Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump. Who is the lesser of two evils? Perhaps Trump.
(Image by DonkeyHotey) Permission Details DMCA
Julian Assange was recently asked to comment on the presidential candidates, and his response, while perhaps a bit crude, pretty much summarized the race. He answered: "Well you are asking me if I prefer cholera or gonorrhea." Most of those who will vote for Trump, do so because they hate the Warrior Queen Hillary, and most of those who will vote for Hillary will do so because they hate Trump. So once again the failed establishment of both parties has given us the "lesser of two evils" choice. Fortunately, there is an alternative in Dr Jill Stein, whom you are not allowed to hear or see on corporate media. If you did, you would recognize immediately a sane, intelligent, reasoned, civil person, who can articulate reasoned views on every major problem. Because she is so good, she is prohibited from corporate media. This writer will opt for the sane reasoned candidate, but there are many who have not yet concluded that the two parties are not only corrupt and fixed, but they will not address any of the major problems of the people. For these poor souls, I contend that as bad and horrible as Trump is, he just might be the lesser of two evils.
The worst possible thing that could happen to this world is a nuclear war, and as unbelievable as you may think, a vote for Hillary the Warrior Queen, brings you ever so close to just that. Consider first, she is, and has always been, warlike. Her record speaks for itself. She advocated and voted for war against Saddam Hussein. She is, and has been pushing hard for a no-fly zone in Syria, which will provoke the Russians and might mean war with the Russians. The Warrior Queen was the prime architect behind the Libya bombing campaign, and she managed to bully all opponents who called for restraint and got her way. Libya now, is a failed disastrous state, and the biggest haven for extremist radicals on the African continent. She supported the military coup in Honduras, while the rest of the world screamed in protest that a coup of a democratically elected leader had occurred, Hillary insisted it was not a coup. She had to do this in order for the US to legally send weapons to the new dictator, because US law prevents arm shipments to illegal dictators. She originally voted for war against Iraq which was based on lies, and supported every buildup of boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. She supported the nuclear treaty with Iran, only because she was the Secretary of State under President Obama, the architect of that treaty. She did however, on numerous occasions, both before and after the treaty, threaten Iran, and on least one occasion issued a nuclear threat.
In addition to her own personal militaristic views she is slowly surrounding herself with like minds. It appears her Secretary of State could be Michele Flournoy, who has called for limited air strikes against the Assad regime. Most likely Victoria Nuland would be brought into the fold. It was Nuland who said "F--- the EU", when they were not as enthusiastic as she about overthrowing the democratically elected leader of the Ukraine. Miss Vicky was appointed and worked under Dick Cheney. Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan, has come out in support of the Warrior Queen. It was he and his neocon friends who brought you Iraq.
It appears the Warrior Queen has some kind of personnel vendetta against Assad, or perhaps she is just paying homage to Israel who has worked long and hard to oversee his ouster. Israel has even resorted to helping Al-Qaida and Al-Nusra, two groups whom we allegedly hold in contempt. Just as in Libya and Iraq, the Warrior Queen argues it is necessary to bomb Syria to save the people from Assad. One must ask the Warrior Queen: What would be the legal basis for the overthrow of the Assad regime? There is no legal basis; it would be illegal; however, it appears the Queen thinks herself above the law. Should not the Syrian people be in charge of their own destiny, and not the Warrior Queen? An overthrow of Assad would be akin to the overthrow of Gadaffi in Libya, and while corporate media does not report on the failed terrorist state that Libya has become, it most certainly is both. Only because of a WikiLeaks released e-mail which the Warrior Queen sent in 2012, did we just find out the real reason for the Warrior Queen's animosity towards Assad. In that e-mail the Warrior Queen said: "The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad." Of course you will never hear of this in corporate media. A vote for the Warrior Queen means, a no fly zone in Syria, and an attempted overthrow of Assad, which will severely anger and risk war with Russia, all to pacify and please Israel.
Two other war queens, namely Samantha Powers and Susan Rice appear to be in the running for cabinet positions, both of whom support helping the Saudi's in their illegal war on Yemen.
So I am not defending, by any stretch, Donald Trump. He is a racist slug. Trump is an unknown, because what he says today he denies saying tomorrow, but we know that Hillary is the ultimate Warrior Queen who would risk war with Russia and China. Fortunately, I have a sane rational candidate to vote for, but if I were one of the many who struggle with the choice of either of these two monsters, I would choose Trump, because the Warrior Queen could very well bring us into a nuclear holocaust and end the world.