20 December 2016
By Jacob G. Hornberger
The CIA and its mainstream media acolytes continue to blame Democratic Party
Hillary Clinton's electoral loss on the Russians and, specifically, on
supposed hacking by Russia of computers belonging to Clinton and Democratic
But even if the CIA allegations were true, what all these people are missing
is that the election result would not have been changed by the hacking itself
but rather by the disclosure of the information that resulted from the
Why is that an important distinction? Because it was the political corruption
that was revealed by the emails that presumably influenced some voters to turn
against Clinton. The supposed hacking was simply the means by which the truth
about the corruption was brought to the attention of American voters.
In other words, if Clinton and her people had not engaged in wrongdoing, then
the disclosure of their emails would not have any any adverse effect on them.
It was their corruption itself, not the supposed hacking, that presumably led
to their electoral debacle.
Instead of focusing on the wrongdoing itself, the CIA and the mainstream press
are focusing on Russia by pointing out that Russia had no right to hack into
the computers. If they're right about the Russian hacking, then they have a
point, but it is besides the real point. The real point is that it is the
corruption itself, whether it was disclosed by Russia or by a Democratic Party
insider (as Wikileaks maintains), that presumably cost Clinton the election.
What these people are essentially saying is that if Russia had not supposedly
hacked into those computers, Clinton would have won the election because the
American people would not have learned about her and her party's corruption.
That strikes me as a really weird argument. Isn't it a good thing that voters
learn about a candidate's and a political party's corruption before an
But there is obviously something bigger going on here, which is that
President-elect Trump is upsetting a big apple cart, one that the
national-security establishment, the mainstream press, the interventionists,
and the neocons were convinced was going to roll merrily on with Clinton's
ascendancy to the presidency.
That apple cart is Cold War II, which was going to consist of a resumption of
tension, crises, hostility, and rivalry with Russia, China, and the rest of
the old Cold War I communist gang. Needless to say, Cold War II would
accomplish the same purpose that Cold War I achieved: ever-growing budgets,
influence, and power for the military establishment, the CIA, the NSA, and the
rest of the national-security establishment.
All these people were 100 percent convinced that Clinton had the election in
the bag. Equally important, every one of them knew that Clinton would have
continued the Cold War II plan, especially given her personal hostility toward
Russian President Vladimir Putin.
By electing Trump, a majority of voters have obviously upended the Cold War II
apple cart by electing Trump instead. And as we all know, Trump has absolutely
no interest in reviving Cold War II with the Russians. Instead, he wants to
establish peaceful and friendly relations with them, much like President
Kennedy was trying to do in the months before he was assassinated.
That has thrown the national-security establishment, the mainstream press, the
interventionists, and the neocons into an absolute tizzy.
What do they do now?
As I have long been pointing out, the Pentagon's so-called ''pivot'' to Asia
is designed to provoke crises and tensions with China. The plan is already
working. Just a few days ago, China seized one of the Pentagon's underwater
spy drones operating in disputed waters in the South China Sea. Just like
clockwork, the Washington establishment, the mainstream press, the
interventionists, and the neocons went into Cold War mode, demanding that
President Obama get ''tough'' with the Chinese communists.
Prepare yourself: There will be more crises with China to come as a result of
the Pentagon's pivot to Asia. That was the purpose of the pivot. Remember: The
American warships that will inevitably provoke these crises will be operating
over there — thousands of miles away from American shores, not in the Gulf of
Mexico or somewhere else close to home.
The plans for Cold War II obviously called for simultaneous crises with both
Russia and China — and probably North Korea as well. Such crises would keep
Americans in a state of fitful anxiety, just like during the Cold War years,
and, thus, extremely grateful that the old Cold War apparatus known as the
national security state is there to protect them and keep them safe.
With Trump's election and his plans to establish peaceful and friendly
relations with Russia, suddenly Cold War II is no longer a certainty, even
with continued crises being provoked with China. And that might well cause
Americans to finally ask two important questions: Why should there be
ever-increasing budgets for the national-security establishment and, more
important, if there is no Cold War II or Cold War I, why do we even need a
Cold War-era national-security establishment?
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom
Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in
economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the
University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He
also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught
law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become
director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has
advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the
country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and
he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show
Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full