In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed privately and without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.


To read Dr. Tremblay's most recent book

The Code for Global Ethics

and to order the book, click on:


USA and Canada (in English)


Canada et Europe (in French)


Also, read:

The New American Empire

Le nouvel empire amŽricain




Comments (13)

Commentaires (13)


Ten Reasons Why Bill and Hillary Clinton Do Not Deserve a Third Term in the U.S. White House


ƒlections amŽricaines : Dix raisons pour lesquelles Bill et Hillary Clinton ne mŽritent pas un troisime mandat ˆ la Maison-Blanche




Compltement d'accord

Mis en ligne, le dimanche, 17 avril, 2016 15:12


Compltement d'accord avec ce long article du professeur Rodrigue Tremblay (juste en dŽsaccord avec quelques mots anachroniques sur l'Iran comme possesseur d'arme atomique dans le chapitre 7...).‬

‪Bravo, j'ai appris beaucoup de choses sur Hillary Clinton!‬





Very Convincing Material!

Posted, Sunday, April 17, 2016 3:18 pm


Thanks for sharing the new article on the U.S. elections. It is a very convincing material with perfect collection of quotations.




Excellent Article!

Posted, Sunday, April 17, 2016 6:02 pm


Excellent article about the Clintons.





A Timely Article!

Posted, Sunday, April 17, 2016 6:05 pm


Thank you very much for your timely article on the US election.





Posted, Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:36 pm


Your ÒTen ReasonsÓ piece is stunning. Excellent work.


I note with interest your reference to the ClintonsĠ ties to Wall Street.


Please check this article of mine. And please feel free to use it to advantage as you see fit.





Une onzime bŽvue des Clinton

Mis en ligne, le dimanche, 17 avril, 2016 22:51


Il y en a une onzime : Hilary a dŽtruit la dŽmocratie au Honduras, avec le renversement du PrŽsident dŽmocratiquement Žlu, Manuel Zelaya, en 2009.





Excellent Work!

Posted, Monday, April 18, 2016 12:36 am


Excellent work.


I am resigned to a case of perpetual war for the balance of my life.


A perverted capitalist democracy is deadly and hell.





The Establishment Controls Both Parties.

Posted, Monday, April 18, 2016 4:2 pm


Thank you for writing another very informative and factual paper that will certainly educate those willing to read. Most people donĠt know that an Establishment controls both parties for the power and profit of the Establishment and that neither left nor right will stand in the way of that profit. The Progressives in Europe, Canada, et al, may never understand that our rights are from Natures God, not from a government and therefore can never be taken away. Progressives, Muslims, Marxists, illegals and others who canĠt accept our Constitution are not welcome. You may not know this but most of the Federal Government is being operated contrary to the Constitution by usurpers. My short comments are not meant to take anything away from your great writing. God Bless you.





I Would Like to Translate this Article in Slovak.

Posted, Monday, April 18, 2016 8:58 pm


This is an EXCELLENT article. I would like to translate it into the Slovak language and have it published in some prestigious Slovak electronic (Internet) periodical(s)É





Argumentaire irrŽfutable !

Mis en ligne, le vendredi, 22 avril, 2016 20:11


‪Un grand merci pour cet article du professeur Tremblay.‬

‪J'Žprouvais certaines rŽserves concernant Hillary Clinton suite aux propos de Bernie Sanders.‬

Mais l'argumentaire du Dr Tremblay Žtant convaincant et irrŽfutable, cela confirme lesdites rŽserves. Je ne puis que souscrire aux assertions de M. Tremblay.‬

‪Au risque de vous scandaliser, je vous avoue que je me demande mme si Donald Trump ne serait pas un meilleur PrŽsident amŽricain. En tout cas, il me semble qu'il serait plus indŽpendant que Hillary Clinton vis-ˆ-vis des establishments politiques et financiers.‬

‪RenŽ ‬


‪RŽponse de R. T. :


La plupart des gens ont une information superficielle et incomplte sur les politiciens dans notre propre pays. Par exemple, peu de personnes savent que notre PM Philippe Couillard a dŽjˆ manifestŽ sa grande admiration pour lĠislam, une religion qui prche la violence. Cela est encore plus vrai pour les politiciens des autres pays.


Dans le cas de Hillary Clinton et de son mari Bill Clinton, cela fait 40 ans quĠils sont en politique active. Ce sont donc des politiciens professionnels. Ils ont montrŽ tellement de talents ˆ soutirer de lĠargent des diffŽrents lobbyistes, amŽricains et Žtrangers, quĠils ont accumulŽ une fortune colossale de plus de $100 millions US, et ils dirigent une fondation qui a ˆ son actif un milliard et demi dĠavoirs financiers et de nombreux employŽs.


Je lisais rŽcemment un article du magazine Vanity Fair datŽ de novembre 2015. Voici le lien URL de lĠarticle.


On y apprend une foule de choses sur Hillary Clinton et sur son ambition dŽmesurŽe.


Je crois, en effet, quĠelle est la pire personne pour occuper le poste de prŽsident des ƒtats Unis prŽsentement. En 2008, je mĠŽtais opposŽ ˆ la candidature de John McCain parce que je croyais quĠil Žtait un psychopathe pouvant lancer son pays dans des guerres multiples ruineuses. Je pense la mme chose de Hillary Clinton.




Are Terrorist Rebels Islamic?

Posted, Saturday, April 23, 2016 8:15 am


The subject article you authored was well written in being concise and accurate. It sheds important light on the deceiving nature of Hillary Clinton and the facade she portrays. Thank you for same.


My only objection to it is that you refer to the    rebels/fanatics in Libya, and the rebel armed groups in the regional Arab countries as "Islamic".


You are falling into the same narrative espoused of these groups as disseminated by the media of the same establishment, you criticize Hillary for being a shill.


Would you refer to hate spewing venom from anti-immigrant and xenophobic parties in Europe as "secular" or "humanist"? Or would you narrate the white-supremacist violence perpetrated in white-majority countries as "Christian", since they use Christianity as the base of their ideological support?


None of the groups you referred to in your subject article are "Islamic", and to refer to them as such, is lazy writing, and does a disservice to an otherwise well-researched article. If you knew anything about Islam, you would know those people are the very antithesis of being Islamic.

Please continue to use vigilance in your writing.



Answer by R. T.:


Thank you for your comment.


I thought the reason that the Islamic State (ISIS) calls itself ÒIslamicÓ is because it professes to be a Sunni Islamic Caliphate.


The same applied to the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. It is a militant Sunni Islamist global organization founded in 1988.


I also thought that, in Libya, the reason why the Islamic Front calls itself ÒIslamicÒ is because they say they are Islamic.


In November 2013, for example, seven Islamist rebel groups (Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya, Jaysh al-Islam, Suqour al-Sham, Liwa al-Tawhid, Liwa al-Haqq, Ansar al-Sham and the Kurdish Islamic Front) announced that they were forming a new ÒIslamic FrontÓ.


As long as these rebel and terrorist groups call themselves ÒIslamicÒ, it does not behoove to me, or to you for that matter, to tell them that they are not ÒIslamicÒ. They themselves say they are.


As to Islam, that is a religion or a political ideology, which I have studied a lot for my book ÒThe Code for Global EthicsÓ. The fact that there is no central authority to dictate or moderate its doctrine means that there are many interpretations of its sacred texts, besides the obvious separation between Shiites and Sunnis. In the Koran and in the hadiths, for instance, there are many admonitions of violence that many follow to the letter, and some others donĠt. Terrorists are those who followed the 7th Century brand of Islam.


For example, the Muslim Brotherhood calls itself an Islamic organization and its slogan is ÒAllah is our objective. The Prophet Muhammad is our leader. The Koran is our Constitution. Jihad is our way. Death for the sake of Allah is our wishÓ.

Here again, that is not to me to say they are or are not ÒIslamicÒ. If they stop calling themselves Islamic, I would gladly identify them the way they like.


From Fawad:


Anyone can say they adhere to a particular ideology. That doesn't mean they actually adhere to that ideology. By your logic, should Anders Breivik, and for that matter any white-supremacist, not be considered a "Christian fanatic"? For they all use Christianity to justify their "uniqueness" and "superiority" as a race. Should the Buddhist monks of Burma who are actively pursuing and promoting genocide against Rohingya be called "Buddhist extremists"? Should the western states who are actively pursuing policies of imperialism, in the name of advancing "democracy", not be considered "Secular aggressors"? And what of Israel? It actively calls itself a "Jewish state". Should its acts of violence not be considered "Jewish terrorism"?...

Since you have studied Islam "a lot", I am interested to know what references from the Hadith and Qur'an you are referring to which enjoin violence, and which of these two forms of violence are "admonished" in said sources? 


From R. T.:


To my knowledge, the Christian or Buddhist groups you mention do not place their religion in their official name. That does not condone their violence. The United States commits a lot of violence around the world, and I deplore it, but it does not do it under the name of any religion.


As to radical or fundamentalist Islam preaching violence, this is easy. That brand of Islam, (Wahhabism, salafisme, etc.), wants to apply nowadays the more extreme verses of the Koran, such as:

"Strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies" (Surah 8:60).

—"Fight (kill) them (non-Muslims), and Allah will punish (torment) them by your hands, cover them with shame" (Surah 9:14).

"I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. It is not ye who slew them, it was Allah" (Surah 8:12, 17).


There are more than 100 of such verses in the Koran against women, non-Islamic persons, Jews, etc.


Of course, there are moderate followers of Islam who only know or use a verse or two of the Koran to justify enjoying their life such as:

—"Wealth and children are the adornment of the life of this world" (Surat Al-Kahf 18:46).

Others know the Koran but they seek to make their faith relevant to modem life and consider the violent passages in the Koran (as in the Bible) as thinking they come from a bygone era, and are not applicable nowadays.


As a Swiss rabbi put it:

ÒSince the Bible also contains verses calling for war and the destruction of the other, then what difference is there with the Koran?

None, if not for the attitude of the religious leaders themselves.

If they consider, as is the case with the majority of Christians and Jews, that these verses are related to bygone historic times, they therefore cannot be inspired by them to justify violence and murder.

On the other hand, if these verses are considered the Òdivine wordÓ and bearers of the only truth, everything is to be feared.Ó


There seems to be too many imams and too many madrassas, which teach that everything in the Koran is AllahĠs words to be adhered to literally.


It is not surprising that some hothead terrorists would follow such teaching, with disastrous results.


I would hope Islam would reform itself like other religions have done.


The daily news, with acts of barbarism committed with the cry of Allah, inform us that this does not seem to be soon.




It is Difficult to Predict the Behavior of Future Presidents!

Posted, Saturday, April 30, 2016 12:31 pm


A fine article on Hillary Clinton. But if it makes you feel any better, it has in the past been very difficult to predict the foreign policies of incoming presidents. Such predictions have had a very sorry track record. The actual foreign policies have often turned out to be very different from what had been expected. Hillary Clinton may indeed be a perpetual war president, but she might turn out very differently also.



Answer by R. T.:


Indeed, I do remember how George W. Bush was promising a ÒhumbleÒ foreign policy in 2000!


Now I hear that the Koch Brothers think Hillary Clinton would be a president of their liking, more so than any Republican candidate!


Tell me who is behind a candidate and I will tell you what kind of politician he or she will be.


There must be a reason why the entire warmongering neocon apparatus is against Trump!





Magistral !

Mis en ligne, le dimanche, 1er mai, 2016 8:41


Magistral !

Vous nĠŽcrivez pas souvent, M. Tremblay, mais quand vous vous y mettez, on en a pour notre argent.

Je conclus de ce que vous Žcrivez que ces manifestations anti Trump qui sont rŽcemment apparues aux rallyes du candidat rŽpublicain sont sans doute organisŽes par les nŽocons qui prŽparent le terrain en vue de la prŽsidentielle pour assurer ˆ leur candidate une voie royale vers la prŽsidence.




Quelques ŽlŽments additionnels.

Mis en ligne, le dimanche, 1er mai, 2016 15:43


Je vous rejoins tout ˆ fait dans votre remarquable analyse dans votre rŽcent article sur les Žlections amŽricaines et les Clinton.


Si vous le permettez, je souhaiterai ajouter quelques ŽlŽments pour lesquels je ne doute aucunement que vous soyez au fait, mais qui ˆ mon sens pouvaient aussi trouver leur place dans votre article :


Clinton coupable de gŽnocides :


Avec "l'annexion amŽricaine du Rwanda" dans laquelle le gouvernement Clinton prit une part majeure par la mise en place du gŽnocide Tutsi au moyen dĠune dŽstabilisation intŽrieure du pays qui sĠaccompagna ensuite dĠune fausse volontŽ non-interventionniste pour stopper les Žvnements, coupable ensuite du gŽnocide Hutu par le soutien apportŽ ˆ Paul Kagame. Au total plus de 800 000 morts de part et dĠautre.


Nous pouvons aussi lui reprocher le choix malsain d'un secrŽtaire d'ƒtat nŽoconservateur gŽnocidaire, Madeleine Albright, qui dŽclara ˆ une journaliste amŽricaine, que le gŽnocide de 500 000 enfants irakiens consŽcutif au blocus de 10 annŽes dont a souffert lĠIrak, Žtait lŽgitime au regard des rŽsultatsÉ


Enfin, les Clinton sont, au mme titre que les autres prŽsidents amŽricains depuis les annŽes Ô60, coupables au nom du soit disant sacro-saint secret, de cacher les montants et lĠutilisation des "black budgets" qui financent par les deniers des citoyens amŽricains les projets secrets du complexe militaro industriel, au simple bŽnŽfices d'intŽrts privŽs.


Ils sont ˆ ce titre coupables de cacher non seulement au peuple amŽricain mais aussi ˆ lĠensemble de l'HumanitŽ la ma”trise scientifique de l'Žnergie du point zŽro, de lĠanti-gravitŽ, depuis plus de 50 annŽes, tout en Žludant lĠimplication de lĠUS Air Force et de la Nasa dans des projets secrets de conqute de lĠespace ou les budgets engloutiraient des trilliards de dollars chaque annŽe (tels que les trois trilliards ŽgarŽs par Dick Cheney lors de lĠaudition comptable du gouvernement fŽdŽral prŽsentŽ devant le Congrs).



RŽponse de R.T. :


Pour ma part, je nĠai pas voulu recenser lĠensemble des 40 annŽes de vie politique de ce couple cŽlbre. Cela prendrait non pas un article mais quelques livres.


En effet, je mĠen suis tenu ˆ la pŽriode qui commence avec les dernires annŽes du gouvernement Clinton, soit 1998-1999, alors que Bill Clinton Žtait aux prises avec lĠaffaire Monica Lewinsky. Mais auparavant, les deux Clinton furent impliquŽs dans une foule de scandales, plus ou moins oubliŽs aujourdĠhui, mais lesquels ont Žvidemment une importance historique.


Comme vous le soulignez, il y a deux ou trois gouvernements et budgets secrets ˆ Washington D.C. Celui de la CIA et des 15 autres organisations secrtes est fort connu, mme si son implication dans toutes sortes dĠactivitŽs louches ˆ travers le monde lĠest beaucoup moins.


Il y a aussi la tranche nŽoconservatrice de la haute sphre de lĠadministration amŽricaine que dĠŽnormes contributions Žlectorales faites aux politiciens amŽricains maintiennent en place, quelque soit le parti au pouvoir. Mme Madeleine Albright faisait partie de cette infrastructure.


Remarquez bien quĠune influence semblable existe aussi dans le gouvernement franais. Regardez du c™tŽ de la dŽfense et des affaires extŽrieures.


Back to blog


Retour au blog