Search This Blog

Monday, February 29, 2016

88th Academy Awards - Thoughts & Opinions

Last night was the 88th Academy Awards..

Due to all the bullshit involving 'diversity' and complaints among black multi-millionaire actors and actresses that somehow they're not treated fairly, I decided to completely skip watching

Doesn't mean I can make comments here and there based on who won and what I read in this morning's newspapers

So we'll start with Chris Rock
I've no idea what his monologue was..  honestly could not care.   Figure it was 25% black jokes minimum and a few digs at future President Donald Trump..  

No matter, I know I didn't miss anything special..  Rock is and always will be a race pot-stirrer.  

That is his shtick -- trying to shame white people through humor for every imaginary injustice ever perpetrated on the darker races with occasional jokes about how much he loves sex.  

Standard typical black comedian fare; especially bitter ones with chips on their shoulders do even though Rock was raised by loving parents in a middle-class suburban world so really he has nothing sincere to bitch about

So now we get to the awards and we'll start with the insignificant ones.
Alicia Vikander, a Swede won Best Supporting Female for 'A Danish Girl'

Maybe she was great in her role.. Maybe she wasn't.. Who really knows since I along with 99% of America never bothered to see the sickening film that glorifies Transgenderism as 'normal'

As of yesterday, the box office domestically was $11 million.   For perspective, Police Academy 6 made the same amount when it was released in 1989..

Maybe there will be a post-Oscar spike but considering the film was released on November 27th of last year, I don't see a clamoring for people to trek out to their local movie theater, spend $15 plus popcorn and soda and see her performance.

The Oscars has a rich, illustrious history of celebrating films that no one will ever bother to see and this another such occasion.
Next is Best Supporting Actor which went to Mark Rylance, an actor I've never heard of prior..

I did see 'Bridge of Spies' and even though the film itself is one 2hr falsehood chock full of liberal ideologies that only scum like Spielberg could shove into a suspense drama like creme inside an eclair, admittedly Rylance was very good in the part he played..

Oscar worthy?  Who knows..  

I admit I rather see this guy win than Stallone.

You don't get away with intentionally making 30 years of deeply shitty films like 'Cobra', 'Over the Top' and 'Stop or My Mom will Shoot!' then get rewarded because you're an old fart with bloated face playing a washed up Rocky Balboa

PS to Stallone..  When you won your Golden Globe, you thanked your family but you left out one person... You never acknowledged your son from first marriage Sage who passed away a few years ago..  Real Classy, Sly..
Next is Best Actress which went to Brie Larson for 'Room', another film no one has bothered to see..

As of yesterday the film has generated $13.5 million domestically which is terrible considering it was released October 16, 2015.

Maybe Larson was terrific in it.. Who knows?   

Admittedly I'm just very happy Jennifer Lawrence didn't win..   She epitomizes total classlessness and self-absorption.  Only someone completely egotistical and in total love with one self takes dozens of fully nude selfies that show not only breasts but vagina

And then the bitch had the audacity to feel violated when the pix were released into the Internet..   Here's one way to prevent that -- Don't take nude selfies!
Onto the Best Actor which was Leonardo DiCaprio for 'The Revenant'

I was disappointed to read he needed to politicize his speech by talking on climate change which is not 100% proven, but nonetheless he is probably the greatest actor of his generation and deserving of official acknowledgment of this..  

So even though I didn't see his new film, I was happy he won and plan to rent it once available..

Best Director once again went to Alejandro González Iñárritu for 'The Revenant'.  He won last year for 'Birdman' starring Michael Keaton

I read that he felt the need to waste some of his speech time talking about the need for greater diversity, etc,,     Yawn..

Glad I skipped it
Best Picture turned out to be a surprise..  

The Academy decided to choose a movie that spits on and middle fingers Catholicism by choosing 'Spotlight', a film that has only made $39m domestically, about the Boston Globe investigating pedophilia among clergy

Can you imagine a film about the vile Muslim monsters who believe deeply in Islam and brainwash the young, having sexual intercourse with underage boys ever being made into a film, much less winning awards?
Remember, A&G wrote extensively on this a few months ago..

SNL Hypocrisy & Islamic Pedophilia:


Islamic Pedophilia Pt II


Just click the links...
The producers decided to use their speech time to shame the Pope and the Vatican

It is always fashionable to portray the Catholic Church as monsterous while ignoring all the Violence, Hatred, Sexual Vileness and Depravity of Islam.

But see here's the real Catch 22:  Liberal Catholics want the Church to modernize and change nearly 2000 years of how the religion is structured to appeal to the modern, secular masses and this includes letting priests marry like in the Protestant faith

But very rarely are the priests molesting and sexually penetrating females..

So how would modernizing the Church in that respect alter what went on with some members of clergy?  
Or are the Catholic secularists and Atheists demanding Priests be allowed to gay marry and that would magically stop the abuse?

Just something no one really addresses publicly..

Because people like to say they are sickened because the age difference and the breaking of the trust that is implied when dealing with members of clergy but really they are also saying they find homosexuality disgusting to their sensibilities

And if not, ask this.. if Catholic Priests were caught having penetration sex with 18yr old males who were consenting, would people then find it 'cool' and not want those same clergy removed as did prior?
So anyways, a forgettable Oscars came and went, and outside of DiCaprio, the vast majority of people will not remember any of the winners by this time tomorrow..

By the way, rating for this farce were deplorable.. 8 year lows..  Hopefully that piece of shit Chris Rock will never be asked to host again and someone of higher quality and lighter skin hosts

And more important, hopefully just on principle all the nominees of all acting categories are white once more just like 100% of all NAACP Spirit Movie Awards are Negro.

Sorry folks.. Blame elitist Hollywood...   No one tells a free spirited individual how to think or what to believe on anything..  That is solely up to each of us to decide and personally, the wealthy black actors and actresses had no right to complain and tarnish this annual grand spectacle

And now life moves on to Super Tuesday and Spring Training Baseball..

Friday, February 26, 2016

Rep. Debate Farce & What Trump v Hillary would look like

We didn't watch last night's Republican nominee debate -

We made a conscious decision to not watch any debate of either party after the first Rep debate where Megyn 'I slept to the top' Kelly asked Trump the low-blow personal attack question about women to try to purposely destroy his candidacy from the outset

Um, don't think you succeeded there, you Fox News whore..

But of course unless one lives in a cave, there's always the opportunity to news-skim over and see if anything interesting happened..
Turns out the other Republican candidates and the establishment themselves are Desperate turkeys finally realizing Trump will soon be chopping off their heads and serving them up on plates with all the garnishments..

So they attacked..and attacked.. and attacked..

They tried to be like Trump..  Tried to sound like him.. Yell like him.. Use inflammatory language like him

Difference is that it works for Trump because as hard as it is for many to believe, it is sincere.
He is a New Yawker and that's how he's communicated all his life..

The other candidates are professional politicians which are criminals with suits (and in bitch Hillary's case extremely unfeminine pant-suits)  and politicians are able to steal more donations and connive more votes with a sugary soft tongue than honesty or anything close to sincere anger

So it was all a joke really..

The remaining candidates will split their base Republican votes, Trump will march into Super Tuesday next week and pretty much wrap things up unless something insane happens between now and March 2nd
Now on the Democrat side, its looking more and more like every person who votes with 'D' is a moron or imbecile because they will be choosing a deeply corrupt and morally bankrupt woman in Hillary vs a genuinely sincere man in Bernie Sanders who actually wants to make a positive difference in fixing all that is rotten financially in our nation.

Just shows the modern Democrat of the 1990s to present is just as greedy and pro-corporation, big business, big banks, Wall Street and pro-Federal Reserve running our finances as the Republican brothers and sisters they pretend to differentiate from..

FDR's generation is most assuredly dead or voting for Bernie.
So if its a near given that its Hillary vs Trump, who wins?

The Hillary lovers will say her as well as the establishment Republicans who are betraying their own core convictions to donate to her because well, really they all serve the same masters don't they??

Trump loyalists will of course say he will win and because A&G has openly and honestly expressed that we feel he's the best Republican out there, and despise Hillary, you all know where we stand.

So rather than give personal opinion, we will quote another source as to why ultimately we do believe if its Trump vs Clinton, the Donald wins in November..
The article by Nathan J. Robinson in Current Affairs is titled: Unless the Democrats Run Sanders, a Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency.

We do not know this person or read the publication with any regularity so we couldn't tell you if this is a pro-Trump biased person or someone writing objectively in spite of his personal beliefs, but obviously we agreed with much he expressed:

"Instinctively, Hillary Clinton has long seemed by far the more electable of the two Democratic candidates. She is, after all, an experienced, pragmatic moderate... Clinton is simply closer to the American mainstream, thus she is more attractive to a broader swath of voters.

Bernie Sanders campaigners have grown used to hearing the heavy-hearted lament “I like Bernie, I just don’t think he can win.” And in typical previous American elections, this would be perfectly accurate.


But this is far from a typical previous American election... 

Donald Trump is likely to be the Republican nominee for President. Given this reality, every Democratic strategic question must operate not on the basis of abstract electability against a hypothetical candidate, but specific electability against the actual Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

Here, a Clinton match-up is highly likely to be an unmitigated electoral disaster, whereas a Sanders candidacy stands a far better chance. 

Every one of Clinton’s (considerable) weaknesses plays to every one of Trump’s strengths, whereas every one of Trump’s (few) weaknesses plays to every one of Sanders’s strengths. 
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, running Clinton against Trump is a disastrous, suicidal proposition.

Her supporters insist that she has already been “tried and tested” against all the attacks that can be thrown at her. But this is not the case; she has never been subjected to the full brunt of attacks that come in a general presidential election. 

Bernie Sanders has ignored most tabloid dirt, treating it as a sensationalist distraction from real issues (“Enough with the damned emails!”) But for Donald Trump, sensationalist distractions are the whole game. He will attempt to crucify her. And it is very, very likely that he will succeed.

This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. 
She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich (pardon), Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.

Even a skilled campaigner would have a very difficult time parrying such endless attacks by Trump. Even the best campaigner would find it impossible to draw attention back to actual substantive policy issues, and would spend their every moment on the defensive. 

But Hillary Clinton is neither the best campaigner nor even a skilled one. In fact, she is a dreadful campaigner. She may be a skilled policymaker, but on the campaign trail she makes constant missteps and never realizes things have gone wrong until it’s too late.


Everyone knows this. Even among Democratic party operatives, she’s acknowledged as “awkward and uninspiring on the stump,” carrying “Bill’s baggage with none of Bill’s warmth.” New York magazine described her “failing to demonstrate the most elementary political skills, much less those learned at Toastmasters or Dale Carnegie.” ...

Every Democrat should take some time to fairly, dispassionately examine Clinton’s track record as a campaigner. Study how the ‘08 campaign was handled, and how this one has gone. Assess her strengths and weaknesses with as little bias or prejudice as possible. Then picture the race against Trump, and think about how it will unfold.

It’s easy to see that Trump has every single advantage. Because the Republican primary will be over, he can come at her from both right and left as he pleases. 
As the candidate who thundered against the Iraq War at the Republican debate, he can taunt Clinton over her support for it. He will paint her as a member of the corrupt political establishment, and will even offer proof: “Well, I know you can buy politicians, because I bought Senator Clinton. I gave her money, she came to my wedding.” 

He can make it appear that Hillary Clinton can be bought, that he can’t, and that he is in charge. It’s also hard to defend against, because it appears to be partly true. Any denial looks like a lie, thus making Hillary’s situation look even worse. And then, when she stumbles, he will mock her as incompetent.

Charges of misogyny against Trump won’t work. He is going to fill the press with the rape and harassment allegations against Bill Clinton and Hillary’s role in discrediting the victims. He can always remind people that Hillary Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon.” 
Furthermore, since Trump is not an anti-Planned Parenthood zealot (being the only one willing to stick up for women’s health in a room full of Republicans), it will be hard for Clinton to paint him as the usual anti-feminist right-winger.

Trump will capitalize on his reputation as a truth-teller, and be vicious about both Clinton’s sudden changes of position (e.g. the switch on gay marriage, plus the affected economic populism of her run against Sanders) and her perceived dishonesty. One can already imagine the monologue..

Trump will bob, weave, jab, and hook. He won’t let up. 
And because Clinton actually has lied, and actually did vote for the Iraq War, and actually is hyper-cosy with Wall Street, and actually does change her positions based on expediency, all she can do is issue further implausible denials, which will further embolden Trump. 

Nor does she have a single offensive weapon at her disposal, since every legitimate criticism of Trump’s background (inconsistent political positions, shady financial dealings, pattern of deception) is equally applicable to Clinton, and he knows how to make such things slide off him, whereas she does not.


Another example:  if Hillary tries to hit Trump on his Mexican/Muslims comments, Trump can accurately point out she called inner city blacks “super predators.”"
On and on the case is made...

There's also two additional factors..

1)  Bernie Sanders supporters Hate Hillary and polls have shown they would more likely vote for Trump vs her in a general election..

2)  Hillary gets her support from a large percentage of Democrats and maybe a few Independents.  She does not possess a Reagan-like personality to 'steal' Republicans over to her side outside of the bigwig 1% who care more about their stock portfolios than the nation.
Trump has been getting a lot of his support from disenfranchised voters who have not bothered to vote for a long time if not ever.  So they're voting Trump or they're voting for nobody.

And remember every Presidential election, at most 52% of the nation bothers to cast a ballot..  The other half sit at home and do other things..  Except in 2016.. They'll be voting Trump.

Should be interesting..

We're still holding out hope for Trump v Sanders though..

Thursday, February 25, 2016

US Fascism i.e. Needlessly Picking On the Russian Bear

~ Putin:  'That is a very good impression of Mussolini but you're still a smug yet incompetent lightweight..'

If we were to say that the US is a fascist nation, what would be be talking about exactly?

For many, they hear the word 'fascism' and mistakenly confuse it with 'nazism' but that is not the case.

A 'Nazi-like' government is always going to be fascist BUT a 'fascist' government does not have to necessarily have all that racial/ethnic purity bullshit..

Fascism is the merger of government and private business into one entity where even if it appears they are separate, the government has the power or ability to dictate terms to private businesses large and small on how to run their affairs and make decisions in the best interests of the State vs their own...
To be clear, this is not the same as government passing an environmental or anti-discriminatory law and enforcing it so all comply..

All nations have this power and if they didn't, there'd be no point in government of any kind... 

A better example of why the US is a fascist nation is the following..

Russia wants to sell some bonds and President Obama who seems to have an irrational dislike toward Russia and Putin, isn’t happy about it.
Moscow is looking to issue “at least” $3 billion of foreign bonds in what amounts to the country’s first international issuance since the West imposed sanctions on The Kremlin in 2014 after the legal annexation of Crimea 

In addition, supposedly Russia’s alleged role in “destabilizing” backwards nation and NATO pawn Ukraine (because the religious-ethnic intolerant state was sooo very “stable” before).

Since the sanctions were imposed, relations between Moscow and Washington have only gotten more contentious and when Russia began flying combat missions from Latakia on September 30, 2015, it was trotted out as 'evidence' that Vladimir Putin is indeed determined to reassert Russian influence by sheer force.

Meanwhile, the Russian economy is in trouble. 
Russia isn’t in Brazil-like trouble but times are most assuredly tough. The ruble has plunged, inflation is running high, and collapsing crude threatens to weaken Moscow’s fiscal position.

You didn't think you were getting to drive your car at $1.85 a gal by accident did you?  Someone had to cause the destabilization of oil prices for global strategic purposes..    'Give me an O!  Give me a B!..  Give me an A!....'

All of that is just fine with Washington and its European allies who attribute a large part of the malaise to sanctions even though slumping crude probably plays a larger role.

So it is against this backdrop that Russia is set to sell $3 billion in debt and officials in the State Department and the Treasury are out warning US banks not to underwrite the deal. 
From WSJ:

“The U.S. government has warned some top U.S. banks not to bid on a potentially lucrative but politically risky Russian bond deal, saying it would undermine international sanctions on Moscow.. The rules don’t explicitly prohibit banks from pursuing the business, but U.S. State Department officials hold the view that helping finance Russia would run counter to American foreign policy.”

Russia has invited BofA, Citi, Goldman, JPMorgan, and Morgan Stanley to bid on the business, but Washington’s threats have left the Street in a rather tenuous position - Do the banks do what is best for their privately owned businesses or obey government?

In response to banks’ inquiries as to whether they are allowed to participate, John Kerry’s State Department said this: “It is essential that private companies—in the U.S., EU and around the world—understand that Russia will remain a high-risk market so long as its actions to destabilize Ukraine continue. [There will be] reputational risks of returning to business as usual with Russia.”
By warning of "reputational risks" it certainly appears as though Washington is threatening to ostracize banks that help to arrange deals for the Russian government. 

As Moscow's foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accurately put it: "The US is trying to intimidate banks on our bonds."

The US not only can sanction whoever they want for whatever reason they wish but turn the thumbscrews to prevent private enterprise from entering business relationships with Russia

The US sure didn't mind all the corporations such as General Electric who had private contracts with Iran for most of the last 15 years while the position of government for most of that time was to issue sanctions.
And yet Russia is to be treated differently..

You'd think there were some assholes in our government including one who sits in the Oval Office who longed for the treasury-draining Cold War days to return!

We're also not entirely sure why the federal government feels like it has the right to dictate with whom private enterprises can do business. 

Besides, if impotently weak John Kerry is really interested in curtailing the financial activities of evil, soulless nefarious actors, he should be warning the Russians not to do business with Wall Street 

Bankers, traders and Investors are much more dangerous than Putin.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Hillary's 5 Foreign Policy F-Ups as Secretary of State

There are some people out there that just love this bitch to death..

Honestly do not know why..

It can't possibly be the shrill, rough personality.  She can't even pull off 'phony-friendly' like her pretend husband Bill can,,

So it has to be her accomplishments, right?

What did she accomplish as First Lady other than insist she was not going to be baking any cookies?
Briefly she was put in charge of Health Care reform but that turned out to be such a fiasco and joke, that Bill was smart enough to quickly take the Task Force from her and put it in other hands..

What did this bitch accomplish as US Senator?

Can you even remember what state she carpetbagged and represented?

Name a single piece of legislation that she authored or even co-signed?  Surely you can,, The rotten snake was a Senator for two terms after all, serving 8 before moving up the power-ladder to Secretary of State...
Is she even a real Democrat?

An analysis of Federal Election Commission records, by TIME, which was published on 23 October 2015, showed that the 2012 Republican donors to Romney’s campaign were already donating More to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign than they had been donating to most of the 2016 campaigns of Republican candidates!!

She must be one Old used up, wrinkled Whore to Wall Street and the banks for so many Republicans big-wigs to actively spend to try to put her in the White House

Ideologies be damned.. Profit first for the 1%
So anyways, during Obama's first term before he had enough of her, she served as Secretary of State as part of an agreement prior to Obama's 2008 victory that she power-hungry cunt would get that that position if Obama wins in exchange for her dropping out of the Dem. primaries and Obama picking up all her campaign debts...

Was she a good Secretary of State?  Did she accomplish Anything positive?

In a word.. Nope!
Here's a list of rotten old Hillary's 5 biggest Fuck-Ups:

1)  HONDURAS

The central-American nation of Honduras is ruled today by an extremist far-right government, a fascist junta-imposed government, because of what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did in 2009.

The lives of all but the top 0.001% of the population there are hell because of this.

On June 28, 2009, the Honduran military grabbed their nation’s popular democratically elected progressive President, Manuel Zelaya, and flew him into exile.

The AP headlined “World Leaders Pressure Honduras to Reverse Coup,” and reported: “Leaders from Hugo Chavez to Barack Obama called for reinstatement of Manuel Zelaya, who was arrested in his pajamas Sunday morning by soldiers who stormed his residence and flew him into exile.”
Secretary Clinton, in the press conference the day after the coup, “Remarks at the Top of the Daily Press Briefing”, refused to commit the United States to restoration of the democratically elected President of Honduras.

She refused even to commit the U.S. to using the enormous leverage it had over the Honduran Government to bring that about.

The coup government made no bones about its being anti-democratic. On July 4th, 2009, they announced that the new government of Honduras was withdrawing from the Democratic Charter of the Organization of American States.

As the UN and the rest of the world in withdrawing economic support for the coup regime in response, Clinton just remained silent.
During the crucial next two weeks, Obama considered what to do. Then, on August 6, 2009, it was decided that Zelaya wouldn’t receive U.S. backing in his bid to be restored to power.

Though all international organizations called the Honduran coup illegitimate, and refused to recognize the leader chosen by its junta, the Obama Administration, after more than a month of indecision on this matter, finally came out for Honduras’s fascists.

Obama, after a month of silence, caved silently. Instead of his using the bully pulpit to smear the new fascist government, Obama just joined him in it, silently. Why?
Perhaps it was because the chief lobbyist hired in the U.S. by the Honduran aristocracy was bitch dog’s old friend and passionate Hillary defender, Lanny Davis.   The Honduran aristocracy had purchased a line straight to the U.S. Secretary of State, via Mr. Davis.  

And Obama caved.

Amnesty International issued a report in late 2009 documenting widespread police beatings and brutality against peaceful demonstrations, mass arbitrary arrests and other human rights abuses under the dictatorship.

The Obama administration and Hillary specifically remained silent about these abuses as well as the killings of activists and press censorship and intimidation. To date, no major US media outlet has bothered to pursue them.
2) HAITI

The matter in Haiti was similar but less dramatic, and so it received even less attention from the U.S. Press.

On June 1, 2011, the Nation headlined "WikiLeaks Haiti: Let Them Live on $3 a Day," reporting that:

"Contractors for Fruit of the Loom, Hanes and Levi’s worked in close concert with the US Embassy when they aggressively moved to block a minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest-paid in the hemisphere, according to secret State Department cables.... 
The factory owners told the Haitian Parliament that they were willing to give workers a 9-cents-per-hour pay increase to 31 cents per hour to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for US clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica. But the factory owners refused to pay 62 cents per hour, or $5 per day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian Parliament in June 2009 would have mandated. 

And they had the vigorous backing of the US Agency for International Development and the US Embassy when they took that stand." 

Hillary Clinton's State Department pushed hard to reverse the new minimum wage law.

"A deputy chief of mission, David E. Lindwall, said the $5 per day minimum 'did not take economic reality into account' but was a populist measure aimed at appealing to 'the unemployed and underpaid masses.'" 
3) LIBYA

Bitch-dog Clinton was the Administration’s leading proponent of regime-change, overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.   That worked out disastrously.

“We came, we saw, he died!” - Real Hillary quote referring to Gaddafi

Hillary’s success at overthrowing Gaddafi served brilliantly the purposes of the U.S. aristocracy and of the jihadists who are financed by the Saud family and the other fundamentalist Sunni royal faimilies in Arabia.

Even if she doesn’t become President, she has already done enough favors for those royals so as to be able to fill to the brim the coffers of the Clinton Foundation.
Also let's not forget that Libya was only 4 nations on Earth not to owe money to the World Bank or IMF.. The others being Cuba, Iran and North Korea

Gaddafi put a lot of the oil profits back into his country's infrastructure so it was never a slave to the West and international bankers..

So what was the first thing that happened once the rebels took over the government after the US and allies murdered Libya's leader?

The IMF and World Bank stepped in with billions of dollars of loans at teaser interest rates..

Just like the mortgage industry did to the West pre-Lehman collapse
4)  SYRIA


She was also the Secretary of State when the 2006-2010 drought was causing a massive relocation of population in Syria and U.S. State Department cables passed along up the chain of command the Assad government’s urgent request for aid from foreign governments to help farmers stave off starvation due to excessive droughts.

The Clinton State Department ignored the requests and treated this as an opportunity to foment revolution there.

It wasn’t only the Arab Spring, in Syria, that led to the demonstrations against Assad there. Sunni jihadist fighters streamed into Syria, backed by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey.
The U.S. was, in effect, assisting jihadists to oust the non-sectarian, secular Shiite leader of Syria and replace him with a fundamentalist Sunni dictator.

Replacing a secular government by a fundamentalist Sunni Sharia law regime would end Syria’s alliance with Russia

Thus, Obama worked with other fundamentalist Sunni dictatorships in the region — Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, and Turkey — to perpetrate a sarin gas attack in Syria that they’d all blame on Syria’s Ba’athist leader, Bashar al-Assad, even though the U.S. and its Arab partners had actually perpetrated it.
During the Democratic primary debate on December 20,  2015, Bernie Sanders said:

"I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be.

Yes, we could get rid of Saddam Hussein, but that destabilized the entire region. Yes, we could get rid of Gadhafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS. 

Yes, we could get rid of Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS."
5) UKRAINE

The groundwork for a coup d’etat in Ukraine was laid by Hillary Clinton, when she made her State Department’s official spokesperson Victoria Nuland, who had been the chief foreign-affairs advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Nuland then became the organizer of the February, 20 2014 coup in Ukraine, which replaced a neutralist leader of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, with a rabidly anti-Russian U.S. puppet, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and a bloody civil war.

Nuland is obsessed with hatred of Russia so we of course love her
When Hillary Clinton retired in 2013, Obama made Nuland the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Nuland’s first assignment was to overthrow the democratically elected government of Ukraine.

This is because the backward nation is next door to Russia and the U.S. aristocracy has, since communism ended in the Soviet Union in 1990, been trying to surround Russia by NATO missiles, most especially in Ukraine.

President Obama hid from the public his hostility toward Russia until he became re-elected in 2012 but then, once he was safely re-elected, immediately set to work to take over Ukraine and to add it to NATO.

Then, in his National Security Strategy 2015, he identified Russia as being by far the world’s most “aggressive” nation.
When portions of Ukraine refused to accept the coup-imposed leaders. Obama wanted the residents there bombed into submission.

The money for that bombing-campaign came from taxpayers in U.S. and EU, and also from the IMF, in the form of loans that saddled Ukraine with so much debt it went bankrupt on October 4, 2015, as determined by a unanimous vote of the 15 international banks that collectively make this decision.

The infamously high corruption in Ukraine went even higher after the U.S.-EU takeover of Ukraine. After Ukraine’s bankruptcy, the IMF changed its rules so that it could continue to lend money there, until the people those regions are either exterminated or expelled.
The U.S. President controls the IMF. For the international aristocracy, the U.S. President is the most important servant there is. Hillary Clinton wants to become that servant. It’s why her top twenty financial backers represent the U.S. aristocracy.

Hillary Clinton is determined to carry this anti-Russian hostility through as President, even though she lies as Obama does and so, similarly, won’t say it during the Democratic primaries. But the takeover of Ukraine was an Obama operation in which she played an important role, to set it up.
All this corruption and rot and scum involving this parasite cunt woman, and we didn't even get into Bengazi

Bernie Sanders is vastly superior and far more ethical..

But Dem voters remember the Bill Clinton Presidency far more positive and nostalgic than it really was and seem to credit Hillary with accomplishments and accolades she never actually achieved

That is why only fools & imbeciles will vote for Hillary, which is of course why she may very well win the Democrat primaries.