Saturday, September 24, 2016

How Frequently Do Con Gun Nuts Dream About Firearms?

To see a gun in your dream represents aggression, anger, and potential danger. You could be on the defensive about something. Or you may be dealing with issues of passiveness/aggressiveness and authority/dependence. Alternatively, a gun is a symbol of power and pride. Perhaps you are looking for shelter or protection in your dream. From a Freudian perspective, a gun represents the penis and male sexual drive. Thus, the gun may mean power or impotence, depending on whether the gun went off or misfired... excerpt from the "Gun" entry, the Dream Dictionary.

Over the last few days I've received multiple emails (both from NewsMax and Glenn Beck) that try to tempt me to open them via a contest in which I could win $1500 bucks that I can put toward my "dream gun".

Upon opening the NewsMax communication, I found that it was a "special message from our advertising sponsor, United States Concealed Carry Association". NewsMax sez "our sponsors help us keep our news service free, though we do not necessarily endorse this message".

Don't endorse 1500K for a "dream gun"? I'm guessing that's standard legalize to protect themselves. If, for instance, someone wins the "dream gun" and then kills someone with it. United States Concealed Carry Association could be sued, but not NewsMax.

Here is a pic of what a NewsMax reader's "dream gun" might look like.

1281X679

Note that the "prize" is actually a gift certificate (to what store, the fine print doesn't say). Also, if you enter, they'll for sure grab your email address for their own use (and possibly resell it).

Anyway, looks like any of these would be just what one would need to hunt deer with. Or blow away an "oxygen thief" (AKA a home invader)... likely a Black male or males named Dre, Mookie, Ray-Ray and Slice.

Because blowing away one of their fellow humans is a Conservative male base racist fetish. I don't find it hard to believe at all that many of them lay their heads on their pillows and night and, after drifting off, dream of using their hand-gun or assault rifle to kill violent Black home invaders there to vacuum up their oxygen.

Video: A lyric from the Prussian Blue song, Aryan Man Awake, says "and black masked men with guns come bashing down the doors". Something that the White racists live in fear of. "Turn your fear to hate" is the advice PB gives. And shoot that violent Black man dead. As YouTube commenter Austin Gooden said "this song should be our new national anthem! seig heil!!!!!" (4:27).

BTW, Prussian Blue videos are still up on YouTube, despite "the fact that Youtube is run by the same people who run Google and we all know how biased... those leftists are" (proof Willis Hart is an idiot).

PS: I'm not saying all gun nuts are neo-Nazi White Nationalists. But I bet a lot of them are. And I also bet that all White Nationalists are gun nuts. Yet another reason increased gun control might be a good idea.

SWTD #352

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Heil, Herr Trump, Our Possible Future Führer

The Nazi salute or Hitler salute... is a gesture that was used as a greeting in Nazi Germany. The salute is performed by extending the right arm in the air with a straightened hand. Usually, the person offering the salute would say "Heil Hitler!"... In Switzerland, France, Canada, the Netherlands and Sweden, the salute is illegal hate speech if used for propagating Nazi ideology. (Wikipedia/Nazi Salute).

I submitted a comment concerning Trump's endorsement by 88 generals to a progressive website, but the host dismissed it as a "conspiracy theory". I remain, however, 99 percent convinced that the following is true.

In a move to boost his national security credibility, Donald Trump released an endorsement letter signed by 88 retired military figures. Now some are questioning if there is a hidden anti-Semitic message behind the statement - since the number 88 is a well-known code for "Heil Hitler". (Is Donald Trump's Endorsement by 88 Retired Generals a Secret Neo-Nazi Code? by Lilly Maier. Forward.com 9/7/2016).

I'm convinced this is VERY likely true because this is the Trump strategy - to get a greater percentage of the White vote than Mitt Romney. According to Rollcall.com "to win, Donald Trump likely needs to run the table with white voters".

With his appeal to the Alt-right (hiring of Steve Bannon, for example) Trump is attempting to get the votes of White people who don't ordinarily turn out. Because the GOP isn't racist enough for these KKK-types. On the other hand, a more direct appeal would turn off many more tolerant White Republicans. Although (IMO) these people have to know what's going on (disenfranchisement of Black voters, demonization of Hispanics, etc).

But, as long as it's kept on the down-low, it's OK with them. Apparently. Even the previous head of the RNC, Michael Steele, was willing to ignore/deny the fact that the GOP is still employing Nixon's Southern Stragety.

And White Nationalists are KNOWN to speak in code. So, IMO, of course the Trump campaign is using this code to speak to the White racists, saying (wink, wink) "Trump is with you". Like I said, it's been his strategy all along. People need to wake up to this fact.

Possible VP Pence knows this is the strategy as well, which is why he refused to condemn David Duke as a deplorable in a recent interview. In a 9/12/2016 interview with Wolf Blitzer, the Blitz asked Pence if he'd call Duke "deplorable", and Pence said no. Because he isn't in the business of "name calling"! (This would be the same David Duke who said that "Voting against Trump is treason to your heritage").

Right. It isn't that Pence is opposed to "name calling". The reason is because Trump needs the deplorable vote to win. Or, he's betting that it will give him the win. Hence his adoption of their coded communications. This explains why Trump would retweet a meme originally tweeted by @WhiteGenocideTM.

Innocent enough, huh? It's just a picture of Jeb with a "vote Trump" sign. But what about the name attached to the Twitter account, "White Genocide"?! Why would Trump retweet something from this account? And, no, I don't think he overlooked who he was retweeting.

Here's another of @WhiteGenocide's photoshopped images.

That's a Nazi Trump executing Senator Bernie Sanders. No, Trump didn't retweet this picture, but this IS an image designed to appeal to the kind of people Trump wants the votes of. Which is why he made the "mistake" of retweeting a anti-semitic image of Hillary Clinton.

750×523

Although, when called on the source of the image (came from "8chan's /pol/ — an Internet message board for the alt-right, a digital movement of neo-Nazis, anti-Semites and white supremacists"), he had his social media team doctor up the pic (replacing the Star of David with a circle).

Dog whistling to deplorables while not getting too much attention from the media can be tricky. But it is ABSOLUTELY what the Trump campaign is doing. It's not a "conspiracy theory". (Note: no disrespect to the owner of the aforementioned blog intended. I simply disagree with her on this. We aren't talking about a conspiracy theory here, but the Trump campaign strategy).

SWTD #351

Sunday, September 11, 2016

The Day The Terrorists Won (Tuesday, September 11, 2001)

The terrorists won after 9/11 because we chose to invade Iraq, shred our Constitution ~ excerpt from a 11/15/2015 Salon article by Bret Weinstein.

Note that by "the terrorists" I refer to the Saudi Nationals who flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and the Pentagon, as well as their financiers. In addition, among "the terrorists", I include the accomplices in the bush administration. Accomplices in that george w bush knew a terrorist attack was likely. Knew the likely target. And knew an attack was imminent. Yet he did nothing.

Remember the PDB (presidential daily brief) from 8/6/2001 that warned Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US? Condi Rice fibbed and said "the CIA's PDB did not warn the President of a specific new threat but "contained historical information based on old reporting". Implying there was no reason for them to act... "historical information based on old reporting".

But that is CLEARLY bullshit, given the in Ladin Determined To Strike in US warning contained within the PDB. You don't act when you're being WARNED?

An excerpt from the PDB.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America". *snip*

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ----, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks...

Al Qaeda members ---- including some who are U.S. citizens ---- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. *snip*

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks...

Yes, there is "historical" data here, but it also says that bin Laden IS DETERMINED. More attacks WILL come. And this warning (and it absolutely was a warning) was delivered less than 4 months before the 9/11 attacks occurred. There were other warnings, however. Warnings that date back the early days of the bush presidency.

They're coming here: Bush admin. ignored multiple pre-9/11 warnings (11/14/2015 RT article excerpt) Disclosures from more than 100 hours of exclusive interviews with 12 former CIA directors reveal that the George W. Bush administration ignored repeated warnings of an Al-Qaeda attack before September 11, 2001, according to a new Politico report. ...

A key meeting took place on July 10, after the head of the Al-Qaeda unit at the CIA... "The information that we had compiled was absolutely compelling. It was multiple-sourced. And it was sort of the last straw" [Cofer Black, a CIA chief of counterterrorism] said. ... "It was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die" [according to Black].

Black and [CIA director George] Tenet requested an urgent meeting at the White House and met with Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. The president was on a trip to Boston at the time. Rice was told there would be significant terrorist attacks against the US in the coming weeks or months.

"The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al-Qaeda's intention is the destruction of the United States", said [Al Qaeda unit head, Richard] Blee, according to Tenet. Rice asked what they thought they needed to do, and Black blasted "We need to go on a wartime footing now!". Despite this warning, Black said the administration sat back.

But, instead of taking the warnings seriously, the author of the Politico article concludes that the warnings were actively ignored (referred to by Senator Al Franken in his book Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them as "operation ignore").

Tenet and Black pitched a plan, in the spring of 2001, called "the Blue Sky paper" to Bush's new national security team. It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat - "getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan"

"And the word back", says [CIA director George] Tenet, "was we're not quite ready to consider this. We don't want the clock to start ticking"... Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they'd been warned. (11/12/2015 article by Chris Whipple).

So it isn't just me who thinks that the bush administration ignored the threat that an attack was coming, and that, had they acted, they might have prevented 9/11. Note that the "word back" was that they did not want "the clock to start ticking", not that they weren't convinced.

That the attacks were ALLOWED to occur is a solid conclusion, IMO. As a pretext for invading Iraq. As per the stated desire of PNAC for a "new Pearl Harbor". (Wikipedia/Project for a New American Century/Critics: Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he argued that Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans).

The bush administration was also warned that hijacked planes might be used as weapons.

WH spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility".

However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement. The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?", warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

[Also] the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer [2000] that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools. (What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11).

Then there is the fact that the WTC was bombed previously, due to it being seen by al Qaeda as a symbol of the United State's economic power. On 2/26/1993 a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower, killing 6 people and injuring more than a 1,000. Given the fact that the 1993 plan basically failed, in that those responsible had intended to bring down the entire structure and kill many more, I think our government should have assumed that another attempt was likely and only a matter of time.

So, while I don't believe that bush knew EXACTLY what was going to happen (that al Qaeda would fly planes into the WTC), I do think the bush administration might (or should) have been able to connect the dots and make some educated guesses as to what al Qaeda may be planning, but they chose not to (didn't want the clock to start ticking).

bush, IMO, likely knew there would be an attack, but they had NO idea how bad it would be. My conclusions (which many others have reached) don't represent a "strange hate" (as a Libertarian blogger called my conclusions awhile back). Not strange and not hate. Only a rational conclusion based on an examination of the facts. Although I think hate surely would be justified.

Also, I say he LIKELY knew. I (of course) do not know with 100 percent certainty that bush knew an attack was coming. Given the fact that he (as president) was an incompetent doofus, maybe Cheney played him for the useful idiot (and that it's Cheney who is truly evil)?

Me, I'm thinking that Cheney (who was one of 25 people who signed the PNAC's founding statement of principles, while bush wasn't) wanted a "benevolent global hegemony" which would be brought about by toppling Saddam. i.e. the domino theory which said that if the US "overthrows Hussein and creates a pro-Western democratic regime in Iraq, the example will increase internal pressure to open closed societies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria").

Whereas bush wanted to take out Saddam because he allegedly tried to kill his daddy.

During a campaign speech in September 2002, Bush cited a number of reasons - in addition to alleged terrorist links and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) about why Saddam was so dangerous to the U.S., noting, in particular that, "After all, this is the guy who tired to kill my dad".

He was referring, of course, to an alleged plot by Iraqi intelligence to assassinate Bush's father, former president George H.W. Bush, during his triumphal visit to Kuwait in April, 1993, 25 months after US-led forces chased Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War and three months after Bush Sr. surrendered the White House to Bill Clinton.

While the alleged plot was never cited officially as a cause for going to war, some pundits... have speculated that revenge or some oedipal desire to show up his father may indeed have been one of the factors that drove him to Baghdad. (So, Did Saddam Hussein Try to Kill Bush's Dad? by Jim Lobe. 10/19/2004 Republished by Common Dreams).

Which is why I conclude that, given the fact that 9/11 was an evil act, that bush (as a participant in that event) is an evil man. Because of his inactions. BTW, most evil people don't view themselves as evil. Remember that Osama bin Laden thought he was leading a religious crusade against the Great Satan. And believed he was on the side of God (AKA Allah).

Point is, we always determine evil by what evil does. Or what evil people do. In this case the evil of george w bush in ignoring the warnings and allowing 9/11 to happen. Something the evidence strongly suggests happened.

"Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?" Public Policy Polling asked in 2009.Wikipedia notes that "27% of respondents who identified themselves as Liberals, and 10% as Conservatives, responded YES".

And that the plan to hijack airplanes and fly them into the Twin Towers actually got an assist from the then sitting president? That is why I say the terrorists won. This was the event with which OBL kicked off his jihad against the West. A jihad that rages on today (in the form of ISIS). It also provided the bushies with the excuse to invade Middle Eastern countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) that they were hungering for.

If not for the "failures" of the bush administration I think that ISIS would probably not exist. Something to think about on this, the 15th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on our nation. That a former president HELPED the terrorists and (with his illegal invasion of Iraq) GREATLY empowered our enemies (DSD #31).

Image: gwb and OBL meet prior to 9/11/2001 to coordinate their plans to bring down the Twin Towers. Note that I am not a 9/11 Truther. My commentary from 11/17/2009 titled "Best Friends George and Osama" (SWTD #30) was a work of satire. But only in part.

w:300 h:225  

SWTD #350. See also OST #168.

Wednesday, September 07, 2016

Lying Gary AKA Dishonest Johnson; Ayn Rand Hated Poors #5

Hoi polloi is an expression from Greek that means the many or, in the strictest sense, the majority. In English, it has been corrupted by giving it a negative connotation to signify deprecation of the working class, commoners, the masses or common people in a derogatory... sense ~ Definition via Wikipedia.

According to a new Gary Johnson ad, Bill Weld (his Libertarian VP pick) has deemed his running mate "Honest Johnson". In said ad he describes how Johnson is "one of the most honest people" he's met. Almost "painfully honest", he sez. (Watch Out Honest Abe, Meet Libertarian Gary "Honest Johnson").

But I agree with Progressive Talker Thom Hartmann, who, on the 8/17/2016 airing of his program, said (in regards to Gary and Bill) "they're not honest in the presentation of their positions. They use weasel words and slogans to lie about what they actually mean".

For example, they use the words freedom and liberty a LOT. But what do they really mean when they use these words? Obviously (look at their platform) what they're talking about (primarily) is freedom from taxation. And, that's freedom for rich people to not have to contribute to funding the social safety net (DSB #44).

Proof of this is their stated objective of "we should eliminate the entire social welfare system" (Source: Official Libertarian Party Website). But, in spite of the f*cking platform, Lying Gary says "we can still create a safety net. Nobody goes without" (SWTD #343).

But we already have a safety net. We need to strengthen it, not "create" it. I assume Lying Gary says "create" because he's thinking the private sector is going to create a new one after the Libertarians (should they get their way) completely destroy the one we already have (their STATED objective).

Now Lying Gary KNOWS that's NOT the take-away the majority of people get from his message of "nobody goes without". Few people are thinking... YES, nobody goes without means we're going to completely dismantle the safety net (the one we have currently). By "eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest" (direct quote from the LP website).

Sure, all politicians lie (or shade the truth to some degree), but lying about what your freaking platform explicitly states? Me, I'd say the moniker "honest Johnson" ABSOLUTELY does not apply. If a nickname denoting how truthful Gary might be is what Bill wants, I say we go with "Lying Gary" or "Dishonest Johnson".

As for the "painful" part, YES, I think the dismantling of our entire safety net would be QUITE painful for a lot of people. Perhaps not for rich people (unless they have consciences). Although Libertarians believe that it's more morally objectionable to "steal" from people (i.e. tax them), so many (if not all) of them might be fine and dandy about their policies (if instituted) killing people.

I mean, it is a fact that the Ayn-Rand worshiping Libertarian considers the unwashed masses to be worthless trash (parasites and takers). As their heroine wrote "what are your masses of humanity but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it".

This being a quote from the original version of Rand's book We The Living. Although this quote was altered when the book was reissued years after its original publication (according to a poster on the Thom Hartmann message board as well as a number of other sources) [1].

Further proof that Rand hated poor people. Heck, I'd say she clearly and indisputably loathed them after reading this comment. Although if they're "fuel" that kinda belies her characterization of them as "moochers" and "parasites". Sounds to me like she's saying they're good (to take advantage of) for their cheap labor (a sentiment shared by many Libertarians and Republicans).

But that's NOT the reason Libertarians like Lying Gary will cite when they talk about eliminating the minimum wage. No, they'll spin BS about how no minimum wage is a GOOD thing, in that it will lead to higher employment. Self-serving baloney (in that it benefits the rich owners) which has been proven false. But that's what you get from Libertarians like Lying Gary (falsehoods that benefit the Oligarchs and hurt everyone else).

BTW, in regards to the "hoi polloi" definition at the top of this post... the Wikipedia entry also notes further synonyms (for the Greek term) that also express the same or similar distaste for the common people, including the great unwashed, the plebeians or plebs, the rabble, the masses, the dregs of society, riffraff, the herd, the proles (proletariat), sheeple, and peons.

Reminiscent of lice, moochers and parasites - the terms Ayn Rand used. Which goes to show that hating poors goes back a LONG way. The goal with this language being to justify the wealthy class having most of the wealth. They deserve it. And they deserve to get it by screwing lower classes. And disguising this fact (they're taking more than they deserve) by painting poor people as undeserving.

Although Rand was more or less honest about her hatred of the less fortunate. I mean, yeah, she denied it, and you might say she was more indifferent than seething with hatred... but you'd be wrong. Her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged being proof of that. In that she engaged in some serious mass casualty porn in her 1168-page doorstop. In that millions of worthless poors got their just deserts. By which I mean they died via starvation, train "accidents", etc. (SWTD #303).

That a similar die-off of the worthless eaters might occur under a Johnson administration is a no-brainer. Although he'd still have to contend with Congress. But, if Republicans controlled both houses? I think he could ram through quite a bit of his anti-poor and anti-middle class agenda. Anti these lower classes in that a Johnson administration would seek to push us further along the path to full blown oligarchy.

OK, so Lying Gary says "it's game over on any chance of winning the White House if he does not make it to the debate stage" and THAT is an honest statement. But it would also be game over is Gary got into the debates and then proceeded to tell the truth about the Libertarian platform.

Not that Lying Gary would stand a chance either way (in or out of the debates). Donald Trump locking up a larger percentage of the rube vote than Gary. And he gets it his fake populism (appeal to working people). Mostly by saying he's opposed to the TPP. While Lying Gary is in favor of it.

Point is, we've got populists running on both sides (or, that's how they're presenting themselves). Which is why it was game over from the get-go for a poor-hating, anti-populist, pro-rich stooge like Lying Gary Johnson. Even though Lying Gary is doing slightly better this time (due to support from Never-Trumpers and scarily uninformed Bernie Sanders supporters).

Video: Watch Out Honest Abe, Meet Libertarian Gary "Honest Johnson" (1:02).

Footnote
[1] Check Google and you can confirm the validity of this quote, although I first heard it from Thom Hartmann on his program, as broadcast on Free Speech TV on 8/11/2016. Thom also referred to Rand as "one sick puppy"; a sentiment I agree with 1000 percent. I also Googled it, and found a discussion on the Objectivism Online Forum.

SWTD #349, ARHP #5.

Sunday, September 04, 2016

Julian Assange Wants Donald Trump To Be The Next US President

True information does good ~ Julian Assange (dob 7/3/1971) an Australian computer programmer, journalist and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, which he founded in 2006.

The following is an excerpt from the 8/26/2016 airing of the Thom Hartmann Radio Program (edited for brevity and clarity by me). Thom welcomes Ellen Ratner from Talk Media News to the program and, during their discussion Ellen shares news she has heard regarding Julian Assange and his threats of releasing hacked data that will send Hillary Clinton to prison (data that was either obtained by Russian hacker groups or DNC staffer Seth Rich - who HRC had murdered for his betrayal).

Ellen Ratner: Julian Assange is saying he's going to do a new leak from WikiLeaks. Now, I have to tell you something, my brother Michael was Julian Assange's attorney before he died (that's before Michael died, Julian Assange is still alive)... and a lot of people think that what Julian Assange is actually doing is, he has made a bet that he's going to do better under Trump than Hillary Clinton, so he's going after Hillary Clinton.

Thom Hartmann: Really? That's a very bad bet.

Ellen Ratner: That's what the inside score is telling us. I'm hearing that from the behind-the-scenes folks.

Thom Hartmann: In other words Assange is using WikiLeaks for his own purposes.

As I discussed in SWTD #342, Julian Assange says his next leak will virtually guarantee an indictment of Hillary Clinton.

The title of my commentary was "On The Possibility Of The WikiLeaks Release Of DNC Hacked Material Throwing The Election To Donald Trump", and, at the time, my belief that Julian Assange was just going with the material he had. That is, he has material regarding HRC, but not regarding DJT. And that he was just doing what his organization does - leak governmental material.

I mean, the guy isn't a US citizen, so it doesn't matter to him as much if DJT becomes president. But now, with this revelation from Ellen Ratner (an individual I trust), it's looking like Assange WANTS Trump to be president. I'm not sure what Ellen is referring to by Assange betting that "he's going to do better". Except to guess that Assange is worried about being snatched by the US and spirited away to the United States for trial.

The reclusive figure fears he will ultimately be sent to the US where he could face the death penalty. In an interview with The Times magazine, Mr Assange claimed it had become too dangerous to even poke his head out the embassy's balcony doors. [Due to] fears he will be assassinated or even "droned" by the American intelligence services if he leaves his hideout within the Ecuadorean embassy. (Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claims he'll be killed by CIA drone if he leaves embassy by Tom Batchelor. 8/30/2015 express.co.uk).

Assange may also not want HRC to be president (and be trying to use WikiLeaks to tip the election in favor of Trump), as he has written "I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. ... she certainly should not become president of the United States" (Source).

I don't know what cables Assange has read, but I think he has a point. Although we're already in a fight with ISIS and I think whoever is president will have enough on their plate without starting any new conflicts. But HRC is definitely a hawk (SWTD #323).

But if Assange is going after HRC to see if you can influence US elections and get DJT elected president? I say he should f*ck off. Especially if his motivation is that DJT will consider him a friendly (like he does with Putin) and not try to prosecute or kill him. I haven't heard anything about the US wanting to prosecute Assange. Not recently, anyway.

I thought Assange got into this line of work for altruistic reasons. Because he's a believer in governmental transparency. But now he's trying to get Trump elected to save his own skin? That's IF he's correct and that a president Trump would call off the assassins and circling drones. Me, I don't know if Assange is mostly paranoid here or if his fears are genuine.

I'm sure our government doesn't like him. And I don't think that would change under a Trump administration. In any case, Assange said (re any possible Trump leaks) "we'd be very happy to receive and publish it". But he says he has nothing. And he also says "the problem with the Trump campaign is it's actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump's mouth every second day" (Assange: WikiLeaks's Trump info no worse than him).

So this definitely sounds possible. Unless Assange was able to obtain (or has) Trump's tax returns (showing he pays no taxes, owes a lot of money to Russian oligarchs, has a net worth that is a lot lower than what he says it is, shows he donates very little or nothing to charity, etc), actual physical results (not that BS letter from Dr. Bornstein), and other unknown secrets.

BTW, that's not counting the horrible stuff that's out there but that the press is ignoring. Such as the fact that he raped his ex-wife Ivana (sometime before 1992) and the pending lawsuit regarding his alleged rape of a 13YO in 1994.

And then there's the marginally covered ugly Trump facts, first among these being his pandering to the alt-Right racists and the fact that (IMO) he's a huge racist himself (SWTD #347). As well as a sexist and possibly an anti-semite (we know his new campaign manager Steve Bannon is a racist, a homophobe and an anti-semite).

So how about you, Julian Assange, stop trying to make this man our next president? I mean, I'll take HRC over DJT any day of the week. Fact is, I think she'll make a decent president (even though I was for Bernie Sanders), while Donald Trump would be a disaster in more ways then I think we can possibly imagine. The racist "alt Right" is LOVING Trump, and you KNOW a Trump presidency would further embolden them (SWTD #347).

Which is why I say that, whatever "true information" Assange has on HRC, if it swings the election to DJT, that will definitely not be good. It will, in fact be bad. Very bad.

Video1: Megyn Kelly interviews Julian Assange. Fox Nooz, of course, being receptive to dirt that could bring down the HRC campaign (3:27).

Video2: Rightwingers call for Julian Assange to be assassinated. Institutional Democrats call for him to be prosecuted. I'm opposed to either, especially given the fact that Assange is not a US citizen and not subject to our laws (2:42).

SWTD #348