As for American Parties, I had noticed that Trump's speech accepting Republican nomination was a masterpiece of PR. Very possibly, it was the most coherent of his campaign speeches (although to establish a clear link between "regime changes" and migration has to become PROGRESSIVES' AGENDA now: push the President to acknowledge it). Hillary did average tops and the only campaign resources she had left from there were the dirty laundry and begging the Corporate World not to reveal any of its REAL plans before time. Trump had achieved a monumental feat: and that was to de-throne the Bush Imperial Court from the rule of the Republican Party -- Dubya and Jeb Bush, Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and even Marco Rubio either were absent from the Convention either stayed in the shadows. Now that Trump won the election, it is NOT going to stay as an accident. Within the Party the Bush Court (or the Bush Gang) certainly is going to cling to the forces in the Congress, so a Republican President and a fully-Republican Congress is NOT going to be the repetition of Dubya's experience during his first term: THIS President is NOT a "traditional" one while much of the Congress (although far from all of it) will be.
Although Republicans will have to learn to co-exist with Trump (unless risking an unprecedented institutional crisis in the USA by trying to get rid of him), the crisis now passes to the Democrats and it will be DEMOLISHING. Clintons' reign is over. In order to survive, the Democratic Party needs A TOTAL RENOVATION OF ITS LEADERSHIP for the next electoral cycle. Someone MUCH YOUNGER -- people born in 70s-80s -- will have to pick up Bernie's agenda, return to an updated New Deal, Glass-Steagall, world peace that wouldn't be a dirty-joke-for-a-phrase and everything we all are usually discussing here. In short, Bill Clinton's sale of the Democratic Party to the worst of Republicans -- an operation which Hillary pretended to complete - just went bankrupt, apparently for good. It has to be re-founded.
Again, I wrote before here on OEN, that the best thing Barack Obama could do back in 2008 was to give his place to Hillary Clinton back then. He would have had to become the Vice-President and would have been a perfect, even an elegant one. Biden would have become the Secretary of State -- good for the Establishment, a disastrous one for the world -- all of these white men and women would have gone down the drain in 4 or 8 years, while Obama would have stayed as the only one afloat. He would have been the perfect Democratic candidate THIS time -- a "socialist" or a "true democratic" one -- and now he would have gathered the fresh forces around him. His slogan of "change" could have been re-taken. But he decided to rush, and it killed him and his promised change. The Establishment tied the President Obama up and destroyed him. He clearly had lost control totally over the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the cases of Libya and Honduras to say the least. First he had defended the Libya deed in the UN, recently he regretted it. Probably having become the first Afro-American President of the US will stay as his biggest achievement for History.
People who know me here on OEN might ask me: and what about Cuba? I'm a Russian and I live in Cuba. It's clear that Cuba became an exchange coin for the President Obama in the affairs of his domestic image and he decided to throw it into the arena on his way out (second half of his second term). His ties to the Miami politicians - referred to (rightfully) as "mafia" here in Cuba -- were close to zero, so little he had to sacrifice politically. It is not the case of Hillary Clinton, who's got two brothers in Miami, one of whom was married to the lawyer of the Cuban-American National Foundation during Bill's Presidency (they divorced later). These ties were crucial to the approval of the Helms-Burton law, as the article titled "Clinton's Cuban Road To Florida" published in Time Magazine around the time of 1996 election, explained. Very likely, had Hillary Clinton been President since 2008, the relations between Cuba and the US would not have been re-established, and had Hillary been elected now the removal of the Helms-Burton law would have been put out of discussion.
The Helms-Burton law is one of the toughest ones of the blockade ("embargo") and it pretends the return of properties to the former owners from before the Revolution. Cuba compensated ALL the countries whose nationals' properties were nationalized by the Revolution via the procedure of the lump-sum agreement between the Governments. The Government that receives the compensation distributes it among the affected -- the USA refused to take it. As it seems, the Obama Administration was re-considering this position, but Cuba -- and with all the right -- also demands compensations for damages provoked by the blockade which surpass 80 billion by far, as well as compensations to the victims of terrorism perpetrated from the US soil: about 3,000 mortal victims and over 2,600 wounded and crippled.
As another "positive sign", the US and Israel abstained for the first time ever on 25th condemnation of the blockade at the UN on Oct. 26 this year. 191 countries voted in favor of Cuban resolution condemning it. Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla made a long recount of human and material damages provoked by it, stressing that in monetary terms these surpassed 4 billion the last year alone, among them over a billion to the health-care sector. These damages went as far as seriously affecting or blocking the financial transactions of Cuban solidarity brigades working in different countries even by the banks of third countries afraid of the US sanctions. He also ruled out discussing Cuban debts from Batista's dictatorship and other Cuban Govts from before apparently mentioned by the US Ambassador Samantha Power). It's clear now that discussion of all these topics -- as well as the end of the blockade itself, devolution to Cuba of the territory occupied by the Guantanamo base, and the never-ending subject of Human Rights -- was not going to end by the January 2017. Trump's plans regarding Cuba are as erratic as any other of his: a few days ago he promised an invasion -- please, talk him out of it; before he condemned Obama's visit to Cuba, but as it turned out during the campaign (the dirty laundry) in the late 90s he explored the business opportunities in Cuba.
Hillary wanted to maintain the Embassy so to extend the subversion -- that was clear to Cubans. I suspect she probably would have offered Cuban Govt to lift the blockade and to discuss anything on condition of Cuba cutting the ECONOMIC ties with all of her "enemies" -- Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, etc. All of her promises surely were going to be lies, but it would have been a painful thing to chew on for Raul Castro who centers his Govt on economic issues (the 34thHavana Trade Fair celebrated last week gathered the potential investors from 75 countries). But with Trump the US law dealing with Cuba that will jump to the front pages the first is going to be the Cuban Adjustment Law which celebrated its 50th anniversary recently. It gives Cuban immigrants a special treatment that immigrants to the US from no other country on Earth receive: residence, work permits, possibility to request the US citizenship in just a year -- all that in the case of illegal arrival on rafts as "political refugees" (it is well-known here that Cubans have been arriving even to Alaska from Russia via the Bering Straight), while to obtain a visa for a visit at the former US Interest Section, now Embassy, is as hard as for the inhabitant of any other Third World country.
Changes in Cuba ARE coming up: by accident or on purpose, Raul Castro mentioned in a speech that on February 24, 2018 Cuba is going to have a new President. The reason for such a precision has not been explained. The 7th Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba celebrated in April this year -- right after Obama's visit and Rolling Stones' concert -- produced papers now subject to discussion by the people with a view to a Constitutional Referendum -- no date yet. The papers deal largely with the economic model. As for political part, the Congress itself preferred to disguise the problems in the country that are clearly structural with "old behavior habits" of some Govt officers "to be corrected".
To impede peoples from deciding what to do in their own countries has been the US policy in the Third World throughout the Cold War era. The reason for it were the natural resources prior to "fighting Communism" even during the existence of the Soviet Union, as Oliver Stone understood and exposed it in his documentary TV series "The Untold History of the United States" the whole 10 chapters of which Trump must watch. Obama failed to change the continuation of the same thing. The last Summit of Americas celebrated in Panama in April 2015 was the first one attended by Cuba too. Obama and Raul Castro gathered there officially for the first time. But in his speech Obama said "we must forget about the past and look into the future" and right next he ran out of the hall so not to listen the replies of Latin American counterparts.
And this is the picture Obama leaves in relations with the continent: Maduro recently accused Obama of "wishing to set Venezuela in fire"; Macri, the new President of Argentina plunging the country into poverty, recession, blackouts and famine has been praised by Kerry for putting it "back on the map" (Obama, as it turns out, had surrendered to the Wall Street vulture Paul Singer himself); the OAS' "democratic chart" has not even been mentioned for the case of Brazil. And on top of it, yes, there will be a change of Govt in Cuba, right in the next US President's first term if everything goes according to the announced so far. It will be the perfect chance for Trump to drop the policy of the "regime change" and replace it with respect to every country's sovereignty -- including the economic one. As well as to replace the Wall and the Cuban Adjustment Law with an equal-to-equal cooperation. Being an anti-Establishment candidate who won gives him a chance for all this, but he clearly needs a strong push into the right direction -- from the Progressives.
Sorry Bernie, sorry Michael Moore, but it's a fact that your strategy to prevent a racist billionaire from winning by siding with a corrupt and a fascist Establishment's employee failed. Whatever the reasons were, it's sad that both of you had taken this course.
And Michael Bloomberg, how could you have missed this chance being supposedly good in math?
NOV.13 -- AN UPDATE: Trump says in an interview to CBS he wants to deport or to incarcerate 3 million undocumented immigrants immediately so thus to proceed with his hate agenda. At the same time, a petition to the Electoral College to be gathered on Dec. 19 to give the Presidency to Hillary Clinton received over 3 million signatures; the ground for the petition is that she won the popular vote. Well, had I been an American I would NOT sign this petition and instead I would sign another asking Trump to halt the deportations and to attend the agenda of the popular vote that finally gave him the Presidency in the state-by-state count: the supporters of "bring the jobs back" agenda. Hillary -- and speaking of formalities -- was an illegitimate candidate. If she is given the Presidency, then the protests will erupt from the side of Trump's popular vote (both the haters and the supporters of "bring the jobs back" agenda) and from Bernie's supporters who finally voted for Trump. No matter who's the President, the center apparently will survive only by chopping the margins off: Hillary will have to give up on interventionism and pick up the "bring the jobs back agenda" thus going against the TPP and against the interests of the Establishment behind her. If Trump is the President his hate agenda will not be tolerated indefinitely: people inside the US will START asking for the jobs promised which deportations alone won't give. These deportations, meanwhile, will prop up a quick return and strengthening of "populism" especially in Latin America shaking up Trump's friends in the continent (Macri and son of a Brazilian ex-dictator; Lula is favorite in the polls for 2018 elections -- the reason for which Brazilian oligarchs are desperate about illegalizing the PT Party ASAP, while Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the left-wing politician, victim of Bush-style fraud in Mexican 2006 Presidential election and an "eternal candidate" same as Salvador Allende was in Chile, already proposed a Border Cooperation Project as an alternative to Trump's wall). It's anti-globalism and return to recognition of the role of the State either way (or a Global Martial Law imposed by the Banksters).
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
8
8
6
