Featured Post

Barack Obama's Courtship of Bashar al-Assad

Saturday, January 7, 2017

Hacking DNC emails didn't impact US election, releasing them did

When I'm not on vacation, I decided to take a couple weeks before Trump takes over, I work as an IT professional, so you don't have to tell me that there is a lot of hacking going on. I have to deal with it every week. Much of it comes from China and Russia, most of it is for commercial advantage, some of it serves other purposes, including military advantage. The "take" is generally not for publication. Although the results of these hacks do change our world, they rarely do so by being made public.

Lately there has been a lot of discussion over who hacked Democratic Party files and whether it affected the US election. While waiting for the balls to drop, the controversy over charges that Russia was behind the hacks has become one of the top news stories. I don't understand this and I am hoping my readers can clue me in because, it seems to me that it wasn't the hacking of the emails that helped beat Hillary Clinton, it was their release to the media that did the damage.
Donald Trump thinks the hacks may have been done by a 14 year old teen sitting on a 400lb. bed. Others see a massive effort more characteristic of a state actor and many think that state actor was Russia. The hacking (or leaking) of the DNC emails was a criminal act no matter who did it, but it wouldn't have amounted to a hill of beans had they not been made public, and we know who made them public.
It was the publication of the stolen emails, not the stealing of them, that affected the US election, and both the DNC emails and the Podesta emails were released by Wikileaks. There is no controversy about that.

In defense of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange argues that WikiLeaks long ago established itself as a place whistleblowers could send material for anonymous distribution to the media and that they were simply instruments carrying out their mission. He would probably also argue that if the one-sided exposures had a one-sided effect on the election that was not his fault, because had that 14 year old also hacked the RNC emails, Wikileaks would have published them to. Donald Trump has his own explanation of why the releases were so one-sided:

I scream bupkes. We may never know who really did the hacks but we already know who controlled the timing of their publication. That was Wikileaks and it is controlled by one man - Julian Assange. More than any other factor, it is the timing of the releases that reveals the nefarious purpose, which was to help elect Donald Trump.
An examination of the original DNC hack indicates it was done before the primaries in California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota, yet it was held by Wikileaks until 48 hrs before that start of the Democratic Convention. I wrote about this at the time in Timing is everything - Why were WikiLeaks DNC emails released now?, 31 July 2016. Had the emails been released soon after the hack, Wikileaks would have truly been serving democracy and the release would have helped Bernie Sanders. Instead he timed the release to be too late to help Bernie. He timed the release so that it could only help Trump, after the Dems had already settled on Hillary.
The same critique should be made about the way Wikileaks released the Podesta Emails. Democracy and the public interests would have best been served by all being released as soon as possible so that the lot of them could be evaluated as a whole. That is the way WikiLeaks has handled other releases. Instead this time we were subjected to a daily drip-drip-drip of revelations throughout the election cycle (but not since) designed to help Trump win. Julian Assange argues "We publish as fast as our resources will allow and as fast as the public can absorb it." Since personal information, including email addresses and credit card information of third parties was not redacted from these emails, a complaint widely expressed by privacy advocates, we are more interested in Julian Assange's claim that he releases the information "as fast as the public can absorb it." What's up with that? How does he make that determination? Why did the drip-drip-drip of Podesta Emails suddenly dry up after the election? This was the last of 36 releases, the day after the election. None since. Coincidence?
Wikileaks followers have waited in vain for #PodestaEmails37 ever since:
If Wikileaks was not publishing this material for partisan political purposes but simply because it believes in "the public’s right to be informed" and found the material to be "of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance," why did their publication end with the election? I believe Julian Assange when he said "WikiLeaks publications are not an attempt to get Jill Stein elected." I think even he knows there are limits to his power, however I do think they were an effort to defeat Hillary Clinton, and in that they succeeded.  As to motives, I won't speculate, but one Russian hacker thinks maybe the Deal Artist made one with Julian:

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria

Friday, January 6, 2017

Glenn Greenwald runs off at the mouth about Breitbart without ever mentioning racism

Breitbart News has been the leading organ for the white nationalist movement that took over the Republican Party and put Donald Trump in the White House, and Steve Bannon, the Breitbart editor and chief who made it the center of the alt-Right movement, is now the White House Chief Strategist. Glenn Greenwald has received a lot of criticism recently for an interview it published last month. In the interview, Greenwald was full of praise for Breitbart, but made no specific criticisms other than to say it publishes a lot to "vehemently disagree with and sometimes find repellant," even though it's famous for headlines like:

'Hoist it high and proud: The Confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage'
'Bill Kristol: Republican spoiler, renegade Jew'
'Political Correctness Protects Muslim Rape Culture'
EXCLUSIVE–New Black Panther Leader: Blacks Need to Migrate to Five Southern States, Form ‘Country Within a Country'
VIDEO: Black Lives Matter Mob Chases, Beats Man Wearing Trump Hat
Black Lives Matter Supporters Celebrate Baton Rouge Police Shootings On Twitter
Rush: Black Lives Matter Is ‘A Terrorist Group,’ ‘Quickly Becoming a Terrorist Group Committing Hate Crimes’

What Glenn Greenwald doesn't seem to get is why only praising Breitbart and not criticising it will be seen by many as supportive of the alt-Right, just as he doesn't understand why The Intercept's pre-election policy of focusing all its fire against Hillary Clinton helped put Donald Trump in the Oval Office. Today Democracy Now gave him an opportunity to defend himself on the Breitbart charge:

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, you mentioned Breitbart News, Glenn Greenwald. One of the pieces of evidence that people cite for your alleged sympathy with Breitbart is a part of an interview that you gave recently to Lee Stranahan last month in which you said, "Breitbart is actually a fascinating case. And I do think right-wing media has had a lot more success in pioneering ways to challenge establishment authority [than] left-wing media has." You went on to say that it’s, quote, "very impressive in terms of the impact they’ve been able to have." That is, Breitbart media has been able to have. And now, of course, the head of Breitbart media has been named by Trump as his chief strategist. So, could you respond to that and explain what you meant?
Even the bit Nermeen Shaikh quoted from Glenn Greewald's Breitbart interview is revealing. Does Greenwald really think that both right-wing media and left-wing media are equally trying to "challenge establishment authority"? News Flash Glenn: Right-wing media is actually about supporting US imperialism [established authority], even while appearing to oppose it. Hence, one of the reasons right wing media has been more "successful" is that they are really supporting the established order. Glenn, notice how the stock market has responded to its being "overthrown" by the Trump victory? Glenn, you should also note that right-wing media usually resorts to demagoguery and lies, whereas truth telling can be at once more difficult and less appealing. Or is it that you have so long confused the fake Left with what the Left should be that you see The Intercept as the fake Left equivalent of Breitbart News? He responded on DN:
GLENN GREENWALD: Sure. That Breitbart has had a huge impact on American politics is something that no honest person could possibly dispute. Their traffic alone has quadrupled, or even more, just in the past six to nine months. They became the go-to place for the part of the Republican Party that ended up dominant, that ended up electing—nominating and then electing a candidate who the entire political establishment thought had no chance of ever winning. They gave voice to a huge part of the Republican Party that had been completely and systematically excluded from all of the Republican mainstream venues, like National Review and Weekly Standard. The impact that they have had is immense. And to deny that is just delusional.
Notice Greenwald is very vague who has been systematically excluded from the Republican mainstream before and why. Since he is shy about calling them what they are, fascists and white supremacists, this is a problem for him. He calls them a "part of the Republican Party" but many on both sides of that line would dispute him. Trump himself has supported both capitalist parties, and while white nationalists have been most at home with the Republicans these days, that hasn't always been the case, and certainly they don't see themselves as just a downtrodden part of the Republican Party. Greenwald sounds like he thinks Breitbart News is performing a service by giving voice to the oppressed within the GOP. He continues:
But even worse is to suggest that acknowledging the impact that they have somehow makes you an admirer of them. In that very same interview, I told them directly to their face that the content that they’re producing is repellent. That was the word I used. I said that I have all kinds of terrible things to say about Breitbart reporters and about Breitbart’s content. All of the work I’ve done over the past decade—the sort of primary issue on which I’ve worked has been a defense of the civil liberties of Muslims—is completely antithetical to everything that Breitbart believes in. So, to take a comment that I made which is observably and undeniably true, which is that the impact that they’ve had on the political process is extraordinary and impressive, and convert that into me saying that I somehow like Breitbart or am a sympathizer with Breitbart or an admirer or supporter of Breitbart is just dishonesty in the extreme. And it’s obvious for anybody minimally literate that that’s the case.
The fact is that racism, meaning white supremacy, isn't just an aspect of Breitbart, it is at the core of what has allowed Breitbart and the alt-Right to grow in power to the point where their people are about to enter the White House, and the closest Glenn Greenwald can come to acknowledging that is to say they are antithetical to the civil rights of Muslims? He does them a great kindness in this critique.

Later in the show Nermeen Shaikh talked about a piece Greenwald wrote in response a Guardian article with the headline "Julian Assange gives guarded praise of Trump and blasts Clinton in interview." Disputing that view, she said:
Assange’s precise words in the interview are worth citing at length. When asked about his response to Trump’s election, he said in the interview, quote, "Hillary Clinton’s election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the United States. Donald Trump is not a D.C. insider, he is part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities. They do not by themselves form an existing structure, so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilizing the pre-existing central power network within D.C. It is a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States: change for the worse and change for the better," end-quote.
News Flash Julian: The existing ruling class of the United States wasn't waiting for the election of Hillary Clinton to consolidate power. It did that long ago.

More to the point: Notice how Julian Assange has nothing to say about racism in his appraisal of Donald Trump? Apparently his promises to build a wall, ban Muslims, expel immigrants, or institute a national stop and frisk program aren't a problem, or even consideration, for him. Donald Trump, known long to be a racist by his black employees, is appointing known white supremacists, people like Jeff Sessions, to the highest positions in his administration and Julian Assange excuses them as "idiosyncratic personalities"! This is a kindness indeed.

Julian Assange, Amy Goodman, Glenn Greenwald and Jill Stein all suffer from the same affliction. They just don't get that ignoring white supremacy, especially in the current climate, means supporting white supremacy. They are all bad news for the Left.

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Democracy Now should expose Dylann Roof's 1488 ties to Trump White House

Today Democracy Now did a segment with the NAACP President on Dylann Roof's Lack of Regret for Massacre. In her setup for the piece, Amy Goodman said:
This week Dylann Roof faces a possible death sentence for murdering nine black worshipers at the Emanuel AME Church in June of 2015. As Roof acted as his own attorney in a brief opening statement during the sentencing phase of his trial, he offered no apology and no explanation for his massacre, telling jurors he was psychologically fit to stand trial. In the prosecutor’s opening statement, they quoted excerpts of a racist manifesto written by Roof while he was held in a Charleston jail, in which he wrote, "I would like to make it crystal clear I do not regret what I did. ... I am not sorry. I have not shed a tear for the innocent people I killed." We get response from Cornell William Brooks, president and CEO of the NAACP, who is also a civil rights lawyer and a minister.
You know what the flag means but do you know why the 88 on his shirt is even uglier?
Cornell William Brooks said that while they opposed the death penalty, they wanted to see the racist killer punished. He continued:
We’re also concerned about the racial animus, the sanitized, homogenized, alt-right atmosphere in the country that is giving rise to this kind of sentiment and driving violent crimes. We’ve seen this around the country. We’ve seen it in the FBI hate crimes statistics. We’ve certainly seen it in the numbers reported out by the Anti-Defamation League. And so, as chilling and as concerning and as alarming as the sentencing phase of the trial of Dylann Roof is, we should be chilled and concerned and alarmed about the state of America, because Dylann Roof may seem like an abhorrent aberration, but we’re concerned that that kind of behavior can be normalized because of the racial animus in the country, the xenophobic attitudes in the country, the homophobic attitudes in the country. The point being here is, we cannot separate the tone and tenor of the last campaign from what’s going on in Charleston even as we speak. And so, the NAACP is standing in firm opposition to both the atmosphere that gave rise to Dylann Roof’s crimes, even as we call for his prosecution and punishment. And so, make no mistake: This is not about the trial of one individual; it’s about the state of America more broadly.
This got a little closer to the heart of the matter because it is important to understand that Dylann Roof sees himself as in the vanguard of an extreme wing of the alt-Right movement that calls for making the United States an all white country and is willing to use mass murder to make that happen. They are known by the symbol 1488. Amy Goodman should have pointed out that the "88" on Roof's shirt in one of the pictures she used, is alt-Right code for "Heil Hitler", the eighth letter of the alphabet, H, twice. Progressives must learn to recognize these these codes and fight their meaning, not pass over them in silence. Roof may be portrayed as a lone bigoted nut, but he sees himself as part of a white supremacist movement that calls for the extermination of black people and now has a foothold in the White House.

In Why Green Party's @DrJillStein should drop her presidential bid, I blogged about this symbol and the connection it revealed between Dylann Roof and Steve Bannon, months before one was a convicted murderer and other, the president's chief strategist:

Stephen Bannon is Trump's new campaign chairman. He is also the current chairman of Breitbart News. Ben Shapiro was the editor-at-large of Breitbart News for four years, and he said "Under Bannon's leadership, Breibart openly embraced the white supremacist Alt-Right." Breitbart News has become central command for the politely named Alt-Right movement.

Dylann Roof was part of the 1488 movement
The most extreme elements of this alternative right are the 1488ers, the numbers stand for the 14 words in the Nazi slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children," and the 8th letter of the alphabet twice to signify "Heil Hitler."  According to the Anti-Defamation League "the numbers form a general endorsement of white supremacy and its beliefs. As such, they are ubiquitous within the white supremacist movement - as graffiti, in graphics and tattoos, even in screen names and e-mail addresses, such as aryanprincess1488@hate.net. Some white supremacists will even price racist merchandise, such as t-shirts or compact discs, for $14.88."  1488 showed up in Dylann Roof's manifesto too, and he was suppose to be a lone, unconnected, racist killer. Now that you know what to look for, you will start to notice it.

But most mainstream Alt-Right supporters aren't that extreme, according to Allum Bokhari, a reporter for Breitbart, "They want to build their homogeneous communities, sure — but they don’t want to commit any pogroms along the way. Indeed, they would prefer non-violent solutions...The bulk of their demands, after all, are not so audacious: they want their own communities, populated by their own people, and governed by their own values."

In point of fact, even if it can't be shown that Dylann Roof had any membership in white supremacist organizations or direct ties to the likes of Steve Bannon, shouldn't he be treated the same as an ISIS terrorist lonewolf self-radicalized over the Internet? The 1488 he displays in his photos and writings are his pledge of allegiance. They are like the black jihadist flags of the Islamic terrorists if you know their meaning.

Amy Goodman didn't mention any of this before the election, when it could have made a big difference. Instead, she helped Donald Trump get elected by focusing all her fire on Hillary Clinton as the greater evil and promoting Jill Stein as the progressive alternative that ultimately would go on to take just enough progressive votes from Hillary Clinton to put Donald Trump in the White House. Now that these open white supremacists hold state power in the United States she has a duty not to paper over their uglier connections.

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Fake History: In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa

Fake news has been much in the news lately. The goal of fake news, of course, is to obscure real news. So the slogan of the fake news promoters might well be "Make News History!" and speaking of history, I thought I'd start the New Year out by blogging about something that is even older than fake news - fake history.

Take for example the fake Left meme on a work in progress, the Libyan Revolution, tt typically begins with this statement: "In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa." This sentence can be found repeated verbatim thousand of times across the Internet:
With this as its starting point, the counter-revolutionary narrative, popular with both the alt-Right and the fake Left, goes on to tell us how Colonel Gaddafi turned Libya into "Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy" before it was turned into a "Terrorist Haven" by "US Intervention." Of the ~30,000 Libyans that died in the struggle to overthrow his 40 year dictatorship, Muammar Gaddafi is the one most mourned by the Western Left. Other than him and his crew, Libyans play bit parts in the fake Left's narrative on Libya. The National Transitional Council  and the thuwar (revolutionaries) were seen as proxies or pawns of the real bad guys of what they labeled "NATO's War on Libya", Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Libya could be ruled by a colonel who outranked his generals because truth telling was not Gaddafi's style, and yet these "truth seekers" on the fake Left used figures reported by the Colonel's government to prove its people were so well off under his rule they couldn't possibly want to revolt on their own. In their copy-paste telling of Libyan history, Muammar Gaddafi was the great brother-leader who transformed Africa's poorest country into its richest. This is far more dramatic than the truth, which is that Muammar took over the richest country in Africa and he robbed it.

I didn't check all 2,840 of the above search results but I did check quite a few and none that I did check cited a source for the claim that in 1967 Libya was one of the poorest nations in Africa. Not being inclined to accept that claim at face value,  I went looking for verification. How does one search for economic data on Libya in 1967? The first useful thing I found was the United Nation's World Economic Survey 1967.

This survey is focused on development and according to it, far from being one of the poorest countries in Africa, Libya was listed as one of the comers.  For example, in discussing economic growth in the period between 1955 and 1965 it says:
As with every other variable, the average subsumes a considerable range of performance, from declines in such countries as Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Colombia and Singapore, to gains of over 10 per cent a year in China (Taiwan), Iran, Israel, Jordan, Liberia, Libya and the Republic of Korea. 
And a table titled, Table 4. Developing countries: distribution according to average annual rate of growth in real gross domestic product, 1955-1965, puts Libya at the top of the list. It ranked above Israel, Kuwait, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia, which were also in the 6% or over column. The Democratic Republic of Congo was at the very bottom of the list, below Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Tunisia, Nigeria, Ghana, Algeria, Cameroon, Sudan, Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania. The Congo even ranked below Haiti, so perhaps it deserves the dubious title the fake Left is trying to award to pre-Gaddafi Libya in their efforts to prettify a fascist, (again). Another table Libya tops in this 1967 survey is Table 13. Developing countries: rates of increase in per capita production and in school enrolment ratio. With a per capita 1955-1965 GDP growth of 16.7% before Gaddafi came to power, it beat Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Taiwan which rounded out the top 5, and again, sadly, Congo was at the very bottom of the list with a -2.3% decline.

The UN report gave me a clue, but it dealt only with developing countries and is anything but simple to interpret, still it does makes it look like Libya wasn't really one of the poorest countries in Africa. What I found next was more to the point. Classora is a knowledge based website that allows you to create ranking reports based on big data sets like this Ranking of Countries with Highest Per Capita Income (1967) based on World Bank data:

Since this is a ranking of all countries, it is expected that the United States would be at the top, followed by the usual suspects. What is surprising, if we learn our history from fake Left sources, is that in 1967 Libya ranked 26th, just after Japan and ahead of any other African nation, including South Africa, which came in at 35th in per capita income.

The real history is that after high quality oil was discovered there in the mid-1950's, Libya was on a roll. By 1967, it was producing one third of the oil entering the Western European market and by the time Gaddafi took over it was already the fourth largest oil producer in the world. The Petroleum Law of 1955, passed under King Idris I initially imposed a 50% tax on oil concession profits. This was revised upwards in 1961 and 1965. This law stayed in place until 2007 and insured that the Libyan state would have a very strong revenue stream well before Gaddafi was in a position to plunder it.

Rare footage of Libya before Gaddafi

The UN report cited above also documents improvements in infrastructure and education that showed how these revenues were benefiting the whole nation long before Gaddafi's sons learned how to spend millions on parties in Europe.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi with Carmen Electra at the Opera Ball in Vienna in 2006
This was the Libya that Muammar Gaddafi conquered in 1969, far from "one of the poorest nations in Africa."  This is generally the starting point for the fake Left's defense of Gaddafi and it is a lie. It is inevitably followed by more lies about how great life was under Gaddafi. Mohammed A. Soussi, who now lives in Benghazi, wrote this in response to a the Quora question "What was life like in Libya under Muammar al-Gaddafi?"
Since I was fortunate enough to escape the wrath and misery of the former Libyan leader's regime, I was unqualified to answer the question about life under that dictatorship. However, with the scant response, it occurred to me that I could offer the following approximate translation of a Facebook post published on November 30th by a fellow Libyan who had endured Mr. Gaddafi's rule, and who clearly didn't enjoy it:

The translated post of Mr. S.S., who was opposed to Mr. Gaddafi's regime that lasted for 42 years from 1969 to 2011- in response to some published regrets for the "good old days:"

"While it's true that our current situation [in Libya] doesn't appeal to anyone, but please don't let us feel like we used to be blessed and living in comfort, as well as enjoying the good life for 42 years [under the late Mr. Gaddafi], and in which 42 years we had to do:

- without any good infrastructure, that with the slightest rain resulted in street flooding; without even a decent airport; when a Libyan falls sick, he [or she] would travel abroad for treatment; with neither good healthcare, nor respectable education; when overnight private property is outlawed and people snatching the properties of others, creating social unrest [and friction]; with 30 y.o. Libyan single men, and older, are unable to afford marriage; with youth unemployment rate only knowable to God; with Mr. Gaddafi financing the majority of the world's terrorist groups at our expense; seeking self-glory in Africa, while his people are downtrodden; speaking of bread, only God knew Libya's poverty rate, with many unable to afford their daily bread; with Gaddafi destroying the Army and creating instead militias to protect him and his sons, and those were who supported him, whereas the honorable soldiers abandoned him [during the revolution of February 17th 2011]; without the establishment of any state institutions; a rich country with a small population, and yet they didn't see any progress [or benefits, relative to the country's revenue from oil exports]; no one knows about us [the Libyan people], but the whole world knows about him from his foolishness and criminality; Gaddafi was oppressing his people and caused them a multitude of tragedies (like the children AIDS crisis; the embassy incident; the doomed Flight 92; the international sanctions and travel bans for several years; street hangings; etc...); He continued to lie to us for 42 years; He could have made us the best nation in the world; He would suddenly declare that we should only eat fava beans, because meats are only fit for animals; I'm sure that I have forgotten other issues that afflicted us for 42 years.

Like I had said at the outset, the current situation [in post-Gaddafi Libya] is frustrating and hurtful, and this is not what the revolution was all about, but don't make it sound like in his days we had it good, and all life's niceties were in abundance; or to deny that we were hurting in his regime, and we couldn't even blur one letter of protest, since you well know what would happen to anyone who did speak out. In summary, for 42 years, Gaddafi had allowed us to enjoy a splendid and dignified life, without any needs, and we just self-destructed and decided to deprive ourselves of those bountiful goods and blessings that engulfed us????"
On this same forum others repeated the fake Left boilerplate on Libya's Gaddafi until  one anonymous writer posted this very insightful explanation about why answers to the question differed so greatly.
It depends on who you ask. There’s three types who always answer:
  1. The person outside Libya but benefited from Gadaffi. Gadaffi supported poor Muslims around the world by building mosques and schools where other nations like Saudi Arabia ignored them. There are schools and mosques in Sri Lanka and the Philippines built by him. Others like people in Sub Saharan Africa and other fractions around the world got direct funds from him and/or military training in Libya. This was heavily criticized because the groups he supported were known to be criminal gangs and warlords in their respective countries. Anyway, these people will say he was a saviour, a god, a great man who came to deliver them from western oppression. These usually go on the internet with copy and paste articles of all the false propaganda about Gadaffi.

  2. As in any country in the world there will always be people who directly benefit from whichever government is in power. This is a universal thing. These Libyans miss the good old days of being under the rule of Gadaffi and supported him. If your life was nice of course you’re going to miss it and support whoever made your life good.

  3. The third is the ordinary Libyan citizen. Libya was a hell hole under Gadaffi. People weren’t free, they couldn’t object to anything Gadaffi did otherwise they would have been killed. While he did develop the country, King Idres was really the one who started to build Libya from barren Desert. Gadaffi was insane; he had a personality cult like that of North Korea. His green book was full of nonsense. Those copy and paste articles about free education, healthcare etc are all false. If Gadaffi was such a great leader why would his people rebel against him? Libya wasn’t this great paradise people made it out to be. Simple food and goods was hard to get. Only Palestinians got government grants and that wasn’t much hence not many Palestinians migrated to Libya. Health care might be free but it was horrible; lack of doctors, equipment etc Libyans had to go to secretly go to other countries to get treatment. Education was free but it was really awful. The amount of money Libya had it didn’t reach down to the average person. Gadaffi lived a grandeur life; all his kids were spoil rich brats. He even paid Juventus millions to allow his son to play on their team but then was kicked out cause he was such an awful player.
The only place he belonged was a mental institution.
Just for reference, these were the poorest nations in Africa in 1967, countries like Rwanda, that had a per capita GDP in 1967 that was 1/23rd what it was in Libya that year:

Brain Fart!! I've been so focused on overturning the notion that the Libya Gaddafi took over was broke down and poor, that I have completely ignored the ugly assumption made by these friends of Gaddafi [meaning all 2,840 cut & pasters] by their choice of the word "inherited" to describe Gaddafi's takeover of the Libyan state. Not only does it imply that he had a certain entitlement to dictatorship, it justifies it with a practise that raises serious social justice concerns even in the sphere in which it's generally applied.

and BTW   -     HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Libya

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Monday, December 26, 2016

Trump picks Jill Stein supporter as White House Press Secretary

Okay, this is a bit of a trick headline. Donald Trump has named Sean Spicer his new press secretary. Sean Spicer is best known as the communications director of the Republican National Committee, but his responsibility to see to the election of Donald Trump, as well as his own personal advancement, led him to be a strategy driven supporter of Green Party candidate Jill Stein, as exampled by these tweets:
Of course, he really wasn't a Jill Stein supporter in the sense that he actually wanted her to be elected president, but since she had absolutely no chance of that, those wants were immaterial. He most definitely was a Jill Stein supporter in the sense that he wanted to see her get as many votes as possible. Since he knew those votes would come from Hillary Clinton, he saw no contradiction between being a Trump supporter and a Stein supporter. He understood clearly, even if the fake Left didn't, that Jill Stein and the Green Party were helping to put Trump in the White House. Sean Spicer was smart to support Jill Stein. Post election results show that without Green Party help, Donald Trump would have lost.

This post will be successful if it gets across two important points: 1) Trump was just appointed a press secretary that is skilled at playing the Left, and 2) The Left can be played. This post is a warning.

My other recent posts relating to this unique election cycle:
fake Left's "Peace Candidate" starts a new nuclear arms race!
Jill Stein & US Green's make the Left look like a clown act
@DrJillStein now officially 'the Ralph Nader of 2016'
Where #NoDAPL covers for mass murder
Did Wikileaks call this election 10 years ago?
Did @DemocracyNow help elect President Trump?
Did the Green Party's @DrJillStein help Trump win?
How Green Party's Jill Stein tells two lies at once
Donald Trump wants to be the Last US President
Trump/Stein -- Stronger Together
Will Wikileaks "salt" the Clinton-Podesta emails before the election?
Trump Super Predator behavior is Workplace Sexual Harassment writ large
Is US Green Party's Jill Stein a holocaust denier?
Jill Stein now claiming Donald Trump is less of two evils
Did Dishonest Jill Stein change her Syria statement on the sly?
Republican support for Green Party @DrJillStein is emerging
Why "Jill not Hill" is a pro-Trump slogan
Donald Trump can only win if Jill Stein stays in
Does Donald Trump's secret plan to defeat ISIS involve using nukes?
Why doesn't "What's the Triad?" trump "What is Aleppo?"
Green Party Jill Stein's campaign in context
What should the Green Party do?
Greens could give White House to Trump as poll numbers even
Why Green Party's Jill Stein should drop her presidential bid
Amy Goodman should address this extremely important statement by her guest
How Jill Stein Tweets for Trump
HuffPost item shows how @JillStein campaign whitewashes @realDonaldTrump
Trump tells his '2nd Amendment people election will be stolen to prepare for insurrection
Trump didn't threaten Hillary, he threatened violent insurrection
Meet Green Party's Jill Stein, Putin sock-puppet & Assad apologist

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria