COLIN KAEPERNICK’S STAND ON RACISM (no pun intended)

ALL COLIN KAEPERNICK DID WAS MAKE A STATEMENT. Now he’s a traitor, professional football executives hate him, and his football career is all but over. What does this say about freedom of speech in this country?

OBVIOUSLY BLACK LIVES MATTER. Thanks to Colin Kaepernick, and now several other professional football players who have joined his protest, this issue is reaching more people than otherwise would have been the case. If the U.S. judicial system functioned properly, this kind of protest would be unnecessary. But too many killers (both policemen and non-policemen – as in the case of George Zimmerman, who shot Trayvon Martin) have been let off the hook.

HILLARY CLINTON’S INCESTUOUS RELATIONS WITH PRIVATE INTEREST GROUPS

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist James Grimaldi of the Wall Street Journal documents how the Clinton Foundation facilitated favors for its donors, specifically foreign ones, and Saudis in particular, while Hillary was Secretary of State. In return Bill Clinton got a 1.5 million dollar speaking contract from USB bank, among other returned favors. Grimaldi’s facts come from recently-released State Department emails. Are these the people you want back in the White House? I certainly prefer her over Trump, but only a big vote for Jill Stein may convince the Democrats to keep to their campaign pledges.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/12/did_companies_countries_buy_state_dept

REASONS TO VOTE FOR JILL STEIN AND NOT HILLARY

DONALD TRUMP’S CHANCES OF WINNING IN NOVEMBER ARE ONLY 22%, ACCORDING TO BETFAIR ODDS. THAT’S GOOD REASON TO DROP THE ‘BETTER OF TWO EVILS’ TACTIC.

Betfair is the most prominent betting index for sports, elections and the like. According to Betfair, Clinton is virtually assured of becoming the next U.S. president. If that’s the case, then why not vote for someone whose positions you really support and a person who you can respect (unlike Hillary)? I’m referring to Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate.

There’s an additional reason not to vote for Hillary. Even though most people in the U.S. don’t recognize it, the most important political issue is that of foreign intervention. From a moral viewpoint, U.S. military intervention and support for military intervention (in the case of Saudi Arabia’s bombing spree) is much more important than domestic issues having to do with health and education. Just think of the millions of refugees in countries like Syria and Libya, the victim of the U.S. policy (shaped in part by Secretary of State Clinton) of supporting the overthrow of Gaddafi and Assad, thus opening the door for ISIS. And think of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (supported by Senator Clinton), three times longer than our involvement in World War II. Hillary Clinton has lent her support to all these erroneous actions, along with the use of drones.

And if you are still more concerned with what happens in the U.S. than in the rest of the world, just think of the drain of permanent war on the U.S. budget, think of the lives of U.S. soldiers who have been killed, and the fact that the contradictions come home to roost: the recent murders of policemen in Dallas and Baton Rouge were committed by war veterans. Pentagon strategists say that the fight will go on for 50 or 60 years, that is “The World is a Battlefield.” With Hillary in the White House will the scenario be altered at all? All these are powerful reasons to vote for Jill Stein.  

FOREIGN INTERVENTION IN INTERNAL POLITICS: IS IT JUSTIFIABLE?

A FOREIGN NATION’S INTERVENTION IN U.S. POLITICS! WHAT ABOUT U.S. INTERVENTION IN A FOREIGN NATION'S POLITICS?

The hypothetical notion that the Russians hacked into the Democratic National Committee’s computer in order to favor Donald Trump has been plastered all over the corporate media. Everybody across the political spectrum repudiates any kind of foreign intervention in U.S. politics. But does Washington hesitate in doing the same on a regular basis? The latest example is Secretary of State Kerry lecturing Venezuela about its erroneous economic policies while the White House insists on the liberation of political prisoners who, according to the Venezuelan government, promoted widespread violence. And that's not to even mention all the tax dollars funneled into opposition politics through the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, etc.Does anybody in the corporate media reflect on these doublé standards?