Tax Wall Street Party Issues Critiques of Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton

The Tax Wall Street Party, a party run by former LaRouche activist Webster Tarpley that has fielded candidates for New York City Mayor and U.S. Senate in Nebraska, has issued two scathing critiques of 2016 presidential contenders. Both are fairly lengthy, so I will not post them in full, but will repost excerpts. The first is a write-up on Rand Paul, dated 4/8/15:



Rand Paul wants to stop all us foreign aid – including 60% of world food aid by US, meaning millions of deaths


Paul stated, “I would reinstitute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic.” He griped, “The real problem is that Russia’s President is not currently fearful or threatened in any way by America’s President, despite his country’s blatant aggression.”.

In 2008 the Neocons wanted Georgia to be a part of NATO. When referring to Georgia, Paul said “Who needs to be part of NATO?” Paul’s recent position on Ukraine is a flip-flop When Russia sent troops into Georgia in response to aggression by Tiflis (on George W. Bush’s watch), Paul didn’t want to provoke Russia by placing missiles in Poland. Yet today, when Russia moves into Ukraine (on Obama’s watch), he’s all for dispatching missiles to Poland to send a message to Putin. Does Paul care more about Crimea than Georgia? Or does he care more about keeping a foot on the GOP’s anti-Obama bandwagon?


Paul will always side with Wall Street considering his voting record, public statements, and funding from Koch networks — mainly the Senate Conservatives Fund whose money mainly comes from Wall Street Banks. The world is grappling with an economic breakdown crisis caused by the policies proposed by Paul and the Senate Conservatives Fund.

Paul supports Free Trade, which the original Republicans were against. Free Trade is the reason our jobs have been shipped overseas and to add insult to injury Paul is against extending unemployment benefits for those who have lost the jobs he supports shipping overseas. Paul always goes on about supporting The Constitution but if he supports Free Trade he does not support The Constitution but the Confederate Constitution. Rand Paul hates the US Constitution. He hates the General Welfare clause which appears twice. He hates the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments the Union army fought and died for all the way to Appomattox. He hates the direct election of senators — the senate is not oligarchical enough for his taste.

Paul stated to FOX News: “I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they’re paid for. If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers. . . . . When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you’re causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy.”

The perpetual unemployment issue is caused by multiple Free Trade negotiations and treaties coupled with the Wall Street gambling economy, not unemployment benefit payments. Yet Paul would argue that, in the midst of a worldwide economic depression where jobs themselves are scarce and the few that do exist are often well below subsistence wages, millions of Americans should simply be kicked off the roles to satisfy his free market fantasy and that of his Wall Street backers.

In December, 2013 Paul declared Class War when he traveled to Detroit, Michigan and stated “The President plays this sort of thing of envy and he says to us, ‘You should not like the rich people, you should punish the rich people.’ I say no, reward them. They create the jobs. That’s who we work for. Anybody here work for a poor person? So you want rich people to have more money so you can have more money.”

The second is on Hillary Clinton, dated 4/12/15:



As the National Journal reported in 2014, even the pathetically weak anti-war left is not ready to reconcile with Hillary given her warmongering as Secretary of State. And with good reason. Scratching just lightly beneath the surface of Hillary Clinton’s career reveals the empirical evidence of her historic support for aggressive interventions around the globe.

Beginning with Africa, Hillary defended the 1998 cruise missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, destroying the largest producer of cheap medications for treating malaria and tuberculosis and provided over 60% of available medicine in Sudan. In 2006 she supported sending United Nations troops to Darfur with logistical and technical support provided by NATO forces. Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was outspoken in his condemnation of this intervention, claiming it was not committed out of concern for Sudanese people but “…for oil and for the return of colonialism to the African continent.”

This is the same leader who was murdered in the aftermath of the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya; an attack promoted and facilitated with the eager support of Mrs. Clinton. In an infamous CBS news interview, said regarding this international crime: “We came, we saw, he died.” As Time magazine pointed out in 2011, the administration understood removing Qaddafi from power would allow the terrorist cells active in Libya to run rampant in the vacuum left behind. Just last month the New York Times reported that Libya has indeed become a terrorist safe haven and failed state— conducive for exporting radicals through “ratlines” to the conflict against Assad in Syria.

Hillary made prompt use of the ratlines for conflicts in the Middle East. In the summer of 2012, Clinton privately worked with then CIA director and subversive bonapartist David Petraeus on a proposal for providing arms and training to death squads to be used to topple Syria just as in Libya. This proposal was ultimately struck down by Obama, reported the New York Times in 2013, but constituted one of the earliest attempts at open military support for the Syrian death squads.

Her voting record on intervening in Afghanistan and Iraq is well known and she also has consistently called for attacking Iran. She even told Fareed Zakaria the State Department was involved “behind the scenes” in Iran’s failed 2009 Green Revolution. More recently in Foreign Policy magazine David Rothkopf wrote on the subject of the Lausanne nuclear accord, predicting a “snap-back” in policy by the winner of the 2016 election to the foreign policy in place since the 1980s. The title of this article? “Hillary Clinton is the Real Iran Snap-Back.” This makes Hillary the prime suspect for a return to the madcap Iranian policies that routinely threaten the world with a World War 3 scenario.

Hillary Clinton is not only actively aggressing against Africa and the Middle East. She was one of the loudest proponents against her husband’s hesitancy over the bombing of Kosovo, telling Lucina Frank: “I urged him to bomb,” even if it was a unilateral action.

While no Clinton spokesperson responded to a request by the Washington Free Beacon regarding her stance on Ukraine, in paid speeches she mentioned “putting more financial support into the Ukrainian government”. When Crimea decided to choose the Russian Federation over Poroshenko’s proto-fascist rump state, Hillary anachronistically called President Putin’s actions like “what Hitler did in the ‘30s.” As a leader of the bumbled ”reset” policy towards Russia, Hillary undoubtedly harbors some animus against Putin and will continue the destabilization project ongoing in Ukraine.

Not content with engaging in debacles in Eastern Europe, she has vocally argued for a more aggressive response to what she called the “rollback of democratic development and economic openness in parts of Latin America.” This indicates her willingness to allow the continuation of CIA sponsored efforts at South American destabilization in the countries of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil.

It is one of the proud prerogatives of the Tax Wall Street Party to push out into the light the Wall Street and foundation-funded Democrats. The final blow to Hillary’s clumsy façade comes from directly from arch-neocon Robert Kagan. Kagan worked as a foreign policy advisor to Hillary along with his wife, Ukraine madwoman Victoria Nuland, during Hillary’s term as Secretary of State. He claimed in the New York Times that his view of American foreign policy is best represented in the “mainstream” by the foreign policy of Hillary Clinton; a foreign policy he obviously manipulated or outright crafted. Kagan stated: “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue…it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.” What further reason could any sane person need to refute Hillary? A vote for Hillary is a vote for the irrational return to war.

2 thoughts on “Tax Wall Street Party Issues Critiques of Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul

  1. Green_w_o_Adjectives

    Tarpley is quite the character. Very knowledgeable, says alot of interesting things. Though I disagree often.

    Here Tarpley elaborates on his conspiracist take on libertarians. I suppose this is part of why Jones stopped having him on his show.

  2. Green_w_o_Adjectives

    Most of the talking points in the video above are unfair…still it’s interesting to hear a unique perspective (note he’s a Syriza enthusiast in 2012). Tarpley seems obsessed with Romney and Paul in 2012. This fixation with these figureheads erodes his credibility. Focusing on duopolist leaders gets peoples attention and probably helps him sell books (and get interviews with the likes of Alex Jones) but in the big scheme of things, obsession with presidential politics is a distraction.

    Around 38:00 he gets into his paranoid view of anarchists and preference for the Syriza model.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.