Bemused Over Russian "Meddling" By Jacob G. Hornberger!!
(2017-03-24 at 12:10:47 )

Bemused Over Russian "Meddling" by Jacob G. Hornberger

I must confess that liberals and the liberal press are amusing me to no end over their heated and exuberant reaction to the Trump-Russia meddling "scandal". I find the whole controversy to be absolutely hilarious.

A question that stands out in all this: What is wrong with an American politician "colluding" with a Russian politician to win an American election?

"Treason!" the liberals and the liberal press cry. But does treason not entail giving aid and comfort to the enemy? How can Russia be considered an enemy when the United States is not at war with Russia?

And puhleeze do not hit me with "It’s another Cold War, Jacob!" because the first Cold War was not a real war either (just as the war on terrorism or the war on drugs are not real wars either).

A real war entails armies, invasions, attacks, bombings, troops, deaths, and destruction (like what the United States government did to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam). There is nothing like that going on between Russia and the United States.

Liberals and the liberal press respond, "But everyone knows that Russia is a rival, an opponent, an adversary."

Really? What do those terms mean? That is just classic empire talk. Whenever an empire encounters a foreign regime that is not sufficiently subservient and compliant, those are the types of terms that are applied to it. The imperial adjectives "assertive" and "independent" oftentimes come into play here too.

If American politicians "colluded" with British officials to win an election, would anyone say anything? Of course not! That is because ever since England lost her imperial possessions after World War II, she has been Americas poodle, loyally serving the United States Empire in the hopes of having some of its imperial glory rub off on England. So, if an American politician and a British politician got together to strategize to help the America politician win an election, no one would bat an eyelash.

But, oh, put Russia into the equation and suddenly everyone goes ballistic. I will even bet that Netflix is suffering a massive over-rental problem with The Manchurian Candidate.

Searching desperately for some law against "colluding" or strategizing with Russian politicians to win an American election, one mainstream reporter suggested that the Justice Department should investigate whether Trump is guilty of failing to register as a foreign agent.

That law dates back to the Franklin Roosevelt administration, which, ironically, ushered in Americas era of socialism with the advent of the welfare state and regulated economy. In any event, I fail to see how strategizing with a foreign politician on how to defeat the United States national-security establishments candidate, Hillary Clinton, would convert Trump into an agent for a foreign power.

Speaking of FDR, he himself did plenty of colluding with Joseph Stalin, the communist dictator of the Soviet Union who murdered even more people than Hitler did and who FDR called "Uncle Joe." In fact, it was a result of FDRs collusion with Stalin that Eastern Europe was delivered into the clutches of the Soviet Union (which later formed the basis for the Cold War). That is in fact why Eastern Europeans never celebrate "victory" in World War II, as Americans do. Unlike Americans, the Eastern Europeans believed that being liberated from Hitler only to be delivered to Stalin was no victory for them.

How come no one talked about prosecuting FDR for colluding with the Soviet communists?

In fact, speaking further about FDR and commies, was there not a time when liberals and the liberal press were openly singing the praises of the Soviet Union and the communist "experiment" in Russia?

In fact, I find it extremely funny that liberals and the liberal press are now playing the role that conservatives and the Birchers played during the Cold War, when the latter were exclaiming against the commies and even suggesting that President Eisenhower was an (unregistered) agent of the Reds.

Let us not forget what cost Salvador Allende his job as the democratically elected president of Chile. He reached to the Soviet Union in friendship, clearly ignoring the fact that the Soviet regime was a "rival," an "opponent," or an "adversary" of the United States Empire. It took 3 years for the Central Intelligence Agency to oust him from power, but oust him it did in 1973.

He was not the only one. Jacobo Arbenz, the democratically elected president of Guatemala, also reached out to the Soviet Union in a spirt of friendship. The Central Intelligence Agency ousted him from office in 1954.

Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, suffered the same fate for appearing a bit too communistic or socialistic. The CIA ousted him in 1953.

After the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy announced that the Cold War was bunk and that he had decided to reach out to the Soviet Union, Cuba, and the rest of the communist world in a spirit of friendship and peace. He was assassinated in 1963. (See FFFs ebook "JFKs War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated" by Douglas Horne.)

I wonder if Trump realizes the thin ice he is walking on if he keeps talking about friendship with Russia. The United States national-security establishment has never looked kindly on that sort of thing, especially since it meddles with its plans for an ever-growing United States military-industrial-intelligence establishment.

While we are on the subject of United States regime-change operations, both foreign and domestic, a question naturally arises: If Russian "meddling" in United States elections is considered to be a bad thing, then why does the United States government meddle in elections and other domestic politics in other countries?

In fact, notice something important about the Trump-Russia controversy: Never do the liberals and the liberal press ever bring up United States interventionism in other countries when they lament the possibility that Russia meddled in the United States presidential election.

Why not? If it is a bad thing for a government to meddle in foreign elections, then why are the Pentagon, Central Intelligence Agency, USAID, State Department, and other elements of the United States national-security establishment doing it in other countries and why have they been doing it for decades?

And do not forget: When we talk about United States meddling in the political affairs of other countries, we are not talking about just "colluding." We are also talking about bribery, kidnapping, assassination, sanctions, embargoes, coups, invasions, and occupations and lots of death, destruction, suffering, and corruption.

Just ask the people of Cuba, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Chile, Guatemala, Congo, Yemen, Libya, Syria, and, well, lots of other countries around the world that have been at the receiving end of United States meddling in other countries.

Indeed, let us not forget the fairly recent United States regime change operation in Ukraine. You know, the one that just coincidentally led to a big crisis with Russia, which then led to increased budgets for the Pentagon.

Maybe - just maybe - the Trump-Russia controversy will cause more Americans to do some serious soul-searching over the meddling in which the United States government has engaged in Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and yes, even Russia. Maybe - just maybe - the Trump-Russia controversy will cause Americans to question why their government is now based on the principles of empire, a national-security state, and foreign interventionism.

In the meantime, let us just enjoy the entire amusing and hypocritical spectacle.

Printed here with permission from Mr. Jacob G. Hornberger of The Future of Freedom Foundation!! Their Great Website!!