Now Politics: the Political Opinions of Thomas Sarebbenonnato

A Friend of the People Opposing Elites; Social and Political Commentary of Thomas Sarebbenonnato; Publishing and Contributing Editor, Jay V. Ruvolo [Copyright (c) Jay Ruvolo 2018]

Elephants, Asses and Politics as Usual, Again

with one comment



It is not a radical position to say that Bill Clinton was about as liberal as was Richard Nixon. You are now saying, W t F? But then Bill Clinton had attacked the New Deal and the Great Society in ways Regan could only have dreamed of doing, mostly because all career management and ownership of print and broadcast media in America is democrat. Regan could never get away with what Bill Clinton did.

I don’t really want to engage an explanation of this. I know it is true. I understand how it is true. I am not going to re-assert Chmosky’s observation that the last liberal President of the United States was Richard Nixon. Again, I hear you.

I would have to endure far too many reflexive monosyllables barked, chanted, spit out in one or another headings of received ideas or carefully marketed slogans . . .  but let it suffice to say that I do hold this truth to be self-evident, that the Democratic Party did not just abandon Unions, Labor, Blue Collar lives, but abandoned Liberalism entirely, most of them today closet or latent Conservatives, yes! The seeming Democratic Party shift from Labor, let’s say close to simplsitically, toward what seemed like the Poor, as we say in America, creating monoliths of received ideas in order to package therein your marketing, was both too simplified in  its conclusions, certainly its assessments; and was far too deceptive and insidious for us to understand. So long as the Poor became their chief constituents, the Poor, the working poor and the welfare poor, had to be perpetuated. Poverty had to be maintained at the same time the Democrats had to look as if they were attempting solutions, spending most of their money on spinning their wheels.



And where–no, really, I’m asking: Where did anyone expect the Republicans to go, except off a cliff of reactionary lunacy, when the Democrats had moved almost entirely to the right of the eternal political center dividing eternal political Left from that of eternal political Right? If Bill Clinton or Barack Obama are your model liberal, then liberalism is dead.

When Democrats today are no better than moderate Republicans from the 60s or 70s were, We the People are in trouble. We had better be concerned, very concerned.

Could a Republican have been moderate in the 80s? No. But the 70s were a different decade, the sixties and seventies together a much, much different time for US. We were inevitably [hyperbole, for sure] headed for this impending Presidential disaster in the model of Trump, seeing as the country has virtually monolithically shifted to the Right; there is far too much support for a totalitarian re-structuring of our society that has been on-going for several ormolu decades, but has ramped up the volume and intensity since the turn of the millennium.

None of this should be taken as a suggestion that Hilary Clinton would have been significantly better for the People than Trump; only, perhaps, and in this way preferably, far less stupid, far less dangerous, a bit more Presidential. She may have hurt us in ways Trump cannot because she would have been more effective at maneuvering in Washington, with Congress, certainly with the Banks and our print and broadcast media.

“Could there have been more corrupt Democrats in US history than the Clinton Gang?” A friend of mine asked, not a Republican.

Obama having gotten into bed with the Banks doomed the Democrats in many ways electorally. And yes, he was bought by the banks, controlled by the banks, manipulated by the banks before he was elected in 08.


If we are to take any of what has been said as an indication of what will be attempted—that in itself is a shell game we play–Presidents rarely do what is promised. All Presidents must be part demagogue, effective at it; or, as I have said in another essay, all of them must in part be a better liar than the other candidates who vie for the Presidency. That is, this must be so for the Public to believe in his or her Presidentiality? The horror has been to realize that Trump was a better liar, or as good a liar, as Hilary; neither nearly as good, though, nor as effective, as Obama.

The idea that Trump is for anyone but himself when the Obama Presidency was what it was is lunacy. Is Obama preferable than Trump? I hate questions like this–it makes me imagine that the Trump Presidency is a way to get us to think that the bank-serving new world order of the Clinton Gang should be missed.

Now, no President had assassinated more people than Obama. But then Obama has been the  minister of inclusion, hasn’t he? Obama did engage in more armed conflicts than Bush, a particular sore spot being Hilary’s personal pet in Libya. Obama had done nothing for immigration reform, and he, in turn, had succeeded in deporting more immigrants than any other President in history.

He has gotten away with racist refugee policies: only about 1% of Syrian refugees have been Syrian Christians, a move he has a hand in, punishing them for President Assad of Syria being Christian? His hands off of ISIS for a year and a half as they gained steam in their move toward Syria was to pressure Assad, the heinous deceitful fucker he really is.Imagine if Bush II had tried this.

Obama has spent 1 Trillion dollars on upgrading our entire nuclear arsenal, and expanding it, something I keep repeating. Note well, though, that our arsenal was already way ahead of everybody else’s arsenal by measures we cannot calculate with pencil and paper; he was not soft with the banks, but favored them because they had already bought him. Diatribe cannot be avoided. Before Obama we had been spending more annually on our military than all other nations combined.

Obama has garnered support for his presidential campaigns at the cost of lobbyists being more in control of Washington than before he became President; Wall Street has chosen his Cabinets . . . and we wonder why we are in the shit we are in. But to think that the Republicans are the solution only points to how stupid we have become, how insipid our general intellect is about politics.

The ping pong the media plays is to keep us distracted, imagining that there are choices, when it is party politics, as they now stand in control of elections, that is the problem. But when media faces like Matt Lauer are able to buy homes for 30 million dollars, you know the media no longer speaks for the people and can only work to keep power in the shadows.

Obama’s chief obstacle was not his race but his lack of cache–he had only been on Capitol Hill for two years as a rep in the House before he became President. No one owed him anything once he became president; that was what put him in the position of owing the banks BIG. The media liked making Obama’s problems about race. Obama faced no more opposition in Washington that had Jimmy Carter, another outsider with little Washington cache, although he might have even had more, seeing as he had been governor, a position at the the state level that allows one in the authority of that office to garner a goodly amount of cache if politics are played right. Regan had turned California’s governorship into a lot of cache; however, Georgia was not California.



If you imagine that Goldman Sachs did not buy his presidency, along with others of the top finance institutions on Wall Street, then you are either seriously ignorant or hopelessly naive. Keep reading the great yellow press . . .

The NY Times is a liberal institution? If that were so, then we’d all be down river already with banks singing the praises of a new Plantation life where slavery were multicultural and diverse, which does not put me in opposition to multiculturalism or diversity, only how the bureaucracy and the print and broadcast media have handled either. The Academies of learning in America have not done a much better job.

As far as print and broadcast media–every thing concerning them is about advertising, sponsors and the money brought in; the CEO of CBS explained Trump Mania as being good for his corporation, good for sales/viewership and sponsorship. But then, the Media Elite are also Power and Money Elites.



Obama’s tenure in the Oval Office is all about Wall Street Gangsters wearing black face, a grotesque minstrel show called Washington Politics run from New York. Who better than Obama to convince us the President is not in the pockets of the banks–perhaps we are endemically racist, manifesting itself in other than the received ideas on race we perpetuate through media formed received ideas that keep the People divided.

But then the banks and corporations hate everything about the west that has anything directly to do with the People and interferes with maximizing profit, profit and more profits. And they will feed off of the decay in our society as do rats, vultures, roaches and maggots feed off of carrion.

The real reason we hear so much about China is because Wall Street would prefer if Washington could control in their favor like the Chinese control. Let’s do away with all this unnecessary talk about individuals–but that is not yet. There must still be illusions maintained and no one maintained them for US better than Obama.

We do miss Obama’s incredible ability to wax eloquent while he looks you in the eye and lies.

Written by jvr

November 30, 2016 at 4:27 pm

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: