Update: The Vincent Foster Narrative

DISCLAIMER:

The "Vincent Foster Narrative / Chronicle" is littered with a variety of political agendas and much of the so-called "Clinton narrative" is intentionally false, including their own propaganda or that of Donald Trump or the "right wing".

On the other hand, I do not accept any source as gospel out of hand, whether an "official narrative", fact checked organization or Snopes. While I am more open to the so-called progressive media, nothing accepted as gospel including what it is that I present for your consideration and my own presented as the Bear Market phenomenon. All that I offer or present is made available for educational and informational purpose. You decide whether it is worth consideration. I am intrigued by a wide variety of topics as my blogs suggest.  The Vincent Foster narrative is one of these...

I will continue to make reference to items I find of particular interest.

New Documents Prove Hillary Clinton Murder Cover-Up

Kosar

Twenty-three years ago during the Clinton administration, Deputy White House Council Vincent Foster was found dead in his car.

This scandal shocked the country, and raised massive questions about just how dangerous the Clintons are.

Foster’s apparent suicide was quite suspicious. Two investigators – Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr – separately concluded that Foster shot himself and died, due to suicide.

But over time, major questions have been raised about what may have really killed him. Now, recently discovered evidence blows the case wide open!

Discovered in the files of the National Archives and Records Administration, Starr’s lead prosecutor Miguel Rodriguez submitted a 2-page resignation letter and a 31 page memo about the injuries Foster sustained. Rodriguez notes in the letter details about injuries around Foster’s neck which were not reported in official government documents.

At the time, the FBi claimed that Foster’s neck injury photos were underexposed, and therefore useless to them.

Rodriguez claims that after he produced additional damning evidence of a possible Foster murder coverup, he became a target and was investigated internally!

In the letter, he explained 12 ways in which the case has mishandled and compromised. Then, he noted:

“I steadfastly maintained, and continue to maintain, that I, at all times, conducted myself as an experienced and trained prosecutor, with years of federal prosecutorial experience and federal grand jury experience.”

These records indicate Foster didn’t really die from one .38 caliber gunshot… but two gunshots! The other shot was on the right side of his neck, made by a “Small caliber” bullet hole.

This raises serious questions about Foster’s motives for suicide. He was tied to Hillary Clinton’s roles in White House scandals at Whitewater and the White House Travel Office.

Here is the new smoking gun in the Foster case!

The theory is, as Vince Foster was one of Hillary’s closest friends, he knew too much about these scandals. In fact, he may have had a romantic relationship with the then first-Lady:

Foster had been a long-time friend and companion to Hillary. The two shared a brokerage account called Midlife Partners. When Barbara Walters asked Hillary if she had been having an affair with Vince Foster, Hillary lowered her eyes and told the 20/20 cameras, “He was a very special man.” When he died, Hillary said publicly that Vince Foster was the last person who would have committed suicide. Friends reported she was genuinely shocked and aggrieved.

Why, then, did Hillary lie under oath about the last time she saw Vince Foster?

Testifying before the Office of the Independent Counsel (OIC) in 1994, she claimed that the last time she had spoken to Vince Foster was on the phone “the Friday or Saturday before Father’s Day.” Yet documents from the National Archives, acquired by the New York Megaphone, show that Foster’s assistant, Tom Castleton, reported he “saw Hillary Clinton in Foster’s office approximately four times during the five weeks he was employed.” Castleton didn’t start working for Foster until after Father’s Day, 1993.

According to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in a 1996 Telegraph (UK) article, Hillary Clinton asked Vince Foster to help her spy on her libertine husband in 1990. Foster hired Jerry Parks, an Arkansas investigator who later worked as the head of security for the Clinton/Gore campaign. According to Parks’s widow, “Jerry asked Vince why he needed this stuff on Clinton. He said he needed it for Hillary.” When Vince Foster showed up dead in a Washington-area public park in the summer of 1993, Parks was terrified. Two months later Parks was shot nine times at close range, at a stoplight, in his SUV, in Little Rock. Parks’s home was then raided by eight Federal agents, including officers from the FBI, IRS, Secret Service, and (unusual for a domestic case) the CIA.

If true, this means Vince Foster was murdered to make sure he didn’t tell the world what he knew about President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary. He was too honest, and therefore couldn’t be trusted anymore.

This is actually worse than transmitting classified documents on a home email server… This is murder!

What do you think about this bombshell new report about Vince Foster’s death?

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/new-documents-prove-hillary-clinton-murder-cover/#ixzz49flyW39p


Comments and Addendum:


An interesting fact not mentioned in the article, our current HHS secretary, Sylvia Burwell nee Mathews, is the very same then intern to Hillary Clinton who was caught by the FBI leaving Vince Fosters office the night of his ‘suicide’ with trash bags filled with files. They let her go and she took the bags. (see attached article below:)





That the CIA was involved in the follow-on is news only to persons who are unaware that Wm. Clinton ran the cocaine operation at the CIA airport at Mena, ARK, as governor of the state. Under the watchful eye of GHWBush, secretive CEO of the CIA, Wm. Clinton has been an operative of the CIA since 1975, perhaps years earlier as a “Fullbright” scholar.

Assuming that the above report is accurate, some clarification is brought to the murder of Vince Foster. Perhaps Chelsea is indeed the offspring of a genuine love affair, and not simply one squirt from a boss who could exercise his power over an underling.

cnsnews.com

Sylvia Burwell: Who Is She and Why Did She Go Through Vince Foster's Garbage

By Matt Vespa | April 15, 2014 | 3:01 PM EDT

With Kathleen Sebelius being shown the exit as Health and Human Services Secretary, President Obama decided to tap Sylvia Burwell, the director of the Office of Budget and Management as her replacement.  But, who is she?  Besides her alleged skills at number crunching, she's the one who closed the World War II Memorial, amongst other things, during the government shutdown last fall (via NBC News):

A single person shut down the entire U.S. government for the first time in 17 years.

Not a congressman, but an unelected woman named Sylvia Burwell who, as the relatively new director of the Office of Management and Budget, sent the email that initiated the process that has closed national parks[ WWII Memorial falls under their jurisdiction], visitors' centers and even the "panda-cam" at the National Zoo.

Yet, David Catron at the American Spectator who wrote a profile on her, which isn't flattering in the least; also noted that she's indefatigably loyal to her superiors.  Case in point, she dug through garbage to find certain documents after the 1993  suicide of Vince Foster, then-Deputy White House Counsel (via the Washington Free Beacon):

Foster's death was officially ruled a suicide. The Clinton White House eventually admitted to misleading investigators about how senior officials had seized and disposed of files relating to the first couple's controversial investments in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed real estate venture.

Clinton spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers admitted that then-White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum, who had recovered documents relating to the Whitewater controversy from Foster's office after his death, did not turn over the documents to the Clinton family's personal attorney, contrary to what White House officials had claimed. Nussbaum had actually given the documents to Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, who placed them in a White House safe for five days before being turned over to the family attorney.

Under questioning, Sylvia Mathews [then, a White House aide] and her colleagues denied impeding a police investigation into Foster's death after his body was found in a northern Virginia park. According to the New York Times, Mathews testified "in laborious detail about what she had found in Mr. Foster's garbage on the night he died."

Yet, what about her other accolades? Burwell did work for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, where she had a senior level position until 2011 when she became the president for the Wal-Mart Foundation. She has prior government experience working under Jack Lew between 1998-2001 as deputy director of the OMB.  So, where's her wealth of experience and knowledge concerning health care?

While Sebelius detractors have a lot to say about her tenure, at least she did have some experience with bungled health insurance market when she served as Kansas' Insurance Commissioner in the mid-90s to early 2000s.

Update # 2: Draft Resignation Letter

A draft of a resignation letter, was found torn into 27 pieces in Foster's briefcase after his death. One piece was missing, which might have contained a signature. The full text of the note was as follows:

I made mistakes from ignorance, inexperience and overwork

I did not knowingly violate any law or standard of conduct

No one in The White House, to my knowledge, violated any law or standard of conduct, including any action in the travel office. There was no intent to benefit any individual or specific group

The FBI lied in their report to the AG

The press is covering up the illegal benefits they received from the travel staff

The GOP has lied and misrepresented its knowledge and role and covered up a prior investigation

The Ushers Office plotted to have excessive costs incurred, taking advantage of Kaki and HRC

The public will never believe the innocence of the Clintons and their loyal staff

The WSJ editors lie without consequence

I was not meant for the job or the spotlight of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Vince_Foster#Unofficial_findings

Armory of the Revolution

Politicians Don’t Get More Establishment than Hillary Clinton

Roland Vincent / 18 hours ago

Not a good thing to be in a year in which the establishment is the target of voters’ wrath.

If there were ever a year in which the people were more anti-establishment than they are in 2016, it would have to have been at the founding of the Republic. Not since 1776 has there been such a wholesale rejection by the people of politics, politicians, the status quo, and those in power over them.

The penultimate outsider has locked up the Republican nomination for president, having defeated a host of establishment candidates.

A septuagenarian socialist has fought the leadership of the Democratic party to a virtual draw.

The anointed crown princess of the Wall Street banks and the corporatist establishment is within a month of being guaranteed the Democratic nomination. Despite the direct support of her cronies in the DNC, the entire Democratic party leadership lined up behind her, a rigged primary system, and having enjoyed a lead of almost 70% in the early polls, Hillary Clinton has been rebuked by a large percentage of rank-and-file Democrats, has seen her unfavorable ratings sky-rocket, and is now losing in popular support among rank-and-file Democrats in national polls.

Media talking heads and political pundits never saw Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders coming.

It has been amusing to watch the parade of pontificators from the establishment being trotted out before the cameras at CNN and MSBNC with their weekly prognostications of the imminent demise of Trump’s campaign and the futility of Bernie’s.

Having had monumentally misread the voters in the primaries, the same political geniuses are now weighing in on the likely match-up between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

We are besieged nightly with computer graphics, pie charts, polls and electoral maps all being read to predict the downfall of Donald Trump. While acknowledging that Hillary Clinton has abysmal favorability ratings, we are quickly told that Trump’s are worse, and are reminded that he is upside down with major constituencies such as women, African Americans, Hispanics, etc.

But none of that analysis explains why Trump is leading with independent voters, and that he is within a few points of Hillary in the media’s own polling.

So what is going on?

There is one question the pollsters do not ask. And it is the defining question in this election cycle.

I am waiting for one of the major polling organizations to pose this simple question: Will you vote for or against the establishment?

I have my own guesstimate how that would be answered by the voting public.

And any competent political strategist would concur. I would be dumbfounded if the establishment were to receive as much as 20% were the question to be scientifically posed!

The reason Trump is not beating Hillary by 80% to 20% is because the public is not focused on the establishment versus anti-establishment issue.

At least Not Yet.

When the Trump campaign focuses the issue on Hillary as the establishment’s darling, any wavering support for her will vanish. My prediction is that Trump will handily defeat Hillary.

As in all campaigns, the candidate at a statistical disadvantage on an issue will try to obfuscate and deflect discussion of the positions that are unpopular with the voters, and attempt to drive media coverage to more favorable topics. Hillary’s team will do all they can to keep the public from paying too close attention to which of the candidates is the establishment’s own.

An immeasurable in the contest is the relative enthusiasm (or rabidness) of Trump and Hillary’s supporters.

While I cannot envisage Hillary’s voters following her through brimstone and broken glass, Trump’s supporters seem willing to march with him through the Gates of Hell.

The pundits and the talking heads may actually be right. Hillary may sweep Trump in November.

But I doubt it.

And if their prior analyses are any indication of their current ones, they are again misreading the situation. And the public.

Author’s Notes:

• I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.

If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.

• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!

• Natasha Sainsbury, of Good Karma Graphic Design, has joined Armory of the Revolution as Editor, and is responsible for the transformation of the blog’s appearance. Visit and follow her blog V Kind.

• If you are not already subscribed to the Armory, please do so before you leave.

There’s a button to Follow us in the upper right sidebar.

• Be sure to visit Armory of the Revolution’s new commissary and bookstore: The Supply Depot

You will find recommended reading on Animal Rights, revolutionary theory, politics, economics, religion, science, and atheism. There is also a section of supplies for animal liberationists, hunt saboteurs, and social revolutionaries. This is all brand new, and we will be adding lots more merchandise in the near future!

• Feel free to comment. I encourage open discussion and welcome other opinions. I moderate comments because this blog has been attacked by hunters and right wing trolls. I approve comments that are critical as well as those which agree with me. Comments that I will not tolerate are those that are spam, threatening, disrespectful, or which promote animal abuse and cruelty

NEW REPUBLIC

Hillary Clinton’s History Problem

As recent comments showed, Clinton tends to downplay the role of radical activism in fomenting social change.

BY JEET HEER

March 15, 2016

Like Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton has a theory of political change. But unlike his much-discussed “political revolution,” her thoughts about how democratic transformation happens rarely get fleshed out. Yet if we attend to Clinton’s own words, she has a distinctive view of how history works. While Sanders emphasizes grassroots mobilization, Clinton is much more inclined to see politics as a matter of leaders forging a consensus—and of social progress being made when those leaders are moved to do the right thing.

Clinton’s argument that she’s a proven pragmatist who can get things done—a lynchpin of her campaign against Sanders for the Democratic nomination—rests on a view of history that highlights leaders at the expense of social movements. This often leads her to tonally off-key statements that put her at odds with her own party’s base, many of whom have been shaped by the social activism of the civil rights, feminist, and LGBT rights movements. The crucial question is whether Clinton’s comments offer a window into how she really thinks about social change—or if this is simply the way she frames issues in an effort to speak to the broader electorate. 

Clinton’s elite view of history caused some consternation during her first run for president eight years ago, when she appeared to give greater credit to President Lyndon Johnson for civil rights laws than the movement lead by Martin Luther King. “I would point to the fact that Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done,” Clinton said during her heated contest with Barack Obama. “That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in people’s lives, because we had a president who said we are going to do it and actually got it accomplished.”

This past weekend, Clinton made two statements that echoed those remarks. Interviewed by MSNBC upon the death of former First Lady Nancy Reagan, she said, “it may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s. And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan, in particular Mrs. Reagan, we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it.”  

This strange interpretation of history was met with an immediate backlash from the LGBT community, and from others with strong memories of how the Reagan administration neglected the HIV/AIDS crisis until nearly the end of the Republican president’s term in office. It wasn’t the quiet beneficence of Nancy Reagan that awoke the nation to the reality of HIV/AIDS, they pointed out, but rather the very vocal and radical activism of groups like ACT-UP and the Gay Men’s Health Crisis. 

To her credit, Clinton not only quickly apologized but also, on Saturday night, issueda detailed statement that offered a much more accurate account of the history of AIDS and the role activism played in making the world aware of the urgency of the crisis. Still, the view of history in the repudiated Nancy Reagan statement echoes that of Clinton’s professed view of civil rights and LBJ: It’s that idea that historic change is made by those in power, or in proximity to power, who decide to do what is best for society. 

Also on Saturday, Clinton issued a statement on the violence at Donald Trump rallies that bespoke an elite theory of history: 

Last year in Charleston, South Carolina, an evil man walked into a church and murdered 9 people. The families of those victims came together and melted hearts in the statehouse and the confederate flag came down. That should be the model we strive for to overcome painful divisions in our country.

The problem with this statement is that it elides the decades of heated struggle and activism that finally led to taking down the Confederate flag in South Carolina. It turns history into a fairy tale in which the innocent (the families of the victims) melt the hearts of the powerful (the legislators in the statehouse) and solutions to old problems magically come to fruition. In actual fact, the movement to retire the flag included a 15-year boycott of South Carolina led by the NAACP—and culminated in activist Bree Newsome taking direct action by scaling the pole in the state capital and taking down the flag herself. Previously, Clinton had given credit to activists (and Newsome by name), but her words on Saturday offered a far more sanitized version of history—one in which primacy is again given to the personal decency of officeholders.

Last August, when Clinton first met with Black Lives Matter activists, the candidate showed an narrow and limited view of the role activists play in pushing the powerful from the outside. She made it clear that, in her view, the young activists could only be successful if they came up with concrete “plans” that could win “common ground.” “So the consciousness-raising, the advocacy, the passion, the youth of your movement is so critical,” Clinton said. “But now all I’m suggesting is—even for us sinners—find some common ground on agendas that can make a difference right here and now in people’s lives, and that’s what I would love to have your thoughts about, because that’s what I’m trying to figure out how to do.”

The question is whether Clinton’s tendency to downplay social activism as an agent of history is mostly a rhetorical tic, or whether it reflects more deeply held convictions. If it is a rhetorical tic, it is probably located in a reflexive centrism that doesn’t want to scare away moderate voters by bringing up the importance of radical protest. Yet if it comes from Clinton’s genuine ideology, it could have have serious repercussions for her presidency—and for the progressive possibilities that it could open up or shut down.  

Social change in American history has always come when progressive leaders in positions of power were responsive to radical activists—whether it was Abraham Lincoln with the abolitionists, Franklin Roosevelt with the trade-union movement, or Lyndon Johnson with the civil rights movement. Crucially, these presidents all accepted the fundamental legitimacy of the protest movements. In prior eras, abolitionists, trade union members, and those pushing for civil rights had been regarded as extremists or troublemakers. Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Johnson accepted these activists as having as legitimate a voice in politics as the traditional elite stake-holders. These presidents weren’t interested so much in finding “common ground” (in Clinton’s sense) as in expanding the field of democracy. 

Can Clinton be as expansively democratic in welcoming social protest? It’s a critical question, considering that we live in an age of renewed activism: of the Dreamers, Black Lives Matter, and a reborn feminism. Will Clinton be inclined to listen to these movements and work with them—even to goad them on? Or will she sideline radical activism because of her more top-down view of leadership, in which the president is focused on forging consensus and making only low-key, nudge-nudge efforts to change the national conversation? 

Those who hope that the next Democratic president will build on Obama’s progressive legacy have reason to worry. Unless Clinton can more convincingly show that she appreciates the role radical activists play in moving the progressive consensus forward, there’s every reason to fear a “common ground” presidency that aims to be squarely centrist. 

Jeet Heer is a senior editor at the New Republic.

Hillary Is a High-Ranking Member of the American Power Elite — and That's Why She Can't Comprehend Bernie’s Revolution

ELECTION 2016

Hillary Is a High-Ranking Member of the DC Power Elite — and That's Why She Can't Comprehend Bernie’s Revolution

The American Dream is sliding off the cliff and Hillary is still talking about women’s empowerment — a cry that was fresh 40 years ago.

By Alan Saly / AlterNet

February 13, 2016

Photo Credit: JStone/Shutterstock

Let me figure this out. Last year, the Clintons couldn’t believe their good fortune. They were going to face a “democratic socialist” from the marginal state of Vermont and cruise to victory. It would be a romp, with Hillary winning the primaries and then going full mainstream against a reactionary, out of touch Republican opponent on the way to the White House.

As many commentators are saying now, a serious miscalculation was at the heart of Hillary’s plan. Clinton, Cruz, Bush, Rubio and others are all part of the wealthy elite. Although Trump is as well, he is channeling the anger of the working class American. Bernie Sanders also gets it. He knows what happened to the American dream.

Hillary Clinton thinks, in her gut, that America is a prosperous country, and that the policies that led to our prosperity should simply be continued, that they work. But this hasn’t been true since the 1970’s, back when America was the world’s economic powerhouse, with a manufacturing base that was the envy of the world, highly paid unionized workers and a booming housing market.

The American dream started coming off the rails with the election of Ronald Reagan who, as David Stockman noted in his book, The Triumph of Politics, was duped into giving away the store to the military industrial complex. Defense spending soared into the stratosphere, and the “deep state” — which is what writer Mike Lofgren calls the alliance between the defense industry, politicians and Wall Street — began playing a larger and larger role in government. 9/11 sealed the deal, as the national security establishment — what Stockman calls “the war party” — consolidated its power and influence, setting the stage for the global surveillance state.

The deep state has another aspect: It bleeds the American taxpayer, taking money to be “the world’s policeman” and enriching contractors, politicians, Wall Street and the arms industry, while the people get little in return (unless they happen to be working for those same companies.) All of the candidates for president are clients of the deep state and deeply beholden to it — except for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

Bernie has been an unsparing critic of the “deep state.” His angry exchange with Alan Greenspan on the floor of Congress left the former Fed Chairman with a bemused expression, as if he were considering an unsuitable visitor to a gated community.

Going hand in hand with the deep state, what Bill Clinton and George Bush enabled was the “financialization” of everything. Regulations on banks came off, credit card interest rates were free to soar, and the American public was sold on investing in an ever-expanding housing market. Private prisons multiplied, payday loan companies and fraudulent colleges like the University of Phoenix sprang up. Vulture capitalism spread its wings. This whole infrastructure of greed is deeply tied into the political establishment, which is why even today, Hillary won’t attack the pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, the prison industry, big oil, the pay day loan industry and the rest, head-on.

The elite — Hillary, Bush and the rest — have no understanding at all how it really is to be part of a growing American underclass (25 million and counting) that has seen their good jobs disappear with the global trade agreements, the war against unions and governments’ blind eye to companies stashing their profits overseas to avoid paying taxes.

Bernie’s declarations that health care and education should be free — that they are public goods, and should not be for profit — fly in the face of what the elites have bought into. When he sued in Vermont Supreme Court to acquire waterfront land from a railway to create a public waterfront park on Lake Champlain, it was in the tradition of creating a public benefit for the people, not for profit. It’s time for government to serve the people, he says — but the deep state only knows serving itself.

The American Dream is sliding off the cliff, and Hillary is still talking about women’s empowerment — the cry that was fresh when I got to college 40 years ago. She offers the deep state — the rigged economy — to voters, and she doesn’t understand that the mask is off. The prosperity that she experiences every day is not something most Americans can relate to. The prosperity that used to sustain America because of our manufacturing base and global economic reach — that used to benefit the many — has now devolved into a rapacious capitalism that feeds on the people — and the people are ready for a political revolution.

Alan Saly lives in Brooklyn and works for the Transport Workers Union.

There Is No Lesser Evil Than Hillary Clinton

There Will Be No Lesser Evil

by Jack Balkwill / May 7th, 2016

Damned by a corrupt system, it appears voters will be given a choice between Hillary Clinton and her friend Donald Trump this year, with no realistic alternative allowed by corporate media and their establishment patrons.

I say “friend” because the Clintons and Trumps have a relationship going back for years.

Seeing Trump as their enemy, many liberals are opining that Hillary is the lesser evil, saying they will vote for her.

I am not so sure Hilary’s the lesser evil.  I told friends years ago that I thought she would be the next president.  Long before she announced she would run again, corporate media repeatedly suggested her inevitability, tipping off that the establishment is firmly behind her by pushing her candidacy.

The establishment wants her badly, as she may be counted on to sell out the environment, enrich defense cheats and give the banksters direct access to the treasury among other corrupt things indicated by the Clinton past.  After her husband sold out the poor and working classes during his presidency, Bill and Hillary got rich from corporate speeches, the preferred delayed bribe for official corruption in The Land of the Free, in this case amounting to over a hundred million dollars for the pair.

Even Republicans are saying they will vote for her instead of Trump.  Because she is to the right of Richard Nixon, this will not be difficult for them (compare what Bill Clinton signed into law to Nixon’s bills, and there is no contest – all the while Hillary claiming the American people got two for the price of one).

As for The Donald, he’s often boasted that he rented Hillary’s vote when she was a New York senator, through several campaign donations (his son also contributed).  Trump also donated to her 2008 presidential campaign when she ran against Obama.  He calls her “Crooked Hillary,” and you can bet he will campaign hard against her with that slogan.

Not that they’ve been enemies.

On the Daily Show last year, Bill Clinton said of Trump, “He thought Hillary was a good senator for New York after 9/11 and he has actually, he’s one of the many Republicans who supported our foundation before they got the memo.”

A picture search shows Bill Clinton with his golf buddy Trump, Bill and Hillaryposing beside Donald and his wife Melania, and even daughters Chelsea and Ivanka as close friends, although, like their parents, they are not socializing during the campaign, as part of the insider scam to convince voters that the Democrats and Republicans are somehow not connected.

National archives released last month show that when President, Bill Clinton posed with Trump at Trump Towers for a photo shoot, and Trump made several visits to the White House though we may never know what was on the table.  Trump would perform a magnificent public service if he disclosed what deals were made, but one wonders if he’d go to prison with the Clintons were such disclosures made.

One is reminded that, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton, thinking his wife was going to win the Democratic nomination, remarked that he didn’t know how she was going to run against her close friend John McCain.  It’s happening again, with corporate media playing their usual role of not noticing that both candidates are vying to see who gets to sell out the working class on behalf of a stifling plutocratic oligarchy.

Corporate media pretends like the Democrats and Republicans are at each other’s throats, but it should be obvious to anyone who digs a bit beyond the propaganda, that they are in bed with each other and represent the same interests – selling out the American people, primarily for money.

Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post has endorsed Trump, but the right wing billionaire gave a big fundraiser for Hillary Clinton when she ran in 2008, so it’s all one happy family.  The billionaires and transnational corporations make sure both sides are obligated in what corporate media play up as “free and fair elections.”

The polls reveal that Hillary and The Donald are two of the most unpopular candidates imaginable, with most Americans despising both. The two have appeared on television more than all other candidates combined, so they’ve been largely catapulted to the top by the corporate media, who pretend to be objective journalists.

Has anyone seen Jill Stein at all on television?  Polling shows she is for bringing the troops home and shutting down the wars, just like what the American people say they want in polling.  Corporate media is making certain she is hidden behind the curtain, as they whine that they just don’t understand how such unpopular candidates as Clinton and Trump have become finalists.

Will Trumps and Clintons go back to being friends after the election?  Probably not, as it looks like this battle will be the biggest mud fight in US presidential history, the only certainty that someone extremely unpopular will win the right to sell us out.

Jack Balkwill is an activist in Virginia. He can be reached atlibertyuv@hotmail.com Read other articles by Jack.

This article was posted on Saturday, May 7th, 2016 at 5:32pm and is filed underCorporate Globalization, Democrats, Elections, Media, Right Wing Jerks.