“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Monday, November 09, 2015

How Paul Wolfowitz (Neocon architect and Jeb Bush advisor) tried to use the CIA to link Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda

The Neocons are not done trying to goad the US into war with Iran:




NOVEMBER 8, 2015

Former CIA analyst giving Tacoma talk to tout Iran nuclear deal




Analyst contends Iran nuclear agreement slows a march to war
Notes assessments that say Iran halted work on nuclear weapons
Traveled with the late Tacoma peace activist, the Rev. Bill Bichsel

42 comments:

  1. Within this group, you will find sources on how Washington politicizes CIA intelligence to advance the Neocon agenda of involving the US in more dangerous wars in the ME:

    It is to this end that we reiterate that no threat, no matter how grave, should serve to justify inhuman behavior and immoral conduct or torture conducted by Americans.

    For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

    Fulton Armstrong, National Intelligence Officer for Latin America (ret.)

    William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)

    Tony Camerino, former Air Force and Air Force Reserves, a senior interrogator in Iraq and author ofHow to Break a Terrorist under pseudonym Matthew Alexander

    Thomas Drake, former Senior Executive, NSA

    Daniel Ellsberg, former State Department and Defense Department Official (VIPS Associate)

    Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

    Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)

    Larry C Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

    Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF Intelligence Agency (Retired), ex Master SERE Instructor

    John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer

    Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.)

    Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)

    David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

    James Marcinkowski, Attorney, former CIA Operations Officer

    Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

    Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)

    Todd Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)

    Scott Ritter, former Maj., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq

    Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)

    Ali Soufan, former FBI Special Agent

    Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)

    Lawrence Wilkerson, Colonel (USA, ret.), Distinguished Visiting Professor, College of William and Mary

    Valerie Plame Wilson, CIA Operations Officer (ret.)

    Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But what about our 14 year old success in Afghanistan?

      Delete

  2. Tomgram: Ann Jones, The Never-Ending War

    Posted by Ann Jones at 7:25AM, November 05, 2015.
    Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch.

    In an effort to attack Taliban fighters, an air strike by a U.S. plane killed dozens of civilians in Kunduz, Afghanistan. In the wake of the attack, an American general responded in unequivocal fashion. “I take this possible loss of life or injury to innocent Afghans very seriously,” he said. “I have ordered a complete investigation into the reasons and results of this attack, which I will share with the Afghan people.”

    In an effort to attack Taliban fighters, an air strike by a U.S. plane killed dozens of civilians in Kunduz, Afghanistan. In the wake of the attack, an American general responded in unequivocal fashion. “I want to offer my deepest condolences to those innocent civilians who were harmed and killed on Saturday,” he said. “I've ordered a thorough investigation into this tragic incident... we will share the results of the investigation once it is complete.”

    The first of those air strikes took place in 2009 and targeted fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban. The second took place last month and targeted a hospital that Afghan officials say was used as a safe haven by the Taliban. The striking similarities between the two attacks are rooted not in uncanny coincidence but in the law of averages. Bomb a country long enough and such echoes are bound to occur.

    Of course, U.S. planes have been carrying out attacks and terrorizing innocent Afghans in and around Kunduz (and elsewhere in the country) since 2001. This is, after all, America’s war in Afghanistan, which has produced eerily repetitive tragedies; a war that’s also seen almost endless announcements of achievements, improvements, and progress; a war that seems to regularly circle back on itself.

    {...}

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. {...}

      "The Taliban is gone," Army General Tommy Franks, the chief of U.S. Central Command, announced in 2002. “Afghanistan is rising from the oppression of the Taliban into an independent, democratic nation.” Six years later, the Taliban was, oddly enough, still around. But things were still going well. “We’re clearly not done… But I do know that we’re making good progress, and each and every day we’re making a difference in the Afghan people’s lives,” said Army Major General Jeffrey Schloesser. In 2010, Army General David Petraeus offered his unique assessment of the war. “We're making progress, and progress is winning, if you will,” he insisted. This summer, another five years having passed, Army General John Campbell weighed in: “We have done a great job, both from both a conventional perspective and our special operating forces, and from the Afghan security forces… I see [the Afghans] continue to progress and continue to be very resilient.”

      There have been so many claims of “progress” these last 14 years (and so many air strike apologies as well) and yet each announcement of further success seems to signal the very opposite. Days after Campbell spoke, for instance, Brigadier General Wilson Shoffner, the U.S. deputy chief of staff for communications in Afghanistan, told reporters, “Kunduz is -- is not now, and has not been in danger of being overrun by the Taliban… that's sort of how we see it.” Just over a month later, Kunduz fell to the Taliban.

      This is the war that TomDispatch regular Ann Jones has monitored, analyzed, and covered since its opening stages, first as a humanitarian worker and then as a reporter. While the military was spinning tales of progress, Jones had a far more realistic assessment. “The story of success in Afghanistan was always more fairy tale than fact -- one scam used to sell another,” she wrote at this site in 2006, drawing attention to “a threefold failure: no peace, no democracy, and no reconstruction.” After embedding with U.S. troops in 2010 she said all the things America's generals never did. “I’d been ‘on the front’ of this war for less than two weeks, and I already needed a vacation,” she wrote. “Being outside the wire had filled me with sorrow as I watched earnest, heavily armed and armored boys try to win over white-bearded Afghans -- men of extraordinary dignity -- who have seen all this before and know the outcome.”

      {...}

      Delete
    2. {...}

      All this is to say Jones has been remarkably, consistently, undeniably ahead of the curve on the conflict, a reality reflected in her revelatory look at the deeply personal costs of America’s second Afghan War in her now-classic book, They Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return from America's Wars -- The Untold Story. She’s done what billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars, 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, the finest officers produced by America’s premier military academies, and untold numbers of analysts with access to highly classified information, have failed to do: accurately assess the situation in a country the U.S. has been intimately enmeshed in, on and off now, for the better part of four decades. With that in mind, let Jones give you the lowdown on the current state of “progress” there. When you’re through, chances are -- even if you lack a top-secret clearance and have never set foot in the Greater Middle East -- you’ll have a better grasp of the reality of the war than either the Pentagon or the president has ever had.

      Nick Turse - http://www.tomdispatch.com

      Delete
  3. “after” America’s war that couldn’t be won and will not end. In this darkening time, they face the growing strength of the Taliban, the intrusion of followers of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the emergence of new splinter groups of Afghan ISIS supporters, and even the resurgence of “remnants of Al Qaeda.” Yes, the very same bunch that President Obama assured us in 2013 could “never again establish a safe haven” in Afghanistan.

    All these forces, along with the Afghan National Army, are now contesting control of parts of the country. That army, trained largely by U.S. forces for that staggering price of at least $65 billion dollars (such costs have now been “classified”), is not exactly the stunning force that’s been advertised. John Sopko, the special inspector general for Afghanistan, reported to Congress last March that the U.S. military had “overestimated the size of the Afghan police and army by a significant margin.” Factor in U.S. military “accounting errors” and plenty of “ghost” personnel, and the actual size of the Afghan force is anybody’s guess. In addition, that force, under pressure since last spring from a fierce, unrelenting Taliban offensive, has been losing an “unsustainable” average of 330 killed and wounded a week (and hemorrhaging a disastrous 4,000 deserters a month). It still needs the support of U.S. forces, especially Special Operations troops like those who, on October 3rd, “mistakenly” called in deliberate multiple air assaults on a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital at Kunduz, resulting in the largest loss of life (30 dead in addition to many more wounded) the humanitarian organization has suffered in its 35 years in that country.


    Full Article:
    http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176065/tomgram%3A_ann_jones%2C_the_never-ending_war/#more

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, things can’t be that bad , can they?

    Islamic State Joins Taliban Splinter Group In Afghanistan, Fighting Akhtar Mansoor Loyalists

    Islamic State militants have joined Afghan Taliban insurgents in a splinter group led by Mullah Mohammad Rasool. The rival terrorists are battling Taliban fighters loyal to another leader in a southeastern province of Afghanistan, where about 50 men on both sides have been killed in two days, an Afghan official told the Associated Press Sunday.

    Dissidents within the Taliban, unhappy with the appointment of Mullah Akhtar Mansoor as the new chief, formed a breakaway faction and elected Rasool, a veteran Taliban official, as its leader. The splinter group reportedly calls itself the High Council of Afghanistan Islamic Emirate. Divisions have long existed within the militant group, but it’s reportedly the first time a Taliban rivalry has errupted into open bloodshed.

    A Taliban commander loyal to Mansoor, who assumed power after the death of Taliban founder Mullah Mohammad Omar, said the rival faction joined forces with the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, because it doesn’t have the numbers otherwise.

    "It is obvious that Mullah Rasool's group can't face Akhtar Mansoor alone, so they need [ISIS]. We said that before, and now it has been proven," he told AP Sunday.

    The Taliban have been in disarray since August, when they confirmed the death of their former leader, Omar. The news created a power vacuum, dividing the insurgents into two factions. Opposition to Mansoor’s appointment initially came from Omar’s brother, Mullah Abdul Manan Hotak, his oldest son, Mullah Muhammad Yaqoub, and senior leaders who said the Taliban Supreme Council (Shura) was not consulted before the appointment.

    Rasool was among those who had refused to pledge allegiance to Mansoor, despite the Taliban claiming that the latter’s appointment took place “in full compliance with Islamic Shariah law.”

    Deepening rifts within the Taliban’s ranks are likely to help ISIS expand its influence in Afghanistan. However, Army General John F. Campbell, commander of U.S. Forces, Afghanistan, already classifies the group as “operationally emergent” in the country.

    The Islamic State group currently controls large stretches of Iraq and Syria, and has been slowly building a presence in Afghanistan. The militants control a number of districts in eastern Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province, which borders Pakistan, and they established a presence in southern Zabul province earlier this year, according to AP.

    By Morgan Winsor @MorganWinsorIBT on November 08 2015 6:30 PM EST

    ReplyDelete

  5. IS FIGHTERS KILL 7 ABDUCTEES IN SOUTHERN AFGHANISTAN: POLICE

    English.news.cn 2015-11-08 20:35:24


    QALAT, Afghanistan, Nov. 8 (Xinhua) -- Militants loyal to the so-called Islamic State group known as Daesh have killed seven abducted people in the southern Zabul province, provincial police chief Mir Wais Noorzai said Sunday.

    "The Daesh insurgents abducted seven innocent civilians from Ghazni province one month ago and beheaded them Saturday night in Arghandab district of Zabul province," Noorzai told Xinhua.

    Their bodies have been taken to Shah Joi district and would be handed to their relatives, the official said.

    Daesh fighters who are more extreme and more cruel than the Taliban militants, placed 10 captured civilians on explosive device and detonated them in a mountainous village of the eastern Nangarhar province couple of months ago.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We have yet to see the truth in Putin’s words, ” Do you realize what you have done?”

    But it is not enough for the Neocons and the Israeli-firsters. They are playing a waiting game to elect a Republican President and begin anew against Iran. The Israeli controlled US media is already on message laying the groundwork.

    The insanity has yet to crest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe putting sanctions on iran for it's support of terror would be a good non-violent step..

      Oh yeah we tried that and Obama did away with them.

      Delete
    2. Because they had achieved the desired effect.
      The trouble with Israelis, they do not know how to claim victory

      Delete
  7. Yeah the neocons and Israeli firsters are faking Iranian ICBM tests, troop expansions in syria, Iranian deaths in fighting on the Golan, making up millions in cash and weapons being shipped to hamas, hezbollah and the rebels in yemen...

    one big fake out...

    Oh and that "death to america" day in Iran?

    all an israeli invention..

    those Americans being held hostage in Iran?

    fabrication...

    All a delusion...

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War Iran

      Delete
    2. Are you so stupid that you don’t know your own history or so culturally superior to think that other people’s basic human reactions are different from your own.

      Delete
    3. You fuck with people and are shocked, shocked I say, that they try and fuck you back.

      Delete
  8. Not to worry, those who are Iranian Firsters will do everything they can to paint Iran as a virtuous and peace loving nation.

    nary a word of torture of it's citizens, hangings of gays, stoning of women....

    never a word about "jew hatred" but an absolute hatred of the "zionist" entity...

    Iran is such an example of freedom?

    MILLIONS have fled.

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  9. If 'the Jews' control the USA media, as has been so often claimed here, one thing is certain, most of them aren't Republicans -

    November 9, 2015
    Media bias by the numbers
    By Rick Moran

    A new study by two researchers Lars Willnat and David Weaver, professors of journalism at Indiana University, contains no surprises about media bias - except, perhaps, how incredibly skewed toward Democrats the journalistic professsion is.

    Washington Times:

    A mere 7 percent of journalists identify as Republicans, and when they do give money to political campaigns they usually donate to Democrats, lending evidence to Republican presidential candidates’ claims that they are facing a hostile audience when they deal with the press............

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/media_bias_by_the_numbers.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look to CBS, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, it is controlled by the nephew of David Ben-Gurion, Leslie Moonves.
      Leslie is the Chairman and CEO
      It does not get more Zionist or more in control than that

      Delete
  10. I don't understand why Iran is developing ICBMs.

    Hmm...you couldn't possibly do much damage to The Great Satan by putting 1,000 pounds or whatever of conventional explosives in ICBMs and launching them all the way to the USA.

    There's got to be some other reason.....but what could it possibly be...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The funny thing? Iran don't NEED icbm's to hit Israel...

      LOL

      Delete
    2. Let me explain something to those that were never in the air force or haven’t a clue about offensive and deterrent weapons. This is real simple, pay attention:

      If party A has a monopoly on a strategic weapon system, it is an offensive weapon to all other parties.

      If Party B acquires a strategic weapon similar to party A, it becomes a deterrent by B to A. Both parties would have an offensive weapon system against all other parties.

      Israel has an atomic weapon system and every swinging dick in the US GOP Likuds force reminds Iran on at least a weekly basis that everything is on the table.

      Iran needs a strategic weapon system including ICBMs capable of deterring US aggression.

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/video-palestinian-muslim-woman-stabs-unsuspecting-israeli-security-guard-at-checkpoint/

    here is a video of a "brave" palesitnian woman trying to stab a border guard.

    Now if she had been killed?

    Quirk would be setting up a defense fund, Rat would say it's a false flag and the woman was a Jewish Israeli in drag, Rufus would blame the "zionists" and say he doesn't give a flying fuck about the guard since he deserved it. and of course Deuce would spin it to blame the zionist entity...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. update...

      http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Stabbing-attack-thwarted-at-West-Bank-crossing-432457

      She;'s dead.

      wrote a note too!!!

      how quaint...

      Delete
    2. I think if an old Polish Jewish woman in the Warsaw ghetto died trying to stab a Waffen SS soldier, she would be considered a terrorist to the Germans and a hero to most everyone else.

      Delete
    3. ...and hailed for her courage and bravery.

      Delete
  13. Good news for an old Hillary lover such as myself -

    November 9, 2015
    Is the FBI Closing in on Hillary?
    By Amil Imani and James Hyde

    In an administration known for its disdain for accountability and appalling disregard for justice, FBI Director James Comey sets himself apart as a straight shooter and strong adherent of the equal application of the law. To those who know and/or have worked with him, Comey’s character is unimpeachable, his integrity unique, and his pursuit of justice determined, focused, and incorruptible in a capital where such traits are routinely eschewed.

    According to Dr. Monica Crowley, quoted below, Comey is closely overseeing his crack cyber-forensic team, which has masterfully managed to do what many claimed couldn’t be done: they accessed the files on Hillary Clinton’s “wiped” email server. If they find ample evidence to indict her, as Crowley intimates below, and the Justice Department decides not to pursue charges, many political pundits foresee Comey resigning, or looking the other way when whatever illegal activity they found starts to leak.

    Most observers agree that going after General David Petraeus, a true national treasure, for having some “Confidential” -- not “Top Secret” -- documents stored in a desk drawer, but not pressing charges on Clinton if she sent and received “Top Secret” documents would be seen as, at best, a blatant double standard, and at worst the same kind of collusive corruption we’ve seen for far too long in Washington.

    But has the FBI found criminal offenses in their quest for justice? Apparently so. During an appearance on the "O’Reilly Factor", Dr. Monica Crowley was granted an extremely rare waiver: she was allowed to cite “anonymous sources” on the progress of the investigation. She had managed to find two unnamed investigation insiders, who gave her solid information that should result in an indictment of Mrs. Clinton for violations stemming from the use of her private email server.

    According to Crowley:

    “As of now, at least 671 emails that Mrs. Clinton sent or received through her private server contained classified material. Of those, at least four emails are extremely problematic in this investigation. Of those, two reached the highest classified designation which is Top Secret. One of those, which has been publicly disclosed, contained satellite data about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. I am told that that particular document is an open and shut violation. I am also told that FBI Director James Comey is personally overseeing and directing this investigation, and as of now they do have enough to build a case against her if they so choose on two grounds: One, gross negligence of the mishandling of classified data, and two, obstruction [of justice] -- multiple counts.”................

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/is_the_fbi_closing_in_on_hillary.html


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the sounds of 'obstruction of justice -multiple counts'.

      Delete
    2. Hillary is to big to jail and that's just her ass I am talking about.

      Delete
    3. :)

      It's a hell of an interesting situation and I can't imagine how it will play out.

      What that article contains may be just the tip of an iceberg.

      Will 'the Jewish Press' cover for the old witch ?

      Will Bubba Bill Clinton give a press conference and say 'my wife never had relations with that computer' ?

      What will the Wall Street Journal say ?



      Delete
  14. Iran: 'Death to America' Is Still Our Slogan
    The Islamic Republic declares it will never abandon its core mission.
    November 9, 2015
    Dr. Majid Rafizadeh


    If you are an Iranian politician, you are living in a golden time: the economic sanctions are getting lifted against the Islamic Republic due to the nuclear deal and, thanks to the Obama administration, Tehran is getting a free pass on military interventions in the region. Apparently, Iranian lawmakers and politicians decided last week to pay the US back for its efforts. How?

    Last week an overwhelming majority of Iranian lawmakers and parliamentarians at Majlis stated that the Islamic Republic will not abandon the slogan of “Death to America.”

    In a statement released by Iran’s state news agency IRNA, lawmakers insisted in a joint statement that the "martyr-nurturing nation of Iran is not at all prepared to abandon the slogan of ‘Death to America’ under the pretext of a nuclear agreement.”

    It follows that “Death to America” will continue during Friday prayers, protests, or special holidays such as the anniversary of the hostage taking crisis of 1979, a siege on the US embassy in Tehran, Independence Day, etc.

    In addition, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told Iranian students in Tehran, according to The Associated Press, that "your 'Death to America' slogan, and the cries by the Iranian nation, have strong logical support behind them.” He also added that the "slogan ‘death to America’ is backed by reason and wisdom.”

    The Obama administration argued that the removal of economic sanctions and the signing of the nuclear deal would make the Islamic Republic more rational. Well, it appears that rationality from the perspective of the ruling clerics in the Iran means more anti-American and anti-Semitic sentiments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Intriguingly and naively, the US Secretary, John Kerry, asked the Iranian leaders during the nuclear talks to consider abandoning the slogan “Death to America." This would have made it much easier for the Obama’s administration to further legitimize the Islamic Republic even though Iran would continue the same aggressive policies.

      The question is why is it so hard for the Left to observe that the Islamic Republic will never abandon its anti-American sentiments, slogans, and policies?

      Governments that normally emerge after revolutions and adopt revolutionary ideals to define their socio-political character and identity will find it almost impossible to emerge free of these revolutionary principles and alter their identity.

      This means that changing the system will result in the collapse of the system, something that is well out of the reach of one individual, even if that person is the Supreme Leader. The legitimacy of the system relies on those ideals.

      After the 1979 revolution, two key elements characterized the core belief, nature and identity of the Islamic Republic: anti-Western values (particularly opposing US policies in the Middle East) and the Islamist religious character (Shiite theology).

      The religious or Shiite character of the Iranian government was formulated and spread through seminaries, changing schools curriculum, imposing religious laws, merging Shiite laws with the constitution, imposing the hijab, etc.

      The anti-Western character of the Iranian government was fossilized and strengthened through two elements: Iran’s regional policies and its hardline institutions (such as the military, Basij, intelligence, judiciary, etc.). Tehran’s regional policies of supporting Shiite proxies and allying itself with rivals of the US are aimed at scuttling US (and Israel) policies in the region and proving the Islamic Republic’s regional preeminence, superiority and hegemony.

      The government created several hardline institutions (including Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps) and invested a good chunk of its budget and oil sales in these institutions. Over the past thirty years, the character of these institutions, their identity, and their political and economic monopoly was formed based on the anti-American values of the revolution.

      The hardline institutions are used to ensure the hold-on-power of the Supreme Leader and he, in return, ensures their monopoly over social, political and economic spectrums.

      The Supreme Leader will never declare that the slogan “Death to America” should be abandoned, because this would shatter the foundations of his social and political base (the judiciary, hardline clerics, etc.), as well as the military institutions (IRGC) that protect him. In addition, the Islamic Republic has conveniently used its hostility towards the US as a powerful strategy and tactic to repress domestic oppositions or throw blame on Washington for domestic economic mismanagement. How hard is it for the liberals to see this simple truth?

      http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260719/iran-death-america-still-our-slogan-dr-majid-rafizadeh

      Delete
    2. To me, logjam is a word that comes to mind.


      log·jam
      [ˈlôɡˌjam, ˈläɡˌjam]
      NOUN

      a crowded mass of logs blocking a river.
      a situation that seems irresolvable:
      "the president can use the power of the White House to break the logjam over this issue"
      synonyms: deadlock · stalemate · tie · impasse · bottleneck


      Always liked that word for some reason, I think because I used to see massive logjams on the river here when they used to float the logs down to the mill, which they no longer do.

      Delete
  15. Victor Davis Hanson
    The Oldest Divide
    With roots dating back to our Founding, America’s urban-rural split is wider than ever.
    Autumn 2015
    Bryan Anselm/Redux
    In early America, it took nine farmers to feed one city dweller. Today, one farmer supports 99 urbanites.

    Of all the growing divides in America—red-blue, conservative-liberal, Republican-Democrat, white-nonwhite—none is sharper than that between city and country. The nation’s urbanites increasingly govern those living in the hinterlands, even as vanishing rural Americans still feed and fuel the nation. At the nation’s birth, it took nine farmers to feed one city dweller. Today, one farmer supports 99 urbanites—evidence, supposedly, that almost everyone has been freed from the drudgery of agricultural work.

    City and country are not coequals by any demographic, political, or cultural measure. The urban is growing and ascendant; the rural shrinks and becomes increasingly culturally irrelevant. California is now..............

    http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_4_urban-rural-divide.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of the past Presidents had a farm or ranch to call "home".

      Not so Mr Obama, he is urbane to the core of his being

      Delete