The Democrats: Party of Joe McCarthy and Lyndon Johnson
By Wayne Madsen
Strategic Culture Foundation
August 3, 2016
Posted at Quemado Institute
August 3, 2016
Updated August 4, 2016
The rhetoric emanating from the podium of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia sounded eerily familiar. Democrat after Democrat waxed on about the «dangers» posed by Russia and the inability of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to deal with them. Chief among these neo-Cold Warriors was former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the second-worst Secretary of State in American history.
Meanwhile, the Democrats’ spin machine was turning out propaganda memes calling Trump «Kremlin Don», «Don the Red», and even dredging up references to the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin. Of course, this rhetoric was directly borrowed from the chief «Red baiting» politician of the dark days of Communist «witch hunting» in the United States, the infamous Republican senator from Wisconsin Joseph McCarthy. Like McCarthy, the Democrats, once again under the grip of the Clinton political dynasty, have no «sense of decency».
The Democrats also invoked during their four-day propaganda fest in Philadelphia a name that previous conventions have largely ignored: that of President Lyndon Baines Johnson. The progenitor of the Vietnam War and maniacally egotistical cold warrior was resurrected and included with past Democratic Hall of Famers: Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. Left out of the mix was the peace president Jimmy Carter. This is the reconstructed Democratic Party of Hillary and Bill Clinton: a party that has welcomed the parasitical neoconservatives with open arms after they left the Republican Party. The neocons have returned to the host that nurtured them during the Johnson administration.
The new Democratic Party, which looks awfully like the old Republican Party of George W Bush and Dick Cheney, has, indeed, become the party of Joe McCarthy and LBJ. The Democrats under the Clintons have become the war party. Given the record of Hillary Clinton as the worst Secretary of State in the history of the United States, a Clinton administration can be expected to double down on the recklessness of the Obama administration in seeking military confrontation with Russia in the Middle East and Europe, China in East Asia, and the dwindling number of progressive governments in Latin America.
Mrs Clinton’s tenure at the State Department saw the United States support coups against Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo, and attempted coups against Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa and Bolivian President Evo Morales. The disclosure by WikiLeaks of emails sent to and from Mrs Clinton’s private email server describe how her State Department applied pressure on the Organization of American States to withhold support for Zelaya after his ouster. A Clinton presidency would see similar chicanery exacted upon any Latin American or Caribbean nation that stands up to the globalist cabalism practiced by the Clintons and their team of interventionists.
For Europe, the neo-McCarthyism of a Clinton administration will not only widen the schism between Washington and Moscow but have a perhaps welcomed detrimental effect on NATO. Clinton and her globalism enthusiasts, all reading from the «New Age imperialism» playbooks of George Soros and Gene Sharp, will expect NATO to support US adventurism in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and south Asia. But British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, a major driving force behind Brexit, will not be a pushover for the Clinton crowd. And if Marine Le Pen should defeat her Socialist and conservative rivals in the 2017 French presidential election and steers France away from the European Union, it could provide a situation where the United States confronts a hostile Britain, France, and Russia, along with Hungary and Austria and, possibly Italy. We could actually see the end of American influence-peddling in Europe with a combination of a Clinton presidency and the rise of populist anti-globalist governments in Europe.
Important questions have been raised about the Democrats’ and Clintons’ resorting to blatant McCarthyite tactics to paint Trump as a Russian agent-of-influence. The leak of Clinton, Democratic National Committee, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) emails by WikiLeaks has The New York Times and The Washington Post, familiar tools for official American state propaganda, decrying Russia’s alleged «interference in the US election». However, none of these propaganda outlets have ever condemned US interference in Russian elections, especially the blatant «influence operations» conducted by Soros-financed non-governmental organizations throughout Russia. These operations that have been carried out with more than a mere «wink and a nod» from the Central Intelligence Agency.
The Washington Post and The New York Times, once champions of the publication of the classified «Pentagon Papers» and their leak by former Pentagon consultant Daniel Ellsberg, now decry «Russian intelligence» as being behind the leaks of Democratic Party emails. If these papers maintained the same standards of McCarthyite journalism in the early 1970s as they display today, Ellsberg would have been painted as a treasonous agent of Hanoi.
The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) James Comey, a political hack who gave Mrs Clinton a pass for storing and transmitting highly-classified emails via her private servers in the basement of her New York home, now channels the spirit of his forerunner at the FBI, the infamous «Red baiter» J. Edgar Hoover, in accusing Russia of hacking into Clinton’s and the Democrats’ servers. Comey talks out of both sides of his mouth. He said that the hacking of Clinton’s email servers did not rise to the level of warranting a criminal indictment for national security breaches. However, Comey, at the same time, accuses Russia of criminally penetrating the rather non-existent security provided by Clinton’s servers to obtain sensitive emails. Comey is another grotesque example of the FBI not being a legitimate law enforcement agency but a political police force that exists only to protect the interests of elite politicians like the Clintons and Bushes, as well as the national security state.
As far as Mrs Clinton’s foreign policy platform, such a hawkish Democratic plank has not been seen since the days of LBJ. Just as Johnson was unabashedly pro-Israel, Mrs Clinton’s platform is full of Israeli pabulum, including the following mantra written in the propaganda mills of Jerusalem and New York: «Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism». Mrs Clinton could not do a better job of pandering to the Israel Lobby. And she echoes the infamous words of LBJ, who failed to punish Israel for its willful military attack on the USS Liberty, an American intelligence vessel, in 1967. Johnson, unwilling to sacrifice the votes and campaign cash of Jewish voters in his planned run for re-election in 1968, sacrificed the US Navy ship on the altar of Democratic Party political expediency. Mrs Clinton is doing the same by acting as a dummy for Israeli ventriloquists.
Clinton’s plank states that it is her intention for the United States to «strengthen its security cooperation» with Saudi Arabia. The recent release of formerly-classified 28-pages from a joint Congressional report on the 9/11 attack shows, without a doubt, that the Saudi government was totally involved in financing and providing other material support to the Arab hijackers and their support agents in the United States. Mrs Clinton’s suspicious relationship with her close adviser, Huma Abedin, whose links to the Muslim Brotherhood are well-established, is problematic considering Mrs Clinton’s presiding over the destruction of secular governments in Libya, Syria, and, for a brief time, Egypt.
While the Clinton platform excoriates Iran’s current non-existent support for Hamas, threatens Tehran with military action, and gives a pass to Israeli repression of the Palestinians, it makes no mention of the Turkish genocide of the Armenians. Apparently, the lobbyists for Recep Tayyip Erdogan were busy during the Democratic platform committee meetings in Philadelphia.
If Mrs Clinton is sworn in as president of January 20, 2017, behind her philandering husband will be the smiling ghosts of «Tail Gunner» Joe McCarthy, the bloody-handed LBJ, and the cross-dressing J. Edgar Hoover. By all means, let’s vote for a dismal past of American history.
Update August 4, 2016
On Details of Leaked Democratic Party Emails
The Democrats’ Ship Continues to Leak
By Mark Patricks
League of Power
August 3, 2016
The Democratic national convention in Philadelphia was turned into a near-disaster by the release of more than 19,000 private Democratic Party email messages and dozens of voicemails that were provided to major news outlets by the independent organization Wikileaks.
Wikileaks, which previously has released material related to U.S. diplomatic cables, the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement, is run by near-imprisoned journalist Julian Assange in London.
The emails, which came from the accounts of at least seven Democratic National Committee (DNC) members, document clear efforts by the party to discredit the candidacy of progressive Hillary Clinton rival Bernie Sanders and show how the DNC worked closely with mainstream media outlets to carefully script the stories that they wanted written in the press.
Bernie Sanders, who had been drawing record crowds of voters to his rallies right up until the end of the primary season, had struggled for media coverage of his campaign and for recognition among undecided voters, many of whom did not watch any of the six debates between Sanders and Clinton because the DNC scheduled them to take place on Saturday nights.
The DNC, which is required by its charter to uphold a policy of neutrality toward all Democratic candidates, showed a clear bias against Sanders, whom it attempted to publicly smear in several ways.
One of the methods discussed in the emails was to use Sanders’ religious preference (he is Jewish) against him, particularly in deeply religious states such as Kentucky and West Virginia.
In an email between DNC CFO Brad Marshall and DNC CEO Amy Dacy, Marshall states, “It might (make) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points’ difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”
DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach suggested planting negative stories about Sanders in the media that would give the impression that Sanders “never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess.”
In another email, Florida Congresswoman and DNC chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz said, “[Sanders] isn’t going to be president.” Schultz further went on to write about Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver, calling him a “damn liar,” “scummy” and “an ass.”
When MSNBC commentator Mika Brzezinski called Schultz out for her clear anti-Sanders bias, Schultz emailed MSNBC Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd, saying that such comments “must stop.” In another email, she asked a DNC staff member to tell MSNBC president Phil Griffin to order Brzezinski to apologize.
Schultz was further accused of deciding how much money state Democratic parties would receive from the national DNC, angering various officials in her camp. Still more emails disclosed that Schultz used DNC funds to make personal purchases, including gifts for friends and a new wardrobe for herself.
Schultz also used the DNC to dig up information on her competitor Timothy Canova in the upcoming race for her Congressional seat, a clear violation of campaign finance laws. Emails to the web outlet RealClearPolitics asked the nonpartisan site to delete Canova’s name from one of its headlines. Another email requested information about the relationship between Sanders and Canova.
In the face of tremendous public outcry over these leaks, Schultz was booed off the stage at the Democratic national convention. Party officials strongly pressured her to resign her chairperson position, but Schultz resisted until finally receiving a personal call from President Obama.
Despite her public vilification, Hillary Clinton’s campaign immediately appointed Schultz honorary chair of its 50-state program and declared that Clinton would continue to support her.
An email from April 20 of this year from Jordan Kaplan, national finance director of the DNC, discussed plans to reward large donors to the Democratic Party with federal appointments to commissions and boards. An article in the Daily Caller “implied that the documents and emails showed [Hillary] Clinton traded appointments for donations.”
Despite this, another article in The Huffington Post claimed “The White House strongly [denies] any link between financial support for the party and appointments.”
Further emails showed that the DNC collaborated in fundraising with the Clinton campaign, organizing a dinner with actor George Clooney and concerts with musicians Katy Perry and Elton John that cost thousands of dollars to attend.
When the Sanders campaign complained about this fundraising, the DNC stated that part of the funds were to go to downticket election candidates, but emails show that less than one-half of one percent of this money was spent this way. DNC then sent emails to state party officials telling them how to respond to media inquiries regarding these efforts and other fundraising.
The Democratic Party has always prided itself on reaching out to minorities, but in emails that were part of the leak, clear efforts to lure Hispanic voters were noted. One email detailed a list of objectives that needed to be met in order to “own Hispanic loyalty” and called Hispanics “brand-loyal consumers.”
This brought condemnation from prominent U.S. Latin-American community leaders and politicians, including Governor of New Mexico Susana Martinez.
In the wake of the email release, Hillary Clinton’s campaign accused Russia of hacking her party’s servers and supplying the information to Wikileaks. A Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, denied the allegations, saying they were “absurd” and “paranoid.”
On June 16, responsibility for the email leak was claimed by a hacker going by the name of “Guccifer 2.0” (the original Guccifer was a Romanian computer user who distributed personal photos of the Bush family and other celebrities).
However, some cyber security firms believe this is a cover story being propagated by Russian sources. Guccifer 2.0 has also claimed to have hacked newspaper The Washington Post and has released information about banks that received bailout money after donating to the Democratic Party.
Wikileaks has denied a Russia-sponsored connection and has promised further leaks damaging to the Clinton campaign. No doubt the press and the public look forward to them eagerly.
In the meantime, fallout from the scandal has tarred the Democrats and divided their unity. Angered supporters of Bernie Sanders stormed out of the Democratic convention on its second day and have taken their grievances to social media.
While the mainstream media has covered the scandal, it hasn’t given it as much attention as it did to the speech of Melania Trump on the opening day of the Republican convention or to various statements of presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Further disclosures in the campaign season may have more of an impact, so conservatives will just have to wait and see what else Mr. Assange and his contacts in London have up their sleeve.
[Quemado Institute editor’s note: The above is an accurate report on leaked Democratic Party emails. We are continuing to research and validate the source of this commentary.]