is what all forms of government do. I assume you believe in some form of government since you call for decentralization and secession. The question is which type of government can best protect individual rights and free markets. I contend a decentralized constitutional republic does that best. A pure democracy leads to anarchy and ultimately tyranny. What specific form of government do you suggest?

          • Isefree
          • FEEuser

            Now we are finally getting somewhere!

            “a decentralized constitutional republic” is an OXYMORON!

            An anarcho-capitalist society is the answer.

          • tdupuy

            Yes we are!
            Please explain how a decentralized constitutional republic is an oxymoron and describe the government structure (if any) for an anarcho-capitalist society.

          • FEEuser

            You are the one who needs to do the explaining. You have been trolling many websites, including this one for a long time, apparently. You cannot plead ignorance of Libertarian ideas.

            I have only questions for you, though to be fair, I don’t expect exhaustive answers from on all, or even one of them. Simply take them away and meditate on them.

            How can a “decentralized constitutional republic,” an agency which may tax us WITHOUT OUR CONSENT, possibly serve us as a property protector?

            How can your “republic,” an agency with legislative power, preserve law and order?

            Why would anyone in his right mind agree to a contract that allowed one’s alleged protector to determine unilaterally—without one’s consent—and irrevocably—without the possibility of exit—how much to charge for protection?

            Why would anyone in his right mind agree to an irrevocable contract which granted one’s alleged protector the right to ultimate decision making regarding one’s own person and property, i.e., of unilateral lawmaking?

            Why would anyone in his right mind agree to price fixing?

            Why would anyone in his right mind agree to “political” solutions to life’s problems when economic/market solutions are infinitely better?

            Let my set you straight about something. Anarcho-capitalism is not “government,” (as you define it); it is PRIVATE government, i.e., MARKETS. That is a RADICALLY different thing which will result in a radically different world when it is put into practice.

            In anarcho-capitalism, the human mind and human action freed are freed from the chains of oppression, criminality, and yes, the utopian unreality of the status quo, in spite of the US Constitution, in spite of all the high minded, arrogant, smug rhetoric about “American exceptionalism,” in spite of all the fairy tale history shoved down our throats in our schools, in spite of all that is mythical, illusory, and false.

            We do not need and do not want some arrogant, super rich, presumptuous master race telling us what to do, interfering with our private pursuits, and enslaving and robbing us of all that is dear and valuable to us. We intend to move boldly into the future MINUS these filthy scum and their bands of thugs and predators. They have nothing to offer the world but violence, robbery, war, and iniquity of every sort.

            Consider this incredible irony: the most precious document in the world appealed to by these psychopaths is none other than the US Constitution! Can this possibly be a mere coincidence?

          • tdupuy

            Apparently in your mind, a troll is someone who disagrees with you and your only answer for them is to call them names and attribute conspiracy motivations to them.

            Regarding your questions to ponder:
            – First, I start with the premise that people need some form of enforceable rules to interact peaceably. Market forces by themselves have never been able to prevent monopolies and price/trade wars which eventually lead to chaos, wars and tyranny. Thus the need for some form of government. Any form of government must acquire revenue (tax) to pay its bills. Our Constitution was created primarily to provide national security and prevent unfair market machinations and otherwise limit the power of the federal government we the people created, through our sovereign States. Local elected government and our elected sheriffs are adequate to defend our property rights. Article I of our Constitution provides the mechanism for our directly elected citizen representatives to raise revenue and make allowable expenditures. We elect our Representatives every two years as a means to control their actions according to our consent. This system will not function properly without the active participation of the people. We the people have failed in our responsibilities to keep our Representatives accountable to our consent and the outcome has been predictable. That doesn’t mean our system of self government can’t work. It means we need to restore a functioning constitutional republic as originally intended, by having the people and the States assert their Constitutional powers to put the federal government back in its constitutional box.

            – Second, as with protection of property rights, law and order are provided by local elected governments and sheriffs.

            – Your next four “why would anyone in their right mind” questions are answered by saying, “They wouldn’t.” Our Constitution doesn’t address those functions because those functions constitutionally should be provided at the lowest, most efficient levels as determined by the electorate.

            Regarding “Anarcho Capitalism,” I touched briefly on this in an earlier reply when I mentioned that after Menger and Mises, your list of gurus wander off into naive, utopian theory which ignores human nature.

            Our founders understood “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and based our principles of self government on those truths. If you believe “private government” can prevent your “filthy scum” of “arrogant, super rich, presumptuous master race,” I have a bridge to sell you. They would thrive in your utopian world.

          • Guest

            “If you believe “private government” can prevent your “filthy scum” of “arrogant, super rich, presumptuous master race,” I have a bridge to sell you. They would thrive in your utopian world.”

            Exactly! The “filthy scum” of “arrogant, super rich, presumptuous master race” DO thrive precisely BECAUSE the constitution is ignored just as advocated by Anarcho Capitaltsts. TPTB could not get away with their corrupt rule if the Supreme Law of the Land was understood and enforced.

          • FEEuser

            The “supreme law of the land” is COERCION, INVOLUNTARY TAXATION, and LEGISLATION.

            Do you at least understand that Libertarians DO NOT want to live under such a system?

          • Guest

            Mises UNDERSTOOD It and wrote extensively about it in “Human Action”.

            The coercion allowed by the “Supreme Law of the Land” is directed at rulers of men not rulers of law. Until the 13th amendment allowed slavery for crime most people who were protected by constitutional law lived free lives. It is unfortunate that slaves and native Americans were not protected by law from from rulers of men from the beginning.

            It was not perfect, but rule of law was a lot better than what we put up with today by letting Washington D.C., London, and Brussels rulers of men enslave the rest of humanity.

          • FEEuser

            Thanks for the dose of propaganda, but I’m not biting. Have a nice day.

          • FEEuser

            Thanks for the window into your “government” dominated mind.

            Forgive me for seeming to talk past you, but you are doing the same to me, so there can never be agreement between us. I understand what you are trying to do.

            You know what your problem is? You have swallowed your own poison. You actually believe what your power elite masters have taught you, that you have a God-given right to control and manipulate your neighbors as if they were a herd of animals.

            Your vision of the world is much like that depicted in the Planet of the Apes. You and your overlords consider yourselves the orangutans and gorillas, and the rest of us are the pitiful, stupid, speechless humans.

            We all know that you are used to getting your own way, so much so that you probably feel akin to gods. Certainly your paymasters do. Your leaders have the same attitude as the “Great Suns,” the kings of the Natchez, “god-men” and “brothers” of the celestial body itself. They think the OWN this planet and everything in it.

            The US Constitution was designed to do what is has always done: provide an unassailable legal framework for COERCION, INVOLUNTARY TAXATION, and LEGISLATION, no matter what noble lies it contains or how others have lied about it.

            In the final analysis, the Constitution has been nothing but the legal manifestation of one group of people’s will to control and manipulate other human beings, the same as did the British before them. Just because Americans successfully rebelled against the British does NOT mean that America “became” a freer, better country, or that it succeeded in rectifying the evils of mercantilism, militarism, or imperialism.

            In fact, America has NOT succeeded thus in rectifying those evils, as we are, even now, busily destroying the world with aggressive warfare in countless locales and frightening the wits out of people with science fiction style technology which threatens the peace and freedom of every human being on this planet.

            In essence, the federal government’s domination of American citizens is no different from what whites did to American Indians when they completely ignored the rights of the Indians to their lands. The federal government, along with its network of allies, e.g., the banks and the giant corporations, claim for themselves ownership of all the land and all authority and power on this planet.

            Read the fine print of any deed of trust. Refuse to pay your property taxes and the local government will throw you in jail and take your house/property away from you. This “authority” vested in government makes a mockery of “property rights.” Yet, nobody in the “mainstream” seems to think that there is anything wrong with this robbery!

          • tdupuy

            Wow – now you’re a psycho analyst! Trying to identify others’ motivations is clearly not your forte. You’re in way over your head. Don’t quit your day job.

            Such drivel isn’t surprising though – typical libertarian bombast and distraction when the intellectual reasoning and facts aren’t there.

            You might want to read Madison’s notes taken during the Constitutional Convention and the notes from the 13 Ratifying Conventions. If you had, you would not have found anything to support your amazingly fanciful analysis. I’ve read them more than once and can comfortably say you have no earthly idea of what you’re talking about. Your level of argument needs some work if you expect to have any credibility with informed, common sense people.

          • FEEuser

            Clearly, this forum is NOT for you. But you knew that already, didn’t you? Cheers.

          • tdupuy

            As I said earlier, DB has lost its way since Anthony Wile departed. Sadly, its once highly regarded liberty reasoning has been hijacked by lesser lights.

          • Well, we still have you, thank goodness.

          • FEEuser

            tdupuy, considering the daily struggle of ordinary US citizens to obtain even the most innocuous information about the workings of government, I had to chuckle at your grumbling about the declassification of “government secrets.”

            How can US citizens keep government officials from running amok without sufficient information to calibrate and judge their performance?

            Do you deny that many said officials, especially the IC (Intelligence Community) have thus run amok? It all gets down to “trust,” doesn’t it? Trust is the time-honored gold standard of doing business.

            But the disclosure of classified information aside, how can citizens trust any political entity which practices coercion? For me, other than the dilemmas of coercion and monopoly taxation and legislative powers, the crux of the issue of government is very frequently what I call “ideal magnitude.”

            That is, nations, whether through conquest, territorial, or population growth, very quickly tend to outstrip the ability of their governments to administer their territories . It is a fatal mistake to think that as a nation grows, all it needs is to “stick to its original values,” or merely add more “representatives” to administer the newly added territories.

            What people forget is that the size and complexity of a country MATTER, and the bigger it gets, the harder it is to maintain the fiction that it all can be ruled from a single point, and, therefore, the more tyrannical it has to be in order to maintain its territorial monopoly of ultimate decision making. If the country is small, but still a dictatorship, there is still hope that it can be reduced and changed for the better. Mere geography and the proximity of better, freer countries will see to that as freedom loving people jump ship and seek greener pastures.

            Your thinking reminds me of John Foster Dulles and his spook/CIA brother, Allan. I have visions of Wall Street, Sullivan & Cromwell, United Fruit, Zapata Petroleum, “regime change,” etc., dancing in my head. Shades of the “Cold War” and its wonderfully mind-controlling memes!

            Therefore, your Dullesesque thinking goes, America is the “exceptional country,” the ONLY country with a “mandate from heaven,” right?

            After the notion that government is all that stands between man and chaos, that is the biggest, dirtiest meme of them all, and it covers a multitude of sins, e.g., protectionism, “central banking,” militarism, and perpetual slavery. But in your spiritual and political blindness, you cannot see that. Great, more power to you because you are giving Libertarian writers the batting practice they need to sharpen their rhetoric. My sincerest thanks and compliments for your esteemed service.

            In another vein, the “originalist” meme finally puts in an appearance. Hoorah:–(

            Sorry, sir, but that argument doesn’t work. You cannot fall back upon the last refuge of scoundrels, i.e., “patriotism,” and the parchment which allegedly justifies the practice of COERCION via taxation and legislation, and expect Libertarians to heed your words, though, as I wrote, their rhetorical skills will benefit from exposure to it just the same.

            To show you what you are up against, I recommend some reading material:

            Hans-Hermann Hoppe, particularly his “Democracy: The God That Failed,” (2001) especially chapter 13, “On the Impossibility of Limited Government and The Prospect for Revolution,” pp. 279-280:

            “…the American Constitution must be recognized for what it is—an error. As the Declaration of Independence noted, government is supposed to protect life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet in granting government the power to tax and legislate without consent, the Constitution cannot possibly assure this goal but is instead the very instrument for invading and destroying the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is absurd to believe that an agency which may tax without consent can be a property protector. Likewise, it is absurd to believe that an agency with legislative power can preserve law and order. Rather, it must be recognized that the Constitution is itself unconstitutional, i.e., incompatible with the very doctrine of natural human rights that inspired the American Revolution. Indeed, on one in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one’s alleged protector to determine unilaterally—without one’s consent—and irrevocably—without the possibility of exit—how much to charge for protection; and no one in his right mind would agree to an irrevocable contract which granted one’s alleged protector the right to ultimate decisionmaking regarding one’s own person and property, i.e., of unilateral lawmaking.”

            Do you think that your IC associates can match the rhetorical or intellectual power of such Libertarian thinkers as Hoppe, a disciple of the genius Murray Rothbard, himself a disciple of the genius, Ludwig von Mises, himself a disciple of the genius Carl Menger? If you do, you are delusional.

            Still, as I wrote, your delusion is useful to us and will only make us stronger as we engage it. Therefore, I implore you not to stomp away in anger, but to debate us ever more forcefully and with all the diabolical fervor and cleverness that you can muster. We need all the practice we can get.

          • tdupuy

            I wasn’t going to reply to any more of the juvenile ad hominem attacks from this website, but since yours is absent such attacks (with a couple of minor exceptions), I’ll respond briefly. Yes, Menger and Mises were geniuses but the others you mention lose credibility by delving into an imaginary world that can never be. The main reason our Constitution doesn’t work is because We the People and our State governments let the federal government get away with routinely violating the Constitution. I doubt anyone on earth could have done a better, less selfish job of putting together a Constitution than did our founders. Perfect? Of course not! If you reread my comments you’ll see I didn’t suggest that. If there were no national security secrets we would be sitting ducks for all the others who wouldn’t follow your naive rules. Sadly that’s just human nature and the way the real world works.

            I too had to chuckle at your lack of syllogism in trying to defend your libertarian thinking. You make too many unsupportable statements for me to address each. Just disagreeing with my premise and then projecting my motivations is hardly an intellectually defensible argument. Thanks for confirming what I already know about the typical libertarian argument. You made my reply too easy.

          • John

            “Thus the reason for our Constitutional Republic with “government checks and balances”

            You Are A Government Paid Troll

            The Lawyers Have Taken Over All Three Branches & there is No Longer Separation of Those Three Powers.

            The Lawyers Guild – A Secret Society – A BrotherHood

            Just like JFK Warned Us – The Secret Societies Have Taken Over & Control Everything:

            The Zionists, SkullNBones, FreeMasons, Jesuits, Lawyers Guild, NAZI’s, Etc, Etc.

            National Socialism + Zionism = NAZI


          • tdupuy

            Yeah, right – I’m an evil government troll who loves sitting around with my government cronies concocting international tensions so that we can kill and injure millions of people. This website was once a stimulating forum for adult intellectual debate. Sad to see it’s demise.

          • John

            “I’m an evil government troll”

            Glad You Finally Agree With The WhistleBlowers Who Warned Us About The Government Trolls Spreading Disinfo.

          • If you didn’t begin by accusing us of “absurd distortions” maybe you might have found a more collegial forum. To begin with insults is not a surefire way of initiating an “adult, intellectual debate.”

          • tdupuy

            When I encounter absurd distortions I will call them out in the most blunt way I can to make my point. If you can’t take the criticism, you shouldn’t be in the opinion business. Anthony Wile never would have reacted with the unprofessional tone and manner the current thin skinned regime projects. The quality of your writers has deteriorated to the point your site is truly a waste of intellectual time. You’ll be happy to know I will no longer participate.

          • OK, feel free to be blunt elsewhere. Not everyone agrees with you, by the way. We’ve gained some 50,000 Alexa points recently. Not that we’re big fans of Alexa, either, but it is generally indicative of DBs progress.

          • Webforager

            Appealing to blunt criticisms is not an excuse for poor manners. Then you accuse DB for being thin skinned but storm off in a huff. But that’s probably all well and good since you spectacularly destroyed any credibility you may or may not possess.

        • Jim Johnson

          I believe the FBI actually gave us an exact number of “very sensitive” materials, giving us the ability to calculate an exact percentage. But then we have missing documentation to consider, gone, no doubt because they were blatantly sensitive. . Irregardless, many agents are in jail for much, much less.

          • tdupuy

            I think a lot of the overclassification problem is the process of declassification. Some of it may never be able to be fully declassified. Last year I attended a conference where President Kennedy’s Daily Presidential Briefs (PDB) were declassified and released to the public. Much of the information was still redacted and may be forever. Much of the material must be declassified piece by piece which is an enormous, time consuming process.

    • John

      “The author goes to absurd lengths to condemn the U.S. and Wall Street for the world’s conflicts”

      Wall Street Who Cheated Everyone In Their Rigged High Speed Computer Controlled Stock Markets – Where The Big Banks Have Been Fined Hundreds of Millions To Billions of Dollars For Fraud, Corruption & Manipulation of Those Markets – Which Has Given Us The Too Big Too Jail Corporations & The Corrupt Two Party System That Is In Bed With Them.

    • EDD

      tdupuy, for many, the ‘absurd lengths’ you mention includes Wall Street. As a student of Bible history, I have come to the conclusion that Wall Street, (in part), figuratively is the modern day version of Babylon, the financial center of the world at that time. I think you may agree Wall Street, (and it’s supporting cast), is the biggest gambling entity on the face of this planet. Coupled with the backers of ‘fiat money’, it is doomed to failure. It is a literal ‘black hole’ operating on the backs of a hard working population who participates on the precept of gaining ‘easy money’.

      The Master stated; “the love of money is the root of all evil’. Notice, he said ‘the love of money’, not that money itself is the root of all evil. It is the lure of making money without physical working for it which pulls people in. You mentioned you adhere to the principles of the Mises thought, and there is value in investing one’s spare change in valuable enterprises. However, when Wall Street values an organization’s wealth as several times it’s current income levels, the maneuvering of the experts to deprive average investors of their surplus funds is criminal to the umpteenth degree.

      As you mentioned, mankind is imperfect. And, like any author, the writer writes through the lens of his/her worldview. After reading and rereading the article and the comments, I fail to see any intentional animosity exhibited by any commentator, including yourself. In the search for truth many of us have come to realize the deck is stacked against us. I sense an underlying frustration which is felt by almost everyone. I have come to realize I haven’t walked in another’s shoes and, as such, give that person the benefit of the doubt.

      The DB, imo, is doing it’s best in giving some understanding into the world’s chaos. And we do the same when we write comments. The sum of the whole is greater than the individual parts.

      • Well said.

      • tdupuy

        I agree with everything you say.
        BTW, Hillary is the epitome of the “love of money.” She’s part of the Wall Street and K Street crony cartel. There’s a good reason she refuses to release the content of her talks to those groups – it would expose her total hypocrisy. She could care less about hard working Main Street Americans unless they can give her a lot of cold, hard cash. Obama’s dismal economy has insured that won’t happen.

  • robertsgt40

    I agree. Hillary shouldn’t be in prison. She should’ve already been tried for treason an the sentence carried out.

    • We tend to believe the entire “national security” panorama is a kind of invention designed to keep intelligence and military operatives employed at high salaries. We’ve seen for instance how DC is building unnecessary tensions with Russia and China. Absent banking control and its money-wars, Bill and Hillary would likely never have gotten so far. Their criminality would have been lessened because the opportunity would not have been available. Great crimes are committed in societies that are vastly criminal. The US, no longer a republic, is just that.

      • robertsgt40

        As a veteran who is almost 70, I’ve watched the US devolve for at least 40yrs. At this point, with the self absorbed citizenry still asleep at the switch, I don’t have much hope left for my country. It is clear, the barbarians are clearly inside the gates.

        • John

          “It is clear, the barbarians are clearly inside the gates.”

          Americans Have No Idea What Is Going On Because of the Media covering Everything Up For the Corrupt Politicians & The Too Big Too Jail Corporations They Are In Bed With.

          The Media Is A Giant Corporation Protecting All The Too Big Too Jail Corporations.

          Since 911 – Everything Has Been Hidden Under National Security & Secrecy To Hide Their Crimes Against Humanity.

          PNAC Think Tank Minutes – Need A New Pearl Harbor (911) – To Keep America & Zionist Israel As Kings of the Mountain – No Rules or Laws Apply.

          America Brought Over Hundreds of the NAZI SS Scientists & Intelligence Officers After WW2 & FORMED NASA & The CIA.

          Werner Von Braun – Head of the NAZI SS Rocket Program Became Head of the NASA Rocket Program.

      • Jim Johnson

        I wish Putin would cease doing things I agree with (BLM= terrorists). It would make hating him so much easier.

  • Kernel01

    Hillary deserves prison for gross negligence in the mishandling of classified information, but seems to have eluded an indictment by way of DOJ and White House influence. Nonetheless, she has been made ineligible to hold any security clearance due to her behavior so is unqualified to be security cleared at the Presidential level in which case she is ineligible for the Presidency.

  • Jim Johnson

    The sheer brazen disregard they have displayed makes them a perfect target for what happens to bureaucrats considering lying, cheating and stealing as viable management tools. We need an example made, plain and simple. Had she stayed home, then she’d be free and clear, but no… she had to raise her hand. Fine and dandy, then: ‘Here come da Judge.’

  • TimeToWakeUpAmerica

    There are MANY things that Americans should know about the Clintons (and it is up to US, to inform them whenever the opportunity presents itself! Don’t let the following tabloid-like headline fool you ~ there is a wealth of information about the criminal activities of the Clintons, at the following link):

    Ben Carson: Hillary Clinton Is A Lucifer Worshiper

    Read the comments.

    • TimeToWakeUpAmerica

      What if the Fix Was In? : Andrew P. Napolitano on crooked Hillary, crooked government

    • notinmyname

      I wouldn’t regard the worship of Lucifer, _per se_, as sufficient grounds for disqualification. Wannabe, current and erstwhile “world” leaders have always worshipped a variety of peculiar gods.
      I have always assumed that one of the principal creeds of her alleged faith is best summarized as “the avoidance of stupid”. To my mind, this requirement would disqualify from office her immediately!

  • Western intelligence agencies have created most of the political and military tension in the world.

    That ACT [Active Cyber Threat] is really stupid of them and practically identifies them as a conspiracy of idiots which only requires the input of smarter information from others currently unplugged and/or unknown to them, for them to output to their puppets to create a completely different novel New Orderly World Order Programming to be followed and exploited and expanded upon, for of course, is such always a constant work in future progress.

    And, I suppose, if current intelligence agencies from whatever part of the globe are not smart nor advanced enough to deliver whatever is required for Novel ACTivIT, common sense would dictate that Novel IntelAIgents and a new intelligence agency would form and provide necessary guidance with such a proaction and NEUKlearer HyperRadioProActive IT Mission, with the development inviting exercise of the following Western facility/utility for Uncle Sam and allies …..

    It would be tragically naive, and almost certainly wrong, to not imagine and accept that all intelligence agencies, whether smart and advanced or not, have such a covert and clandestine back door supply channel for superior intelligence they do not themselves possess but have a dire straits need of.

    I am though constantly reminded by news stories presenting running versions of collapsing and chaotic reality in all parts of the globe of the following apt quotes attributed to Einstein …….. Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former. …… Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ….. The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination. ….. and all of that suggests something completely different and quite alien is called for in order to assure rapid progress into the future is neither blighted nor hindered by monumental and historic fundamental stupidity in the present.


  • Can we all agree here on the Daily Bell that an even bigger picture story be contained and defined in the following few words describing emerging worlds ……..

    It is a worldwide trend. From Turkey and Russia to China and India, new media empires are emerging, usually with governmental blessing. Their owners comply with capitalist laws of supply and demand and the need for technological development. But, at the same time, they take strict control of news coverage or replace journalistic content with entertainment. ….. The hidden side of the oligarchs … Media Oligarchs Go Shopping

    🙂 …… Does the Daily Bell consider itself a radical fundamental part of the movement with AI leading phenomenons, for systems admins have changed power levers readily available nowadays in a free space place and Live Operational Virtual Environment?

    And such can be as equally destructive and disruptive as it can be constructive and creative in the hands, hearts and minds of that which commands and control practically everything with virtually nothing.

    And is that a new fangled quantum entangling weapon system and Persistent Active Cyber Threat to current elite power executives and established energy administration boards, or a fabulous fabless treat to be favoured and savoured and flavoured with more suitable input to universally output? Or both and something else which constantly changes as ITs needs and feeds dictate?

    • Think we essentially pioneered the analysis to which you are referring.

      • Agent Revolver

        You should, DB, such is the nature of transcendent forces (-;

  • Agent Revolver

    Thanks, DB. That’s just the way the news create the events. Here, in Russia, you should have been represented widely long ago. The way you talk and the things discussed are, mostly, a habitual class of reading by middle-class and “higher”.

  • FEEuser

    Excellent step by step deconstruction of Hillary, the GOP, and their petty squabbling. When unpacked and laid bare, this stuff just melts down into absolute silliness, a tempest in a tea pot.

    The thing that most impresses me about this article is your drawing an extremely sharp line between power elite unreality and the facts of history. You have done a fine job of bringing to light the lies they tell, and countered them with powerful data which expose those lies.

    And my how the power elite have lied to us! Decades of human events have they distorted almost beyond recognition. This all signifies a concerted, preconceived, malicious manipulation of the human mind which, to carry my argument a bit further, goes well beyond the specific issues discussed here.

    What IS the history that we thought we knew? Each day brings a revelation which challenges virtually everything that we were ever taught about our history! Can we trust no one? Fortunately, there are a few intrepid ones here and there whom we CAN trust. But one notices that they have been, by and large, ostracized (as I was), and ridiculed. But the Internet Reformation has turned the tables.

    Incidentally, I could not agree more when you write that “We’d like to see the current US justice system jettisoned rather than applied.” The bottom line is that the US legal system is based on COERCION, and that is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE.

    I also strongly agree that “US politics have literally nothing to do with the
    reality of the sociopolitical, economic and military stance of the US as
    regards the larger world.” This is exactly what the American people need to be told.

    Such silly, mythic, propaganda needs to be completely dismissed and swept away from the American mind, never to rise again.

    • You are kind – and accurate, unfortunately.

      • Agent Revolver

        or, in a quantum order, DB, fortunately, which definition has the same right to live.

  • olde reb

    is submitted the question skirted
    by the article, and the comments posted in response, is “Is there a
    secret force working behind government to achieve its own specific
    goal ?” If
    the rhetoric wants to include the term New World Order, which
    expands the object of the DB article, so
    be it.

    review of history (in MHO) conclusive supports
    such a theory.
    evidence includes the following:

    1917 world war was a false flag result of propaganda spread by Wall
    Street to save the New York bankers from financial ruin because of
    huge loans they had made to European nations in danger of being
    Spanish American war had a similar origin.

    1941 world war was deliberately
    provoked by FDR and Wall Street, with
    complete awareness of the impeding attack on Pearl Harbor,
    to eliminate commercial development by Japan that
    was competing with Wall Street. Ref. DAY OF DECEIT by Robert
    European front was concerned with protecting the Wall Street creation
    (the USSR) from destruction by Germany and to destroy German owned
    industry competing with Wall Street owned industry.

    CIA was created by Allen Dulles with the aid and financial assistance
    of Wall Street to deliberately thwart government policies with which
    Wall Street disagreed. Ref. DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD by David Talbot.

    multitude of additional actions by Wall Street and the CIA , using
    the military prowess of the United States to
    their economic gain, is, among limitless other locations, presented

    operation of these forces have an unbroken history of spreading war,
    and chaos.

    is additionally submitted the funding for the above operation has
    come from embezzlement by the Federal Reserve’s
    exclusive handling of Treasury security
    . Current conditions conclude the accounts embezzle $6 billion daily.

    supported the above forces while governor of Arkansas and in
    continuing actions. They have been lucratively rewarded. Hillery’s
    use of a private server was probably a convenience and the forces had
    maintained damage control.

    Trump is beyond the control of the above forces is not addressed.

    President of the United States, since 1952, has had their career
    advanced or destroyed by their support or condemnation of the goals
    of the above surreptitious forces.

  • olde reb

    The article states:

    “To anyone with even a cursory knowledge, Hillary obviously needed
    to preserve the secrecy of her dealings because she was reportedly
    selling state secrets and influence to the highest bidder.”

    I share no love for Hillery and have not followed the action. Has the
    exposure of her emails identified any of the economic actions
    suggested ?