Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells

US anti war movement

News US anti war movement Recommended Links Non-Interventionism Anti-globalization movement Economic nationalism Bannon
Anti war libertarians Ron Paul Tulsi Gabbard Dennis Kusinish Chris Hedges Ray Mcgovern anttwar.com -- the most  prominent anti war site run by linertarian Justin Raimondo
Paul Craig Roberts Philippics Neoliberal Globalization American biblical nationalism and religious far right American Exceptionalism Predator state Ethno-linguistic and "Cultural" Nationalism as a reaction to Neoliberalism induced decline of standards of living
Secular Stagnation under Neoliberalism Who Rules America Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich TTP, NAFTA and other supernational trade treates Brexit as the start of the reversal of neoliberal globalization Immigration, wage depression and free movement of workers Debt slavery
American Imperialism, Transnational Capitalist Class and Globalization of Capitalism Merchants of Debt Greece debt enslavement Eroding Western living standards Ukraine debt enslavement IMF as the key institution for neoliberal debt enslavement Wolfowitz Doctrine
Donald Trump -- an unusual fighter against excesses of neoliberal globalization Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism National Security State Demonization of Putin Anatol Leiven on American Messianism Neoliberalism and Christianity The Far Right Forces in Ukraine as Trojan Horse of Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism Neocolonialism Neoconservatism Media-Military-Industrial Complex The art of manufacturing of prisoners of consciousness Machiavellism Color revolutions
New American Militarism Jingoism of the US neoliberal elite Demonization of Putin Cold War II Pathological Russophobia of the US elite Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak Anti Trump Hysteria
Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair Hillary wet kiss with neocons Hillary role in Libya disaster Syria civil war Anatol Leiven on American Messianism Manipulation of the term "freedom of press" Sect of fraudulent election witnesses
The art of manufacturing of prisoners of consciousness Paleoconservatism Machiavellism Humanitarian Imperialism  John Kenneth Galbraith Humor Antiwar Quotes
 

"Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other."

Garet Garrett, one of the last of the Old Right "isolationists,"1952,

Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribalism-based/identity voting block on the left that the republicans have on the right. With the explicit purpose of maintaining and expanding neoliberal empire led by the USA. They were extremely successful by unleashing neo McCarthyism company.

Few members of the US elite understand that economic sanctions are as close to the declaration of war as one can get. Most members of the US elite bask in "American exceptionalism" mentality and do not feel the danger of reckless endless provocations against Russia and China. Or the fact that McCarthyism creates and feeds anti-Americanism in those counties that are targeted. And part of Europe (France, Spain) who understand are essentially hostages of the US foreign policy.

Previously that ended very well for the USA as the USSR dissolved. Will Russia dissolve ? Will China Communist Party be deposed from power ? If the answer on both  questions is no, this is a reckless, dangerous policy. Behavior exemplified Senator McCain, former vice-president Biden and former Secretary of State and Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.  Right now the status of the only superpower protects the USA, but this might change if Russia and China despite difficulties announce close military cooperation NATO style -- attack on one is attack on all. At this point the USA has no economic capabilities to match this block militarily, neither in manpower not is the strength of the first strike.  And EU allies might start having the second thoughts.

Come Home America

 Join Citizens Opposed To War and Empire!

Skip to content

Dangerous Insanity by Charley Reese

While everyone is being distracted by the war in Iraq, Tom Cruise's impending wedding and George Clooney's deep concern for the people in the Darfur region of Sudan, the knuckleheads in Washington are laying the groundwork for a sure-enough war - a war we won't win.

The latest step was Little Emperor George's proclamation that nothing will be allowed to keep us from the militarization of space. The emperor and his crazy neoconservative advisers apparently want to conquer not only the world, but outer space, too.

This insanity began in the first Bush's administration, continued through the Clinton administration and has begun to blossom in the Little Emperor's regime. Instead of seeing the end of the Cold War as a golden opportunity for lasting peace, the crazies in Washington saw it as an opportunity for American military dominance of the whole planet.

If you keep this goal in mind, then a lot of what happened makes sense. When the Warsaw Pact was disbanded, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization also should have been disbanded. After all, it was just a war alliance against the Soviet Union.

Instead, NATO was expanded right up to the borders of Russia. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was unilaterally abrogated. Other nuclear-disarmament treaties were tossed in the trash can. Rather than help Russia transition from communism to a free market, the U.S. sent sharpies who helped the oligarchs steal most of the country's wealth during the drunken presidency of Boris Yeltsin.

Furthermore, NATO's mission changed from a defensive posture to an offensive mission. The bombing of Serbia, a traditional ally of Russia, was designed to send a message to Russia; the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was a message to Beijing. At the same time, using democracy or terrorism as an excuse, the U.S. has sought to install governments unfriendly to Russia in the former Soviet republics and to establish military bases on the perimeter of the country.

Unfortunately for the crazies in Washington, the Russians replaced their drunk with a smart guy, Vladimir Putin. By the way, all the bad-mouthing of Putin is coming from the oligarchs who fled justice in Russia. They have plenty of money to hire the best whores in the fields of public relations and journalism to bad-mouth a Russian leader who wants to put them in jail where they belong. Of course, they want regime change — another drunk who would invite them back to steal what they missed the first time.

The Chinese were not intimidated, either. Both countries see Bush's anti-missile defense system for what it really is — an offensive weapon to be used in conjunction with a nuclear first strike. We couldn't afford a system to cover the country, but one that might pick off the leftovers after an American first strike is feasible.

So China and Russia have come together in a strong, strategic alliance nobody would have thought possible 20 years ago. It is a military, economic and energy alliance with one purpose — to frustrate the U.S. attempt at world dominance.

These neoconservative crazies are dangerous people. They are sick with the same hubris that brought down the British Empire. It is one thing to bully Third World countries; it is quite another to play that game with nuclear powers.

One Asian former head of intelligence has written that China already has the technology and weapons to put our aircraft carriers on the bottom of the sea as easily as sinking a sampan.

The world doesn't need this madness. Washington needs to be cleansed of these crackpots before they stupidly unleash a nuclear holocaust. The Russians and Chinese are among Earth's most brilliant people, and they are not taken in by political blathering. It is extremely dangerous to be doing things that they reasonably can assume is leading to a strategy of a nuclear first strike.

(Write to Charley Reese at P.O. Box 2446, Orlando, FL 32802)


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Feb 19, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard Elizabeth Warren in 2020 Who Can Beat Trump Voice Message

May 11, 2017 | www.youtube.com

BestAnimeFanservice , 1 year ago

Tulsi Gabbard is courageous and stands up against her own party regardless of the political cost. Elizabeth Warren is a coward; she never stands up against her party; she only fights the easy fights (GOP,Trump). Elizabeth Warren was a college professor she knows the words the young kids want to listen and she says them often. Mark my words 'Elizabeth Warren in 2020 will be the Walter Mondale of 1984'

Megan Parish , 1 year ago (edited)

Tulsi Gabbard. She supports Medicare for all and Elizabeth Warren does not. She's also really pushing the fake Russia story all over MSNBC. Tulsi was the only one who didn't endorse Hillary.

D. Martin , 1 year ago (edited)

Liz voted to get rid of Habeas Corpus and we're going to put her up for president now? Bernie and Liz will certainly maintain the Democratic Party line on the Middle East.

TheGr8stManEvr , 1 year ago (edited)

I'll never trust Warren again. She's a Fauxgressive, just like Obama. #FoolMeOnce

TheKeithvidz , 1 year ago (edited)

tulsi %100 but Warren supported Ben Carson & Hillary Rodham - to be fair she's far from the worse.

branden burks , 1 year ago

Mike don't be naive. The Democratic Party has learned NOTHING! They'd definitely cheat a true progressive in 2020. Have you seen ANY changes? Do you hear what their lawyers say about cheating Sanders on the record?

branden burks , 1 year ago

I'd take Tulsi Gabbard over Elizabeth Warren. Warren showed her true colors. Always too little too late and she doesn't do it by mistake. Gabbard just does the right thing because it's right. I don't think Warren could beat Trump. He can poke way too many holes in her.

[Feb 19, 2019] Foreign Policy is More Than Just War and Peace

Notable quotes:
"... Congress needs to take back the war powers. The fact that no one wants to be the one responsible for deciding to go to war might help slow down if not stop all these regime change wars. Maybe if Congress votes on it enough of them will be reluctant to make a yes vote. ..."
"... how being a mercenary soldier/terrorist in other people's countries, murdering their people and destroying their infrastructure, for military and multinational corporate profits and Wall St., translates to "serving and sacrificing for the people of our country"? How do you make that weird leap in logic? ..."
Nov 14, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Foreign policy is more than just war and peace, it is a nuanced and complex issue that directly affects us here at home. In this interview, Dr. Jane Sanders sits down with Representative Tulsi Gabbard to talk about U.S. foreign policy and how it affects us here at home.

oneofthesixbillion , 3 months ago (edited)

Tulsi this is the first I've explored who you are. This conversation felt like a life giving refreshment. The constant war and regime change policy of every administration since I was a young child has been utterly confounding. We are bankrupting our society and civilization with military expenditure exactly like a life destroying heroin addict except it's on a global scale. These people in the powers that be together with the masses that back them are literal sociopaths and they're entirely in control at both the highest and base levels. The only other time I've felt as nourished by a public figure that somehow pierced through the mainstream media was Bernie Sanders actually expressing the fact that we are an oligarchy not a democracy. Like oligarchy, anti-war and imperialism is just not talked about. US Americans won't acknowledge the scale of our imperialism.

Jonah Dubin , 3 months ago

Tulsi should run and both Sanders should follow her lead. As much as I love him, Bernie's too old to be president - when it gets to the stage against Trump, we need a young, vibrant face. Add onto that the fact that she's a veteran who actually asked to be deployed in comparison to him, a draft dodger - he looks like an old fat pathetic septogenarian next to an early 40s real populist. Ultimately it is up to Sanders whether this whole thing is about a man or a movement. If he runs, he'll probably win the primary but it is not a guarantee that he'd win - Tulsi would win and she'd be around for decades to come as a standard barer too.

Wayne Chapman , 2 months ago

"Sensible politics" seems to be an oxymoron these days and pretty much throughout the history of our country. It's so refreshing to see a politician who has a vision for the future that the majority of us can get behind. It scares me though. I've read quite a bit about JFK the past few years, and he amassed a number of very powerful and dangerous enemies. They won't just stand by and allow someone in a position of influence to get the truth out about our immoral and illegal wars. Tulsi, I support your efforts to bring peace to the Middle East and elsewhere, but please do be careful. You're a fighter and I admire that, but we all want you to be safe and healthy for many years to come.

George Crannell , 5 days ago

Tulsi Gabbard, I am thrilled to have someone like you running for president. I am a fellow Veteran dealing with disability and I am glad to have a candidate who understands the issues Veterans are dealing with. I also realize that the voting public will support the person who resonates with their personal lives and issues that don't exist in their life they will disregard.Thank you for you're support.

somedayalwaysnever , 4 days ago

The DNC will lie cheat and steal the election from Tulsi Gabbard just like they did Bernie Sanders, and the 15 million Americans who Left the un-Democratic party will double and triple....DEMEXIT

Robert Covarrubias , 1 week ago

Tulsi Gabbard needs to be the president of the United States of America period. If she not the president of our country will not survive. That is a fact, how stupid can our government be. I guess very stupid, what else can I say. We don't hear that in main news media, the reason we do hear it the media . The news media is totally brought, the main news media love money and the devil, simple as that. How are you going to hear about wars from main news media. They do care about the citizens or the country. We really don't have a real news media, it all propaganda. All fake news, that why one doesn't hear anything from the new medias.

Lee Alexander , 1 month ago

Congress needs to take back the war powers. The fact that no one wants to be the one responsible for deciding to go to war might help slow down if not stop all these regime change wars. Maybe if Congress votes on it enough of them will be reluctant to make a yes vote.

D Personal , 1 week ago

WAKE UP, PEOPLE! Bernie is a sell-out - a sheeple-herder that never intended to win. He was a gatekeeper for Hillary because she is AIPAC-beloved and he is an Israel-firster. He threw his supporters under the bus as they told him in real time that the nomination was being stolen. He's part of the con, and the sooner we realize this, the better off we'll be. BERNIE WORKS FOR DEMOCRATS. Vote Third Party (REAL third parties, not the Bernie Sanders' kind).

Kinky, 2 months ago

Tulsi - re your comment about our veterans who have "served and sacrificed for their country," could you clarify how being a mercenary soldier/terrorist in other people's countries, murdering their people and destroying their infrastructure, for military and multinational corporate profits and Wall St., translates to "serving and sacrificing for the people of our country"? How do you make that weird leap in logic?

[Feb 19, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard Reveals Amazing Progressive Legislative Agenda

Feb 19, 2019 | www.youtube.com

The Working Progressive , 5 months ago (edited)

Jimmy, the whole Tulsi interview was a clinic on real journalism. It's efforts from TJDS like this that make me wish I had more $ to give to the show than I do. Thank you for the great work! And, while I was already a big supporter of Tulsi Gabbard, the way she spoke honestly & addressed some tough questions & uncomfortable truths about the party (& capitalism- that's what buying off pols is, an aspect of capitalism) just sent her credibility sky high with me. Thank you Tulsi, & thank you Jimmy & the crew at TJDS. Well done!

Sherry Spectre , 5 months ago

This entire interview, was nothing short of brilliant. Tulsi is the real deal. When Jimmy mentions her & Bernie start a new party, her face said it all. She seemed genuinely flattered and became very humble. Wish there was a "Tulsi Gabbard" in all 50 states. She gives hope to people. Peace. And, thank you.

Moes1n , 5 months ago

I hate to say it, but I remember another progressive politician who said all the right things, at the right time: Barack Obama. I drank up that kool aid by the gallon, and voted for him twice. Will Gabbard emerge from her first briefing as POTUS as a Stepford Wife of the MIC, as Obama did? Will it be "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" yet again? By 2013, specifically after Ukraine and vilification of Snowden (not to mention Libya, Syria, Iraq/ISIS, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, etc) I vowed to never vote for a Democrat again, after pulling the lever for dems my entire life. I would vote for Gabbard as an independent in a hot second, but unfortunately have no hope for her or her seemingly progressive agenda if she stays tied to the corrupt and warmongering DNC.

[Feb 19, 2019] P>ositions - tulsi

Notable quotes:
"... Wants to ban super PACs and does not take any PAC money. ..."
"... Supports sensible gun control. Has 7% rating from the NRA ..."
"... Need fair immigration reform that doesn't break up families. ..."
"... Reduce mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders ..."
"... Cosponsor of H.R. 676 the Medicare for All Act ..."
"... Supports diplomacy, ending the standoff and regime change wars including North Korea. ..."
"... Committed to protecting Medicare and Social Security. Opposes Privatization. ..."
"... End interventionist wars of regime change that cost lives and money and make things worse. ..."
"... Has helped lead the opposition on this issue. ..."
"... Reinstate Glass-Steagall Act, ban naked credit default swaps, and breakup big banks. ..."
Feb 19, 2019 | www.reddit.com

Policies and Issues of Tulsi Gabbard

Issue Position Details
Abortion Pro-Choice Tulsi has a 100% voting record with both Planned Parenthood and NARAL.
Affordable Care Act Supports Protect and improve Obamacare until Single Payer plan can pass.
Border Wall Opposes Dream Act must be independent of any border wall legistation
Campaign Finance Supports Wants to ban super PACs and does not take any PAC money.
Citizens United Opposes "The only way to restore public faith in our democracy is with citizen-led, grassroots-funded campaigns."
Civil Rights Supports Federal protection for discrimination of national origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief , gender.
Climate Change Green New Deal Tax incentives for wind, solar, biomass and wave energy. Regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
Dakota Access Pipeline Opposes Visited and supported protestors at DAPL. Also opposed Keystone.
Death Penalty - -
GMO labeling Supports Let Americans have a choice in their food purchases.
Green New Deal - -
Gun Control Supports Supports sensible gun control. Has 7% rating from the NRA .
Illegal Immigration Opposes Deportation Need fair immigration reform that doesn't break up families.
Environmental Protections Supports Lifelong environmentalist who started an environmental non-profit as a teenager, and has a strong environmental record.
Equal Pay Supports Supported legislation to level the playing field such as H.R.377 - Paycheck Fairness Act
Internet Privacy Supports Restrict how Internet providers use and sell customer data
LGBT Rights & Marriage Equality Supports Since being elected to Congress, Tulsi has been 100% pro-LGBT rights and for marriage equality.
Marijuana Decriminalize & Legalize Introduced legislation to take off federal controlled substances list. Supports Legalization.
Mandatory Minimums Opposes Reduce mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders
Medicare-For-All Supports Cosponsor of H.R. 676 the Medicare for All Act.
Minimum Wage $15 Supports Cosponsored the Minimum Wage Fairness Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act
Net Neutrality Supports "Maintaining Net Neutrality is Cornerstone of Our Democracy"
North Korea Talks Supports Supports diplomacy, ending the standoff and regime change wars including North Korea.
NSA Mass Collection Surveillance Opposes Strongly pro civil liberties, and reigning in, stopping mass collection and defunding the NSA
Nuclear Power Opposes Too dangerous and expensive. Better to phase it out and focus on clean, safe, renewable energy.
PayGo Opposes "just three Democrats voted it down: Khanna and Ocasio-Cortez were joined by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii"
Planned Parenthood Supports Supports funding and has 100% rating from them.
Prisons For Profit Opposes Has called to end the use of private prisons nationwide.
Refugee Ban Opposes Spoke against Trump's executive order banning refugees. Thinks vetting is sufficient.
Saudi Arabia Arms Sales Opposes Condemned the Trump Administration's $460 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia
Single-Payer Healthcare Supports Supports HR 676 and universal healthcare, Medicare and a public option
Social Security Protect Committed to protecting Medicare and Social Security. Opposes Privatization.
Space Exploration - -
Syria End the War End interventionist wars of regime change that cost lives and money and make things worse.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Opposes Has helped lead the opposition on this issue.
Veterans Services Expand Let veterans see private physicians, improve the GI Bill, incentives to hire veterans
Wall Street Regulation Supports Reinstate Glass-Steagall Act, ban naked credit default swaps, and breakup big banks.

[Feb 19, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard kills New World Order bloodbath in thirty seconds

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi Gabbard has recently launched a new attack on New World Order agents and ethnic cleansers in the Middle East, and one can see why they would be upset with her ..."
"... Gabbard is smart enough to realize that the Neocon path leads to death, chaos, and destruction. She knows that virtually nothing good has come out of the Israeli narrative in the Middle East -- a narrative which has brought America on the brink of collapse in the Middle East. Therefore, she is asking for a U-turn. ..."
"... The first step for change, she says, is to "stand up against powerful politicians from both parties" who take their orders from the Neocons and war machine. These people don't care about you, me, the average American, the people in the Middle East, or the American economy for that matter. They only care about fulfilling a diabolical ideology in the Middle East and much of the world. These people ought to stop once and for all. Regardless of your political views, you should all agree with Gabbard here. ..."
Feb 19, 2019 | www.veteranstoday.com

Tulsi Gabbard has recently launched a new attack on New World Order agents and ethnic cleansers in the Middle East, and one can see why they would be upset with her. She said:

" We must stand up against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage, new places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining our economy, our security, and destroying our middle class."

It is too early to formulate a complete opinion on Gabbard, but she has said the right thing so far. In fact, her record is better than numerous presidents, both past and present.

As we have documented in the past, Gabbard is an Iraq war veteran, and she knew what happened to her fellow soldiers who died for Israel, the Neocon war machine, and the military industrial complex. She also seems to be aware that the war in Iraq alone will cost American taxpayers at least six trillion dollars. [1] She is almost certainly aware of the fact that at least "360,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans may have suffered brain injuries." [2]

Gabbard is smart enough to realize that the Neocon path leads to death, chaos, and destruction. She knows that virtually nothing good has come out of the Israeli narrative in the Middle East -- a narrative which has brought America on the brink of collapse in the Middle East. Therefore, she is asking for a U-turn.

The first step for change, she says, is to "stand up against powerful politicians from both parties" who take their orders from the Neocons and war machine. These people don't care about you, me, the average American, the people in the Middle East, or the American economy for that matter. They only care about fulfilling a diabolical ideology in the Middle East and much of the world. These people ought to stop once and for all. Regardless of your political views, you should all agree with Gabbard here.


[Feb 19, 2019] Warmongers in their ivory towers - YouTube

Highly recommended!
This is a powerful political statement... Someaht similar to Tucker Carlson stance...
Feb 19, 2019 | www.youtube.com

"We must stand up against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage, new places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining our economy, our security, and destroying our middle class."

[Feb 19, 2019] Charles Schumer and questioning the foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class ..."
Feb 19, 2019 | www.unz.com

Charles Pewitt says: February 19, 2019 at 3:01 pm GMT 200 Words ...

...Charles Schumer is a JEW NATIONALIST who uses his power and the power of the Israel Lobby to get American soldiers to fight wars on behalf of Israel in the Middle East and West Asia.

US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class.

[Feb 19, 2019] Wow, I absolutely love every point she made, what a breath of fresh air

Feb 18, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Rick S 1 month ago

Wow, I absolutely love every point she made, what a breath of fresh air. Our less popular presidents that have lost their second term elections have lost them because.. their opponent was a breath of fresh air. She's going to win by an embarrassing margin, wish her the best!

[Feb 18, 2019] Tulsi on the issues Run Tulsi Run - Tulsi Gabbard for President in 2020

Feb 18, 2019 | runtulsirun.net

Tulsi Gabbard's platform is closely aligned with Senator Bernie Sanders' platform – the platform supported by millions and millions of American working class during his 2016 presidential campaign.

Some of Tulsi Gabbard's main issues:

Click here for details of her positions on issues that impact you.

[Feb 18, 2019] While highly unlikely Tulsi Gabbard might be able to do what Trump failed to do and appeals directly to the people of the USA to back her in a ruthless campaign to drain the swamp (meaning showing the door to the Neocons and their Deep State)

it looks like alt-right is not that enthusiastic about Tulsi, but most will support it over Trump...
Feb 18, 2019 | www.unz.com

In fact, one of two things are most likely to happen next:

Tulsi Gabbard remains true to her ideals and views and she gets no money for her campaign Tulsi Gabbard caves in to the Neocons and the Deep State and she become another Obama/Trump

Okay, in theory, a third option is possible (never say never!) but I see that as highly unlikely: Tulsi Gabbard follows in the footsteps of Trump and gets elected in spite of a massive media hate-campaign against her and once she makes it to the White House she does what Trump failed to do and appeals directly to the people of the USA to back her in a ruthless campaign to "drain the swamp" (meaning showing the door to the Neocons and their Deep State). This is what Putin did, at least partially, when he came to power, by the way. Frankly, for all her very real qualities she does not strike me as a "US Putin" nor does she have the kind of institutional and popular backing Putin had. So while I will never say never, I am not holding my breath on this one

Finally, if Gabbard truly is "for real" then the Deep State will probably "Kennedy" her and blame Russia or Iran for it.

Still, while we try to understand what, if anything, Tulsi Gabbard could do for the world, she does do good posting messages like this one:

I don't know about you, but I am rather impressed!

At the very least, she does what "Occupy Wall Street" did with its "1%" which was factually wrong. The actual percentage is much lower but politically very effective. In this case, Gabbard speaks of both parties being alike and she popularizes concepts like " warmongers in ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage and new places for people to die ". This is all very good and useful for the cause of peace and anti-imperialism because when crimethink concepts become mainstream, then the mainstream is collapsing !

The most important achievement of Tulsi Gabbard, at least so far, has been to prove that the so-called "liberals" don't give a damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities, don't give a damn about "thanking our veterans" or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what they do care about is power, Empire and war. That they really care about.

Tulsi Gabbard is the living proof that the US Democrats and other pretend "liberals" are hell bent on power, empire and war. They also will stop at nothing to prevent the USA from (finally!) becoming a "normal" country and they couldn't care less about the fate of the people of the USA. All they want is for us all to become their serfs.

All of this is hardly big news. But this hysterical reaction to Gabbard's candidacy is a very powerful and useful proof of the fact that the USA is a foreign-occupied country with no real sovereignty or democracy. As for the US media, it would make folks like Suslov or Goebbels green with envy. Be it the ongoing US aggression against Venezuela or the reaction to the Tulsi Gabbard phenomenon, the diagnostics concur and we can use the typical medical euphemism and say with confidence: "the prognosis is poor".


Adrian E. , says: February 15, 2019 at 7:33 am GMT

In fact, one of two things are most likely to happen next:

– Tulsi Gabbard remains true to her ideals and views and she gets no money for her campaign
– Tulsi Gabbard caves in to the Neocons and the Deep State and she become another Obama/Trump

I think it is unlikely that Tulsi Gabbard caves in so soon. The way she has started her campaign, she is certainly aware that she has cut off herself from the normal donors of Democrats, and the way she talks shows that she is not afraid of alienating them even more because she won't get money from them, anyway. The plan is to do the same like Bernie Sanders 2016 and raise small donations. Many Democratic candidates now say they don't take PAC money, but there are different ways of getting money from big donors – Tulsi Gabbard is probably one of those who are more serious about avoiding reliance on big donors. It could work. In 2016, during the primaries, Hillary Clinton regularly had to interrupt her campaign in order to attend dinners with superrich donors, while Bernie Sanders asked people to donate as a part of his campaign on social media, and Sanders regularly outraised Clinton. Of course, 2016, we just saw that for the primaries, but it might also work for the general election (and numbers are not everything, Hillary Clinton spent far more than Donald Trump and still lost, so even if small donations would lead to a somewhat lower sum, she could still win with a popular message). And not only could it work, I think it would be the only way for Tulsi Gabbard to succeed because she has probably already been too outspoken about some things to ever gain back the trust of the neocons and their allies in the media and the billionaire donor class.

Of course, if Tulsi Gabbard advances in the primaries, she will be attacked most viciously in the media. I am not so sure what the effect will be. On one hand, Trump's victory in the primaries and the general election showed that being hated by mainstream media does not have to be an obstacle that cannot be surmounted, and as long as there are so many primary candidates, such vicious attacks can also make her seem more interesting to some people. On the other hand, her main hurdle are probably the Democratic primaries, and, according to polls, Democrats have lost trust in the mainstream media to a lesser degree than the general public. But then again, vilifying her too much in the liberal media (as it has already started) is also a certain risk for them because it could become too obvious to see that the decisive feature that leads to such attacks is that someone is not seen as reliably pro-neocon, and that could also lead to doubts about the media in leftists who readily accepted the attacks on Trump because they hated him for other reasons. Therefore, I think the main hope of the establishment is that Tulsi Gabbard can be treated as a „minor candidate" and won't get far, in case she becomes a serious contender for the nomination, they are in trouble.

If Tulsi Gabbard wins the nomination, we can almost be certain that the pro-neocon establishment will a) see a re-election of Trump as the lesser evil and b) they will support a pro-establishment third party candidate (already last time, Michael Bloomberg threatened to run if the two major candidates are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, now Howard Schultz seems to have positioned himself that way, though I think he is too ridiculous and ineffective and will be replaced by someone else if the establishment needs a third party candidate because they lose the Democratic primaries). Such a third party candidate probably increases the chances of Trump's re-election (probably a desired side-effect, many of these liberal oligarchs probably prefer Trump to Gabbard and Sanders by far, but it would be difficult for them to support Trump in public, supporting a third party candidate is much easier), but a populist campaign against both Trump and that third party candidate as representatives of a corrupt billionaire class might well be successful.

Then, if Tulsi Gabbard is elected, she certainly runs the risk of ending like JFK, but the fact that so many people now already talk and write about this risk might also protect her to some degree – the danger is so obvious that many people won't believe theories about a lonewolf terrorist easily (and blaming Russia and Iran after Tulsi Gabbard had been vilified as an Assadist and Russian trolls' favorite candidate would also be difficult, if for some reasons relations with Saudi Arabia are not seen as so important any more, the more realistic option of blaming Saudi terrorists may be chosen). Another option would be to impeach her, though that could also be a big risk for the establishment, and depending on who would be her VP, it would not be enough. Of course, there could be bipartisan agreement about blocking all of her initiatives.

Even if she is extremely smart and tough, alone against the united forces of the deep state, establishment media and the bipartisan war party, Tusli Gabbard probably could not achieve very much – of course, she would still be commander in chief and probably could prevent new wars, and she could open some people's eyes about who really holds power, but she could hardly achieve very much. The question is whether she still might get some institutional support like Putin when he became president. I think that is not so unlikely because there are indications that the deep state is internally divided (one small example is that the communications of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were published) and that the neocons' grip on power is far from total. Therefore, it does not seem impossible that with a combination of support in the general public (and she certainly has the potential of becoming very popular) and the support of parts of the deep state that have not been subdued by the neocons, she might be successful – it would be a very harsh power struggle.

As far as caving in to Israel is concerned, Tulsi Gabbard has never been too critical of Israel – there was some relatively mild criticism of attacks on Gaza (in a way that is fairly common among progressives), but in general, she has not been too critical of Israel and has also had some friendly contacts with the pro-Israel lobby. So, while she is very strong and consistent in rejecting neocons and their regime change wars, as far as Israel and Palestinians' rights are concerned, people should probably not expect too much from her. But if she is serious about fighting the neocons and limiting the power of the military-industrial complex and still could win an election, that would already be a big achievement.

Biff , says: February 15, 2019 at 10:22 am GMT
After witnessing the temper tirades and the teeth gnashing of the deep states media minions after the anti-war-lite Donald Trump got elected, I'm guessing Tulsi Gabbard is in for one of two things:

1) The 2012 Ron Paul treatment – total media blackout
Or
2) A media Blitzkrieg that will depend on outright lies to discredit her – in which case she might as well bring a hat and a broom to most debates.

I don't think American Democracy(AKA Empire) is in any mood for another spoiler

Realist , says: February 15, 2019 at 10:43 am GMT

By the way, check out how Rep. Ilhan Omar grills that sorry SOB Abrams here: http://thesaker.is/rep-ilhan-omar-vs-elliott-abrams/ . This young lady clearly has more courage and integrity that all her colleagues taken together!

This is one of the few things I agree with Ilhan Omar about. Abrams is a felonious, warmongering prick.

Rich1234 , says: February 15, 2019 at 12:10 pm GMT
She is very photogenic. So is Kamala Harris.
Projecting an anti-war position against promoting the bonafides of her army service will be quite the balancing act of cognitive dissonance, but opposite the hyper-masculine affect a candidate like Trump or Hillary must emote to neutralize an absence of military experience in their rιsumι.
Then there's that first husband and her family's political machine.
But damn, Tulsi and Kamala photograph impeccably well from every angle.
What are the chances outside of India that three potential presidential candidates of the female persuasion all share a common ethnic background, Nimrata Haley, Tulsi and Kamala? No coincidence there.
der einzige , says: Website February 15, 2019 at 1:44 pm GMT
Saker is a serious analyst?

Finding all this information below takes less time than burning a cigarette.

United Christians for Israel, founded and led by pastor John Hagee, have millions of members and call themselves "the largest pro-Israel charity in the United States." The organization was an important factor in the decision of US President Donald Trump in 2017 to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to transfer the US embassy there.

Gabbard sponsored the resolution of the Congress criticizing Amnesty International for revealing Israeli atrocities against civilians in his blitzkrieg in Gaza in 2014. The resolution stated that Israel "focuses on terrorist targets" and "goes to extraordinary efforts to attack only terrorist actors".
https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/22/gaza-and-the-bi-partisan-war-on-human-rights/

What it looked like "focusing on terrorist targets" according to Gabbard can be seen here
https://www.google.pl/search?q=gaza+2014&source=lnms&tbm=isch

Zionism and Islamophobia Gabbard have gained recognition and support from all kinds of unpalatable characters – like right-wing billionaire and Zionist Sheldon Adelson, who loudly declared that "all Muslims are terrorists".

In addition to Israel's loyal defender, Gabbard has also proved to be a credible servant of Adelson's business interests. Introduced regulations against online gambling to protect the casino's empire from competition on the Internet. Adelson thanked her, giving her the Champion of Freedom award.
http://time.com/3695948/sheldon-adelson-online-gambling/

Her prejudices against Islam directly stem from her Hindu fundamentalism. Gabbard became one of the main American political supporters of Narendra Modi, the leader of the Hindu sectarian party Bharatiya Janata (BJP) and the current Prime Minister of India.

Being the main minister of the Indian state of Gujarat in 2002, Modi helped spark a pogrom against Muslims, in which they killed 2,000 people and displaced over 200,000 people in the ethnic cleansing campaign. Since his victory in the 2014 elections, Modi has been a decidedly pro-Israeli Indian politician and has strong relations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

At the invitation of Modi, Gabbard traveled through India for three weeks during which various Hindu fundamentalists greeted her as their American master. In probably the worst part of the tour, the India Foundation, a formation tuned to the Hindu fascist group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), hosted Gabbard to discuss the future of Indian-American relations. After the reactionary lovefest, the Indian newspaper Telegraph called it "the American Sangha mascot"
https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/sangh-finds-a-mascot-in-american-tulsi/cid/1579985

After returning to the USA, Gabbard defended Modi against any criticism. She was one of the few democrats who spoke against the federal government's decision to refuse a Modi visa in 2014 because of his abolition of religious freedom

A year earlier, she carried out a successful campaign to abolish legislation calling on India to improve the treatment of religious minorities. Gabbard condemned the bill as an attempt to "influence the outcome of the national elections in India."
https://www.alternet.org/2015/02/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard/

Gabbard's service for the most right-wing forces in Indian politics leaves no doubt about its Islamophobia.

Gabbard supported Donald Trump's claim that Islam itself is the source of terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS. She claimed that Obama "completely misunderstands the rational Islamic ideology that drives these people."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/knives-are-out-hawaii-dem-faces-backlash-for-taking-on-obama-over-islamist-extremism

As with other leading liberal democrats, Gabbard's alleged progressive values ​​do not extend to the Palestinian struggle for freedom. While she may support the resistance of Indian Native at Standing Rock, she will not support the indigenous people of Palestine and her struggle for self-determination against Israeli colonialism.
http://socialistworker.org/2014/08/13/liberal-champions-of-apartheid

RobinG , says: February 15, 2019 at 4:16 pm GMT
@Rich1234

an anti-war position against her army service will be cognitive dissonance..

How so? There's a long tradition of this. See Smedley Butler.

all share a common ethnic background, Nimrata Haley, Tulsi and Kamala?

NO! No, no, no . for the umpteenth time. Tulsi has NO Indian heritage. She's only "non-white" because her dad is half Samoan (i.e. Polynesian).

Ned Ludlam , says: February 15, 2019 at 4:47 pm GMT
Yawn. Tulsi, Bernie, Corbyn – doesn't matter. The ruling elites have the power to co-opt, demonize or kill them. And, that regime is desperate enough to do this.

We are all waiting for the tectonic impact of some external shocks. Because the system is fragile, over-ripe. Collapse of debt bubbles, an infectious disease epidemic, a rogue general fires off some nukes. Whatever. Just passes the Global Tipping Point, then, everything disintegrates. The centre cannot hold. And at that point the tensions release and people go nuts. The regime divides against itself; the roof falls in. The whole world is waiting, expecting this to happen in some way or form.

Go and max out your credit card, get hard stuff, don't pay, stop buying anything. A few millions doing that. Empty your bank account. Stop paying your mortgage and car loan. Make them chase you. Work to precipitate the Big One. Help tear the fabric beyond its tensile strength. Do your bit.

Don't expect to see Tulsi on your side of the barricades.

sarz , says: February 15, 2019 at 5:30 pm GMT
@Rich1234 Nimrata Randhawa Haley is of Punjabi Sikh ancestry on both sides, genetically closer to southern Europeans than to most Indians.

Kamala Harris is descended from South Indian brahmins on her mother's side. You can't get more Aryan than that – look up the word. And she is Jamaican on her father's side. I haven't seen a picture of him but I imagine he's about as black as fellow Jamaican Colin Powell. An octoroon to use that old-fashioned term. But Negro blood was considered so polluting that just a smidgeon put you with the lower race. It's still working like that, but in victim politics less is more.

Tulsi Gabbard had a WASP mother who became a member of Swami Bhaktivedanta's Krishna devotees. Her father was Polynesian. There's no genes from India. It's a mistake to think of her religion as Hindu, but it's her mistake as well as that of many Indians. Hinduism is not *a* religion because Hinduism is the liberating realization that the idea of *a* religion is very shallow. It is a pleasure to see Tulsi, in videos, going about her devotions.

peterAUS , says: February 15, 2019 at 6:39 pm GMT
Well, apart from obligatory Putin accolade, as

.. "drain the swamp" (meaning showing the door to the Neocons and their Deep State). This is what Putin did, at least partially, when he came to power, by the way.

a good article, overall.

Especially:

USA "liberals" do not refer to folks with liberal ideas, but to folks who are hell-bent on imperialism and war; folks who don't care one bit about any real "liberal" values and who use a pseudo-liberal rhetoric to advocate for war outside the USA and for a plutocratic dictatorship inside the USA.

Apparently, US public figures like Gabbard and Trump still don't understand the simple fact that NO amount of grovelling will EVER appease the Neocons or the Ziolobby

the so-called "liberals" don't give a damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities, don't give a damn about "thanking our veterans" or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what they do care about is power, Empire and war. That they really care about.

Hari Hari , says: February 15, 2019 at 6:41 pm GMT
It's interesting to see the prompt [13] Democrat party oppo based on the "right-wing Indian agent" smear. It's exactly analogous to Democrat/CIA attack on "Russian puppet" Trump, when Democrats had absolutely nothing to offer in lieu of a famous loathsome TV asshole they hand-picked to beat like a drum and then lost to.

If it were the case that Tulsi were an Indian fifth-column traitor, like Rubio is a Israeli fifth-column traitor, So what? Objective indicators of world-standard state responsibilities show that the state of India is more developed, more legitimate, and more entitled to responsible sovereignty than the US government. India exceeds US performance on most of the top-level human rights indicators.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx

You can see for yourself, in whatever level of detail you desire, with NGO input exhaustively compiled by elected independent international experts acting in their personal capacity.

Tulsi's exposure to superior Indian human-rights compliance is likely to build her capacity in terms of Responsibility to Protect Pillar 2. She will have a better understanding of rights and rule of law than provincial goober candidates with no international exposure. That will necessarily influence her evolving stance on systematic and widespread Israeli extermination of Palestinian indigenous peoples.

Christian S. Miller , says: February 16, 2019 at 12:41 am GMT
I have never voted for a Democrat. I plan to vote for Gabbard. I have contributed to her campaign. I cringe at her progressive agenda, but I fully support her positions on non-intervention.
Australian lady , says: February 16, 2019 at 2:14 am GMT
@der einzige Hope is such a frail and tenuous emotion.
That said, l'm investing some of my dwindling reserves of hope in Tulsi. Your comments are very considered, and l share your concerns for peace with the current play of Theo-politics. Modi is an unapologetic Hindu chauvinist who has successfully incited brutal communalism for electoral gain. But my personal loathing of him has ameliorated over time (I shock myself!) because he has steered a pretty independent course for India, maintaining friendly relations with China for example,despite U.S. pressure to use India as a wedge. His Hinduva ideology appears to be a domestic political tool. This is a cunning but pragmatic approach and is distinct from a religious ideology with global ambitions. The latter is the province of Zionism which is not really a religion but has (other) religious affiliations or "allies",including Hinduism but most importantly Christian zionism (or evangelicism or dispensationalism et al). It seems to me that a lot of what Trump is doing re. "Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" is to appease the Christian Zionists who comprise a large chunk of his support base, and not American Jewry.(They are democrats as a foregone conclusion).There is great irony in this if you follow the fantastical narrative of the Christian evangelical apocalypse.
Political ambitions are the scourge of religion.I attend an Anglican Church,very traditional, because my preferred form of worship is hymn singing-the sung mass for Eucharist.I do this in contradistinction(!) to evangelicism. Unfortunately Islam too undergone a political makeover in recent history which has led to un utter corruption of prophet Mohammad's words.It's apogee is Wahhabism, a fad made manifest through money and power and war. Shia is also Islam, but not according to Wahhabis,who do not even relate to Shia as "self-hating Moslems."And do not imagine that the Moslem brotherhood is any better for all the acceptable styling. Sunnism needs to detach itself from ideology.God is in the poetry and not the small print.
Thanks for your patience with my digression. The Saker suggests we examine the Tulsi phenomenon as a diagnostic tool.
This may be useful. But Tulsi as a Hindi wooden horse?
WorkingClass , says: February 16, 2019 at 11:46 am GMT
She cannot be anti war without being anti Israel. Her candidacy is going nowhere.

It would be nice to have an anti war voice in the debates but Gabbard will be adrift in a sea of idiots. How many candidates will there be for the Democratic nomination? Twenty? Eighty? All of them competing for who hates whitey the most. Featuring as a side show Biden and Bernie expressing their shame at their skin color.

If Gabbard wants to be heard she should switch parties and primary Trump. Let him defend his Israel first foreign policy.

simple_pseudonymic_handle , says: February 16, 2019 at 7:56 pm GMT
She is the only prominent politician in the commander-in-chief discussion who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is there a poll on her standing with the military demographic? An argument can be made that her credibility on fighting more war or fighting less war is an order of magnitude higher than a dozen Trumps, Clintons, et al all put together.

She has seen firsthand the pointlessness of the waste of blood and treasure. How can you root against Gabbard? She is near the only elected official to get any positive press at anitwar.com.

Si1ver1ock , says: February 17, 2019 at 1:57 pm GMT
I have a somewhat contrary analysis although admittedly, it's not based on much.

Tulsi's speech patterns closely resemble Hillary Clinton's. I put this down to various leadership classes they attended which likely have a common source. I think we are seeing a divergence of opinion in the Deep State with some wanting Globalism, while others are unwilling to accept the destruction of the United States as a price for Globalism. Call them the Fortress America wing of the Deep State. They want to rebuild America and preserve its wealth and autonomy while moving toward a world government.

In other words, Tulsi could emerge as the candidate of the MAGA section of the Deep State.

As for Trump, he is waist deep in the Swamp fighting for his life against pretty much everybody. If Omar had her way he would be impeached. Trump's support among Republicans is the only thing keeping from being impeached. His partisan attacks are probably designed to signal his willingness to lead the fight for Republicans, hoping they will defend him in return.

imbroglio , says: February 17, 2019 at 2:21 pm GMT
You make such a convincing case that you've painted yourself into a corner. Your point is that the Ziocons or whatever you call them are so bent on war and empire that they'll destroy anyone who tries to get in their way.

To be credible, because your claim is so extreme, you'd need to explain the abnormal psychology that drives this will to domination. Can you do that? If not, your article -- and a number of your others -- come off as routine Jew- and liberal-bashing. The bashing may or may not be deserved depending on your point of view. But that would be all it is: standard prejudice and bigotry in what you seem to take as a good cause.

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , says: February 17, 2019 at 4:37 pm GMT
@simple_pseudonymic_handle I'm not rooting against her. I'm not rooting at all.

We see from where we've been. I supported Ron Paul. He was ignored, and then cheated.

Voting for Washington wannabes is like watching just the "good programs" on TV, or patronizing the non-disgusting movies that manage to emerge from Hollywood. Those doing so endorse and prop up the tottering, rotten Establishment.

chris , says: February 17, 2019 at 6:28 pm GMT
Another very important thing Tulsi is doing is being a completely different person from Trump but hammering home the same Trump campaign message against the war-lusting elites.

If it wasn't for her, the media and elite mafia could marginalize this entire argument. They'll never let the population vote on these points because then, the jig will be up.

Sir Launcelot Canning , says: February 17, 2019 at 7:09 pm GMT
A media blackout of Tulsi will only work if people continue to get their information from the boob tube and newspapers. Why is anyone still expecting to get the truth from the MSM? Anyone with half a brain and an internet connection should be able to follow her. Tell all of your grandparents, uncles, and other old fogies to throw away CNN, NYT, Fox, WaPo, NBC, etc. and find the truth online.
Benjy , says: February 17, 2019 at 8:11 pm GMT
@jacques sheete The Anti-federalist's never had a chance, nor would Aloha Tulsi. The Boston tea party itself was a false flag attempting to pass blame on to the Indians. How typically American. Lexington was caused by the that same Sam Adams and his free masons from the green dragon, who were firing at both the British and the Militia's, just like they did in Maidan 5 years ago. The US revolution in 1776 was just another Masonic color revolution on behalf of the Rothschild's. These are the same guys who killed Kennedy and pulled off 9/11. Now they have Trump 100% corralled and black balled, and he is one of them anyway.

That was when Wonder Woman Tulsi came surfin' into the Washington swamp, all ready to drain it.

Jake , says: February 17, 2019 at 9:46 pm GMT
True – "The most important achievement of Tulsi Gabbard, at least so far, has been to prove that the so-called "liberals" don't give a damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities, don't give a damn about "thanking our veterans" or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what they do care about is power, Empire and war. That they really care about. Tulsi Gabbard is the living proof that the US Democrats and other pretend "liberals" are hell bent on power, empire and war."

The average Liberal voter thinks that Conservatives love Empire while Liberals oppose empires. Likewise, the average Middle American Republican voter thinks America is anything but the new British Empire and that America is always fighting against those bad empires and so must be very active globally to do good and prevent even worse bad.

True – "As for the US media, it would make folks like Suslov or Goebbels green with envy."

The Anglo-Zionist Empire: the inherent fruit of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism that was not stopped dead in its tracks.

It will get worse before it can get better. It cannot be corrected without a rejection of WASP culture, which is replaced with an authentically Christian culture.

Art , says: February 17, 2019 at 10:03 pm GMT
GOOD! NO TO MORE NUKES!

Tulsi Gabbard presents bill to stop Trump from pulling out of INF treaty

Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has introduced a bill to Congress which would prevent President Donald Trump from withdrawing the US from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

Speaking at a press conference on Friday morning, Gabbard said that Trump's decision to pull out of the 1988 treaty was "reckless," was "exacerbating a new Cold War" with Russia, and could spark another arms race.

"Walking away from this agreement doesn't solve our problems, it makes them worse. It doesn't bring us closer to peace, it moves us closer to war," she said.

https://www.rt.com/usa/451577-tulsi-gabbard-stop-inf-pullout-trump/

Think Peace -- Art

George , says: February 17, 2019 at 10:16 pm GMT
I am hoping that Gabbard is the next president because it would mean Hindus beat Jews to the White House, and if she serves a full term she will be the first nonprotestant* president to serve a full term, take that Catholics. She will be sworn in with her hand on the Bhagavad Gita, bah ha hah ha. The Evangelicals will go berserk (I hope). She declared herself Hindu as a teen, was she baptized?

* Jimmy Carter was 'born again' so he might be the first non main line Protestant or even nonProtestant.

Art , says: February 17, 2019 at 10:37 pm GMT
@Sir Launcelot Canning A media blackout of Tulsi will only work if people continue to get their information from the boob tube and newspapers.

Gabbard will only get media attention when she gets votes.

She needs an ace campaign staff and time in voters faces.

She will win people over.

follyofwar , says: February 18, 2019 at 12:05 am GMT
@JL I think both the anti-war Left and anti-war Right are sizeable and growing. Speaking of the Dissident Right, which I am more in tune with, we just need a courageous leader to rally around. Right now the Dissident Right is more reliably anti-war than any other faction.

But, really, the dissident right is not doctrinaire right at all as they are against Big Business and reject Libertarianism. Tulsi probably doesn't even want the open support of the dissident right (very few are racist white supremacists, although the media has tarred us all with that brush)...

Asagirian , says: Website February 18, 2019 at 2:21 am GMT
@Biff 1) The 2012 Ron Paul treatment – total media blackout
Or
2) A media Blitzkrieg that will depend on outright lies to discredit her – in which case she might as well bring a hat and a broom to most debates.

But what about social media? The MSM mostly ignored Bernie Sanders but he got a huge boost.

I think the real problem with Tulsi is she comes across as too calm for politics. She's not low-energy like Jeb, but she lacks fire.

Also, I'm not sure most progs would be interested in her anti-war platform. They liked Bernie because his message was mostly domestic: Free Stuff!

Americans are anti-war only when too many Americans are getting killed overseas. In the Obama yrs, the US perfected a new way of Open Borders War where US uses proxies to destroy other nations. So, most Americans don't care.

Carroll Price , says: February 18, 2019 at 4:25 pm GMT
@Robert Bruce It's the same 'bait and switch' strategy, that occurs every 4 years. Why change a strategy when the old one works so well? To date, Trump holds the record for fooling the largest number of people, with anti-war candidate, John Kerry coming in a distant 2nd.
c matt , says: February 18, 2019 at 7:59 pm GMT
I suppose there is also a fourth option: Tulsi Gabbard keeps her no-war stance, and follows in the footsteps of Trump and gets elected in spite of a massive media hate-campaign against her and once she makes it to the White House she does what Trump did and caves.
peterAUS , says: February 18, 2019 at 8:33 pm GMT
@c matt Yep.

Not a problem, though. 4 years after she gets tossed out of office. People vote the real deal then.
Or so they think, because he/she caves in too.

And all the while, the game of demographics goes on

Nice, a?

[Feb 18, 2019] Joe Rogan Experience #1170 - Tulsi Gabbard

Highly recommended!
A very interesting interview. You need to listed to it in full to appreciates. Probably best interviewer so far interviewed Tulsi, and Tulsi is really impressive. Cool, definitely high intellect, deep understanding of current US problems
Notable quotes:
"... I'm not a Democrat. I would vote for this person. Just saying. Elizabeth Warren didn't even support Bernie while Tulsi resigned to support Bernie ..."
"... Intellectually gifted. Well prepared. Emotionally stable. Able to change her ideas as life goes on, taking each issue as it comes. Vs a bunch of 70 year old maniacs who have never told the truth, never served, and have made deal with the devil to get where they are. Game over ..."
"... If the establishment weren't smearing her, I wouldn't trust her. They are, which means that she'll fight for working people, and against the neoconservative chickenhawks! ..."
"... Tulsi is the General Smedley Butler of today, someone who knows how war works and is brave enough to tell the truth. Please read his short book "War Is A Racket". Even though it was written in the 30's, as long as things are this way, it'll never go out of style. ..."
"... Let's put our egos aside and work together as citizens! Tell your friends to do the same to overthrow corporate establishment Kamala ..."
Feb 18, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Lex Blazer 1 month ago (edited)
haha! Funny...looks like THIS podcast is about to become nationally relevant. She's running for president! Watching in 2019!

Michael Pelak 3 weeks ago

I'm a libertarian and love hearing Tulsi!! She's the antithesis of Hillary. Only dem I would support in 2020. Agree 100% with her foreign policy views.

Shinra Holdings, 1 month ago

I'm not a Democrat. I would vote for this person. Just saying. Elizabeth Warren didn't even support Bernie while Tulsi resigned to support Bernie

Boi, 1 month ago

The left is eating their own. Already attacking this woman. This is the person the Dems needed in 2016.

Zachary Schulling 1 month ago

I'm a Republican, but this woman has my vote in 2020

tim oreilly 1 month ago

Combat vet, Currently serving in the Guard, rank of Major. Intellectually gifted. Well prepared. Emotionally stable. Able to change her ideas as life goes on, taking each issue as it comes. Vs a bunch of 70 year old maniacs who have never told the truth, never served, and have made deal with the devil to get where they are. Game over

B. Greene, 1 week ago

If the establishment weren't smearing her, I wouldn't trust her. They are, which means that she'll fight for working people, and against the neoconservative chickenhawks!

Howard Sexton, 2 months ago

Damn! I am republican but she has my vote 🗳! I have never heard a politician talk this long without blaming the opposing party. Just impressed

Zwart Poezeke, 1 week ago

Man she's smart, critical and actually comes off as honest. She really would be an inspiring leader. Guys I'm from Belgium, so I can't vote, but do me a favor and vote for her

a_g60, 2 weeks ago

Tulsi Gabbard is the ultimate woman. That's why the DNC is colluding against her.

she's articulate and highly educated
she's extremely attractive
she was a combat medic
she's young
she has a great family
she gets all the attention of men
she's presidential

This is what a candidate looks like. Take notes!

Matthew Mauldon, 1 month ago

She is amazing and I would vote for her as president. It is very disturbing how she sheds light on how Saudi Arabia uses our us military and how Saudi Arabia murdered many innocents and we said nothing and continue to support them. Also the level of corruption of our politicians and how they mis use our troops without a care in the world. We need to wake up folks this is not right

The Scapegoat Mechanism, 1 month ago

Obama was the thesis. Trump was the antithesis. Gabbard will be the synthesis.

Chris Jones, 5 months ago

I absolutely adore this woman. She gave up her Vice chair position in the DNC when she saw they were stealing the nomination from Bernie. That's integrity.

Paul Peart-Smith, 1 week ago

Tulsi is the General Smedley Butler of today, someone who knows how war works and is brave enough to tell the truth. Please read his short book "War Is A Racket". Even though it was written in the 30's, as long as things are this way, it'll never go out of style.

algo, 5 days ago

See Joe, this woman has INTEGRITY, unlike that zionist warmongering shill Bari Weiss regurgitating her fed opinions which she didn't even know the meaning of!

savita purohit, 2 months ago

this is what 1st female president of US should be like, not Clinton or that virtue signaling Warren, not Nikki either

Ryan Hamilton, 1 day ago (edited)

I'm a conservative, Republican, combat vet. I would follow her into combat. I would vote for her because she's a pragmatist, puts America first, is skeptical of US foreign policy, and stands up for the little guy. There is some remarkable overlap between the anti establishment populist left and anti establishment populist right.

Loro sono umano, 2 days ago

Don't forget to change party to Democrat to vote her in the primaries if you're Green, libertarian, independent, or conservative, even if its temporary. Let's put our egos aside and work together as citizens! Tell your friends to do the same to overthrow corporate establishment Kamala. Dont let the establishment get their way

Chico Christe Pace, 1 week ago

damn, I never thot there is an American politician who thinks this way. she sees the whole picture and made sense to it. this lady is kick ass! :) you guys shd keep voting for her :) put her on the top seat, she can be the real hope for the US of A :)

bestrainingtechnique, 4 months ago

So let me get this straight I don't know much about this woman, but from what I've seen in this interview she seems to be very intelligent, rational, experienced, has military experience, extremely well spoken, and doesn't trust the mainstream media and realizes that there are elements of our government that are basically unhinged and looking for war?? And is there anyone on earth that wouldn't vote for her as president??? Would we really rather have an orange face reality star buffoon or a war mongering lunatic who has no real experience except being married to a former president?

I really hope she runs as an independent, I think she would win in a landslide, since I think it is the perfect time in our country where I think a non-Republican or Democrat can definitely win! The two party system needs to go!

Skemoo, 1 week ago

I came back after MSM and Jews started smearing her including Sam Harris. I cant sense any form of malevolence or evil in her words or body language.. she seems like a sweet empathetic lady.

Im fuking angry that these ppl are smearing her. Im not an american but you ppl better wake the fuk up and vote her into office i think she is fit to be the first female president. Hope Rogan doesnt do 180 and betray her . im surprized Sam harris hates her.

David Paley, 1 week ago

If they can keep everyone in need of working 3 jobs just to make ends meet, and make healthcare too expensive to afford proper care, the people will always be too busy, tired, and worn-out, to actively participate in the electoral process; the only thing that might change things for the better. The elites know exactly what they're doing, so now they see this woman as an existential threat, and the smear campaigns have already begun. I hope the sensible people in your country can support her as much as she is trying to support you. Good luck in 2020, both to Tulsi, and America.

[Feb 18, 2019] TOP 24 QUOTES BY TULSI GABBARD A-Z Quotes

Notable quotes:
"... Every soldier knows this simple fact: If you don't know your enemy, you will not be able to defeat him. ..."
Feb 18, 2019 | www.azquotes.com

[Feb 18, 2019] Tulsi 2020 Anti-war Democrat says she s running for US president

Notable quotes:
"... Due to her antiwar stance in Syria, Gabbard was at one point rumored to be a potential candidate to head Trump's State Department, and even met with the president-elect at Trump Tower in November 2016, but nothing came of it. ..."
"... In January 2017, she traveled to Syria on a fact-finding trip, outraging the Washington establishment. She has also proposed a bill to outlaw US weapons sales to terrorists. ..."
"... It is unclear whether Gabbard will get much traction among the establishment Democrats, who she has frequently disagreed with on foreign policy issues. ..."
"... So many entrenched bipartisan interests fear the foreign policy debate her presence on the campaign trail will provoke. Look for more obsessive attacks in Omidyar's the Interventionist, republished in his local Hawaii paper. ..."
Jan 12, 2019 | www.rt.com

Due to her antiwar stance in Syria, Gabbard was at one point rumored to be a potential candidate to head Trump's State Department, and even met with the president-elect at Trump Tower in November 2016, but nothing came of it.

In January 2017, she traveled to Syria on a fact-finding trip, outraging the Washington establishment. She has also proposed a bill to outlaw US weapons sales to terrorists.

Gabbard first sparked rumors of a 2020 run in December , when she toured Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states to host nationwide party primary elections.

Inspired by the party's strong showing in the November midterms, a number of Democrats are eager to challenge Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) announced on New Year's Eve that she was forming a presidential exploratory committee. Julian Castro, former Housing and Urban Development secretary in the Obama administration, has also toured Iowa and is expected to announce his candidacy this weekend.

It is unclear whether Gabbard will get much traction among the establishment Democrats, who she has frequently disagreed with on foreign policy issues.

Ostensibly, Tulsi Gabbard checks all the correct "diversity boxes" that Democrats claim they want: young, female, minority. But weirdly, she won't benefit from satisfying these (fake) criteria, because she's hated for unrelated political reasons. So that should be fun.

-- Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 11, 2019

Tulsi Gabbard is a really next-level politician. Any amateur can be a traditional US racist politician, but it takes skill to succeed in America as a Hindu-nationalist racist / tankie Assad apologist.

-- Dylan Matthews (@dylanmatt) January 11, 2019

Tulsi Gabbard doesn't have a base but she's someone people like the more they see her.

Don't sleep on this one.

Although if you follow Cernovich you remember I said over two years ago that she was the one to watch...

-- Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) January 12, 2019

Say what you want about Tulsi Gabbard (I have my own criticisms) but this is probably an accurate prediction of how opposition to her campaign from other Democrats will play out https://t.co/xEhdD1ZmyN

-- Alex Rubinstein (@RealAlexRubi) January 11, 2019

I'd pay close attention to the financing of this campaign. https://t.co/DMiABthwNY

-- Michael Weiss (@michaeldweiss) January 11, 2019

Tired of Putin? Vote Assad 2020!!!!!!! https://t.co/aMMF71wz69

-- Noah Shachtman (@NoahShachtman) January 11, 2019

So many entrenched bipartisan interests fear the foreign policy debate her presence on the campaign trail will provoke. Look for more obsessive attacks in Omidyar's the Interventionist, republished in his local Hawaii paper. Also, not sure what this means for a Bernie run. https://t.co/RD7pCRRkTW

-- Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) January 12, 2019

[Feb 18, 2019] Support Tulsi Gabbard: it takes real political skills to succeed in America as a Hindu-nationalist, anti-gay racist, Putin toadie, and Assad apologist

Funny, but "Black Santa" -- Barack Obama was against gay marriage before he became for..
Feb 18, 2019 | twitter.com

Tulsi Gabbard is a really next-level politician. Any amateur can be a traditional US racist politician, but it takes skill to succeed in America as a Hindu-nationalist racist / tankie Assad apologist.

-- Dylan Matthews (@dylanmatt) January 11, 2019

[Feb 18, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard, A Rare Anti-War Democrat, Will Run For President by Kevin Gosztola

Jan 14, 2019 | shadowproof.com
Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii announced she will launch a presidential campaign for 2020. Her campaign is likely to distinguish itself from other Democratic campaigns by making wars and broader United States foreign policy a major issue.

Gabbard was elected to the Hawaii state legislature in 2002. She joined the Hawaii Army National Guard a year later and voluntarily deployed to Iraq, where she completed two tours of duty in 2004 and 2005.

She was elected to the House of Representatives in 2012, and according to her own website, she was "one of the first two female combat veterans to ever serve in the U.S. Congress, and also its first Hindu member."

During Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, Gabbard gained notoriety after she resigned from her position as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee so she could openly support Sanders. She spoke at Sanders campaign rallies to help him distinguish his foreign policy from the much more hawkish foreign policy of Hillary Clinton.

Gabbard was overwhelmingly re-elected in 2018. She won 83 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary election.

Most progressives are not as outspoken against U.S. military interventions or what she refers to as "regime change wars." She witnessed the impact of regime change on the people of Iraq, as well as U.S. troops, and that inspired her to talk more about the human cost of war and challenge the military industrial-complex.

Gabbard has persistently called attention to the war in Syria. She traveled to Aleppo and Damascus in January 2017 to see some of the devastation Syrians have endured since 2011. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad invited her to a meeting, and she accepted.

"Originally, I had no intention of meeting with Assad, but when given the opportunity, I felt it was important to take it. I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there's a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering," Gabbard declared .

Supporters of the Syrian war -- the same people who do not want President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. troops -- seized upon Gabbard's meeting with Assad to discredit her, and it has fueled the backlash among Western media pundits to her decision to run for president.

Yet, in spite of a smear campaign encouraged by the political establishment, Gabbard has not backed down from protesting U.S. support for terrorists in Syria. She sponsored legislation, the Stop Arming Terrorists Act.

During an interview for the Sanders Institute in September 2018, Gabbard said, "Since 2011, when the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and these other countries started this slow drawn-out regime change war in Syria, it is terrorist groups like al Qaida, al Nusra, and Hayat Tahrir al Sham, these different groups that have morphed and taken on names but essentially are all linked to al Qaida or al Qaida themselves that have proven to be the most effective ground force against the government in trying to overthrow the Syrian government."

Gabbard opposes what she calls a "genocidal war" in Yemen, and she is one of the few representatives, who has worked to pass a war powers resolution in the House to end U.S. military involvement since Congress never authorized the war.

"The United States is standing shoulder to shoulder supporting Saudi Arabia in this war as they commit these atrocities against Yemeni civilians," Gabbard said during the same Sanders Institute interview.

Another war Gabbard questions is the war in Libya. In an interview for "The Jimmy Dore Show" on September 11, 2018, she spoke about the devastating consequences of pursuing regime change without considering what would happen after Muammar Gaddafi was removed from power.

"After we led the war to topple Gaddafi, we have open human slave trading going on, in open market. In today's society, we have more terrorists in Libya today than there ever were before."

Gabbard is also one of the few elected politicians to oppose weapons sales, especially to Saudi Arabia. She recognizes the military industrial-complex benefits the most from Congress not exercising its authority over war-making by presidents, whether they are Republican or Democrat.

She spoke out against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo when he refused to revoke support for Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen because it would jeopardize a $2 billion arms deal.

Not many Democrats are willing to be optimistic on North Korea, but Gabbard sees potential for peace and does not view Trump's meeting with Kim Jong-un as an act of treason.

Gabbard said during the Sanders Institute interview, "For years, I've been working in Congress and calling for direct engagement with North Korea with Kim Jong-un to be able to try to broker a peace agreement that will result in de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and and finally bring about an end to the Korean War."

"So I think that the recent engagement that we have seen -- both the historic meeting between a sitting U.S. president and the leader of North Korea -- is certainly a positive step in the right direction. We have to be willing to have these conversation to promote peace," Gabbard said. And, "I think the continued engagement between North Korea and South Korea is positive."

Gabbard acknowledged there are a lot of details that have to be worked out, but that does not make her hostile to the entire process, which is the attitude of many pundits and Democrats in the establishment.

Joe Rogan interviewed Gabbard in September 2018. He raised the issue of Russian troll farms and Facebook's failure to deal with them. She had a sober response to his concerns.

"The United States has been doing this for a very long time in countries around the world, both overtly and covertly, through these kinds of disinformation campaigns," Gabbard contended. "Not even counting like the regime change wars, like we're going to take you out."

She continued, "I think it is very hypocritical for us to be discussing this issue as a country without actually being honest about how this goes both ways. So, yes, we need to stop these other foreign countries -- and Russia's not the only one; there are others -- from trying to influence the American people and our elections. We also need to stop doing the same thing in other countries."

Such positions on war and U.S. foreign policy effectively make her a pariah to establishment media pundits and the political class. But her anti-establishment politics do not end there.

Gabbard has advocated against superdelegates, which are Democratic party insiders that have an outsized role in influencing the outcome of presidential primaries. She favors open primaries and same-day voter registration. She is outspoken against the influence of money in politics, and she is audacious enough to question members of her own political party.

"We have to dig a few layers deeper as people are running for office, say what do you actually stand for?" she said on "The Jimmy Dore Show." "What is your vision for this country? That's the debate that we will have to have in Congress should Democrats win over the House or win more seats in the Senate."

"Otherwise, it will be more of the same status quo, where you'll have lobbyists who have more of a seat at the table writing policies that affect healthcare and education and Wall Street and everything else rather than having a true and representative government by and for the people," she concluded.

She was also critical of self-described progressives, who are pro-war, while on "Jimmy Dore":

You have these individuals and groups of people who call themselves progressive but are some of the first to call for more war in the guise of humanitarianism. They look at these poor people suffering -- and there are people suffering in the other parts of the world. Let's go drop more bombs and try to take away their suffering. And when you look at example after example after example, our actions, U.S. policy, interventionist regime change war policy, [has] made the lives of people in these other countries far worse off than they ever were before or would have been if we had just stayed out of it.

***

Gabbard was much closer to an establishment politician prior to her resignation from the DNC. She accepted tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from political action committees (PACs).

The Center for Responsive Politics noted, "One of the largest contributing sectors was the defense industry. While Gabbard has gained a following for her anti-interventionist stances , yet, her 2016 campaign was given $63,500 from the defense sector . In fact, the campaign received donations of $10,000 from the Boeing Corporation PAC and from Lockheed Martin's PAC, two of the biggest names in the military-industrial complex."

In 2017, Gabbard announced she would no longer accept PAC money. She raised $37,000 from labor associations and trade unions.

Gabbard was "conflicted" over whether to support the Senate report on CIA torture. She said in 2014 that she thought there were "things missing or it was incomplete." She also endorsed the "ticking time bomb" scenario that officials use to justify torture, and it is unclear what her view would be now, if asked about the issue.

She has taken a position on Israeli occupation of Palestine that is common among Democrats. She supports a two-state solution and describes Israel as the U.S.' "strongest ally." But it may be shifting. In the last year, she condemned Israel for its violence against the people of Gaza, and she was reluctant to vote for a House resolution that condemned the UN Security Council for criticizing Israeli settlements.

Journalist Eoin Higgins questioned Gabbard's support from the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), which he described as right-wing. She has garnered criticism for her trip to India in 2014, when she met with India prime minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist.

But HAF believes this criticism of Gabbard is unfair because other members of Congress, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have attended gatherings with Modi. They also point to financial records and maintain they are a U.S. organization without ties to any organizations in India.

When she was much younger, Gabbard helped her father's organization mobilize against a same-sex marriage in Hawaii. The organization, Alliance for Traditional Marriage, backed conversion therapy

However, there is evidence to suggest that Gabbard has abandoned much of the bigotry that she probably learned from her father. She backed Edith Windsor when she challenged the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

"Let me say I regret the positions I took in the past, and the things I said. I'm grateful for those in the LGBTQ+ community who have shared their aloha with me throughout my personal journey," Gabbard stated, responding to media coverage of this aspect of her past.

She noted that she has since supported "the Equality Act, the repeal of DOMA, Restore Honor to Service members Act, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Safe Schools Improvement Act, and the Equality for All Resolution," and added, "Much work remains to ensure equality and civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ Americans, and if elected President, I will continue to fight for equal rights for all."

There are powerful forces in American politics that will seize upon her past opposition to LGBTQ rights and meeting with Assad to neutralize her presidential campaign before she even has an opportunity to tour the country and meet with potential supporters. They fear the impact she could have if voters gravitate to her campaign, which will likely promote her anti-imperialism.

Often Democrats do not bother to connect foreign policy to domestic issues. Gabbard is likely to run a rare campaign, where she makes the case that they are intertwined -- that in order to make investments in universal health care, education, infrastructure, etc, the massive investment in war must be severely curtailed.

Gabbard also aware of the disenchantment among voters, who do not believe either political party has the answers. She understands President Trump is a symptom of what ails the country.

As she said on "Jimmy Dore," "If we look at the lead-up to the 2016 election, and if we actually listen to and examine why people chose to vote the way they did, it points to much bigger problems, a much bigger disaffection that has been building for quite some time, that voters have against the establishment of Washington, the political establishment within both parties."

[Feb 18, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard Smears Debunked by Jimmy Dore

The problem here is the progressive votes is split between Bernie, Warren, and Tulsi. That means that all three of them now can be eliminated be invertionaist Dems.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi Gabbard is scary to Republicans because a lot of us center-right folks would be tempted to support her ..."
"... Would love to see a Tulsi - Trump debate. She'd be a formidable opponent. ..."
Feb 18, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Kimberley Murphy , 1 week ago

I actually trust her more than Bernie. Bernie endorsed HRC, Tulsi did not. She stuck to morals. I respect that.

chadinem , 1 month ago

Tulsi Gabbard is scary to Republicans because a lot of us center-right folks would be tempted to support her.

CAY7607 , 1 week ago

Would love to see a Tulsi - Trump debate. She'd be a formidable opponent.

[Feb 18, 2019] Links below could be summed up Gabbard is not pro-Israel enough . But the real reason for such a hostility towards her is that she is against foreign wars of choice

Feb 18, 2019 | www.unz.com

Well, as we all saw, the putatively "liberal" legacy Ziomedia hates Tulsi Gabbard with a passion. Maybe not as much as that legacy Ziomedia hates Trump or Putin, but still – the levels of hostility against her are truly amazing. This may seem bizarre until you realize that, just like Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard has said all the right things about Israel, but that this was not nearly "enough" to please the US Ziolobby. Check out the kind of discussions about Gabbard which can be found in the Israeli and pro-Israeli press:

This is just a small sample of what I found with a quick search. It could be summed up "Gabbard is not pro-Israel enough". But is that really The Main Reason for such a hostility towards her? I don't think so. I believe that Gabbard's real "ultimate sin" is that she is against foreign wars of choice. That is really her Crime Of Crimes!

The AngloZionists wanted to tear Syria apart, break it up into small pieces, most of which would be run by Takfiri crazies and Tulsi Gabbard actually dared to go and speak to "animal Assad", the (latest) "New Hitler", who "gasses his own people". And this is an even worse crime, if such a thing can even be imagined! She dared to disobey her AngloZionist masters.

So, apparently, opposing illegal wars and daring to disobey the Neocons are crimes of such magnitude and evil that they deserve the hysterical Gabbard-bashing campaign which we have witnessed in recent times. And even being non-Christian, non-White, non-male and "liberal" does not in any way compensate for the heinous nature of "crimes".

What does this tell us about the real nature of the US society?

It is also interesting to note that the most vicious (and stupid) attacks against Gabbard did not come from "conservative" media outlets or journalists. Not at all! Most of the attacks, especially the more vicious ones, came from supposedly "liberal" sources, which tell us that in 2019 USA "liberals" do not refer to folks with liberal ideas, but to folks who are hell-bent on imperialism and war; folks who don't care one bit about any real "liberal" values and who use a pseudo-liberal rhetoric to advocate for war outside the USA and for a plutocratic dictatorship inside the USA.

[Feb 17, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard evades the press, and for good reason.

Great powers do not fight endless wars.
This MSNC interview can be viewed at https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/rep-gabbard-assad-is-not-an-enemy-of-the-us-1438093891865
Notable quotes:
"... Morning Joe presents the largest collective of Media Shills that think with one Corporate brain(trust). MSNBC and CNN commits the greatest threat to the dumbing down of America, and in the longterm, nothing impacts our American freedoms and World Peace than such lowly, deceptive, shills. Everybody has to make a buck, but come on MSNBC; you guys could stand some old school mothering and have those dirty little pie-holes washed out with soap. ..."
Feb 06, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Stuart Griffin , 14 hours ago

The concerned look on everyone's face, acting like they are coming from a moral high ground because they support war. Corporate media is garbage! They will never cover her fairly so its up to us to do so!

Bill Zhang , 13 hours ago

Shame on MSNBC and the media!

R. Lutece , 13 hours ago (edited)

Tulsi is the only candidate who can reunite a fractured country- conservatives and progressives alike love her for different reasons

Mia Lovely , 11 hours ago

Tulsi looks so regal and elegant compared to all those neo-con/neo-lib war hawks. She is a Queen among peasants.

antithetical 1 , 14 hours ago

Saudi Arabia offered to pay for us to take down Syria. We are aiding Al Qaeda and their related groups, proxies for Saudi Arabia, in their war against Syria. It's about money and oil period. The 'humanitarian crisis' has nothing to do with this war and is just as likely to have been staged by Al Qaeda if not more likely.

Ken Texican , 14 hours ago (edited)

Morning Joe presents the largest collective of Media Shills that think with one Corporate brain(trust). MSNBC and CNN commits the greatest threat to the dumbing down of America, and in the longterm, nothing impacts our American freedoms and World Peace than such lowly, deceptive, shills. Everybody has to make a buck, but come on MSNBC; you guys could stand some old school mothering and have those dirty little pie-holes washed out with soap.

[Feb 17, 2019] Why Conservative Media and the Far Right Love Tulsi Gabbard for President by Maxwell Tani, Kelly Weill

Neoliberal Dems -- Clinton wing of the Party (and thedailybeast.com is Hillary bulletin board) doe no like Tulsi. that's expected.
What what they really fear is that Tulsi can get support of considerable part of former Trump voters and repeat the maneuver that Trump accomplished in 2016 elections.
Notable quotes:
"... In a Monday evening segment, featuring anti-war leftist journalist Glenn Greenwald, the Fox News host argued that Gabbard had been unfairly maligned because of her deep skepticism about intervention in Syria and willingness to talk to Assad. ..."
"... "There's something so stealthy and feline and dishonest about the way they're attacking her," Tucker said. "If you don't like her foreign policy views, let's just say so. But no one ever really wants to debate what our foreign policy should be. They just attack anyone who deviates from their own dumb ideas." ..."
"... In May 2015, the National Review implored readers to "Meet the Beautiful, Tough Young Democrat Who's Turning Heads by Challenging Obama's Foreign Policy." The conservative outlet touted Gabbard as having "endeared herself to right-wing hawks" by challenging Obama's "rudderless" foreign policy. "I like her thinking a lot," American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks was quoted as saying. ..."
"... And earlier this month, after she accused her fellow Democratic senators of engaging in "religious bigotry" for asking questions about a Trump judicial nominee's faith, she received yet another round of Fox News praise ..."
Jan 15, 2019 | www.thedailybeast.com

When she ran for re-election in 2018, she had the backing of liberal groups including the AFL-CIO and Planned Parenthood, yet she was briefly considered as a potential member for Trump's cabinet, and cheered on his diplomatic overtures to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

Since announcing her bid for the presidency, Gabbard has faced a torrent of criticism for some of her more eccentric politics, zeroing in on her equivocations on Assad and her past homophobic comments .

And, in the process, she has earned one prominent defender: Tucker Carlson.

In a Monday evening segment, featuring anti-war leftist journalist Glenn Greenwald, the Fox News host argued that Gabbard had been unfairly maligned because of her deep skepticism about intervention in Syria and willingness to talk to Assad.

"There's something so stealthy and feline and dishonest about the way they're attacking her," Tucker said. "If you don't like her foreign policy views, let's just say so. But no one ever really wants to debate what our foreign policy should be. They just attack anyone who deviates from their own dumb ideas."

Gabbard first became an in-demand Fox News guest in 2015 after she criticized Barack Obama's unwillingness to use the label "radical Islamic terrorism." Her media tour explaining that position earned her positively-tilted coverage in right-wing outlets like Breitbart and The Daily Caller -- a trend that continued when she later expressed skepticism of Obama's Iran nuclear deal.

One person with direct knowledge told The Daily Beast that in the wake of her Obama criticism of Obama, Gabbard became an increasingly requested guest for Fox News hosts and producers to appear on-air. They weren't the only ones in television news who took notice: senior executives at Sinclair Broadcasting made appeals for Gabbard to appear on their networks after she rebuked Obama.

And her emergence as a left-wing Obama critic further put Gabbard on the map in conservative media.

In May 2015, the National Review implored readers to "Meet the Beautiful, Tough Young Democrat Who's Turning Heads by Challenging Obama's Foreign Policy." The conservative outlet touted Gabbard as having "endeared herself to right-wing hawks" by challenging Obama's "rudderless" foreign policy. "I like her thinking a lot," American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks was quoted as saying.

Gabbard has also maintained friendly relationships with high-profile, right-leaning television personalities, including Carlson and Fox News colleague Neil Cavuto, a long-time anchor and Trump skeptic who leans conservative on business issues.

And earlier this month, after she accused her fellow Democratic senators of engaging in "religious bigotry" for asking questions about a Trump judicial nominee's faith, she received yet another round of Fox News praise. Todd Starnes, a Fox pundit with a long history of anti-gay comments, wrote in an op-ed that he found Gabbard's comments "encouraging."

[Feb 17, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard explains why she will run for president

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) explains to CNN's Van Jones why she wants to run for president in 2020.
Jan 12, 2019 | www.youtube.com
charley15z 1 month ago The establishment left and blue checkmarks on Twitter are gonna go after her HARD. But I will support her, purely on her policies.

Mike Fagan 1 month ago Gabbard IS everything Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton isn't. Which is NOT BOUGHT. She got my vote. #Gabbard2020 #Sanders2020

Marcy Clay 1 month ago She would get independents and some Republicans to cross over. She is already being attacked by the left, and right for some old remarks that were homophobic, and for meeting with Assad. I like her better than Warren or Harris by far..

Abu Hurairah 1 month ago she is anti war. so cnn and fox will hate her. just wait....

lrein077 1 month ago I had the opportunity to meet Tulsi in person and she was the most approachable & genuine person. Congratulations Tulsi.

Jimmy Russle 1 month ago I'm a Trump supporter, but she certainly has a better resume than Trump. Her most important issue is peace among nations, I'm all on board. 27

[Feb 17, 2019] H.R. 1249, the INF Treaty Compliance Act, to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used for weapons that would breach the INF treaty

Feb 17, 2019 | twitter.com

Tulsi Gabbard ‏ Verified account @ TulsiGabbard 7h 7 hours ago

Thank you to @ RepMcGovern @ repmarkpocan & @ IlhanMN for cosponsoring H.R. 1249, the INF Treaty Compliance Act, to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used for weapons that would breach the INF treaty. This is one step Congress can & must take now toward national security and peace

[Feb 17, 2019] About TULSI 2020

Feb 17, 2019 | www.tulsi2020.com

The Cost of War

The first day Tulsi arrived at her camp in Iraq, she saw a large sign at one of the gates that read, "Is today the day?" It was a blunt reminder that today may be the day that any of the soldiers would be called to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. It caused her to reflect on her own life and the reality that each of us could die at any moment.

While serving in a base in the Sunni Triangle at the height of the war, Tulsi had the heart-wrenching daily responsibility of going through the list of every injury and casualty in the entire theatre of operations, looking to see if any soldiers in her unit were on the list, so she could ensure they received the care they needed and their families were notified.

She was hit with the enduring pain and hardship of her brothers and sisters in uniform, and the stress and pressure on their families. She wondered if those who voted to send soldiers to Iraq really understood why they were there -- if lawmakers and the President reflected daily on each death, each injury, and the immeasurably high cost of war.

Having experienced first-hand the true cost of war, she made a personal vow to find a way to ensure that our country doesn't continue repeating the mistakes of the past, sending our troops into war without a clear mission, strategy, or purpose. In Congress

Serving over 6 years in Congress, and as a member of the Armed Services, Homeland Security, and Foreign Affairs Committees, Tulsi has been a leading voice fighting to end regime change wars and instead focus our military efforts on defeating the terrorist groups that attacked and declared war on the United States. She has approached every issue through the lens of what will best serve the American people, secure our country, and promote peace.

She is a champion for protecting our environment, ensuring clean water and air for generations to come, investing in infrastructure and a green energy economy, healthcare for all, civil liberties and privacy, support for small businesses, criminal justice reform, sustainable agriculture, breaking up the big banks and she needs your help!

Regime change wars are bankrupting our country and our moral authority. We need to redirect those resources into a renewable, sustainable economy that works for everyone and bring about an era of peace. We must put service above self and reclaim our great democracy from the forces of hatred and division.

Will you join us?

[Feb 17, 2019] Tulsi sure is hated by the neocons and neolibral intelligentsia, but she would, more than any other candidate, actually start to heal this country

This is a very important point. She can bring a large part of Trump voters (all anti-war votes and most of promiddle class voters) and part of Sanders voters together.
Notable quotes:
"... As long as we're talking Hawaii, I have found my candidate for President: Tulsi Gabbard. I guess I'm late to the party, and she sure is hated by the intelligentsia, boy do they hate her, but she's really, really electable for President and she would, more than any other candidate, actually start to heal this country. Aloha. ..."
"... I don't believe the Democrats will nominate her. They'll use the electability canard to dismiss her candidacy, much like how Ron Paul was treated by the GOP. ..."
Feb 17, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Bill Herschel , 6 hours ago

As long as we're talking Hawaii, I have found my candidate for President: Tulsi Gabbard. I guess I'm late to the party, and she sure is hated by the intelligentsia, boy do they hate her, but she's really, really electable for President and she would, more than any other candidate, actually start to heal this country. Aloha.
Jack -> Bill Herschel , 6 hours ago
I don't believe the Democrats will nominate her. They'll use the electability canard to dismiss her candidacy, much like how Ron Paul was treated by the GOP.

However, she seems to have an agenda I would back.

[Feb 17, 2019] Individuals whose predictions were right-on received absolutely no boost in prestige for their prescience. Ron Paul is the most obvious example. Every warning Paul made about these "interventions" happened.

Feb 17, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Deacon Blue February 16, 2019 at 9:21 am

And the corollary is true as well. Individuals whose predictions were right-on received absolutely no boost in prestige for their prescience. Ron Paul is the most obvious example. Every warning Paul made about these "interventions" happened.

So those whose predictions were wrong, and whose policy recommendations turned out to be disasters and tragedies advance and suffer no consequences for being incredibly wrong. They still obtain high positions (See Bolton).

Those who happened to be right – and took courageous, contrarian positions – are still outcasts and dismissed as "kooks" by the establishment. Sigh.

[Feb 17, 2019] Bill Kristol and Max Boot are not an expect in military technology, or security issues. They are experts in peddling MIC product to the US public

Feb 17, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Sid , February 15, 2019 at 7:27 pm

The goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to apologize for is the lack of sales.

These two hucksters are not experts on the product itself, but rather experts at selling the product.

Pres. Eisenhower, a genuine "authority on armed conflict", warned us of such peddlers.

[Feb 17, 2019] The goal of the neocons was to exploit 9/11 to destroy countries in the Middle East that posed a threat to Israel

Notable quotes:
"... Because DC is bought and paid for by the defense industry. Constant wars are good for the bottom line, so winning is not the right strategy. Loosing doesn't work either. A constant low level set of global conflicts is perfect. ..."
"... The goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to apologize for is the lack of sales. ..."
Feb 17, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Janwaar Bibi February 16, 2019 at 4:50 pm

Why Are These Professional War Peddlers Still Around? Pundits like Max Boot and Bill Kristol got everything after 9/11 wrong but are still considered "experts."

1. The goal of the neocons was to exploit 9/11 to destroy countries in the Middle East that posed a threat to Israel. As Wesley Clarke told us a long time ago, they were going to "do" Iraq first, and after that, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon and finally Iran. Most of this has been accomplished. We are now in the end game and Iran is in their cross-hairs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

From the perspective of the neocons, everything has gone their way.

2. The only people who got everything thing wrong were useful idiots like Rod Dreher, Tucker Carlson and Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones who were too dense to see what the neocons were really up to. You did not a PhD from Harvard to see that Bush and Blair had no evidence to back up their claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or to figure out the true intentions of the neocons.

So why are Boot and Kristol still around? Because Iran is not yet reduced to an ash-heap, courtesy of USA!USA!USA! so they still have work to do.

Why have they paid no price? Let's all pretend like we don't know the answer to this. And don't forget to condemn Ilhan Omar for her tweets just to be on the safe side.

john , says: February 16, 2019 at 12:32 pm
It's difficult to live in a post-America America where American interests are subordinate to Israel and AIPAC and lunatics like Bolton and Pompeo, now have replaced the president in matters of foreign policy.

Trump has done a 180 and given in completely.

I like Tulsi Gabbard and hope that she might have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination in spite of the fact that she now is being attacked by members of her own party, along with the representative from Minnesota who has the courage to talk of the power of the Israel lobby that functions solely in the interest of Israel. It seems the Democrats are not so tolerant of strong women after all. And its time for everyone to stop being intimidated by the charge of anti-Semitism. When Israeli interests are not those of America and Americans.

Ksw , says: February 16, 2019 at 3:54 pm
Because DC is bought and paid for by the defense industry. Constant wars are good for the bottom line, so winning is not the right strategy. Loosing doesn't work either. A constant low level set of global conflicts is perfect.
Sid , says: February 15, 2019 at 7:27 pm
The goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to apologize for is the lack of sales.

These two hucksters are not experts on the product itself, but rather experts at selling the product.

Pres. Eisenhower, a genuine "authority on armed conflict", warned us of such peddlers.

Barry F Keane , says: February 15, 2019 at 7:11 pm
Yes the neocons have a poor track record but they've succeeded at turning our republic into an empire. The mainstream media and elites of practically all western nations are unanimously pro-war. Neither political party has defined a comprehensive platform to rebuild our republic.

Even you, Tucker Carlson, mock the efforts of Ilhan Omar for criticizing AIPAC and Elliott Abrams.

I don't personally care for many of her opinions but that's not what matters: if we elect another neocon government we won't last another generation. Like the lady asked Ben Franklin "What kind of government have you bequeathed us?", and Franklin answered "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

[Feb 16, 2019] Eugene McCarthy never became President, but he changed national politics. Gabbard could have a big impact even if she does not win.

Feb 16, 2019 | www.unz.com
Mark Thomason , says: February 16, 2019 at 5:47 pm GMT
Eugene McCarthy never became President, but he changed national politics. Gabbard could have a big impact even if she does not win.

She could also become VP, and at her age that might well be a stepping stone.

[Feb 16, 2019] Do American people care enough about war to vote for Tulsi Gabbard

Feb 16, 2019 | www.unz.com

HEL , says: February 16, 2019 at 6:26 pm GMT

Gabbard is going nowhere, and while it's true that the powers that be will try to bury her, they don't need to. The simple truth is this: the American public largely doesn't care about the wars and never has. There hasn't been an anti-war movement of any significance since Bush left office, and that was mostly a phony anti-war movement in the first place. It was primarily an anti-Bush movement, and the bulk of the people screaming 'no blood for oil' would've just been screaming some other anti-Bush slogan had our current path of destruction through the Mideast never occurred.

Yes, there has always been a small, independent-minded minority on both the right and left who genuinely oppose American interventionism.

The vast majority of voters, though, don't care much, don't have strong opinions and will largely just follow their leaders. Rank and file Democrats now oppose drawing down from Syria and Afghanistan and want to 'contain' Russia.

This is solely because Trump has made noises in the opposite direction, even if he hasn't done much of anything. And a good portion of the Republicans who say they want out of these wars would support them if Jeb or Rubio were in the White House.

There is a fair bit more genuine antiwar sentiment on the right now than there was 15 years ago. But it's not a dominant issue for many people on the right who didn't always oppose the wars from the get-go. And the mainstream left, again, has totally abandoned the issue.

Only a tiny proportion of the American public considers the endless wars to be the most important issue facing America today.

You don't win campaigns focusing on issues that are regarded as unimportant and where most of the voters in your party oppose you on this point. There is no real antiwar movement. Another full-scale invasion of a previously stable country would generate some serious opposition, sure, but the current slow bleed of endless occupations and occasional opportunistic attacks on already destabilizing regimes can continue forever with little pushback from the public at large.

How anyone could live through the last 15 years of American politics and not realize this is beyond me.

KenH , says: February 16, 2019 at 6:26 pm GMT
@Art

That one trick happens to the most important trick that America is facing.

No Art, that would be unchecked legal and illegal immigration and as far as I can tell Tulsi Gandhi is pretty dreadful on that subject. True, the likudniks in the diaspora don't like her because she would be bad for an expansionist Israel...

If elected Tulsi would probably become a Jew tool just like Trump has become. If not, then they'll have another special counsel ready to take her down. That's how the (((deep state))) operates.

[Feb 16, 2019] President Trump is Saudi Arabia's bitch Hawaii Rep SLAMS Trump

dailymail.co.uk

Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard attacked Donald Trump for his tweet praising Saudi Arabia after the CIA report which found the country's crown prince was behind the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Democratic Rep. Gabbard, a National Guard veteran who did two tours in the Middle East, branded the president 'Saudi Arabia's b**ch' after he announced the U.S. would stand by the nation.

'Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia's bitch is not '"America First,'" Gabbard tweeted.

[Feb 16, 2019] Is Tulsi Gabbard for Real by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War. ..."
"... Gabbard has spoken at a conference of Christians United for Israel, which has defended Israel's settlement enterprise; has backed legislation that slashes funding to the Palestinians; and has cultivated ties with Boteach as well as with major GOP donor casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. She also attended the controversial address to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2015, which many progressive Democrats boycotted. ..."
"... Nevertheless, Tulsi supported Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy in 2016 and appears to be completely onboard and fearless in promoting her antiwar sentiments. Yes, Americans have heard much of the same before, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years. ..."
"... What's her angle about immigration? This: https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1197137/rep-tulsi-gabbard-calls-on-congress-to-pass-the-dream-act#.XGXEplUza1s Not optimistic. ..."
"... What's her angle about "outsourcing" jobs overseas? This: https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25011 Not bad, but, still .. ..."
"... Regularly Americans vote for the less interventionist candidate. ..."
"... Of course, it is impossible to predict whether it will be the same with Tulsi Gabbard, but unlike these other candidates in the past , she puts her rejection of neocons and regime change wars so much into the center of her campaign that it should be assumed that she is serious – otherwise it would be complete betrayal. ..."
"... She'll be sabotaged by relentless smears and other dirty tricks. Only someone bought and owned will be allowed to be a candidate which means the MIC must continue being fed enormous amounts of money and war hysteria constantly being stoked. ..."
"... Has anyone discussed the possibility of Tulsi being "marketed" or long-game "branded" through intentional theatre as "anti-war" ? ..."
"... Any serious Democratic candidate, and to some extent any Republican, must fly through the flack of Deep State anti-populist guns. I am skeptical about Gabbard because her policy views are already too good to be true. She is "cruisin' for a bruisin'" and there is already a campaign to erase her from the debate in the manner in which Ron Paul was erased a few years back ..."
"... Gabbard is an attractive woman and on camera she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater. Like Trump her instinct is to meet force with counter-force rather than roll with the punches and I think that is her best chance. ..."
"... De ja vu. I remember reading these very similar (not exactly but similar) sentiments about Barack Obama back in 2008. What a load of crap that turned out to be ..."
"... Don't know much about this lady. If she is "fair dinkum" in her anti war/anti-imperialism stance her only chance to get into power & then get things done will be to gain a massive, committed popular following. ..."
Feb 16, 2019 | www.unz.com

The lineup of Democrats who have already declared themselves as candidates for their party's presidential nomination in 2020 is remarkable, if only for the fact that so many wannabes have thrown their hats in the ring so early in the process. In terms of electability, however, one might well call the seekers after the highest office in the land the nine dwarfs. Four of the would-be candidates – Marianne Williamson a writer, Andrew Yang an entrepreneur, Julian Castro a former Obama official, Senator Amy Klobuchar and Congressman John Delaney – have no national profiles at all and few among the Democratic Party rank-and-file would be able to detail who they are, where they come from and what their positions on key issues might be.

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has a national following but she also has considerable baggage. The recent revelation that she falsely described herself as "American Indian" back in 1986 for purposes of career advancement, which comes on top of similar reports of more of the same as well as other resume-enhancements that surfaced when she first became involved in national politics, prompted Donald Trump to refer to her as "Pocahontas." Warren, who is largely progressive on social and domestic issues, has been confronted numerous times regarding her views on Israel/Palestine and beyond declaring that she favors a "two state solution" has been somewhat reticent. She should be described as pro-Israel for the usual reasons and is not reliably anti-war. She comes across as a rather more liberal version of Hillary Clinton.

And then there is New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, being touted as the "new Obama," presumably because he is both black and progressive. His record as Mayor of Newark New Jersey, which launched his career on the national stage, has both high and low points and it has to be questioned if America is ready for another smooth-talking black politician whose actual record of accomplishments is on the thin side. One unfortunately recalls the devious Obama's totally bogus Nobel Peace Prize and his Tuesday morning meetings with John Brennan to work on the list of Americans who were to be assassinated.

Booker has carefully cultivated the Jewish community in his political career, to include a close relationship with the stomach-churning "America's Rabbi" Shmuley Boteach, but has recently become more independent of those ties, supporting the Obama deal with Iran and voting against anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) legislation in the Senate. On the negative side, the New York Times likes Booker, which means that he will turn most other Americans off. He is also 49 years old and unmarried, which apparently bothers some in the punditry.

California Senator Kamala Harris is a formidable entrant into the crowded field due to her resume, nominally progressive on most issues, but with a work history that has attracted critics concerned by her hard-line law-and-order enforcement policies when she was District Attorney General for San Francisco and Attorney General for California. She has also spoken at AIPAC , is anti-BDS, and is considered to be reliably pro-Israel, which would rule her out for some, though she might be appealing to middle of the road Democrats like the Clintons and Nancy Pelosi who have increasingly become war advocates. She will have a tough time convincing the antiwar crowd that she is worth supporting and there are reports that she will likely split the black women's vote even though she is black herself, perhaps linked to her affair with California powerbroker Willie Brown when she was 29 and Brown was 61. Brown was married, though separated, to a black woman at the time. Harris is taking heat because she clearly used the relationship to advance her career while also acquiring several patronage sinecures on state commissions that netted her hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The most interesting candidate is undoubtedly Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is a fourth term Congresswoman from Hawaii, where she was born and raised. She is also the real deal on national security, having been-there and done-it through service as an officer with the Hawaiian National Guard on a combat deployment in Iraq. Though in Congress full time, she still performs her Guard duty.

Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.

Not afraid of challenging establishment politics, she called for an end to the "illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government," also observing that "the war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world." She then backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a personal trip to Damascus in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries "if you are serious about pursuing peace." She made her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the country as well as ending American interventions for "regime change" in the region.

In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and more recently has criticized President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, but one presumes that, like nearly all American politicians, she also has to make sure that she does not have the Israel Lobby on her back. Gabbard has spoken at a conference of Christians United for Israel, which has defended Israel's settlement enterprise; has backed legislation that slashes funding to the Palestinians; and has cultivated ties with Boteach as well as with major GOP donor casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. She also attended the controversial address to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2015, which many progressive Democrats boycotted.

Nevertheless, Tulsi supported Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy in 2016 and appears to be completely onboard and fearless in promoting her antiwar sentiments. Yes, Americans have heard much of the same before, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years.

What Tulsi Gabbard is accomplishing might be measured by the enemies that are already gathering and are out to get her. Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept describes how NBC news published a widely distributed story on February 1 st , claiming that "experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard."

But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge, which was exposed by no less than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald, the group ultimately behind this attack on Gabbard is The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called Hamilton 68 , a news "intelligence net checker" that claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation. The ASD website advises that "Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity."

ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund. It is loaded with a full complement of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.

For the moment, Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform. It might just resonate with the majority of American who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States. We the people can always hope.


peterAUS , says: February 14, 2019 at 7:41 pm GMT

For the moment, Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform.

Be that as it may, what is conspicously missing from the article are some minor things:

1. What's her angle about immigration? This: https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1197137/rep-tulsi-gabbard-calls-on-congress-to-pass-the-dream-act#.XGXEplUza1s Not optimistic.

2. What's her angle about "outsourcing" jobs overseas? This: https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25011 Not bad, but, still ..

Just those two. We can leave the rest of "globo-homo" agenda off the table, for the moment. And, the last but not the least, that nagging angle about automation and (paid) work in general. Let's not get too ambitious here. Those two, only, should suffice at the moment.

Si1ver1ock , says: February 14, 2019 at 8:09 pm GMT
I like Tulsi. but she hasn't been tested in a presidential campaign yet. At least we will have someone who could put peace on the ballot. She should write a book pulling her policies together and use it to get some publicity.
Adrian E. , says: February 14, 2019 at 9:14 pm GMT
Regularly Americans vote for the less interventionist candidate. 2008, an important reason for Obama's victory against Hillary Clinton and John McCain was that he had been against the Iraq war. 2000, George W. Bush said he was against nation building. Then, after they are elected, the neocons remain in power. Something similar again with Donald Trump who campaigned against stupid wars in the Middle East and now has surrounded himself with some of the most extreme neocons.

Of course, it is impossible to predict whether it will be the same with Tulsi Gabbard, but unlike these other candidates in the past , she puts her rejection of neocons and regime change wars so much into the center of her campaign that it should be assumed that she is serious – otherwise it would be complete betrayal. However, if she is serious about this and is elected, she will be fought by the deep state and its allies in the media much more harshly than Trump, who isn't even consistently anti-neocons, just not reliably pro-neocon. What they would probably do to her would make spygate, the Russiagate conspiracy theory, and the Muller investigation look harmless. She might end like JFK (a VP who is just as anti-neocons might increase the chances of survival).

But despite all the risks, I think it is worth trying. If the US was a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation and the neocons had their own party, it would hardly have more than a handful of seats in Congress. Although they don't have, a significant base of their own, neocons have remained in power for a long time, whoever was elected. At the moment, Tulsi Gabbard is probably the best hope for ending their long reign.

anonymous [241] Disclaimer , says: February 15, 2019 at 12:30 am GMT
She'll be sabotaged by relentless smears and other dirty tricks. Only someone bought and owned will be allowed to be a candidate which means the MIC must continue being fed enormous amounts of money and war hysteria constantly being stoked. She won't have a chance. Besides, the Dem party has gotten radical and out of touch with the majority of Americans so who really wants them in? There's no cause for optimism anywhere one looks.
Gg Mo , says: February 15, 2019 at 3:21 am GMT
@the grand wazoo

Has anyone discussed the possibility of Tulsi being "marketed" or long-game "branded" through intentional theatre as "anti-war" ? Greenwald himself has questionable backers and the WWF good guy/bad guy character creations (like Trump's pre-election talking points concerning illegal wars , now stuffed down the memory holes of many), all the FAKE and distracting "fights" etc etc

See Corbett/Sibel Edmonds on Greenwald

jack daniels , says: February 15, 2019 at 3:48 am GMT
@peterAUS

Any serious Democratic candidate, and to some extent any Republican, must fly through the flack of Deep State anti-populist guns. I am skeptical about Gabbard because her policy views are already too good to be true. She is "cruisin' for a bruisin'" and there is already a campaign to erase her from the debate in the manner in which Ron Paul was erased a few years back.

Gabbard is an attractive woman and on camera she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater. Like Trump her instinct is to meet force with counter-force rather than roll with the punches and I think that is her best chance. In that way she calls the bluff of her opponents: Just how confident are they that in the end the public will prefer war to peace? These points add up to a realistic chance of success but given the Deep State's stranglehold on the media she is definitely a long shot.

Biff , says: February 15, 2019 at 4:04 am GMT
De ja vu. I remember reading these very similar (not exactly but similar) sentiments about Barack Obama back in 2008. What a load of crap that turned out to be, but I do understand that not all politicians are cut from the same dung heap, so it is probably best to find out who is funding the little pricks while they are campaigning – for once they are elected, payback is due.

In the case of Obama it was Robert Rubin( of Goldman Sachs) who bankrolled him, and of course, once elected it was bank bailout time. Then once Ghaddaffi's gold back Dinar became a monetary powerhouse, he committed another crime for the bankers.

"Is she the real deal?"

Elect her and you'll find out, and there lies the problem – you get to find out when it's too late. On the other hand, she could actually be honest and sincere, but that alone disqualifies her as a politician (the kind that Americans are used to anyway).

NTL, she's got people's attention and if for anything else – the people are anti-war, but the monied power brokers are definitely not which begs the question – will democracy actually happen?

animalogic , says: February 15, 2019 at 8:04 am GMT
@Adrian E.

Don't know much about this lady. If she is "fair dinkum" in her anti war/anti-imperialism stance her only chance to get into power & then get things done will be to gain a massive, committed popular following.

She will need to use tactics from both the Sanders & Trump play-books. She will need to appeal to a good number in both the Sanders & Trump constituencies. Regardless, she will need an iron-will & tsunami of charisma .

LondonBob , says: February 15, 2019 at 11:26 am GMT
@Biff Obama was a creation of the Pritzker and Crowne families, although the puppet did decide he wanted to somewhat act on his own. Gabbard is certainly taking flak from the Israel firsters, and her debating Trump on foreign policy in a US Presidential election would be a real paradigm shift.
RobinG , says: February 15, 2019 at 3:10 pm GMT
@renfro Where do you get this "obsessive hatred of Muslims and Islam?"

She's been [insistent and consistent] using the term 'radical Islamic terrorists' which, unfortunately, is an accurate description of ISIS (the bane of the ummah). OTOH, last year Tulsi was a featured speaker at a Moslem conference in NJ, and she has been outspoken about freedom of religion and mutual respect. If you've got some evidence that she excludes Islam from that, please show it.

RobinG , says: February 15, 2019 at 3:35 pm GMT
@jack daniels

[Gabbard's] policy views are already too good to be true.

Not really. Too good to be true would be if she understood Putin in the context of the US and oligarch rape of Russia in the 1990's and how he has restored the Russian economy and dignity; and if she recognized (openly) the US role in the Maidan coup and accepted the validity of the Crimean decision to return to Russia.

Unfortunately, even though she's taken a brave position on ending US regime-change war on Syria, in many other respects she remains quite conventional. She also promotes fear of DPRK, and who knows what she thinks about China.

she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater.

Aggressive? Composed, confident, yes. Aggressive, no. Calm under fire is more like it. Take a look at the whole interview on Morning Joe. She really outclasses those squirming bitches. BUT, notice her (short) responses on Putin and Assad ("adversary" and "no"), real Judas moments. Does she believe that, or is she clinging to the Overton Window?
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/rep-gabbard-assad-is-not-an-enemy-of-the-us-1438093891865

Forcible Overthrow time , says: February 15, 2019 at 5:41 pm GMT
Tulsi's presidential timber but she's wasting her life with the Democrats. Their consulting apparatchiks are going to stuff a bunch of incoherent slogans up her butt. If she wants a real antiwar platform she should steal it wholesale from Stein and Ajamu Baraka. Baraka built a complete and consistent law-and-order platform. He's the only real antiwar candidate in this country.

Of course the Democrat's CIA handlers will crush Tulsi if she starts to make sense, so she's going to have to take her supporters and jump to the Greens.

She will lose, but arbitrary forcible repression of the party will discredit bullshit US electoral pageantry once and for all. Then we move into the parallel government zone in conformity with world-standard human rights law and destroy the parasitic kleptocratic USA.

peterAUS , says: February 15, 2019 at 6:12 pm GMT
@jack daniels You know .there IS one thing nobody wants, really, to talk about.

.given the Deep State's stranglehold on the media she is definitely a long shot

Why, in this age, the "stronghold on the media" is so decisive? A person who gets the most of media exposure wins? That's how it works?
Or, do anyone reading and posting here gets his/her information from the "media"? I'd say not.

Isn't the bottom, the very heart of the matter NOT a Deep State, Dem Joos, Anglo-Saxons, Masons, Illuminati and .whatever but simple, eternal, laziness and stupidity of an average person?
Or, even worse: the real, true, needs and wants of an average person are simply "breads and circuses". Nothing more.
Combine those two and here we are.

I am aware that throws the spanner into works of those into Aryans, White supremacy, Western man and similar stuff, but, the conclusion seems inevitable.

That's the heart of the problem "we" face at the moment. How to fix it, or even is it possible, I don't know. Have some ideas, of course.

anon [194] Disclaimer , says: February 15, 2019 at 6:31 pm GMT
@2stateshmustate

If there was any justice in this country Mr. Chertoff would have long since been tried for treason for his involvement in the 911 attack.

The arc of something or other is long but tends toward justice er something like that:

Chertoff's business partner Mike Hayden had a stroke last November and is still "getting good care and working hard at therapy."

No doubt US taxpayers are paying to rebuild Scumbag Hayden's fried circuits.
Pity.

never-anonymous , says: February 15, 2019 at 6:54 pm GMT
CIA Giraldi probably has more Cherokee DNA than Warren. Another fact he failed to provide to the Government during the security clearance process. The troll has supported the republican establishment all his career, this distinguishes him from the trolls that support the democratic establishment all of their careers. The fact that people can debate the relative merits of political leaders from the dark lagoon reveals their complete lack of rational thought. No politician decides anything important.
Tulip , says: February 15, 2019 at 7:39 pm GMT
@Anonymous No, then she is toast in Hawaii politics, and she is probably running not because she plans on winning, but to raise her profile and perhaps open doors for herself on the national or state level, which won't happen if you shoot yourself in the foot at the same time.

Besides, leaving aside Krishna consciousness, she is too close to Sanders to get any traction among the Republicans. I suppose getting the bipartisan support of the Internet kook vote is something, but hard to translate into political office.

RobinG , says: February 15, 2019 at 8:19 pm GMT
@Tulip

..getting the bipartisan support of the Internet kook vote is something, but hard to translate into political office.

Brilliant.

Dem Juche , says: February 16, 2019 at 12:25 am GMT
You're never going to get anything worthwhile from a Democratic politician because they're indoctrinated worse that the brightest little Pioneer in Juche class. Take Ro Khana's meaningless pap.

https://fellowtravelersblog.com/2018/10/23/ro-khanna-five-principles/

What is this 'we should' crap? The law is perfectly clear. The right to self-defense is subject to necessity and proportionality tests, and invariably subject to UN Charter Chapter 7 in its entirety. See Article 51. Instead of this 'restraint' waffle, just say, the president must commit to faithfully execute the supreme law of the land, including UN Charter Chapter 7 and Article 2(4). That means refrain from use or threat of force. Period.

Second, national security is not a loophole in human rights. Khana uses the legally meaningless CIA magic word 'threat.' Under universal jurisdiction law, it is a war crime to declare abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. Domestic human rights are subject to ICCPR Article 4, HRC General Comment 29, and the Siracusa Principles. Instead of CIA's standard National Security get-out clause, state explicitly that US national security means respect, protection and fulfillment of all human rights. To enforce that, ratify the Rome Statute or GTFO.

Third, internationalism is OK as far as it goes, but Ro Khana doesn't deal with the underlying problem: CIA has infested State with focal points and dotted-line reports, and demolished the department's capacity for pacific resolution of disputes. You have to explicitly tie State's mission to UN Charter Chapter 6, and criminalize placement of domestic CIA agents in State.

Fourth, Congressional war-making powers are useless with Congress completely corrupted. Bring back the Ludlow Amendment, war by public referendum only, subject to Article 51.

Rich , says: February 16, 2019 at 5:21 am GMT
Tulsi is a far Left democrat. She supports raising taxes to pay for free college for people earning less than 125K and universal health care, she actually joined protesters against the Dakota Access Pipeline, has a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, supports homosexual marriage (changed her previous position in 2012), and has an F rating from the NRA. She's a Lefty. Not for me, anyway.
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: February 16, 2019 at 5:25 am GMT
In any case she is less vulnerable. She can call any opposition a misogynist.
Biff , says: February 16, 2019 at 5:30 am GMT
@obwandiyag

I like the one on here who says the Democrat party has "gotten radical."

I assume this is sarcasm, but there is no denying the fact that the neocons(radical whack jobs) have jumped ship from the Republicans and attached themselves to the Democrats (although there are filtering back into the Trump administration – drunk with power they'll suck up to anyone)

The DNC NeverTrump crowd is all but calling for a nuclear exchange with Russia because they colluded with Trump to throw the election, and they pose a National Security threat to the United States(in their head). Hillary also went on to say that Russians Hacking the DNC is another 9/11. The radical Antifa crowd is made up of 99.999999% of Democratic voters.

[Feb 15, 2019] MSNBC "Terrified Of Anti-War Voices" Says Fired Anti-War Host Phil Donahue - YouTube

Notable quotes:
"... They divide us with race, sex, and religion. If we came together all the working class people, from every race, you'd see the oligarchs true face. They'd innact martial law in a heartbeat, and run to their underground base in the Ozarks. That's the painful truth. ..."
"... That's why Richard Nixon replaced the draft with a lottery that has evolved into a volunteer armed forces. We were nearly the verge of another civil war in this country. ..."
"... So Jimmy, once again, hit it out of the ballpark with this podcast on why the war hawks fear Tulsi ..."
"... She really scares the war hawks and just as importantly she scares the huge profits these war hawks and allied corporations (the parent company of GE which owns MSNBC makes turbine engines for the military) have made off these unnecessary and tragic wars since the 9/11 attacks. ..."
Feb 15, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Anders Stöök , 1 day ago

Phil Donahue was not a sellout like Rachel Maddow.

Humphking , 1 day ago

They divide us with race, sex, and religion. If we came together all the working class people, from every race, you'd see the oligarchs true face. They'd innact martial law in a heartbeat, and run to their underground base in the Ozarks. That's the painful truth.

George Hoffman , 1 day ago (edited)

I served in Vietnam (31 May 1967 - 31 May 1968), so I'm approximately around the same age as Phil. I told everyone I knew that if we invaded Iraq - this was during the lead-up in 2002 to vote on GWB's Iraq War resolution - having just a volunteer armed forces in the strategic sense, let alone the invasion of Iraq would violate international covenants against illegal wars of aggression - we would eventually have down the road a military blunder and a foreign policy debacle that would rival the one we had in the Vietnam War.

If GWB had somehow convinced the American people and the Congress to bring back the draft after the 9/11 attacks, I assure you we would have withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq long, long ago. But the war hawks in Congress and the Pentagon love their private, (essentially) quasi-mercenary volunteer armed forces after how badly they got burnt during the anti-war protests against the Vietnam War.

That's why Richard Nixon replaced the draft with a lottery that has evolved into a volunteer armed forces. We were nearly the verge of another civil war in this country.

So Jimmy, once again, hit it out of the ballpark with this podcast on why the war hawks fear Tulsi. Remember they can't smear her based on the fact that she was an officer who did two tours of duty in the war zone, so they try to smear her because she is supposedly a puppet of Putin, that is, a fifth columnist or fellow traveler as they did during the Red Scare in the McCarthy era. I would definitely vote for her as a fellow war veteran for president, but she has a very hard road to travel to win the nomination.

She really scares the war hawks and just as importantly she scares the huge profits these war hawks and allied corporations (the parent company of GE which owns MSNBC makes turbine engines for the military) have made off these unnecessary and tragic wars since the 9/11 attacks.

Rick C-137 , 1 day ago (edited)

MSNBC is complicit in the deaths of millions. As evil as evil gets.

John Henni , 1 day ago

Chris Matthews is the definition of Corporate shill.

[Feb 15, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard Pres. Trump -- STOP treating our troops as political pawns - YouTube

Notable quotes:
"... Establishment NeoCons and Neolibs are going to erase Tulsi's candidacy by not mentioning her, not including her in polls, and not letting into debates. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich received this treatment in 2008/2012 ... because of their Antiwar stance. ..."
Feb 14, 2019 | www.youtube.com

More on Tulsi Gabbard:

https://www.tulsi2020.com/about


Grey Skeptic , 18 hours ago

Tulsi, I sincerely hope you go all the way. You embody what this country desperately needs. Keep fighting them against the smears.

Lakshya Sharma , 18 hours ago

People need leaders like you who address the real needs.

man , 16 hours ago

Best thing about tulsi is that she stood for Bernie when Bernie didn't stood for himself

mattisava , 18 hours ago (edited)

#Tulsi2020 #TULSIrEVOLution #MakeAntiwarGreatAgain

Establishment NeoCons and Neolibs are going to erase Tulsi's candidacy by not mentioning her, not including her in polls, and not letting into debates. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich received this treatment in 2008/2012 ... because of their Antiwar stance.

Gabriel Arcari , 17 hours ago

Yes Tulsi!! That goes for corporate democrats as well...

R R , 18 hours ago

Make America honest again!!

xXRAGING- DEATHXx , 18 hours ago

A True Leader, right there. #TULSI2020

Trident , 18 hours ago

"America First" shoots missiles at Syria...

Keith Gilbertson , 14 hours ago

You're being blacklisted like a third party candidate. Might as well form a new party, Tulsi. Aloha Party.

Barney Google , 16 hours ago

America's worst enemies are in Washington and the MSM. LET'S TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK! NO MORE REGIME CHANGE WARS TULSI2020 FEEL THE ALOHA!

Randy Hartono , 18 hours ago

Wooooow it's true... Treated like a tools

passane74 , 15 hours ago (edited)

Damn ! Short and powerful true. May God bless President Tulsi 2020 and America.

Benjamin Henderson , 13 hours ago

Michigan loves you Tulsi

Judicial78 , 11 hours ago

I get goosebumps every time I listen to this lady speak, even without the dramatic music. Happy Valentines day to the heart of America, Tulsi Gabbard!!

Judith Schwartzbacker , 15 hours ago

tulsi/bernie2020.

I really don't think Bernie is going to run. and tulsi should announce early on that her pick for vp is bernie. bernie for domestic solutions and tulsi for foreign ones. That's the winning ticket.

If the dnc rigs the election again then i think the people should conduct our own regime change here with tulsi as our commander-in-chief of the peoples' army. this nonsense has to stop.

[Feb 15, 2019] Morning Joe Attacks Tulsi For Opposing War - YouTube

Notable quotes:
"... I'm not American but after seeing how Tulsi Gabbard conducted herself in this (so called) interview I urge ALL thinking Americans to put all of their support behind her candidacy for the Presidency. ..."
Feb 07, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Bob McDonnel , 1 week ago

Lol the establishment is scared of her! Go Tulsi!

Gary Purkeljc , 1 week ago (edited)

Assad is an "adversary" to the US because Assad isn't controlled by Israel and Saudi Arabia.

GoogIe+ , 6 days ago (edited)

"What are Assad's interests?" - That's what I'd call, a knockout Tusi punch. Totally caught that reporter blind-sighted. Nice one Tulsi!

Horatio Jones , 6 days ago

I'm not American but after seeing how Tulsi Gabbard conducted herself in this (so called) interview I urge ALL thinking Americans to put all of their support behind her candidacy for the Presidency.

Shane Baldwin , 6 days ago

Tulsi Gabbard is the populist Progressive we've been looking for.

Ana Suri , 1 week ago

I am a Syrian and I appreciate everything Tulsi Gabbard is trying to do to stop regime change. The US media is criminal and responsible for the blood shed in Syria and many other places. Assad was never an enemy to the US or other western countries.

Jay Smathers , 6 days ago (edited)

Gabbard is young, but her metal shows in this clip as she just smiles at the msnbc stupidity. She doesn't even take these jokers seriously, and that is going to allow her to go over their heads and connect directly with the public. This is actually awesome.

jim seko , 4 days ago

If Russia was actually helping Tulsi Gabbard, Bernie Sanders, and Jill Stein etc, the Russians are the good guys.

Unlawful_Falafel , 1 week ago

you know what is sad? i trust RT more than MSM.

Dakota Walker , 6 days ago

These smears only drive me to vote for her.

C.M. Butler , 1 week ago

I am a Trump supporter on the right but truly appreciate Jimmy Dore. I am hopeful that the left & right can unite against these pro-war establishment propagandists. Let's stop foreign wars, neocon/neolib policies & MSM deceit ... then we can debate progressive vs conservative issues.

linwood ellsworth , 3 days ago

I'm a veteran and would agree 100% with Tulsi Gabbard. People are catching on. There are only 67 thumbs down. Great video.

John Theos , 6 days ago (edited)

Putin actually said that, other than the cold war, Russia and the U.S. have always been allies, and that's what he wants. I have two recent videos where Putin is calling for peace and good relations with America. Do I really need to find the links and post them here? I'm a busy man. Let's all help Jimmy, Ron and Steph by doing some homework. Americans should stop smearing good people and start applying some critical thinking skills. "Putin-puppets"?

What about " military industrial complex puppets" who robotically repeat false Russian collusion accusations in order to silence honest dissent? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

ArgentiumTea , 4 days ago

It's funny Jimmy Dore, Secular Talk, The Humanist Report and others all support her but not The Young Turks "the home of the progressives"

Paula Laflamme , 2 days ago

Hey Jimmy, hey Jimmy! Have you seen the vid of Putin talking to the western press? I think it was 2015 or so. He's calmly talking about NATO and weapons being put on Russia's borders and how bad it would be if this goes ahead and Russia has to respond. He's practically pleading with them to let the American people know this doesn't have to happen. I saw him saying much the same thing in a Charlie Rose interview before Rose moved into the Big Bucks on network TV. Yet as things were heating up about Russia Rose never mentioned this as he sat at that morning show desk.

Karl Letcher , 1 week ago (edited)

Katie, who has never served, asks Tulsi, who has, to explain herself to the military. These people are as clueless as they are shameless.

je suis Informaticien , 6 days ago

america create their ennemies, all the wars just for isra hell

Tony Skwara , 6 days ago

I hate MSNBC

Lirrulewon , 6 days ago

She is one hot veteran if i may add

Ken Texican , 4 days ago

MSNBC and especially the panel of Morning Joe are some of the most shameless tools in America. If DC is a sewer inhabited by big fat sewer rats; then Kasie (and her ilk), are the plague-infected fleas that take their blood-meals from those rats.

[Feb 15, 2019] Media Erasing Tulsi Gabbard From Presidential Campaign by The Jimmy Dore Show

Feb 15, 2019 | The Jimmy Dore Show

Become a Patron/Premium Member: https://www.patreon.com/jimmydore & http://bit.ly/JDPremium
Schedule of Live Shows: http://bit.ly/2gRqoyL
Check out our Merch Store: http://bit.ly/tjdsmerch or http://bit.ly/shopTJDS


ScottTheAngel , 1 day ago

This is a good reason to vote for her the only thing she represents is good and they want her gone it seems, she has the majority of America on her mind.

Unlawful_Falafel , 1 day ago

ok, it's official. i'm voting for tulsi gabbard, since clearly the corrupt establishment doesn't want me to and would rather i vote warren.

kastlerock01 , 1 day ago

They did the exact same thing to Ron Paul during his 2012 bid. There are so many videos showing how they cheated him it's almost comical.

Joe Gibbs , 1 day ago

It looks like your political system is very broken. Corrupted by money and greed.

Laura LeDoux , 1 day ago

I was a huge Bernie fan in the last election, but I would love it if he holds a huge press conference to announce his plans and instead gives a HUGE endorsement to Tulsi. That would be a great way to stick it to the media and give her more coverage.

Syncopator , 1 day ago (edited)

They need to make sure Tulsi won't make it to any debates, because they can't allow the discussion that would ensue about expensive, illegal and useless military adventures that we need to stop. And in a debate, they can't simply interrupt her like they can in an interview. That's not a discussion they can allow because people could think they might actually have a choice in the matter. For war mongers, they sure are chicken-shits who obviously don't even have any confidence in their own arguments in favor of it.

Tony Quinn , 21 hours ago

The media did they exact same thing to Ron Paul for the same reason. Bill O'Reilly hated Ron Paul.

Sykes , 1 day ago

Politics as usual. Voters always end up with two oligarch picks that have been groomed to mouth what they are told. MSM employees are not independent thinkers either. The two party system has been around for a long time, although in reality it is one party with a and b choices.

MsLuath , 1 day ago

She is smart, honest and courageous. Of course they will do all they can to dismiss her.

[Feb 14, 2019] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Urges Support for Paid Family and Medical Leave Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard

Feb 14, 2019 | gabbard.house.gov
Press Release Washington, DC -- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) joined a coalition of over 160 lawmakers in introducing legislation that would create a national paid family and medical leave program. The Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act, known as the FAMILY Act, would ensure that every American worker can take up to 12 weeks of paid leave for a pregnancy or the birth or adoption of a child, to recover from a serious illness, or to care for a seriously ill family member.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said: "Across the country, people are working hard every day, living paycheck to paycheck, barely making enough to get by. When a crisis arises, like a parent who falls sick, a personal health crisis, or a newborn child, the demands of balancing a job and family needs can be too much. Without a national family leave policy, millions of Americans are forced to make an impossible choice between their family's health, and their financial security. Our legislation will provide the security our working families need to care for their loved ones, without risking their ability to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table."

Background: The FAMILY Act establishes a national family and medical leave insurance program. Receiving paid leave benefits allows workers to take time away from their jobs to address their most-pressing needs. Specifically, the legislation would provide eligible employees up to 12 weeks of partial income to address:

Follow Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on social media:

[Feb 13, 2019] Making Globalism Great Again by C.J. Hopkins

Highly recommended!
Pretty biting satire
Notable quotes:
"... So how did Trump finally get the liberal corporate media to stop calling him a fascist? He did that by acting like a fascist (i.e., like a "normal" president). Which is to say he did the bidding of the deep state goons and corporate mandarins that manage the global capitalist empire the smiley, happy, democracy-spreading, post-fascist version of fascism we live under. ..."
"... Notwithstanding what the corporate media will tell you, Americans elected Donald Trump, a preposterous, self-aggrandizing ass clown, not because they were latent Nazis, or because they were brainwashed by Russian hackers, but, primarily, because they wanted to believe that he sincerely cared about America, and was going to try to "make it great again" (whatever that was supposed to mean, exactly). ..."
"... Unfortunately, there is no America. There is nothing to make great again. "America" is a fiction, a fantasy, a nostalgia that hucksters like Donald Trump (and other, marginally less buffoonish hucksters) use to sell whatever they are selling themselves, wars, cars, whatever. What there is, in reality, instead of America, is a supranational global capitalist empire, a decentralized, interdependent network of global corporations, financial institutions, national governments, intelligence agencies, supranational governmental entities, military forces, media, and so on. If that sounds far-fetched or conspiratorial, look at what is going on in Venezuela. ..."
"... And Venezuela is just the most recent blatant example of the empire in action. ..."
Feb 11, 2019 | www.unz.com

Maybe Donald Trump isn't as stupid as I thought. I'd hate to have to admit that publicly, but it does kind of seem like he has put one over on the liberal corporate media this time. Scanning the recent Trump-related news, I couldn't help but notice a significant decline in the number of references to Weimar, Germany, Adolf Hitler, and " the brink of fascism " that America has supposedly been teetering on since Hillary Clinton lost the election.

I googled around pretty well, I think, but I couldn't find a single editorial warning that Trump is about to summarily cancel the U.S. Constitution, dissolve Congress, and proclaim himself Führer . Nor did I see any mention of Auschwitz , or any other Nazi stuff which is weird, considering that the Hitler hysteria has been a standard feature of the official narrative we've been subjected to for the last two years.

So how did Trump finally get the liberal corporate media to stop calling him a fascist? He did that by acting like a fascist (i.e., like a "normal" president). Which is to say he did the bidding of the deep state goons and corporate mandarins that manage the global capitalist empire the smiley, happy, democracy-spreading, post-fascist version of fascism we live under.

I'm referring, of course, to Venezuela, which is one of a handful of uncooperative countries that are not playing ball with global capitalism and which haven't been "regime changed" yet. Trump green-lit the attempted coup purportedly being staged by the Venezuelan "opposition," but which is obviously a U.S. operation, or, rather, a global capitalist operation. As soon as he did, the corporate media immediately suspended calling him a fascist, and comparing him to Adolf Hitler, and so on, and started spewing out blatant propaganda supporting his effort to overthrow the elected government of a sovereign country.

Overthrowing the governments of sovereign countries, destroying their economies, stealing their gold, and otherwise bringing them into the fold of the global capitalist "international community" is not exactly what most folks thought Trump meant by "Make America Great Again." Many Americans have never been to Venezuela, or Syria, or anywhere else the global capitalist empire has been ruthlessly restructuring since shortly after the end of the Cold War. They have not been lying awake at night worrying about Venezuelan democracy, or Syrian democracy, or Ukrainian democracy.

This is not because Americans are a heartless people, or an ignorant or a selfish people. It is because, well, it is because they are Americans (or, rather, because they believe they are Americans), and thus are more interested in the problems of Americans than in the problems of people in faraway lands that have nothing whatsoever to do with America. Notwithstanding what the corporate media will tell you, Americans elected Donald Trump, a preposterous, self-aggrandizing ass clown, not because they were latent Nazis, or because they were brainwashed by Russian hackers, but, primarily, because they wanted to believe that he sincerely cared about America, and was going to try to "make it great again" (whatever that was supposed to mean, exactly).

Unfortunately, there is no America. There is nothing to make great again. "America" is a fiction, a fantasy, a nostalgia that hucksters like Donald Trump (and other, marginally less buffoonish hucksters) use to sell whatever they are selling themselves, wars, cars, whatever. What there is, in reality, instead of America, is a supranational global capitalist empire, a decentralized, interdependent network of global corporations, financial institutions, national governments, intelligence agencies, supranational governmental entities, military forces, media, and so on. If that sounds far-fetched or conspiratorial, look at what is going on in Venezuela.

The entire global capitalist empire is working in concert to force the elected president of the country out of office. The US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Austria, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands, Israel, Brazil, Peru, Chile, and Argentina have officially recognized Juan Guaido as the legitimate president of Venezuela, in spite of the fact that no one elected him. Only the empire's official evil enemies (i.e., Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and other uncooperative countries) are objecting to this "democratic" coup. The global financial system (i.e., banks) has frozen (i.e., stolen) Venezuela's assets, and is attempting to transfer them to Guaido so he can buy the Venezuelan military. The corporate media are hammering out the official narrative like a Goebbelsian piano in an effort to convince the general public that all this has something to do with democracy. You would have to be a total moron or hopelessly brainwashed not to recognize what is happening.

What is happening has nothing to do with America the "America" that Americans believe they live in and that many of them want to "make great again." What is happening is exactly what has been happening around the world since the end of the Cold War, albeit most dramatically in the Middle East. The de facto global capitalist empire is restructuring the planet with virtual impunity. It is methodically eliminating any and all impediments to the hegemony of global capitalism, and the privatization and commodification of everything.

Venezuela is one of these impediments. Overthrowing its government has nothing to do with America, or the lives of actual Americans. "America" is not to going conquer Venezuela and plant an American flag on its soil. "America" is not going to steal its oil, ship it "home," and parcel it out to "Americans" in their pickups in the parking lot of Walmart.

What what about those American oil corporations? They want that Venezuelan oil, don't they? Well, sure they do, but here's the thing there are no "American" oil corporations. Corporations, especially multi-billion dollar transnational corporations (e.g., Chevron, ExxonMobil, et al.) have no nationalities, nor any real allegiances, other than to their major shareholders. Chevron, for example, whose major shareholders are asset management and mutual fund companies like Black Rock, The Vanguard Group, SSgA Funds Management, Geode Capital Management, Wellington Management, and other transnational, multi-trillion dollar outfits. Do you really believe that being nominally headquartered in Boston or New York makes these companies "American," or that Deutsche Bank is a "German" bank, or that BP is a "British" company?

And Venezuela is just the most recent blatant example of the empire in action. Ask yourself, honestly, what have the "American" regime change ops throughout the Greater Middle East done for any actual Americans, other than get a lot of them killed? Oh, and how about those bailouts for all those transnational "American" investment banks? Or the billions "America" provides to Israel? Someone please explain how enriching the shareholders of transnational corporations like Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin by selling billions in weapons to Saudi Arabian Islamists is benefiting "the American people." How much of that Saudi money are you seeing? And, wait, I've got another one for you. Call up your friendly 401K manager, ask how your Pfizer shares are doing, then compare that to what you're paying some "American" insurance corporation to not really cover you.

For the last two-hundred years or so, we have been conditioned to think of ourselves as the citizens of a collection of sovereign nation states, as "Americans," "Germans," "Greeks," and so on. There are no more sovereign nation states. Global capitalism has done away with them. Which is why we are experiencing a "neo-nationalist" backlash. Trump, Brexit, the so-called "new populism" these are the death throes of national sovereignty, like the thrashing of a suffocating fish before you whack it and drop it in the cooler. The battle is over, but the fish doesn't know that. It didn't even realize there was a battle until it suddenly got jerked up out of the water.

In any event, here we are, at the advent of the global capitalist empire. We are not going back to the 19th Century, nor even to the early 20th Century. Neither Donald Trump nor anyone else is going to "Make America Great Again." Global capitalism will continue to remake the world into one gigantic marketplace where we work ourselves to death at bullshit jobs in order to buy things we don't need, accumulating debts we can never pay back, the interest on which will further enrich the global capitalist ruling classes, who, as you may have noticed, are preparing for the future by purchasing luxury underground bunkers and post-apocalyptic compounds in New Zealand. That, and militarizing the police, who they will need to maintain "public order" you know, like they are doing in France at the moment, by beating, blinding, and hideously maiming those Gilets Jaunes (i.e., Yellow Vest) protesters that the corporate media are doing their best to demonize and/or render invisible.

Or, who knows, Americans (and other Western consumers) might take a page from those Yellow Vests, set aside their political differences (or at least ignore their hatred of each other long enough to actually try to achieve something), and focus their anger at the politicians and corporations that actually run the empire, as opposed to, you know, illegal immigrants and imaginary legions of Nazis and Russians. In the immortal words of General Buck Turgidson, "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed," but, heck, it might be worth a try, especially since, the way things are going, we are probably going end up out there anyway.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

[Feb 13, 2019] Rep. Walter Jones, Rest in Peace The American Conservative

Feb 13, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Jones was a longtime friend of TAC , and he delivered the opening remarks at our 2017 foreign policy conference . Listen to what he said here:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/DSnjbIrIQdk

He not only acknowledged early on that his initial support for the Iraq war was wrong, but spent the rest of his career fighting for a more restrained and peaceful foreign policy. Rep. Jones was one of the original Republican co-sponsors of the first House antiwar resolution to end U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen . He co-authored an op-ed with Reps. Khanna and Pocan in 2017 in support of their resolution:

We believe that the American people, if presented with the facts of this conflict, will oppose the use of their tax dollars to bomb and starve civilians in order to further the Saudi monarchy's regional goals. Our House resolution is a first step in expanding democracy into an arena long insulated from public accountability. Too many lives hang in the balance to allow this American war to continue without congressional consent. When our bill comes to the floor for a vote, our colleagues should consider first the solution proposed by the director of Unicef, Anthony Lake, for stopping the unimaginable suffering of millions of Yemenis: "Stop the war."

It is unfortunate that Rep. Jones did not live to see the House pass that resolution to end U.S. support for the war, but when a new version of that resolution passes later this month it will be thanks in no small part to his leadership.

Jones became a reliable scourge of unnecessary and unauthorized foreign wars wherever they happened to be . He saw the continuation of open-ended and illegal wars as an attack on the Constitution and an abuse of the men and women who volunteered to serve their country. His opposition to these wars earned him the enmity of Republican hawks , who repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought to unseat him through primary challenges. Whatever their disagreements with him may have been over the years, his constituents recognized and appreciated his integrity and his dedication to the country.

The cause of peace and restraint has lost one of its great defenders, TAC has lost one of our good friends, and America has lot one of its most honorable and decent public servants. May his memory be eternal.


Longtime TAC Reader February 11, 2019 at 3:14 am

The loss of Walter Jones is devastating.

I hope that good and true Americans inspired by his example will pick up the colors he carried so long and faithfully, carry them forward, renewing his dogged efforts to rein in military intervention and preserve true freedom.

God bless you, Walter Jones.

God bless you.

RIP , says: February 11, 2019 at 8:52 am
This is a blow, and no denying it.

For all that, you may be certain that somewhere the vermin are jumping for joy, because when it comes to their vile wars and meddling they brook no dissent, and Jones's voice was strong and sure, grounded in truth and "the better angels of our nature".

Very sorry to have lost this good and valuable American. Hats off also to the people of his district, many of them soldiers or families of soldiers, who kept sending him back to Washington. May they find someone to replace who has the same gumption, character, and commitment to basic Americanism.

Virginia Catholic Girl , says: February 11, 2019 at 9:36 am
If there were more people like him in Washington, we wouldn't be in the state we're in. I wrote him a "fan" letter back in 2006 or thereabouts, about his regrets about the Iraq war and writing to all the families of those KIA. Also appreciated him being one of the few in Congress that actually tried to follow the Constitution and do something about our national debt. He also was all about constituent service,especially for veterans and those in Eastern North Carolina affected by the recent hurricanes. Eternal rest, grant him, Oh Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him.

[Feb 13, 2019] Tulsi rocks

Notable quotes:
"... Trump doesn't have a clue about Foreign Policy ..."
Feb 13, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

David G , February 12, 2019 at 11:26 am

The inimitable CN commenting system just ate my detailed reply to your question of who else besides Gabbard has spoken up, and won't let me repost it. But the short version is that

As far as I know, everybody else is on board the regime-change express, enjoying the bar car.

Summary: Tulsi rocks.

KiwiAntz, February 12, 2019 at 7:04 am

Trump & his corrupt Administration with the Troika of morons such as Pompeo, Bolton & Abrams, are the most dangerous bunch of idiots ever to be in power?

Hopelessly inept & out of his depth, Trump doesn't have a clue about Foreign Policy & his stupid Regime change antics are going to blow up in his & his meddling Nations face!

This buffoonish Clown is really accelerating America's downfall & declining Hegemonic power & turning the World away from the corrupt US Dollar, Petrodollar system with other Countries, actively moving away from this tyranny?

... ... ...

[Feb 12, 2019] Tulsi was just on CNN talking about CIA funding of "terror-linked groups" in Syria

Feb 12, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

James Thomas , 21 hours ago

Tulsi was just on CNN talking about CIA funding of "terror-linked groups" in Syria:
Play

[Feb 09, 2019] New York Times admission of Afghanistan fiasco provokes human rights imperialist backlash by Bill Van Auken

Notable quotes:
"... Now the Times acknowledges: "The price tag, which includes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and increased spending on veterans' care, will reach $5.9 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2019, according to the Costs of War project at Brown University. Since nearly all of that money has been borrowed, the total cost with interest will be substantially higher More than 2.7 million Americans have fought in the war since 2001. Nearly 7,000 service members-and nearly 8,000 private contractors-have been killed. More than 53,700 people returned home bearing physical wounds, and numberless more carry psychological injuries. More than one million Americans who served in a theater of the war on terror receive some level of disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs." ..."
"... Kagan has a great deal invested in the Afghanistan war. He and his wife Kimberly served as civilian advisers to top generals who directed the war and elaborated the failed strategies of counterinsurgency (COIN). He has been a vociferous supporter of every US war and every escalation, arguing most recently for the US military to confront Russian- and Iranian-backed forces in Syria. ..."
"... A leading figure in the Democratic Party, Smeal is no Jane-come-lately to the filthy campaign to promote the war in Afghanistan as a "humanitarian" exercise in promoting the rights of women ..."
"... Aside from costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of Afghan women, the US war has left women, like the entire population, under worse conditions than when it began. Two-thirds of Afghan girls do not attend school, 87 percent of Afghan women are illiterate, and 70-80 percent face forced marriage, many before the age of 16. ..."
"... The attempt by the likes of Smeal and leading elements within the Democratic Party to cloak the bloodbath in Afghanistan as a crusade to "liberate" women and promote "democracy" is itself a criminal act. ..."
"... Afghanistan is a shitshow due to elite meddling. This editorial was nothing more than virtue-signaling to those that still hate war. But the anti-war movement is effectively dead anyway. There are anti-war people, but no anti-war movement. That's the crowd that the New York Times was appealing to. This is a stunt; nothing more. ..."
"... It was USA imperialism (under Carter and Brzezinski) which first had made Afghanistan a hell for women, but colonial feminists do not care for the facts. ..."
"... That is very true. "Death by a thousand cuts" was Brzezinski's scheme to destroy the Soviet Union in Central Asia. A few years ago, he was interviewed by a journalist from PRC who asked if he had any regrets with all the destruction and death it caused. Brzezinski said, "None". ..."
Feb 09, 2019 | wsws.org

An editorial published by the New York Times on February 4 titled "End the War in Afghanistan" has provoked a backlash from prominent supporters of the decades-long US "war on terrorism" and the fraud of "humanitarian intervention."

The Times editorial was a damning self-indictment by the US political establishment's newspaper of record, which has supported every US act of military aggression, from the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the US wars for regime change in Libya and Syria beginning in 2011.

The editorial presents the "war on terror" as an unmitigated fiasco, dating it from September 14, 2001, when "Congress wrote what would prove to be one of the largest blank checks in the country's history," i.e., the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Al Qaeda and its affiliates, which is still invoked to legitimize US interventions from Syria to Somalia, Yemen and, of course, Afghanistan.

On the day that this "blank check" was written, the Times published a column titled "No Middle Ground," which stated "the Bush administration today gave the nations of the world a stark choice: stand with us against terrorism, deny safe havens to terrorists or face the certain prospect of death and destruction. The marble halls of Washington resounded with talk of war."

It continued, "The nation is rallying around its young, largely untried leader-as his rising approval ratings and the proliferation of flags across the country vividly demonstrate "

This war propaganda was sustained by the Times, which sold the invasion of Afghanistan as retribution for 9/11 and then promoted the illegal and unprovoked war against Iraq by legitimizing and embellishing the lies about "weapons of mass destruction."

With the first deployment of US ground troops in Afghanistan, the Times editorialized on October 20, 2001: "Now the nation's soldiers are going into battle in a distant and treacherous land, facing a determined and resourceful enemy. As they go, they should know that the nation supports their cause and yearns for their success."

Now the Times acknowledges: "The price tag, which includes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and increased spending on veterans' care, will reach $5.9 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2019, according to the Costs of War project at Brown University. Since nearly all of that money has been borrowed, the total cost with interest will be substantially higher More than 2.7 million Americans have fought in the war since 2001. Nearly 7,000 service members-and nearly 8,000 private contractors-have been killed. More than 53,700 people returned home bearing physical wounds, and numberless more carry psychological injuries. More than one million Americans who served in a theater of the war on terror receive some level of disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs."

The massive loss of life, destruction of social infrastructure and vast human suffering inflicted by these wars on civilian populations are at best an afterthought for the Times. Conservative estimates place the number killed by the US war in Afghanistan at 175,000. With the number of indirect fatalities caused by the war, the toll likely rises to a million. In Iraq, the death toll was even higher.

What does the Times conclude from this bloody record? "The failure of American leaders-civilians and generals through three administrations, from the Pentagon to the State Department to Congress and the White House-to develop and pursue a strategy to end the war ought to be studied for generations. Likewise, all Americans-the news media included-need to be prepared to examine the national credulity or passivity that's led to the longest conflict in modern American history."

What a cowardly and cynical evasion! Three administrations, those of Bush, Obama and Trump, have committed war crimes over the course of more than 17 years, including launching wars of aggression-the principal charge leveled against the Nazis at Nuremberg-the slaughter of civilians and torture. These crimes should not be "studied for generations," but punished.

As for the attempt to lump the news media together with "all Americans" as being guilty of "credulity" and "passivity," this is a slander against the American people and a deliberate cover-up of the crimes carried out by the corporate media, with the Times at their head, in disseminating outright lies and war propaganda. The Times editors should be "prepared to examine" the fact that journalistic agents of the Nazi regime who carried out a similar function in Germany were tried and punished at Nuremberg.

The Times editorial supporting a US withdrawal reflects the conclusions being drawn by increasing sections of the ruling establishment, including the Trump administration, which has opened up negotiations with the Taliban. It is bound up with the shift in strategy by US imperialism and the Pentagon toward the preparation for "great power" confrontations with nuclear-armed Russia and China.

The Times ' call for an Afghanistan withdrawal has provoked a heated rebuke by defenders of the "war on terrorism" and "humanitarian intervention," who have denounced the newspaper for defeatism. Such a withdrawal, a letter published by the Times on February 8 argued, would "accelerate and expand the war," "allow another extremist-terrorist phenomenon to emerge," and "result in the deaths and abuse of thousands of women."

The signatories of the letter include Frederick Kagan, David Sedney and Eleanor Smeal.

Kagan has a great deal invested in the Afghanistan war. He and his wife Kimberly served as civilian advisers to top generals who directed the war and elaborated the failed strategies of counterinsurgency (COIN). He has been a vociferous supporter of every US war and every escalation, arguing most recently for the US military to confront Russian- and Iranian-backed forces in Syria.

Likewise Sedney, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense responsible for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, now working at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Married to a top lobbyist for Chevron who worked extensively in Central Asia, he has his own interests in the continuation of US military operations in the region.

Smeal is the president of the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMD) and a former president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), who is widely described as one of "the major leaders of the modern-day American feminist movement."

A leading figure in the Democratic Party, Smeal is no Jane-come-lately to the filthy campaign to promote the war in Afghanistan as a "humanitarian" exercise in promoting the rights of women. In 2001, Smeal and her FMD circulated a petition thanking the Bush administration for its commitment to promoting the rights of women in Afghanistan. After the bombing began on October 7, she declared, "We have real momentum now in the drive to restore the rights of women." A few days later, she and representatives of other feminist organizations showed up at the White House to solidarize themselves with the US war.

Urging on the conquest of Afghanistan, she wrote, "I should hope our government doesn't retreat. We'll help rip those burqas off, I hope. This is a unique time in history. If you're going to end terrorism, you've got to end the ideology of gender apartheid."

Aside from costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of Afghan women, the US war has left women, like the entire population, under worse conditions than when it began. Two-thirds of Afghan girls do not attend school, 87 percent of Afghan women are illiterate, and 70-80 percent face forced marriage, many before the age of 16.

Recent reports suggest that the maternal death rate may be higher than it was before the war began, surpassed only by South Sudan. While USAID has poured some $280 million into its Promote program, supposedly to advance the conditions of Afghan women, it has done nothing but line the pockets of corrupt officials of the US-backed puppet regime in Kabul.

The attempt by the likes of Smeal and leading elements within the Democratic Party to cloak the bloodbath in Afghanistan as a crusade to "liberate" women and promote "democracy" is itself a criminal act.

On October 9, two days after Washington launched its now 17-year-long war on Afghanistan and amid a furor of jingoistic and militarist propaganda from the US government and the corporate media, the World Socialist Web Site editorial board posted a column titled "Why we oppose the war in Afghanistan." It rejected the claim that this was a "war for justice and the security of the American people against terrorism" and insisted that "the present action by the United States is an imperialist war" in which Washington aimed to "establish a new political framework within which it will exert hegemonic control" over not only Afghanistan, but over the broader region of Central Asia, "home to the second largest deposit of proven reserves of petroleum and natural gas in the world."

The WSWS stated at the time: "Despite a relentless media campaign to whip up chauvinism and militarism, the mood of the American people is not one of gung-ho support for the war. At most, it is a passive acceptance that war is the only means to fight terrorism, a mood that owes a great deal to the efforts of a thoroughly dishonest media which serves as an arm of the state. Beneath the reluctant endorsement of military action is a profound sense of unease and skepticism. Tens of millions sense that nothing good can come of this latest eruption of American militarism.

"The United States stands at a turning point. The government admits it has embarked on a war of indefinite scale and duration. What is taking place is the militarization of American society under conditions of a deepening social crisis.

"The war will profoundly affect the conditions of the American and international working class. Imperialism threatens mankind at the beginning of the twenty-first century with a repetition on a more horrific scale of the tragedies of the twentieth. More than ever, imperialism and its depredations raise the necessity for the international unity of the working class and the struggle for socialism."

These warnings and this perspective have been borne out entirely by the criminal and tragic events of the last 17 years, even as the likes of the New York Times find themselves compelled to admit the bankruptcy of their entire record on Afghanistan, and their erstwhile "liberal" allies struggle to salvage some shred of the filthy banner of "human rights imperialism."


Charlotte Ruse • 12 hours ago

"The failure of American leaders -- civilians and generals through three administrations, from the Pentagon to the State Department to Congress and the White House -- to develop and pursue a strategy to end the war ought to be studied for generations. Likewise, all Americans -- the news media included -- need to be prepared to examine the national credulity or passivity that's led to the longest conflict in modern American history."

What the New York Times should propose is a Nuremberg-style trial for the war criminals responsible for the genocide of millions, the devastation of of the Middle East and Africa, and the looting of the US Treasury by war profiteers and the political duopoly.

If these criminals are NOT held accountable for their actions NOTHING will be learned and the violence, death and destruction will continue.

"The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law, acted as Head of State or responsible government official, does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."

Serenity Charlotte Ruse • 3 hours ago
Gore Vidal rightly named America as the United States of Amnesia. They NEVER learn from their own history and they are never told about what their terrorist government does in their name.
Pete LaPlace • 13 hours ago
Eleanor Smeal's comment about "ripping off those burqas" in Afghanistan reminds me of Louisiana congressman John Cooksey's post-9/11 suggestion that police should pull over and question anyone with ''a diaper on his head''. Both use religious intolerance to increase the power of the state.
solerso • 15 hours ago
"A leading figure in the Democratic Party, Smeal is no Jane-come-lately to the filthy campaign to promote the war in Afghanistan as a "humanitarian" exercise in promoting the rights of women."

wouldn't it be more correctly "Janey comes lately" ..as in "Johnny come lately"..?

The completely insane fraud of waging imperialist war for "women rights" has been , unfortunately, extensively documented..the US occupation has strengthened not weakened the Taliban

"The WSWS stated at the time: "Despite a relentless media campaign to whip up chauvinism and militarism, the mood of the American people is not one of gung-ho support for the war. "

Not really in agreement with this statement although, everything has changed in almost 20 years.....

ben franklin [pre death] solerso • 2 hours ago
There are always elements that are gung ho for war. And I'll agree that the number was abnormally high for Afghanistan. But I do think the majority still reluctantly agreed to the war as a necessary measure to fight "terrorism" as the more-than-likely-to-be-a-false-flag 9/11 event was very fresh in everyone's mind.
Master Oroko • 16 hours ago
Afghanistan is a shitshow due to elite meddling. This editorial was nothing more than virtue-signaling to those that still hate war. But the anti-war movement is effectively dead anyway. There are anti-war people, but no anti-war movement. That's the crowd that the New York Times was appealing to. This is a stunt; nothing more.

What's more interesting is that the liberal elites will probably do their best to continue on with the war. But either way, the USA will likely lose. In fact, it's already lost the war. The Taliban have won this one. That the elitists can't see that shows just how far gone they are.

Carolyn Zaremba Master Oroko • an hour ago
The British failed in Afghanistan, too, remember.
лидия • 20 hours ago
Prof Bomb Libya Cole started his career of "progressive" imperialist by backing USA aggression against Afghanistan.
лидия • 20 hours ago
It was USA imperialism (under Carter and Brzezinski) which first had made Afghanistan a hell for women, but colonial feminists do not care for the facts.
konnections лидия • 3 hours ago
That is very true. "Death by a thousand cuts" was Brzezinski's scheme to destroy the Soviet Union in Central Asia. A few years ago, he was interviewed by a journalist from PRC who asked if he had any regrets with all the destruction and death it caused. Brzezinski said, "None".
Robert Montgomery лидия • 9 hours ago
Exactly. I believe the current term is "post-colonial feminists." Kinda takes the edge off the "colonialism."
Charlotte Ruse лидия • 9 hours ago
Good point!!

[Feb 06, 2019] Bari Weiss Has the Stupidest Take on Tulsi Gabbard Yet

Notable quotes:
"... "Am I crazy?" -Bari Weiis Well Bari Weiis you're either crazy or you're a yet another worthless establishment shill whose job is spread deliberate misinformation about the most genuine anti-war candidate running at a time when the entire MSM, MIC, and the neoliberal rightwing establishment (including AIPAC) is deliberately smearing her to immediately kill her campaign. And you didn't come across as crazy so... ..."
Feb 06, 2019 | www.youtube.com

the op kingdom , 1 week ago (edited)

This woman had NO CLUE what she was talking about. She thought she was on a show that would just tow the party line and let her get away with wrong statements. She's just repeating what critics say with no idea of the truth. What a fool. As a woman, THIS IS WHY I WON'T JUST VOTE FOR ANY WOMAN. We are just as capable of being stupid as anyone else.

FrozenWolf150 , 1 week ago

Bari: "I think Tulsi Gabbard is an Assad toadie." Joe: "What do you mean by toadie?" Bari: "Oh, I don't know what that means." Joe: "Okay, I looked it up, and it's like a sycophant." Bari: "Then Tulsi is like an Assad sycophant." Joe: "So what do you mean by that?" Bari: "I'm not sure what sycophant means either." Joe: "I looked up the definition, it's like a suck-up." Bari: "All right, Tulsi is an Assad suck-up." Joe: "Could you explain that further?" Bari: "I don't know what suck means." Joe: "It's what you're doing right now."

Jeff Oloff , 1 week ago

Bari Weiss is a tool of Zionist war mongers that promote perpetual war. She has no thoughts of her own.

Joe Smith , 1 week ago

I hate Bari Weiss....I just don't why.

Nicholas Pniewski , 1 week ago

Tulsi also recently clarified her position of Assad and Syria on CNN, where she said she would have diplomacy rather than war

Captain Obvious , 1 week ago

"Am I crazy?" -Bari Weiis Well Bari Weiis you're either crazy or you're a yet another worthless establishment shill whose job is spread deliberate misinformation about the most genuine anti-war candidate running at a time when the entire MSM, MIC, and the neoliberal rightwing establishment (including AIPAC) is deliberately smearing her to immediately kill her campaign. And you didn't come across as crazy so...

[Feb 06, 2019] NYT Columnist Calls Tulsi Gabbard 'Assad Toady,' Can't Define or Spell Term

I will be very surprised if neocons would not frame her Putin toady as well. This is how this system works. It eliminates undesirable to the neoliberals candidates with 100% efficiency.
They serve as local STASI and some former STASI official might well envy neocons efficiency of silencing opponents (with much less blood and overt repression, by pure magic of neocon propaganda ).
Notable quotes:
"... She has "monstrous ideas, she's an Assad toady," Weiss tells Rogan. ..."
"... Rogan then reads the definition: "Toadies. The definition of toadies: A person who flatters or defers to others for self-serving reasons." "A sycophant. So I did use it right!" Weiss exclaims. "So she's an Assad sycophant? Is that what you're saying?" "Yeah, that's, proven -- known -- about her." ..."
"... When Rogan asks what Gabbard has said that qualifies her as a sycophant, Weiss replies: "I don't remember the details." ..."
"... Gabbard, who announced her presidential campaign on January 11, has drawn incredible amounts of ire from mainstream Democrats tripping over themselves for war with Syria because in January 2017, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and denounced the opposition rebels in the country's civil war as "terrorists." ..."
"... She has also expressed skepticism about accusations that Assad's government has used chemical weapons during the conflict and spoken out against cruise missile attacks by the US and its allies against the country. ..."
Feb 06, 2019 | sputniknews.com
Monday to discuss current events, but things got embarrassing when she went in on Gabbard, a progressive Democrat whose foreign policy positions have turned more than a few heads.

Neocon NY Times columnist Bari Weiss smeared Tulsi Gabbard (who bravely opposed regime change and US support for Salafi-jihadist contras) as an "Assad toady," then couldn't spell/define toady or offer any evidence to prove her smear. Embarrassingly funny pic.twitter.com/m0MLaHFPiX

-- Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 22, 2019

She has "monstrous ideas, she's an Assad toady," Weiss tells Rogan.

US Representative Tulsi Gabbard speaks during Day 2 of the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 26, 2016 © AFP 2018 / Timothy A. CLARY Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Speaks the Truth on Syria, Gets Smeared by the Mainstream Media

When Rogan asks for clarification, she says, "I think that I used that word correctly." She then asks someone off camera to look up what toady means. "Like toeing the line," Rogan says, "is that what it means?" "No, I think it's like, uh " and Weiss drones off without an answer. She then attempts to spell it, and can't even do that. "T-O-A-D-I-E. I think it means what I think it means "

Rogan then reads the definition: "Toadies. The definition of toadies: A person who flatters or defers to others for self-serving reasons." "A sycophant. So I did use it right!" Weiss exclaims. "So she's an Assad sycophant? Is that what you're saying?" "Yeah, that's, proven -- known -- about her."

When Rogan asks what Gabbard has said that qualifies her as a sycophant, Weiss replies: "I don't remember the details."

In this Nov. 6, 2018, file photo, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, greets supporters in Honolulu. Gabbard has announced she's running for president in 2020 © AP Photo / Marco Garcia 'Assad's Mouthpiece in Washington': Controversial Dem. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Announces 2020 Run

"We probably should say that before we say that about her -- we should probably read it, rather, right now, just so we know what she said," Rogan notes. "I think she's, like, the motherlode of bad ideas," Weiss then says. "I'm pretty positive about that, especially on Assad. But maybe I'm wrong. I don't think I'm wrong." It seems to us here at Sputnik that such claims should be made with a bit more confidence than this. So let's set the record straight.

Gabbard, who announced her presidential campaign on January 11, has drawn incredible amounts of ire from mainstream Democrats tripping over themselves for war with Syria because in January 2017, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and denounced the opposition rebels in the country's civil war as "terrorists."

She has also expressed skepticism about accusations that Assad's government has used chemical weapons during the conflict and spoken out against cruise missile attacks by the US and its allies against the country.

A general view shows damaged buildings at al-Kalasa district of Aleppo, Syria in Aleppo, Syria, February 2, 2017 © REUTERS / Omar Sanadiki US Lawmakers Call for Syria Strategy Where Assad Leaving Post, Russian Military Pulls Out

"Initially I hadn't planned on meeting him," Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, told CNN's Jake Tapper following the meeting. "When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I felt it's important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we've got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we could achieve peace. And that's exactly what we talked about."

"I have seen this cost of war firsthand, which is why I fight so hard for peace," Gabbard said. "And that's the reality of the situation that we're facing here. It's why I have urged and continue to urge [US President Donald] Trump to meet with people like Kim Jong Un in North Korea, because we understand what's at stake here. The only alternative to having these kinds of conversations is more war."

Moreover, in a March 2016 speech before Congress, Gabbard called Assad "a brutal dictator," noting that her opposition to what she called a "war bill" was over the legal ramifications that she feared would lead to the overthrow of Assad, which she opposes on anti-interventionist grounds.

"[T]oppling ruthless dictators in the Middle East creates even more human suffering and strengthens our enemy, groups like ISIS and other terrorist organizations, in those countries," Gabbard said at the time.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York speak to reporters about the Congressional Budget Office projection that 14 million people would lose health coverage under the House Republican bill dismantling former President Barack Obama's health care law, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, March, 13, 2017. © AP Photo/ J. Scott Applewhite House Democrats Will Expand Russiagate in 2019 to Push Trump Toward War

Gabbard has been thoroughly demonized for her pro-peace views by global liberal media, as Trump has been for his moves to end the war in Syria and avoid another on the Korean Peninsula. For example, The Daily Beast's article announcing her candidacy called Gabbard "Assad's Favorite Democrat" in its headline; a Haaretz headline from last week say she had "Tea With Assad," and the Washington Post has called her "Assad's Mouthpiece in Washington." The UK Independent called her a "defender of dictators."

It's not clear what Weiss had in mind when she called Gabbard a "sycophant" and a "toady," since the congresswoman's rhetoric about Assad has consisted of skepticism and opposition to intervention, and she hasn't hesitated to call the Syrian president a "brutal dictator." What Gabbard's treatment has demonstrated is that a Democrat who steps out of line from the party's pro-regime change agenda in Syria and who condemns Muslim extremists associated with Daesh and al-Qaeda should be prepared to suffer for it in the mainstream media.

[Feb 06, 2019] Tulsi is a threat to the status quo...watch the DNC torpedo her candidacy

Notable quotes:
"... As a Trump supporter from 2016, this is probably the only Democratic candidate that I would seriously consider abandoning Trump over. The rest, I wouldn't give them the time of day - even Bernie. ..."
Feb 06, 2019 | www.youtube.com




James Schuhs , 1 week ago

Tulsi is a threat to the status quo...watch the DNC torpedo her candidacy.

Amir Fahmi , 1 week ago

Israel war strategy ~ Onwards American soldiers.

imnotmike , 1 week ago

I trust Tulsi on foreign policy more than I trust just about anybody else. Some people don't like her because she won't just say that we should stop all military under any circumstances. She's been in the military. She understands the military. She understands that the military is not evil. Drones are not evil. They're just currently being misused. We need to cut military spending, but not eliminate it. We need to end offensive wars and withdraw from countries that aren't attacking us. But that doesn't mean we don't need a military and don't need to be ready to defend ourselves.

paul battenbough , 1 week ago

I'm from the Uk as soon as I heard Tulsi was running I got excited....a chance for real change and dismantling of the military industrial complex.....could it be?

Troy Walker , 1 week ago

thats the military industrial complex's plan, to make enemies to keep them in business.

The Centrist , 1 week ago

Why do you worship Bernie Sanders so much? What does he have that Tulsi Gabbard doesn't in terms of policy? May I note that Sanders is more pro-Israel and actually more for war than Gabbard is. It means something when it's coming from a vet who actually served and visited war-torn countries.

Limedick Andrew , 6 days ago

As a Trump supporter from 2016, this is probably the only Democratic candidate that I would seriously consider abandoning Trump over. The rest, I wouldn't give them the time of day - even Bernie. 

Daniel , 1 week ago

That's nice. I always liked her, but I was worried about her military policy, good that she got rid of that doubt right away. Now we just need these people to actually follow through and not become another Obama with his "change" and "hope". Not that any of this is going to really make a difference or anything unless all the sycophants in the opposition suddenly dies, but it' still nice that someone seems to care.

[Feb 06, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard Rips Interventionism In First Campaign Ad

Feb 06, 2019 | www.youtube.com


Tacet the Terror , 1 week ago

Sanders/Gabbard 2020 is the only non-"lesser of two evils" choice.

kamran5461 , 1 week ago

Now you see why the establishment really hates her.

Zero Divisor , 1 week ago

Tulsi Gabbard went to Standing Rock. She has my support.

it's show buiness kiddo , 1 week ago

I wwant tulsi to defeat Kamala in the primaries. Kamala is a fake progressive and the establishment already coronated her. I can't trust her.

Voitan , 1 week ago

I'm voting Tulsi Gabbard. Uncompromising commitment to no more interventions and wars.

malena garcia , 1 week ago

I love Tulsi; her ad was great. She's the only dem I would vote for at this point. Kamala is an evil hypocrite. And Tulsi's right, love is the most powerful force in the planet.

Jurgen K , 1 week ago

Tulsi is hated by the establishment the most not Bernie , this is the reason I say Tulsi2020

Jay Smathers , 1 week ago (edited)

Wake up folks -Tulsi would not have run if Bernie was going run. Bernie will endorse her early on and she will have a much tougher fight than he did, because while Sanders caught the corporate establishment sleeping in 2016, they are now frightened and see Gabbard coming. They will use every dirty trick at their disposal to keep her from catching fire -and that begins with dividing progressives like us. Tulsi is not perfect because no one is perfect. But she is young, bright and fucking fearless compared to other politicians about putting the long term good of the American people above the moneyed interests who think they own our media and our government. This is why the establishment despises her more than even Sanders. 2020 will reveal weather or not we can retake ownership of our media and our government. That fight will require all of us - so Kyle get on the bus!

FujiFire , 1 week ago

Tulsi is an amazing candidate in her own right, but IMO she would be a perfect VP pick for Bernie. She has the amazing foreign policy cred and would really shore up Bernie's weakest areas.

D. Martin , 1 week ago (edited)

I remember Obama ripping interventionism too. And Trump.

rolled oats , 1 week ago

Tulsa Gabbard's ad doesn't mention the people who die in the countries we invade. That's 600k people in Iraq for example. A significant omission me thinks.

Wayne Chapman , 1 week ago

The Aloha Spirit Law is a big deal in Hawaii. Government officials are required to approach dignitaries from other countries or states with the spirit of aloha. "Aloha" means mutual regard and affection and extends warmth in caring with no obligation in return. Aloha is the essence of relationships in which each person is important to every other person for collective existence. I think that's what we want in a President or a diplomat.

madara uchiha , 1 week ago

She's great and unique as she doesnt fall back to identity politics and sjwism as much as the standard left politicians. I hope she doesnt bend her ethics when the sjws come for her. I'm putting my trust in her. I hope she wins. And if she isn't in the race, i wont be voting.

David , 1 week ago (edited)

The question I would love her to address specifically is will her campaign focus on decreasing military spending like Bernie Sanders? She has a military background and the US loves war. This ad is good but it is tip toing around the MIC ( military industrial complex) She can be non interventionist but not decrease military spending is what worries me

GoLookAtJohn PodestasEmails , 1 week ago

This is why we need Gabbard on the debate stage. She will push the Overton window on revealing to the public what our military is actually doing overseas. She's also a staunch progressive. Bernie/Tulsi 2020. Their weakness match well with each other, and Tulsi was one of the first to jump ship on the sinking DNC ship when Hillary got caught cheating being the DNC. Keep small donations going into your favorite progressive candidates to hear their voice. It doesn't work any other way folks.

Geoff Daly , 1 week ago

Intervention isn't only an issue about morality. As Dwight Eisenhower put it (even though he himself was far from an anti imperialist), you can't have an endless stream of money dedicated to military endeavors AND a sufficient investment in domestic public priorities. This easily explains why we have increasingly decrepit infrastructure, increasingly worse performing education, increasingly worse performing health care, absurdly insufficient regulation between government and business (although the pay to play system certainly is the top reason) and a generally decaying public atmosphere. Beyond the fact that getting involved everywhere creates humanitarian crises, countless dead people, hopelessly destroyed countries, and so much more, even if other countries haven't in return bombed our shores from sea to sea, even if generally speaking those who consider not only the US but Americans the "enemies" haven't overwhelmed with non stop attacks, this non stop and ever growing appetite for more money for more war priorities has created the very decline we see in our country today. Until there is a change in priorities in general, these problems in the US will only continue to get worse.

Tom Pashkov , 1 week ago

Gabbard for Sec. of Defense in the Sanders/Warren administration.

Jacob Serrano , 1 week ago

Man, Tulsi made me tear up. She's my girl. This message reminds me more of the message of Jesus than many of the fundamentalists. She's not even Christian, yet represents Christ very well. I love this woman.

Ny3 43 , 1 week ago

Prepare for BAE, Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other weapons corporations and their bum lickers to launch a viscous smear campaign against her suggesting she's somehow a Neo Nazi communist anti Semitic islamophobic islamist.

Gem Girlla , 1 day ago (edited)

Tulsi 2020 she's saying some of the same things Trump said in his 2016 campaign. Unfortunately, he didn't deliver. Per the corporate Democrates, making America better is a bad thing.

GiantOctopus0101 , 1 day ago

Tulsi can actually beat Trump...if she gets the nomination. The wars are the elephant in the room, and whoever is willing to take that on full force, can win.

[Feb 05, 2019] Refusal to hand over Venezuelan gold means end of Britain as a financial center Prof. Wolff -- RT Business News

Feb 05, 2019 | www.rt.com

The freezing of Venezuelan gold by the Bank of England is a signal to all countries out of step with US interests to withdraw their money, according to economist and co-founder of Democracy at Work, Professor Richard Wolff. He told RT America that Britain and its central bank have shown themselves to be "under the thumb of the United States."

"That is a signal to every country that has or may have difficulties with the US, [that they had] better get their money out of England and out of London because it's not the safe place as it once was," he said.

[Feb 04, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard Slams Neocon-Neolib Warmongers After NBC Propaganda Exposed

Notable quotes:
"... "As commander-in-chief, I will work to end the new cold war, nuclear arms race and slide into nuclear war. That is why the neocon/neolib warmongers will do anything to stop me . ..."
"... In short; NBC relied on a known propagandist who created a Russian bot "false flag" to meddle in an election, who claims to track pro-Kremlin Twitter activity, in order to smear Tulsi Gabbard as a Putin puppet. ..."
"... It's uncanny what lengths the establishment will go to in order to eliminate threats. For example, take a look at this Vanity Fair hit piece from Jan 30, which uses perhaps the most unflattering photo Gabbard has ever taken and starts off (emphasis not ours): ..."
"... One question remains; will Gabbard become a Democrat puppet like Bernie Sanders if the DNC colludes with their chosen candidate to cheat against her? ..."
"... Obey or die ... that's the ethos of the U.S. elite, these days ... Tulsi can't fight that. ..."
"... I wonder if Ron Paul feels jealous that Tulsi is getting all the hate he used to get when HE ran for president on the peace platform? ..."
"... I thought Social Security was "the third rail of politics" but obviously it is now "perpetual war". Anyone daring to touch it is going to be zapped by the corporate media, whose owners are likely majority stockholders of the military industrial complex. ..."
"... Orange wants to run against some crazy like Hitlery... easy pickings ... he can't win against a sensible person ..."
"... The term "neoliberal warmongers" is thus born ... ..."
"... Yes, good to add that term to "neoconservative warmongers" because of the degree to which almost all successful politicians have become puppets of the best organized gangsters (due to the long history of the vicious feedback loops of the funding of all aspects of the political processes.) The false fundamental dichotomies and related impossible ideals associated with "liberal" versus conservative" are manifestations of the methods of divide and conquer, which methods are being pushed towards oblivion with their excessive indulgence in the demonization of Russia. ..."
"... All of those may be viewed as manifestations of "false flag attacks" whereby the ruling classes drive the people they rule over to fight against boogie men, in ways which therefore backfire badly, by causing the "blowbacks" which those "false flag" presentations of the "public enemies" were originally designed to cause! ..."
"... Tulsa Gabbard shares the same views on Israel that most of the world outside of the US hold ... that there really is zero difference between the apartheid South Africa regime of 3 decades ago and present day Israel. ..."
"... Now that the evil SA apartheid is ended, the natives are rising up and showing their sadism and hatred for all manner of civilization. They sing and chant about how much they want to "kill de white man!" But they have NO IDEA what to do once they've done that. ..."
"... Too bad, the rabid dogs are firmly in charge of the US government. ..."
"... she could beat orange ... orange is afraid of her... so are the zio elite ..."
Feb 04, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Tulsi Gabbard Slams "Neocon/Neolib Warmongers" After NBC Propaganda Exposed

by Tyler Durden Mon, 02/04/2019 - 11:31 525 SHARES

Tulsi Gabbard lashed out at "neocon" and "neolib warmongers" after NBC News was exposed trying to smear her as a Kremlin stooge. The network was called out over the weekend for relying on a Democrat-run firm that created fake Russian twitter bots to stage a "false flag" campaign against Republic Roy Moore in the 2017 Alabama special election - New Knowledge.

To justify its claim that Tulsi Gabbard is the Kremlin's candidate, NBC writes:

"analysts at New Knowledge, the company the Senate Intelligence Committee used to track Russian activities in the 2016 election, told NBC News they've spotted 'chatter' related to Gabbard in anonymous online message boards, including those known for fomenting right-wing troll campaigns."

Only to be called out hard by journalist Glenn Greenwald:

After Greenwald fingered NBC for relying on New Knowledge - run by Jonathan Morgan (who also developed the technology behind "Hamilton 68" Russian bot-tracking propaganda website that refuses to disclose its methods) - Gabbard chimed in, tweeting:

"@ggreenwald exposes that @NBC used journalistic fraud to discredit our campaign. But more important is their motive: "to smear any adversary of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party – whether on the left or the right – as a stooge or asset of the Kremlin.""

She later added:

"As commander-in-chief, I will work to end the new cold war, nuclear arms race and slide into nuclear war. That is why the neocon/neolib warmongers will do anything to stop me .

Disturbingly, the Senate Intelligence Committee has relied on a report by New Knowledge on Russian social media election interference, while the firm has created a "Hamilton 68" offshoot, "Disinfo2018" referenced in the NBC article, which claims that three of the top URLs propagated throughout social media by Kremlin bots were about Gabbard.

In short; NBC relied on a known propagandist who created a Russian bot "false flag" to meddle in an election, who claims to track pro-Kremlin Twitter activity, in order to smear Tulsi Gabbard as a Putin puppet.

It's uncanny what lengths the establishment will go to in order to eliminate threats. For example, take a look at this Vanity Fair hit piece from Jan 30, which uses perhaps the most unflattering photo Gabbard has ever taken and starts off (emphasis not ours):

The presidential campaign of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the renegade Democrat known as much for her chummy relationship with Bashar al-Assad as for supporting Bernie Sanders , is beginning to resemble the candidate herself: confusing, disorganized, and, according to Politico , falling apart. - Vanity Fair

One question remains; will Gabbard become a Democrat puppet like Bernie Sanders if the DNC colludes with their chosen candidate to cheat against her?


DFGTC , 1 minute ago link

Obey or die ... that's the ethos of the U.S. elite, these days ... Tulsi can't fight that.

https://soundcloud.com/daniel-sullivan-505714723/little-saigon-report-16-obey-or-die?in=daniel-sullivan-505714723/sets/little-saigon-report

fightapathy , 3 minutes ago link

I wonder if Ron Paul feels jealous that Tulsi is getting all the hate he used to get when HE ran for president on the peace platform?

fightapathy , 5 minutes ago link

I thought Social Security was "the third rail of politics" but obviously it is now "perpetual war". Anyone daring to touch it is going to be zapped by the corporate media, whose owners are likely majority stockholders of the military industrial complex.

napper , 11 minutes ago link

Tulsi Gabbard for 2020 is not enough. You will also need a group of truly knowledgeable, experienced and courageous reformers to fill the cabinet. People who dare to take on the CIA, the MIC, and the pro-Israel lobby. People like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange ...

Omega_Man , 12 minutes ago link

Orange wants to run against some crazy like Hitlery... easy pickings ... he can't win against a sensible person... mericans are tiring of orange... he may be one term if he doesn't deliver on ****.. just get some wall... cheap wall, any wall... move on

Radical Marijuana , 14 minutes ago link

The term "neoliberal warmongers" is thus born ...

Yes, good to add that term to "neoconservative warmongers" because of the degree to which almost all successful politicians have become puppets of the best organized gangsters (due to the long history of the vicious feedback loops of the funding of all aspects of the political processes.) The false fundamental dichotomies and related impossible ideals associated with "liberal" versus conservative" are manifestations of the methods of divide and conquer, which methods are being pushed towards oblivion with their excessive indulgence in the demonization of Russia.

Welcome To The Wile E Coyote Phase Of American History:

All of those may be viewed as manifestations of "false flag attacks" whereby the ruling classes drive the people they rule over to fight against boogie men, in ways which therefore backfire badly, by causing the "blowbacks" which those "false flag" presentations of the "public enemies" were originally designed to cause!

mendigo , 15 minutes ago link

Running against the fake news is pretty effective. She's pretty effective at staying rational. She needs to establish a bipartisan core who will support her once elected. And some decent appointees. If she has family that she likes she'll need to get them in protective situation. And divest of any assets. I don't know why she would want this task - it's unwinnable.

Rusticus2.0 , 24 minutes ago link

Tulsa Gabbard shares the same views on Israel that most of the world outside of the US hold ... that there really is zero difference between the apartheid South Africa regime of 3 decades ago and present day Israel.

With that said, there is fuckall chance of her ever getting either party's support.

Sad, because if America changed course on their blind support of Israel today, the backlash would be less extreme than what the future holds when Americans finally realize that they've been duped into supporting a pariah state.

RKae , 16 minutes ago link

...there really is zero difference between the apartheid South Africa regime of 3 decades ago and present day Israel.

Yup. That would be the result when you're in the same region with a severely low IQ culture.

Now that the evil SA apartheid is ended, the natives are rising up and showing their sadism and hatred for all manner of civilization. They sing and chant about how much they want to "kill de white man!" But they have NO IDEA what to do once they've done that.

It's a failed state in the making, and it's happening FAST. If you wanted to horrify me by bringing up the wicked nasty apartheid of SA... Wow.

Rusticus2.0 , 8 minutes ago link

Ah, so they steal the land, put the indigenous people in "homelands" and then wonder why those same people are pissed ? I'm neither a black South African living under the Apartheid regime of yesteryear, or a Palestinian driven from his home; but I'm pretty certain that if I had been either; I would have been packing a AK47 and a limpet mine staking out the occupiers shopping malls.

Stuto , 24 minutes ago link

Rabid dogs need to be put down.

napper , 16 minutes ago link

Too bad, the rabid dogs are firmly in charge of the US government.

Omega_Man , 28 minutes ago link

she could beat orange ... orange is afraid of her... so are the zio elite

Omega_Man , 24 minutes ago link

mericans voted for orange for certain reasons... health care, no more war... he is not delivering very well... too much time on the wall.. orange is sucked into the wall **** by dems...

TruthTeller360 , 25 minutes ago link

Japan has medicare for all. Doctors and nurses are paid by the government. You are sick.. you go to the hospital.. you get treated..and you go home. There is nothing wrong with that. If Japan can pay the doctors, if Germany, France, Nederland, Sweden, England, China, etc, can pay the doctor's salaries, why can't the USA?

Currently, they spent $50 billions a year destroying Syria. They spent trillion destroying Iraq. They spent billions a year maintaining a military base in Japan while Japanese foot the medical bills of its citizen. Don't you see there something wrong with this picture? If it's to deploy soldiers all around the world and kill people, we have the money. No one complains.

Yes, medicare for all. Every developed nations does it. And their citizens are not sicker than us. Some of the French, Japanese, German living here in the USA, go home to get treated when they have serious illnesses. They don't want the huge medical bills.

activisor , 28 minutes ago link

She appears to speak for a great many Americans who have simply had enough of war, poverty, and fake news.

[Feb 04, 2019] US Sanctions as a Tool To Perpetuate Neocolonialism - Antiwar.com Original

Feb 04, 2019 | original.antiwar.com

US Sanctions as a Tool To Perpetuate Neocolonialism

by Nauman Sadiq Posted on February 02, 2019 January 31, 2019 It's an evident fact that neocolonial powers are ruled by behemoth corporations whose wealth is measured in hundreds of billions of dollars, far more than the total GDP of many developing nations. The status of these multinational corporations as dominant players in international politics gets official imprimatur when the Western governments endorse the congressional lobbying practice of so-called "special interest" groups, which is a euphemism for corporate interests.

Since the Western governments are nothing but the mouthpiece of business interests on international political and economic forums, therefore any national or international entity which hinders or opposes the agenda of corporate interests is either coerced into accepting their demands or gets sidelined.

In 2013, the Manmohan Singh's government of India had certain objections to further opening up to the Western businesses. The Business Roundtable, which is an informal congregation of major US businesses and together holds a net wealth of $6 trillion, held a meeting with the representatives of the Indian government and literally coerced it into accepting unfair demands of the Western corporations.

The developing economies, such as India and Pakistan, are always hungry for foreign direct investment (FDI) to sustain economic growth, and this investment mostly comes from the Western corporations. When the Business Roundtables or the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) form pressure groups and engage in "collective bargaining" activities, the nascent and fragile developing economies don't have a choice but to toe their line.

State sovereignty, that sovereign nation states are at liberty to pursue independent policies, particularly economic and trade policies, is a myth. Just like the ruling elites of the developing countries which maintain a stranglehold and monopoly over domestic politics; similarly, the neocolonial powers and multinational corporations control international politics and the global economic order.

Any state in the international arena which dares to transgress the trade and economic policies laid down by neocolonial powers and multinational corporations becomes an international pariah like Castro's Cuba, Mugabe's Zimbabwe; or more recently, Maduro's Venezuela.

Venezuela has one of the largest known oil reserves in the world. Even though the mainstream media's pundits hold the socialist policies of President Nicolas Maduro responsible for economic mismanagement in Venezuela, fact of the matter is that hyperinflation in its economy is the effect of US sanctions against Venezuela which have been put in place since the time of late President Hugo Chavez.

Another case in point is Iran which was cut off from the global economic system from 2006 to 2015, and then again after May last year when President Donald Trump annulled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), because of Iran's supposed nuclear ambitions. Good for Iran that it also has one of the largest oil and gas resources, otherwise it would have been insolvent by now.

Such is the power of Washington-led global financial system, especially the banking sector, and the significance of petrodollar, because the global oil transactions are pegged in the US dollars all over the world, and all the major oil bourses are also located in the Western financial districts.

The crippling "third party" economic sanctions on Iran from 2006 to 2015 have brought to the fore the enormous power that the Western financial institutions and the petrodollar as a global reserve currency wields over the global financial system.

It bears mentioning that the Iranian nuclear negotiations were as much about Iran's nuclear program as they were about its ballistic missile program, which is an equally dangerous conventional threat to Israel and the Gulf's petro-monarchies, just across the Persian Gulf.

Despite the sanctions being unfair, Iran felt the heat so much that it remained engaged in negotiations throughout the nearly decade-long period of sanctions, and such was the crippling effect of those "third party" sanctions on Iran's economy that had it not been for its massive oil and gas reserves, and some Russian, Chinese and Turkish help in illicitly buying Iranian oil, it could have defaulted due to the sanctions.

Notwithstanding, after the brutal assassination of Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, and the clear hand of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman in the murder, certain naïve political commentators of the mainstream media came up with a ludicrous suggestion that Washington should impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia.

As in the case of aforementioned Iran sanctions, sanctioning Saudi Arabia also seems plausible; however, there is a caveat: Iran is only a single oil-rich state which has 160 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million barrels per day (mbpd) of crude oil.

On the other hand, the Persian Gulf's petro-monarchies are actually three oil-rich states. Saudi Arabia with its 266 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and 10 mbpd of daily crude oil production, and UAE and Kuwait with 100 billion barrels of proven reserves, each, and 3 mbpd of daily crude oil production, each. Together, the share of the Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) amounts to 466 billion barrels, almost one-third of the world's 1477 billion barrels of total proven oil reserves.

Therefore, although imposing economic sanctions on the Gulf states might sound like a good idea on paper, the relationship between the Gulf's petro-monarchies and the industrialized world is that of a consumer-supplier relationship. The Gulf states are the suppliers of energy and the industrialized world is its consumer, hence the Western powers cannot sanction their energy suppliers and largest investors.

If anything, the Gulf's petro-monarchies had "sanctioned" the Western powers in the past by imposing the oil embargo in 1973 after the Arab-Israel War. The 1973 Arab oil embargo against the West lasted only for a short span of six months during which the price of oil quadrupled, but Washington became so paranoid after the embargo that it put in place a ban on the export of crude oil outside the US borders, and began keeping sixty-day stock of reserve fuel for strategic and military needs.

Recently, some very upbeat rumors about the shale revolution have been circulating in the media. However, the shale revolution is primarily a natural gas revolution. It has increased the probable recoverable resources of natural gas by 30%. The shale oil, on the other hand, refers to two starkly different kinds of energy resources: firstly, the solid kerogen – though substantial resources of kerogen have been found in the US Green River formations, the cost of extracting liquid crude from solid kerogen is so high that it is economically unviable for at least a hundred years; secondly, the tight oil which is blocked by shale – it is a viable energy resource but the reserves are so limited, roughly 4 billion barrels in Texas and North Dakota, that it will run out in a few years.

More than the size of oil reserves, it is about per barrel extraction cost, which determines the profits for the multinational oil companies. And in this regard, the Persian Gulf's crude oil is the most profitable. Further, regarding the supposed US energy independence after the purported shale revolution, the US produced 11 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil in the first quarter of 2014, which was more than the output of Saudi Arabia and Russia, each of which produces around 10 million bpd. But the US still imported 7.5 million bpd during the same period, which was more than the oil imports of France and Britain put together. More than the total volume of oil production, the volume which an oil-producing country exports determines its place in the hierarchy of petroleum and the Gulf's petro-monarchies constitute the top tier of that pyramid.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism.

[Feb 03, 2019] Why All Anti-Interventionists Will Necessarily Be Smeared As Russian Assets

Feb 03, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Why All Anti-Interventionists Will Necessarily Be Smeared As Russian Assets

by Tyler Durden Sun, 02/03/2019 - 19:30 83 SHARES Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

When Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard announced her candidacy for the presidency on CNN last month, I had a feeling I'd be writing about her a fair bit. Not because I particularly want her to be president, but because I knew her candidacy would cause the narrative control mechanizations of the political/media class to overextend themselves , leaving them open to attack, exposure, and the weakening of their control of the narrative.

Mere hours before her campaign officially launched, NBC News published an astonishingly blatant smear piece titled "Russia's propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard," subtitled "Experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard." One of the article's authors shared it on Twitter with the caption, "The Kremlin already has a crush on Tulsi Gabbard."

The article reported that media outlets tied to the Russian government had been talking a lot about Gabbard's candidacy, ironically citing as an example an RT article which documented the attempts by the US mainstream media to paint Gabbard as a Kremlin agent. The article's authors cited the existence of such articles combined with the existence of "chatter" about Gabbard on the anonymous message board 8chan (relevant for God knows what reason) as evidence to substantiate its blaring headline. Even more hilariously, the source for its weird 8chan claim is named as none other than Renee DiResta of the narrative control firm New Knowledge, which was recently embroiled in a scandal for staging a "false flag operation" in an Alabama Senate race which gave one of the candidates the false appearance of being amplified by Russian bots.

me frameborder=

This pathetic, juvenile language from one of the authors of that astronomically awful NBC News article gives you a sense of what they're trying to accomplish here. Smear campaign fully underway https://t.co/jvl5pFRr0P

-- Michael Tracey (@mtracey) February 2, 2019

This article is of course absurd. As we discussed recently , you will always see Russia on the same US foreign policy page as anti-interventionists like Tulsi Gabbard, because Russia, like so many other nations, opposes US interventionism. To treat this as some sort of shocking conspiracy instead of obvious and mundane is journalistic malpractice. There are many, many very good reasons to oppose the war agendas of the US-centralized empire, none of which have anything to do with having any loyalty to or sympathies for the Russian government.

But we will continue to see this tactic used again and again and again against any and all opposition to US-led interventionism for as long as the Russiagate psyop maintains its grip upon western consciousness. And make no mistake, these smears have everything to do with anti-interventionism and nothing to do with Russia. There will never, ever be an antiwar voice who the political/media class and their centrist followers espouse as good and valid; they'll never say "Ahh, finally, someone who hates war and also isn't aligned with Russia! We can get behind this one!" That will never, ever happen, because it is the opposition to war and interventionism itself which is being rejected, and in the McCarthyite environment of Russia hysteria, tarring it as "Russian" simply makes a practical excuse for that rejection.

All the biggest conflicts in the world can be described as unipolarism vs multipolarism: the unipolarists who support the global hegemony of the US-centralized empire at any cost, versus the multipolarists who oppose that dominance and support the existence of multiple power structures in the world. The governments of Russia, China, Iran and their allies are predominantly multipolarist in their geopolitical outlook, and they tend to be more in favor of non-interventionism, since unipolarity can only be held in place by brute force and aggression. Unipolarists, therefore, can always paint western anti-interventionists as Russian assets, since the Russian government is multipolarist and opposed to the interventionism of the unipolarists.

me frameborder=

Where in the World Is the U.S. Military? https://t.co/eqpm8jZnyN Interesting bit on a new generation of small, clandestine "lily pad" bases. pic.twitter.com/0smgRDZYoC

-- Dave Dickinson 🌌🚀🔭🤘🏴‍☠️ (@Astroguyz) October 22, 2017

The nonstop propaganda campaign to keep the coals of Russia hysteria burning white hot at all times can therefore be looked at first and foremost as a psychological operation to kill support for multipolarism around the world. It can of course be used to manufacture consent for escalations against Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, Iran etc as needed, but it can also be used to attack the ideology of anti-interventionism itself by smearing anyone who opposes unipolar oppression and aggression as an agent of a nefarious oppositional government.

The social engineers have succeeded in constructing a narrative control device which encapsulates the entire agenda of the unipolar world order in a single bumper sticker-sized talking point: "Russia opposes Big Brother, therefore anyone who opposes Big Brother is Russian." This device didn't take an amazing intellectual feat to create; all they had to do was recreate the paranoid insanity of the original cold war, and they already had a blueprint for that. It was simply a matter of shepherding us back there.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, there emerged a popular notion of a " peace dividend " in which defense spending could be reduced in the absence of America's sole rival and the abundant excess funds used to take care of the American people instead. The only problem was that a lot of people had gotten very rich and powerful as a result of that cold war defense spending, and it wasn't long before they started circulating the idea of using America's newly uncontested might for a very expensive campaign to hammer down a liberal world order led by the beneficent guidance of the United States government. Soon the neoconservatives were pushing their unipolarist narratives in high levels of influence with great effect, and shortly thereafter they got their " new Pearl Harbor " in the form of the 9/11 attacks which justified an explosion in defense spending, interventionism and expansionism, just as the neoconservative Project for a New American Century had called for . And the rest is history.

And now our collective consciousness is planted right back in the center of that paranoid, hawkish political environment of the first cold war. The main difference now is of course that Russia is nothing remotely like a superpower today, and that the establishment Russia narrative is made entirely out of narrative, but the most important difference is that this time the establishment narratives are not taking place within the hermetically sealed bubbles of major news media corporations. People are able to communicate with each other and share information far more easily than they were prior to the fall of the Berlin wall, and westerners are able to easily access Russian media and anti-interventionist narratives if they want to.

Whoever controls the narrative controls the world, as I never tire of saying. This difficulty in replicating the hermetically sealed media environment of the original cold war poses a severe challenge for narrative control, and it is for this reason reason that there is now so much skepticism of the establishment Russia narrative. It is also the reason for the establishment's aggressive maneuvers to censor the internet, to demonize Russian media, and to smear anti-interventionist perspectives.

But we can't keep living this way. We all know this, deep down. The people at the helm of the unipolar world order are advancing an ecocidal world economy which is stripping the earth bare and filling the air with poison while at the same time pushing more and more aggressively against the multipolarist powers, one of which happens to have thousands of nuclear warheads at its disposal. The unipolarity so enthusiastically promoted by the neoconservatives and their fellow travelers has reached the end of the line after just a few short years, and now it's time to dispense with it and try something else. They will necessarily smear us with everything but the kitchen sink for saying so, but we are right and they are wrong. The state of the world today proves this beyond a doubt.

* * *

Thanks for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

[Feb 03, 2019] Trump Should Call Congress's Bluff on Our Endless Wars by W. James Antle III

Notable quotes:
"... Afghanistan is now the longest war in U.S. history, making any withdrawal seem anything but "precipitous." Syria hasn't even been authorized by Congress. In both cases, our men and women in the armed forces have already achieved the goals that are militarily attainable. "It doesn't get much more pathetic," Congressman Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, said of the Senate vote. ..."
"... taken at face value, it inverts Congress's constitutional war powers by allowing lawmakers to shirk their power to declare war while frustrating presidential efforts to pursue peace. ..."
"... When Trump twice bombed Syria without congressional approval, the Beltway applaude ..."
"... The one bright spot in the Senate vote was that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar were all on the side of withdrawal. ..."
"... Trump has heeded the hawks in his party -- and inside his own administration -- on Yemen, Iran, and perhaps soon Venezuela. Breaking free of their stranglehold could help put his presidency back on track. Otherwise he will end up ceding foreign policy to the progressives who want to usher him out of office either by impeachment or electoral defeat. ..."
"... Trump's call to bring the troops home has left him isolated in Washington. If he makes withdrawal a priority in the State of the Union, he may find that he has more company throughout the country than he thinks. ..."
"... Seriously, he's got too many warmongers in his administration to go after Congress. If he's serious about ending these wars he needs to clean house in his administration of the perpetual warmongers. Once he's done that then go after Congress. To do anything less is Trump talking it one way, while his administration does something completely different. ..."
"... I believe the above quote shows that there are lawbreakers and warmongers in both political parties. None of the above countries "Afghanistan and Syria" invaded or attacked America. Therefore I believe they are in violation of international law. ..."
Feb 03, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Senate has toothlessly disapproved of his troop withdrawals. At the State of the Union, he should respond.

Will Trump Hold Firm on His Syria Pullout? Hawkish Democrats, Antiwar Republicans?

Who says Democrats and Republicans can't agree on anything? Washington closed ranks Thursday behind two wars President Donald Trump has proposed winding down as the Senate voted 68-23 to advance a resolution warning against "precipitous withdrawal" from Afghanistan and Syria.

Afghanistan is now the longest war in U.S. history, making any withdrawal seem anything but "precipitous." Syria hasn't even been authorized by Congress. In both cases, our men and women in the armed forces have already achieved the goals that are militarily attainable. "It doesn't get much more pathetic," Congressman Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, said of the Senate vote.

The resolution is non-binding, like the Democrats' toothless measures to stop George W. Bush's Iraq "surge" over a decade ago. Still, taken at face value, it inverts Congress's constitutional war powers by allowing lawmakers to shirk their power to declare war while frustrating presidential efforts to pursue peace.

When Trump twice bombed Syria without congressional approval, the Beltway applaude d. Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward's book repeats the president's probing questions about how long we must stay in Afghanistan with an air of disbelief better suited to "fake news" shared on Facebook. Trump's call late last year to bring troops home from both war-torn countries elicited bipartisan criticism and the abrupt resignation of Pentagon chief James Mattis.

To make matters worse, only three Republican senators -- Ted Cruz of Texas, John Kennedy of Louisiana, and Mike Lee of Utah -- voted to stand with their president against these endless nation-building exercises. Kentucky's Rand Paul, who was not present for the vote, would surely have been a fourth. Even Chuck Schumer, the third straight Senate Democratic leader to have voted for the Iraq war, opposed this anti-withdrawal amendment.

During the State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Trump should call Congress's bluff. He should dare legislators to do their jobs and vote to authorize continuing these wars -- or he will end them. Put the onus on the House and Senate to fulfill their constitutional duties.

Trump may find that he has unlikely allies in his would-be 2020 Democratic presidential foes. The one bright spot in the Senate vote was that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar were all on the side of withdrawal. How many ambitious Democrats will vote to give a Republican president a blank check for war as an election year approaches?

GOP lawmakers will have to decide whether they stand with their president -- who wants to cut America's multi-trillion dollar losses in the Middle East -- and rank-and-file Republican voters in ending these wars. Those who want to stay in Syria and Afghanistan quite likely cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton.

Will Trump Hold Firm on His Syria Pullout? Hawkish Democrats, Antiwar Republicans?

Up until now, Trump's big fight with the establishment has been over immigration and the border wall. Amid his belated turn towards the more populist parts of his program, he should not forget to spend political capital on America's wars as well. Trump now says Republican congressional leaders misled him on the wall. It has been even worse on foreign policy.

Partisans are dug in on the border. But on war, Trump has some opportunities to win over converts. Will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sit stone-faced behind him as he agrees with the Progressive Caucus on foreign policy?

Much is riding on whether a course correction is possible in Afghanistan and Syria. Trump has heeded the hawks in his party -- and inside his own administration -- on Yemen, Iran, and perhaps soon Venezuela. Breaking free of their stranglehold could help put his presidency back on track. Otherwise he will end up ceding foreign policy to the progressives who want to usher him out of office either by impeachment or electoral defeat.

Trump's call to bring the troops home has left him isolated in Washington. If he makes withdrawal a priority in the State of the Union, he may find that he has more company throughout the country than he thinks.

W. James Antle III is editor of .



PAX February 1, 2019 at 12:56 pm

Mearsheimer has some main tenets of realist foreign policy include:

The lobby and its fellow travelers are not used to being told no. Time for them to create and fund volunteer corps and do their own dirty work on their dime and at their own risk.

MikeCLT , , February 1, 2019 at 1:14 pm
Trump should demand Congress debate and authorize the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. It would be good policy and good politics. And good for the Constitution.

Fred Bowman , , February 1, 2019 at 1:20 pm

Wouldn't hold my breath on Trump doing any such thing on ending of the Middle Eastern Wars. Seriously, he's got too many warmongers in his administration to go after Congress. If he's serious about ending these wars he needs to clean house in his administration of the perpetual warmongers. Once he's done that then go after Congress. To do anything less is Trump talking it one way, while his administration does something completely different.

Stephen J. , , February 1, 2019 at 1:25 pm

Very concise article.

The article states: "Who says Democrats and Republicans can't agree on anything? Washington closed ranks Thursday behind two wars President Donald Trump has proposed winding down as the Senate voted 68-23 to advance a resolution warning against "precipitous withdrawal" from Afghanistan and Syria."

-- -- -- -

I believe the above quote shows that there are lawbreakers and warmongers in both political parties. None of the above countries "Afghanistan and Syria" invaded or attacked America. Therefore I believe they are in violation of international law. More info at link below.

http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-facts-on-crimes-of-war-criminals.html

Mark Thomason , , February 1, 2019 at 1:27 pm

I am extremely disappointed that both of my State's Democratic Senators voted to keep the wars going.

However, I'm sure they did so only to spite Trump.

They don't either of them support more Long War. Of course, they don't want to be blamed either in the case of another terrorist attack for not being tough enough. But this vote was not one of principle.

That means they would not fight for it. They just did it. I suspect much of the vote in the Senate was like that, and that the rather large number of non-votes is because of that.

One Guy , , February 1, 2019 at 2:27 pm

I agree that we should end the Middle East wars, but the idea of Trump pissing off his sycophants in the GOP Senate, amuses me.

George Crosley , , February 1, 2019 at 3:01 pm

During the State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Trump should call Congress's bluff. He should dare legislators to do their jobs and vote to authorize continuing these wars -- or he will end them. Put the onus on the House and Senate to fulfill their constitutional duties.

Would that he would but he won't.

Mr. Trump shan't read this good advice because it seems he only reads what the Kushners put in front of him and (for the most part) hires only people who despise him–people who are married to the pro-war Blob in DC.

What a way to operate!

[Jan 29, 2019] Despite the deep unpopularity of US wars of aggression against Afghanistan, Lybia and Syria which have cost trillions of dollars amid the deepest economic crisis of capitalism since the 1930s, attempts by voters to end or limit them, by voting governments out of office in America and Europe, have failed

Notable quotes:
"... Capitalism has at different times or in different places offered concessions to mobilisations of the working class. It offers the fiction of political choice and representation. It provides a fig-leaf of regulation to impinge on the very worst excesses of the free market and private accumulation ..."
Dec 15, 2018 | www.wsws.org
An anti-Trotskyist rationale for supporting imperialist war The war for regime change waged in Syria by the NATO powers, in alliance with Al Qaeda, behind the backs of the peoples of America and Europe, is the outcome of three decades of US-led wars across the Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia.

These crimes of US and European imperialism have not only claimed millions of lives and turned more than 60 million people into refugees. They have exposed the fact that the basic contradictions of capitalism, which led to world war and the October Revolution in the 20th century, remain unresolved.

Despite the deep unpopularity of these bloody wars, which have cost trillions of dollars amid the deepest economic crisis of capitalism since the 1930s, attempts by voters to end or limit them, by voting governments out of office in America and Europe, have failed. Successive governments of all political colorations have, on the contrary, stepped them up, and it is clear that this has become a policy endorsed by an entrenched ruling class. When the Syrian regime invited Moscow to help it fight the NATO-backed opposition militias in 2015, for example, NATO escalated the war into a military standoff with Russia, a nuclear power. A century after the outbreak of World War I and the Russian Revolution, the capitalist system is teetering on the brink of a nuclear conflagration.

SterlingMaloryArcher • 3 hours ago

The paragraphs quoted from Hensman in which she extols Western capitalist states providing democratic mechanisms through which the working class can "fight back" - notwithstanding the 4 decades of unbroken counterrevolution that bring us into the present - don't just embody the political dead end reached by those who broke from international revolutionary solidarity and Trotskyist struggles against both Stalinism and imperialism.

They do something much worse and, in my view, more fundamental. They highlight how the thinkers that cluster around groups like the ISO have completely lost - if they ever had it - the ability to think dialectically. Their political conclusions lead me to conclude in turn that they actually don't comprehend the most essential principles of Marxist critical analysis of capitalism or how dialectical materialism builds a complete picture of the totality that is our socio-economic environment.

Capitalism has at different times or in different places offered concessions to mobilisations of the working class. It offers the fiction of political choice and representation. It provides a fig-leaf of regulation to impinge on the very worst excesses of the free market and private accumulation.

But - and this is the key thing! - it is in its essence, in the most primitive, unchanging logic of its momentum and inexorable development, always but always a system in which the privileges and power of capital will be elevated above those of workers. It is constitutionally organised around that core function. If you don't understand that, every analysis that follows will be useless.

By proceeding in his analysis from revolutionary concepts of class struggle, exploitation, alienation, and the material basis for historical development, Marx was able to build - brick by brick - a critique of capitalism itself. Pseudo-left groups like the ISO or the DSA do the exact opposite - they start from false principles and work towards over-elaborated false conclusions. It isn't in other words just the case that they err on this or that detail. The whole premise and therefore all the conclusions are useless - and must be rejected wholesale!

[Jan 22, 2019] Here are 11 questions you should ask Libertarians to see if they're hypocrites by RJ Eskow

Notable quotes:
"... Are unions, political parties, elections, and social movements like Occupy examples of "spontaneous order" -- and if not, why not? ..."
"... Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded? ..."
"... Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces? ..."
"... Is our libertarian willing to admit that a "free market" needs regulation? ..."
"... Does our libertarian believe in democracy? If yes, explain what's wrong with governments that regulate. ..."
"... Does our libertarian use wealth that wouldn't exist without government in order to preach against the role of government? ..."
"... Does our libertarian reject any and all government protection for his intellectual property? ..."
"... Does our libertarian recognize that democracy is a form of marketplace? ..."
"... Does our libertarian recognize that large corporations are a threat to our freedoms? ..."
"... Does he think that Rand was off the mark on this one, or does he agree that historical figures like King and Gandhi were "parasites"? ..."
"... If you believe in the free market, why weren't you willing to accept as final the judgment against libertarianism rendered decades ago in the free and unfettered marketplace of ideas? ..."
Jan 20, 2019 | www.alternet.org
We aren't suggesting every libertarian is a hypocrite, but there's an easy way to find out. Libertarians have a problem. Their political philosophy all but died out in the mid- to late-20th century, but was revived by billionaires and corporations that found them politically useful. And yet libertarianism retains the qualities that led to its disappearance from the public stage, before its reanimation by people like the Koch brothers: It doesn't make any sense.

They call themselves "realists" but rely on fanciful theories that have never predicted real-world behavior. They claim that selfishness makes things better for everybody, when history shows exactly the opposite is true. They claim that a mythical "free market" is better at everything than the government is, yet when they really need government protection, they're the first to clamor for it.

That's no reason not to work with them on areas where they're in agreement with people like me. In fact, the unconventionality of their thought has led libertarians to be among this nation's most forthright and outspoken advocates for civil liberties and against military interventions.

Merriam-Webster defines "hypocrisy" as "feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not." We aren't suggesting every libertarian is a hypocrite. But there's an easy way to find out.

The Other Libertarianism

First, some background. There is a kind of libertarianism that's nothing more or less than a strain in the American psyche, an emotional tendency toward individualism and personal liberty. That's fine and even admirable.

We're talking about the other libertarianism, the political philosophy whose avatar is the late writer Ayn Rand. It was once thought that this extreme brand of libertarianism, one that celebrates greed and even brutality, had died in the early 1980s with Rand herself. Many Rand acolytes had already gone underground, repressing or disavowing the more extreme statements of their youth and attempting to blend in with more mainstream schools of thought in respectable occupations.

There was a good reason for that. Randian libertarianism is an illogical, impractical, inhumane, unpopular set of Utopian ravings which lacks internal coherence and has never predicted real-world behavior anywhere. That's why, reasonably enough, the libertarian movement evaporated in the late 20th century, its followers scattered like the wind.

Pay to Play

But the libertarian movement has seen a strong resurgence in recent years, and there's a simple reason for that: money, and the personal interests of some people who have a lot of it. Once relegated to drug-fueled college-dorm bull sessions, political libertarianism suddenly had pretensions of legitimacy. This revival is Koch-fueled, not coke-fueled, and exists only because in political debate, as in so many other walks of life, cash is king.

The Koch brothers are principal funders of the Reason Foundation and Reason magazine. Exxon Mobil and other corporate and billionaire interests are behind the Cato Institute, the other public face of libertarianism. Financiers have also seeded a number of economics schools, think tanks, and other institutions with proponents of their brand of libertarianism. It's easy to explain why some of these corporate interests do it. It serves the self-interest of the environmental polluters, for example, to promote a political philosophy which argues that regulation is bad and the market will correct itself. And every wealthy individual benefits from tax cuts for the rich. What better way to justify that than with a philosophy that says they're rich because they're better -- and that those tax cuts help everybody ?

The rise of the Silicon Valley economy has also contributed to the libertarian resurgence. A lot of Internet billionaires are nerds who suddenly find themselves rich and powerful, and they're emotionally and intellectually inclined toward libertarianism's geeky and unrealistic vision of a free market. In their minds its ideas are "heuristic," "autologous" and "cybernetic" -- all of which has inherent attraction in their culture.

The only problem is: It's only a dream. At no time or place in human history has there been a working libertarian society which provided its people with the kinds of outcomes libertarians claim it will provide. But libertarianism's self-created mythos claims that it's more realistic than other ideologies, which is the opposite of the truth. The slope from that contradiction to the deep well of hypocrisy is slippery, steep -- and easy to identify.

The Libertarian Hypocrisy Test

That's where the Libertarian Hypocrisy Test comes in. Let's say we have a libertarian friend, and we want to know whether or not he's hypocritical about his beliefs. How would we go about conducting such a test? The best way is to use the tenets of his philosophy to draw up a series of questions to explore his belief system.

The Cato Institute's overview of key libertarian concepts mixes universally acceptable bromides like the "rule of law" and "individual rights" with principles that are more characteristically libertarian -- and therefore more fantastical. Since virtually all people support the rule of law and individual rights, it is the other concepts which are uniquely libertarian and form the basis of our first few questions.

The Institute cites "spontaneous order," for example, as "the great insight of libertarian social analysis." Cato defines that principle thusly:

" (O)rder in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes."

To which the discerning reader might be tempted to ask: Like where , exactly? Libertarians define "spontaneous order" in a very narrow way -- one that excludes demonstrations like the Arab Spring, elections which install progressive governments, or union movements, to name three examples. And yet each of these things are undertaken by individuals who "coordinated their actions with those of others" to achieve our purposes.

So our first hypocrisy test question is, Are unions, political parties, elections, and social movements like Occupy examples of "spontaneous order" -- and if not, why not?

Cato also trumpets what it calls "The Virtue of Production" without ever defining what production is. Economics defines the term, but libertarianism is looser with its terminology. That was easier to get away with in the Industrial Age, when "production" meant a car, or a shovel, or a widget.

Today nearly 50 percent of corporate profits come from the financial sector -- that is, from the manipulation of money. It's more difficult to define "production," and even harder to find its "virtue," when the creation of wealth no longer necessarily leads to the creation of jobs, or economic growth, or anything except the enrichment of a few.

Which seems to be the point. Cato says, "Modern libertarians defend the right of productive people to keep what they earn, against a new class of politicians and bureaucrats who would seize their earnings to transfer them to nonproducers."

Which gets us to our next test question: Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?

Retail stores like Walmart and fast-food corporations like McDonalds cannot produce wealth without employees. Don't those employees have the right to "coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes" -- for example, in unions? You would think that free-market philosophers would encourage workers, as part of a free-market economy, to discover the market value for their services through negotiation.

Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?

The bankers who collude to deceive their customers, as US bankers did with the MERS mortgage system, were permitted to do so by the unwillingness of government to regulate them. The customers who were the victims of deception were essential to the production of Wall Street wealth. Why don't libertarians recognize their role in the process, and their right to administer their own affairs?

That right includes the right to regulate the bankers who sell them mortgages. Libertarians say that the "free market" will help consumers. "Libertarians believe that people will be both freer and more prosperous if government intervention in people's economic choices is minimized," says Cato.

But victims of illegal foreclosure are neither "freer" nor "more prosperous" after the government deregulation which led to their exploitation. What's more, deregulation has led to a series of documented banker crimes that include stockholder fraud and investor fraud. That leads us to our next test of libertarian hypocrisy: Is our libertarian willing to admit that a "free market" needs regulation?

Digital Libertarians

But few libertarians are as hypocritical as the billionaires who earned their fortunes in the tech world. Government created the Internet. Government financed the basic research that led to computing itself. And yet Internet libertarians are among the most politically extreme of them all.

Perhaps none is more extreme than Peter Thiel, who made his fortune with PayPal. In one infamous rant, Thiel complained about allowing women and people he describes as "welfare beneficiaries" (which might be reasonably interpreted as "minorities") to vote. "Since 1920," Thiel fulminated, "the extension of the franchise to (these two groups) have turned 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron."

With this remark, Thiel let something slip that extreme libertarians prefer to keep quiet: A lot of them don't like democracy very much. In their world, democracy is a poor substitute for the iron-fisted rule of wealth, administered by those who hold the most of it. Our next test, therefore, is: Does our libertarian believe in democracy? If yes, explain what's wrong with governments that regulate.

On this score, at least, Thiel is no hypocrite. He's willing to freely say what others only think: Democracy should be replaced by the rule of wealthy people like himself.

But how did Peter Thiel and other Internet billionaires become wealthy? They hired government-educated employees to develop products protected by government copyrights. Those products used government-created computer technology and a government-created communications web to communicate with government-educated customers in order to generate wealth for themselves, which was then stored in government-protected banks -- after which they began using that wealth to argue for the elimination of government.

By that standard, Thiel and his fellow "digital libertarians" are hypocrites of genuinely epic proportion. Which leads us to our next question: Does our libertarian use wealth that wouldn't exist without government in order to preach against the role of government?

Many libertarians will counter by saying that government has only two valid functions: to protect the national security and enforce intellectual property laws. By why only these two? If the mythical free market can solve any problem, including protecting the environment, why can't it also protect us from foreign invaders and defend the copyrights that make these libertarians wealthy?

For that matter, why should these libertarians be allowed to hold patents at all? If the free market can decide how best to use our national resources, why shouldn't it also decide how best to use Peter Thiel's ideas, and whether or not to reward him for them? After all, if Thiel were a true Randian libertarian he'd use his ideas in a more superior fashion than anyone else -- and he would be more ruthless in enforcing his rights to them than anyone else. Does our libertarian reject any and all government protection for his intellectual property?

Size Matters

Our democratic process is highly flawed today, but that's largely the result of corruption from corporate and billionaire money. And yet, libertarians celebrate the corrupting influence of big money. No wonder, since the same money is keeping their movement afloat and paying many of their salaries. But, aside from the naked self-interest, their position makes no sense. Why isn't a democratically elected government the ultimate demonstration of "spontaneous order"? Does our libertarian recognize that democracy is a form of marketplace?

We're told that "big government" is bad for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is too large to be responsive. But if big governments are bad, why are big corporations so acceptable? What's more, these massive institutions have been conducting an assault on the individual and collective freedoms of the American people for decades. Why isn't it important to avoid the creation of monopolies, duopolies and syndicates that interfere with the free market's ability to function?

Libertarians are right about one thing: Unchecked and undemocratic force is totalitarian. A totalitarian corporation, or a totalitarian government acting in concert with corporations, is at least as effective at suppressing the "spontaneous order" as a non-corporate totalitarian government. Does our libertarian recognize that large corporations are a threat to our freedoms?

Extra Credit Questions

Most libertarians prefer not to take their philosophy to its logical conclusions. While that may make them better human beings, it also shadows them with the taint of hypocrisy.

Ayn Rand was an adamant opponent of good works, writing that "The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves." That raises another test for our libertarian: Does he think that Rand was off the mark on this one, or does he agree that historical figures like King and Gandhi were "parasites"?

There's no reason not to form alliances with civil libertarians, or to shun them as human beings. Their erroneous thinking often arises from good impulses. But it is worth asking them one final question for our test.

Libertarianism would have died out as a philosophy if it weren't for the funding that's been lavished on the movement by billionaires like Thiel and the Kochs and corporations like ExxonMobil. So our final question is: If you believe in the free market, why weren't you willing to accept as final the judgment against libertarianism rendered decades ago in the free and unfettered marketplace of ideas?

[Jan 21, 2019] Control of money and control of information are two keys to the making other states vassals. The American military and CIA have provided most of the overt and covert 'muscle' for that control system.political power

Jan 21, 2019 | www.unz.com

Robert Snefjella , says: January 18, 2019 at 4:57 pm GMT

The MSM and its allies in the controlled alternative media, and the global private-interest financial, investment and banking system, are a tag-team, indispensable to each other. Control of money and control of information. The first narrowly concentrates wealth and thus power and influence. The second through agenda-driven selection, lies, censorship, spin, misdirection and so on – disinformation – controls people's sense of what is real and possible, thus dis-empowering them.

The American military and CIA have provided most of the overt and covert 'muscle' for that control system.

The combined effort of narrowly controlled and narrowly advantaging globe straddling finance, media, and muscle has facilitated the development of a near global Empire. In common with traditional Empires this new Empire had totalitarian ambitions: but since its reach was global, this is really a first attempt at global totalitarian control.

Russia under Putin – leaving aside China – has developed enough strength to attempt alternative modes of communication and finance and development, not as adjuncts or subordinates to the Empire's efforts in those regards. And their military is antidote and opposition to the totalitarian project.

The forgoing is pretty obvious stuff, but I think that the Saker's concluding paragraph provides a limiting summary of how the issue can play out.

"But fundamentally the Russian people need to decide. Do they really want to live in a
western-style capitalist society (with all the russophobic politics and the adoption
of the terminally degenerate "culture" such a choice implies), or do they want a
"social society" (to use Putin's own words) – meaning a society in which social and economic
justice and the good of the country are placed above corporate and personal profits.

You could say that this is a battle of greed vs ethics."

This is a simplistic way of looking at the choices available. We are all caught up in transitional culture processes, no matter where we live. The conjunction of the cornucopia of new technology and unprecedented environmental and social challenges is everywhere at play, leading who knows where?

What the Russian people have been given, and this is near singular on Earth, is a protected and enhanced opportunity of developing a culture in which honest national discourse is a predominant feature. This is in complete contrast to the predominant 'fake news' system of discourse control that is in place in so many countries. And full and honest discourse will create its own original cultural developments.

The Russian adoption of more honest discourse is already having global influence. An example is Russia Today, which far from perfect and all that, still provides an enormous advance over the extremely controlled western mass media, and a powerful foe to 'fake news'.

Perhaps the most visible exemplar of rationale discourse has been Putin himself, with for example his marathon annual Q and A with the Russian people, or his articulate well considered sallies on many issues

And with that – if Russia can use unfettered reason writ large as a prime ingredient of cultural and political development, as a basic developmental 'steering tool' – then the simple dichotomy of "western-style capitalist society" vs "a society in which social and economic justice and the good of the country are placed above corporate and personal profits" , as much as I'm sympathetic to the latter, seems to me to be a limiting way of expressing the range of potential beneficent possibilities.

[Jan 20, 2019] The USA LGBT political correctness bites Tulsi

Notable quotes:
"... I venture to guess, since Anne goes here several times. The 'militarists', unrelated to LGBT, faction of the DNC will use LGBT comments from Gabbard's past...... to show she is not liberal enough to defend the party's permanent war profiteering plank! ..."
Jan 20, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs , January 18, 2019 at 01:52 PM

Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate,
Apologizes for Anti-Gay Past https://nyti.ms/2HhUDev
NYT - Liam Stack - Jan. 17, 2019

Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who last week announced she was running for president, apologized Thursday for her history of anti-gay statements and her past work for an anti-gay advocacy group -- issues that have emerged as an early obstacle as she pursues a long-shot bid for the Democratic Party's nomination.

... ... ...

ilsm -> EMichael... , January 19, 2019 at 06:24 AM
read!

I venture to guess, since Anne goes here several times. The 'militarists', unrelated to LGBT, faction of the DNC will use LGBT comments from Gabbard's past...... to show she is not liberal enough to defend the party's permanent war profiteering plank!

[Jan 20, 2019] WikiLeaks disturbing and hopeful findings on Tulsi Gabbard s path to progressiveness

Notable quotes:
"... Darnell Strom, a Hillary Clinton fundraiser , sent an email to Tulsi Gabbard on Feb. 2016 to express his big disappointment about the fact that she had chosen to endorse Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... The tone of writing reveals a lot of anger for the fact that Gabbard had clearly chosen to join the Bernie Sanders camp instead of that of Hillary Clinton. And it's quite impressive that in the end, Strom straightly clarifies that he will not help Gabbard to raise money for her campaign! Strom wrote (emphasis added): ..."
Jan 20, 2019 | failedevolution.blogspot.com

Searching the Podesta emails inside WikiLeaks we found a rather disturbing fact about Tulsi Gabbard who recently announced that she will run for the 2020 US presidency. Iraq War Veteran, Jon Soltz, chairman at VoteVets at the time, sent an email on Aug. 2012 to Hillary Clinton top lobbyist, John Podesta, in order to thank him for his contribution to Gabbard's campaign in Hawaii.

Soltz wrote (emphasis added):

This morning, we are one step closer to making history. In Hawaii, VoteVets PAC-endorsed Iraq veteran Tulsi Gabbard has won her primary, in a stunning come-from-behind victory. If she wins in November, she along with Tammy Duckworth (who we also feel very good about), would be the first female combat veteran ever elected to Congress in United States history! This is happening because of you. Your tens of thousands of dollars in donations for Tulsi's campaign, through VoteVets PAC , allowed her to run a first-rate effort.
[...]

VoteVets Action Fund was the first group to step up to help her close that gap. In all, VoteVets Action Fund spent over $317,000 promoting Tulsi's incredible biography . Now, we're even closer to sending another incredible veteran to Congress, to add to the growing voice of today's progressive veterans in the halls of power. From all of us at VoteVets.org, I want to thank you for helping to make this all possible .

Full email:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/33260

While it's quite annoying the fact that one of the most promising progressives for the US presidency, have won back then, to some extent, thanks to Podesta's money, it is clear that she didn't receive that money directly from Clinton's top lobbyist.

The money was used by VoteVets Action Fund to boost Gabbard's campaign, and there is no evidence that she had direct connections with the Clinton mechanism.

Furthermore, there is additional evidence about the fact that Gabbard upset the elites inside the Democratic party, as she has subsequently chosen to adopt more progressive positions and join permanently the Bernie Sanders progressive faction.

For example, Darnell Strom, a Hillary Clinton fundraiser , sent an email to Tulsi Gabbard on Feb. 2016 to express his big disappointment about the fact that she had chosen to endorse Bernie Sanders.

The tone of writing reveals a lot of anger for the fact that Gabbard had clearly chosen to join the Bernie Sanders camp instead of that of Hillary Clinton. And it's quite impressive that in the end, Strom straightly clarifies that he will not help Gabbard to raise money for her campaign!
Strom wrote (emphasis added):

We were very disappointed to hear that you would resign your position with the DNC so you could endorse Bernie Sanders, a man who has never been a Democrat before . When we met over dinner a couple of years ago I was so impressed by your intellect, your passion, and commitment to getting things done on behalf of the American people.

For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments , doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you.

Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton . A woman who has spent the vast majority of her life in public service and working on behalf of women, families, and the underserved. You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign .

Full email:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3609

This is probably the best proof that, at that moment, Tulsi Gabbard had cut ties with the Clinton mechanism permanently. A very hopeful sign.
Recall that Gabbard introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists act to prohibit taxpayer dollars for being used to support terrorists. She is probably the only one from the US Congress who dared to tell the truth about Syria by stating that " ... the US government has been violating this law for years, directly and indirectly supporting allies and partners of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, with money, weapons, intelligence and other support in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government. "

https://www.youtube.com/embed/uKV1sTw8zOc

https://www.youtube.com/embed/vp9YdZwawWQ

[Jan 20, 2019] Gabbard seems to think of international relations in a different register, seeing states as rational agents pursuing their national interests mainly in self-preservation and self-defense

Notable quotes:
"... If Gabbard's candidacy catches on enough for her to become a threat to prevailing interests within the Democratic Party, expect to hear more about how her policies are of a piece with Assad's, the demon of the hour, and also, of course with Vladimir Putin's, the devil incarnate in the eyes not just of Clintonite liberals, but also of the anti-Trump "conservatives" who have overrun CNN and MSNBC (=MSDNC), and of the national security state "experts" whom one sees at all hours of the day and night on those increasingly unbearable cable networks. ..."
Jan 20, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

"The Tulsi Gabbard Factor" [ Counterpunch ].

"Gabbard seems to think of international relations in a different register, seeing states as rational agents pursuing their national interests – mainly in self-preservation and self-defense. Academics call this way of thinking about geopolitics 'realism'; it is old-fashioned Realpolitik projected onto the global stage .

If Gabbard's candidacy catches on enough for her to become a threat to prevailing interests within the Democratic Party, expect to hear more about how her policies are of a piece with Assad's, the demon of the hour, and also, of course with Vladimir Putin's, the devil incarnate in the eyes not just of Clintonite liberals, but also of the anti-Trump "conservatives" who have overrun CNN and MSNBC (=MSDNC), and of the national security state "experts" whom one sees at all hours of the day and night on those increasingly unbearable cable networks.

Worse still, expect to hear more about how Gabbard's views coincide with Trump's. If anyone really is the devil incarnate, he's the man. But face it: when he's right, he's right, and compared to Clintonite Democrats, on more issues than foreign affairs – on trade, for example -- he's often more right than they. Better a leftwing realist, which is what Gabbard seems to be, than a Clintonite moralist." • Indeed.

"New Trump campaign hires to focus on convention delegates, party organization" [ Politico ]. "The new hires will help run the campaign's delegate and party organization arm, which is waging an elaborate nationwide campaign to ensure the delegates selected to attend the nominating convention are staunch White House allies -- not Never Trump Republicans.

The group will be focused on delving into the granular state-by-state battles that will ensue in the coming months and which will determine the composition of the convention delegation."

[Jan 16, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard knew that Hillary Clinton was a real menace so she not only endorsed Bernie Sanders but quit her vice-chair post at the DNC in order to do so since the DNC laws insisted that the DNC stay neutral

Wall Street gives money to the Dems not to help Dems win; it's to make sure Wall Street doesn't lose.
Notable quotes:
"... I like Tulsi Gabbard a lot. She knew that Hillary Clinton was a real menace so she not only endorsed Bernie Sanders but quit her vice-chair post at the DNC in order to do so since the DNC laws insisted that the DNC stay neutral (if only she knew then what we know now). Also, it will be delicious to watch the Hillary mouthpieces and stooges - who contended that any criticism of Hillary Clinton was just down to her being female - attackdog Tulsi Gabbard, oblivious to their rancid hypocrisy. ..."
"... Warren's got many bridges and fences to mend with the US left but I think that she knows and that's why she's declared early. I think that she'll be the last progressive standing; that she should run with Sanders as her vice-president for 2020 and then with the now-of-age Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as vice-president for her second term. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard for president! Nobody's perfect but at least she isn't a lawyer! ..."
"... As well, such a law should permanently eliminate the revolving door through which many politicians scamper to become a lobbyist for Wall Street after he "retires" from politics and the law should block all former lobbyists from running for an office that would have a bearing on legislation that would affect the corporation for which he or she worked. ..."
"... Wall Street gives money to the Dems not to help Dems win; it's to make sure Wall Street doesn't lose. ..."
Jan 16, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com

Haigin88 , 15 Jan 2019 07:17

"... That will allow capitalists to focus their attention on candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have shown a real willingness to abandon the traditional coziness of the Democratic party with the finance, insurance and real estate industries ......".

Yes and who's been on the end of media hit pieces recently? Not Booker, Harris, Gillibrand and the like but Sanders, Warren and Gabbard.

I like Tulsi Gabbard a lot. She knew that Hillary Clinton was a real menace so she not only endorsed Bernie Sanders but quit her vice-chair post at the DNC in order to do so since the DNC laws insisted that the DNC stay neutral (if only she knew then what we know now). Also, it will be delicious to watch the Hillary mouthpieces and stooges - who contended that any criticism of Hillary Clinton was just down to her being female - attackdog Tulsi Gabbard, oblivious to their rancid hypocrisy.

There actually is plenty to go on - Gabbard's links to Modi; her past comments about guns, about immigration, about gay rights when she was under the wing of her Dad's jaundiced outlook and her appalling comments about torture and that fictional 'ticking time bomb' scenario - but that's as nothing (and a lot of it probably has crossover appeal and shows an independent mind) compared to Hillary's decades of moral bankruptcy. Yet critiques of Clinton were inherently sexist, apparently.

They've never forgiven Gabbard for her righteous stand against the moral hazard of the Clintons. I think, and as others have said, that she's probably running for vice-president, at best, or to lay the groundwork for future runs and/or obtain a cabinet position. For 2020, Democrats will make it their business to take her down after they've invalidated Bernie Sanders. The current trick is beautiful in its simplicity. They shriek that Sanders will be divisive and their shrieking will be proof of that contention: quod erat demonstrandum. Sanders and Gabbard would have a much, much easier time in the general election than in the 'kill switch' Democratic primaries. Those primaries will be brutal beyond belief.

Warren's got many bridges and fences to mend with the US left but I think that she knows and that's why she's declared early. I think that she'll be the last progressive standing; that she should run with Sanders as her vice-president for 2020 and then with the now-of-age Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as vice-president for her second term.

Tiny Toy , 15 Jan 2019 11:35
Tulsi Gabbard for president! Nobody's perfect but at least she isn't a lawyer!
memo10 -> TempsdesRoses , 15 Jan 2019 11:25

ID,
Could you be a conservative projecting your desire for the Dems to select a more conservative candidate?

A progressive would stomp Trump in the rust belt if they ran on the issues where the public agrees with progressives. Medicare for all. No more bullshit foreign wars. Do something about higher education cost/debt. Decriminalize low-level pot offenses. Etc.

All it takes is disobeying the laws that corporate/Wall Street write for Dem candidates.

memo10 -> BoneyOCoonassa , 15 Jan 2019 10:58

I'm sure Wall Street will be quite happy to see the Republicans face some purer-than-pure left wing candidate at the next Presidential election.

Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock in the 2016 general election and Wall Street knows it.

Trump would get curb-stomped by a genuinely left and competent candidate. It's the standard issue GOP-Lite Democrat that will have a harder time against him (although probably still win).

HobbesianWorlds , 15 Jan 2019 10:37
The best way to determine if one claims to be a Progressive is to fact-check the candidate's claim.

The first and foremost question that should be asked and researched: Does this candidate have as one of his or her top priorities to eliminate corporate/private/labor money in politics? This would require a major federal campaign finance reform law that would establish public funding for all campaigns, permanently bar corporate/labor union/private-entity money (including funding media-attack ads) from any political influence and require all broadcast/cable networks to allow every candidate equal air time to state his opinions, policies, promises, and to state why he believes he is the best candidate for the working class and/or corporations.

As well, such a law should permanently eliminate the revolving door through which many politicians scamper to become a lobbyist for Wall Street after he "retires" from politics and the law should block all former lobbyists from running for an office that would have a bearing on legislation that would affect the corporation for which he or she worked.

As well, such a law should bar any politicians or family members from purchasing or selling stocks in corporate entities that would be affected by the legislation on which the politician is working (insider trading).

Think about it. The lure of big bucks can, and does, corrupt politicians such that they will work mainly for the donor (corporate, labor, and/or private) and provide for just enough benefit politicians' the voters (America's working class) to make them think he cares most about them. Much of that money is hidden in super-pacs where the donor's identity is hidden. Too, super-pacs would have to be eliminated.

A Progressive should advocate for a large infrastructure project . Our bridges and highways are now in a state of disrepair. Other nations such as Japan now have high-speed bullet trains, the fastest so far is Shanghai Maglev and can travel 267.8 mph. The U.S. has none.

Poverty would be a major focus of Progressives. Corporations will pay as little as they can get by paying. So there must be a minimum wage boost to a living wage. To keep corporations from moving to a part-time labor force with less pay, part-time workers must make the same hourly wage as full time workers. As well, universal, proactive healthcare must become law (Medicare for all).

Another major way to eliminate poverty would be to reform the income tax structure such that those individuals whose income exceeds ~$10 million would be taxed at 70%. I would also suggest that every dollar exchanged on the Stock Exchange would be taxed at 3%.

Using a greater influx of money into the public coffers, education should be a top priority for lawmakers. College tuition in public schools would be no cost, thus providing completely tuition free higher education and allowing every student equal access. A major bill should be passed to provide money to modernize/upgrade all secondary schools to provide a better learning environment for study. Every primary school should have a child psychologist on staff. Every High School a psychologist as well as every public college.

There are other Progressive policies--such as reversing the conservative's trickle-down economics (also called supply-side economics) such that we return to demand-side economics--that would be highly beneficial to the working class and to the future intellectual strength of the U.S., especially by providing a course structure that equips students to face the quick shift of industry to electronics and robotics. Currently, those will little technical training are being left behind. We must end this or face a HUGE poorly educated working class that will have no place to work.

Quite likely, both the RNC and the DNC (Wall Street's favorite politicians) will be against such measures. They'd rather have more billionaires and an unfettered Wall Street than eliminate poverty. The only way, however, to have a truly just society is to push for and vote for a progressive government. But before any of the above can happen, we MUST eliminate corporate/private/labor money from our government.

BaronVonAmericano , 15 Jan 2019 10:37
The money is to ensure the rich do well whoever wins the general.

They do the same in congressional races. If the Democrats who win the primaries are in their pocket, it doesn't matter who wins the general .

Wall Street gives money to the Dems not to help Dems win; it's to make sure Wall Street doesn't lose.

[Jan 15, 2019] Here's a good reason to support Tulsi Gabbard. Look at who opposes her

Notable quotes:
"... Here's a good reason to support Tulsi Gabbard. Look at who opposes her. Jacob Wohl Claims Everyone In The Pro-Israel Lobby, Including Himself, Will Interfere With Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign She's taking flak from the Enemy of Mankind. ..."
Jan 15, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

any_mouse , 58 minutes ago link

Here's a good reason to support Tulsi Gabbard. Look at who opposes her. Jacob Wohl Claims Everyone In The Pro-Israel Lobby, Including Himself, Will Interfere With Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign She's taking flak from the Enemy of Mankind.

[Jan 14, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard, A Rare Anti-War Democrat, Will Run For President

Highly recommended!
American are so tired of foreign wars, that if DNC will not derail her with some "Putin agent" smears, and she wins the Primary, she has a chance against Donald Trump, who completely discredited himself by his actions and can defeat only opponent to the right of him (which with Hillary absence for the race now is difficult to find) like Obama against Romnay
Notable quotes:
"... During an interview for the Sanders Institute in September 2018, Gabbard said, "Since 2011, when the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and these other countries started this slow drawn-out regime change war in Syria, it is terrorist groups like al Qaida, al Nusra, and Hayat Tahrir al Sham, these different groups that have morphed and taken on names but essentially are all linked to al Qaida or al Qaida themselves that have proven to be the most effective ground force against the government in trying to overthrow the Syrian government." ..."
Jan 14, 2019 | shadowproof.com
Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii announced she will launch a presidential campaign for 2020. Her campaign is likely to distinguish itself from other Democratic campaigns by making wars and broader United States foreign policy a major issue.

Gabbard was elected to the Hawaii state legislature in 2002. She joined the Hawaii Army National Guard a year later and voluntarily deployed to Iraq, where she completed two tours of duty in 2004 and 2005.

She was elected to the House of Representatives in 2012, and according to her own website, she was "one of the first two female combat veterans to ever serve in the U.S. Congress, and also its first Hindu member."

During Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, Gabbard gained notoriety after she resigned from her position as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee so she could openly support Sanders. She spoke at Sanders campaign rallies to help him distinguish his foreign policy from the much more hawkish foreign policy of Hillary Clinton.

Gabbard was overwhelmingly re-elected in 2018. She won 83 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary election.

Most progressives are not as outspoken against U.S. military interventions or what she refers to as "regime change wars." She witnessed the impact of regime change on the people of Iraq, as well as U.S. troops, and that inspired her to talk more about the human cost of war and challenge the military industrial-complex.

Gabbard has persistently called attention to the war in Syria. She traveled to Aleppo and Damascus in January 2017 to see some of the devastation Syrians have endured since 2011. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad invited her to a meeting, and she accepted.

"Originally, I had no intention of meeting with Assad, but when given the opportunity, I felt it was important to take it. I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there's a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering," Gabbard declared .

Supporters of the Syrian war -- the same people who do not want President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. troops -- seized upon Gabbard's meeting with Assad to discredit her, and it has fueled the backlash among Western media pundits to her decision to run for president.

Yet, in spite of a smear campaign encouraged by the political establishment, Gabbard has not backed down from protesting U.S. support for terrorists in Syria. She sponsored legislation, the Stop Arming Terrorists Act.

During an interview for the Sanders Institute in September 2018, Gabbard said, "Since 2011, when the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and these other countries started this slow drawn-out regime change war in Syria, it is terrorist groups like al Qaida, al Nusra, and Hayat Tahrir al Sham, these different groups that have morphed and taken on names but essentially are all linked to al Qaida or al Qaida themselves that have proven to be the most effective ground force against the government in trying to overthrow the Syrian government."

Gabbard opposes what she calls a "genocidal war" in Yemen, and she is one of the few representatives, who has worked to pass a war powers resolution in the House to end U.S. military involvement since Congress never authorized the war.

"The United States is standing shoulder to shoulder supporting Saudi Arabia in this war as they commit these atrocities against Yemeni civilians," Gabbard said during the same Sanders Institute interview.

Another war Gabbard questions is the war in Libya. In an interview for "The Jimmy Dore Show" on September 11, 2018, she spoke about the devastating consequences of pursuing regime change without considering what would happen after Muammar Gaddafi was removed from power.

"After we led the war to topple Gaddafi, we have open human slave trading going on, in open market. In today's society, we have more terrorists in Libya today than there ever were before."

Gabbard is also one of the few elected politicians to oppose weapons sales, especially to Saudi Arabia. She recognizes the military industrial-complex benefits the most from Congress not exercising its authority over war-making by presidents, whether they are Republican or Democrat.

She spoke out against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo when he refused to revoke support for Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen because it would jeopardize a $2 billion arms deal.

Not many Democrats are willing to be optimistic on North Korea, but Gabbard sees potential for peace and does not view Trump's meeting with Kim Jong-un as an act of treason.

Gabbard said during the Sanders Institute interview, "For years, I've been working in Congress and calling for direct engagement with North Korea with Kim Jong-un to be able to try to broker a peace agreement that will result in de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and and finally bring about an end to the Korean War."

"So I think that the recent engagement that we have seen -- both the historic meeting between a sitting U.S. president and the leader of North Korea -- is certainly a positive step in the right direction. We have to be willing to have these conversation to promote peace," Gabbard said. And, "I think the continued engagement between North Korea and South Korea is positive."

Gabbard acknowledged there are a lot of details that have to be worked out, but that does not make her hostile to the entire process, which is the attitude of many pundits and Democrats in the establishment.

Joe Rogan interviewed Gabbard in September 2018. He raised the issue of Russian troll farms and Facebook's failure to deal with them. She had a sober response to his concerns.

"The United States has been doing this for a very long time in countries around the world, both overtly and covertly, through these kinds of disinformation campaigns," Gabbard contended. "Not even counting like the regime change wars, like we're going to take you out."

She continued, "I think it is very hypocritical for us to be discussing this issue as a country without actually being honest about how this goes both ways. So, yes, we need to stop these other foreign countries -- and Russia's not the only one; there are others -- from trying to influence the American people and our elections. We also need to stop doing the same thing in other countries."

Such positions on war and U.S. foreign policy effectively make her a pariah to establishment media pundits and the political class. But her anti-establishment politics do not end there.

Gabbard has advocated against superdelegates, which are Democratic party insiders that have an outsized role in influencing the outcome of presidential primaries. She favors open primaries and same-day voter registration. She is outspoken against the influence of money in politics, and she is audacious enough to question members of her own political party.

"We have to dig a few layers deeper as people are running for office, say what do you actually stand for?" she said on "The Jimmy Dore Show." "What is your vision for this country? That's the debate that we will have to have in Congress should Democrats win over the House or win more seats in the Senate."

"Otherwise, it will be more of the same status quo, where you'll have lobbyists who have more of a seat at the table writing policies that affect healthcare and education and Wall Street and everything else rather than having a true and representative government by and for the people," she concluded.

She was also critical of self-described progressives, who are pro-war, while on "Jimmy Dore":

You have these individuals and groups of people who call themselves progressive but are some of the first to call for more war in the guise of humanitarianism. They look at these poor people suffering -- and there are people suffering in the other parts of the world. Let's go drop more bombs and try to take away their suffering. And when you look at example after example after example, our actions, U.S. policy, interventionist regime change war policy, [has] made the lives of people in these other countries far worse off than they ever were before or would have been if we had just stayed out of it.

***

Gabbard was much closer to an establishment politician prior to her resignation from the DNC. She accepted tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from political action committees (PACs).

The Center for Responsive Politics noted, "One of the largest contributing sectors was the defense industry. While Gabbard has gained a following for her anti-interventionist stances , yet, her 2016 campaign was given $63,500 from the defense sector . In fact, the campaign received donations of $10,000 from the Boeing Corporation PAC and from Lockheed Martin's PAC, two of the biggest names in the military-industrial complex."

In 2017, Gabbard announced she would no longer accept PAC money. She raised $37,000 from labor associations and trade unions.

Gabbard was "conflicted" over whether to support the Senate report on CIA torture. She said in 2014 that she thought there were "things missing or it was incomplete." She also endorsed the "ticking time bomb" scenario that officials use to justify torture, and it is unclear what her view would be now, if asked about the issue.

She has taken a position on Israeli occupation of Palestine that is common among Democrats. She supports a two-state solution and describes Israel as the U.S.' "strongest ally." But it may be shifting. In the last year, she condemned Israel for its violence against the people of Gaza, and she was reluctant to vote for a House resolution that condemned the UN Security Council for criticizing Israeli settlements.

Journalist Eoin Higgins questioned Gabbard's support from the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), which he described as right-wing. She has garnered criticism for her trip to India in 2014, when she met with India prime minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist.

But HAF believes this criticism of Gabbard is unfair because other members of Congress, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have attended gatherings with Modi. They also point to financial records and maintain they are a U.S. organization without ties to any organizations in India.

When she was much younger, Gabbard helped her father's organization mobilize against a same-sex marriage in Hawaii. The organization, Alliance for Traditional Marriage, backed conversion therapy

However, there is evidence to suggest that Gabbard has abandoned much of the bigotry that she probably learned from her father. She backed Edith Windsor when she challenged the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

"Let me say I regret the positions I took in the past, and the things I said. I'm grateful for those in the LGBTQ+ community who have shared their aloha with me throughout my personal journey," Gabbard stated, responding to media coverage of this aspect of her past.

She noted that she has since supported "the Equality Act, the repeal of DOMA, Restore Honor to Service members Act, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Safe Schools Improvement Act, and the Equality for All Resolution," and added, "Much work remains to ensure equality and civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ Americans, and if elected President, I will continue to fight for equal rights for all."

There are powerful forces in American politics that will seize upon her past opposition to LGBTQ rights and meeting with Assad to neutralize her presidential campaign before she even has an opportunity to tour the country and meet with potential supporters. They fear the impact she could have if voters gravitate to her campaign, which will likely promote her anti-imperialism.

Often Democrats do not bother to connect foreign policy to domestic issues. Gabbard is likely to run a rare campaign, where she makes the case that they are intertwined -- that in order to make investments in universal health care, education, infrastructure, etc, the massive investment in war must be severely curtailed.

Gabbard also aware of the disenchantment among voters, who do not believe either political party has the answers. She understands President Trump is a symptom of what ails the country.

As she said on "Jimmy Dore," "If we look at the lead-up to the 2016 election, and if we actually listen to and examine why people chose to vote the way they did, it points to much bigger problems, a much bigger disaffection that has been building for quite some time, that voters have against the establishment of Washington, the political establishment within both parties."

[Jan 13, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard's running in 2020

Jan 13, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Aloha,

Earlier tonight I spoke with my friend Van Jones about the challenges we face and the future of our country.

He asked me bluntly whether I'll run for president, and I told him straight: I've decided to run and will make a formal announcement next week.

There are many reasons I'm offering to serve you as President -- to ensure every American gets the healthcare they need, to bring about comprehensive immigration reform, to make sure we have clean water and clean air for generations to come, to fix our broken criminal justice system, to end the corrupt influence of special interests in Washington, and so much more.

But the main reason I'm running has to do with an issue that is central to the rest -- war and peace. I look forward to talking with you more about this in the coming days.

When we stand together, united by our love for each other and for our country, there is no challenge we cannot overcome.

Aloha,

Tulsi

************************

I received this email from Tulsi Gabbard's office tonight. No, we don't know each other. I signed up for her updates over two years ago because of my interest in her. We've talked about her over the years within this committee of correspondence, always on a positive note as I recall.

As I'm sure you remember, she left the DNC leadership in 2016 because of their high-handed treatment of Bernie Sanders. She caused quite a stir for meeting with Bashar Assad when she visited Syria in early 2017. She is still an Army major in the Hawaiian National Guard and advocates for a strong defense, including a robust ballistic missile defense. Not unusual considering she represents Hawaii's 2nd Congressional District. As a Progressive, she calls for an end to all our overseas wars including Syria and Yemen. But I think she's more of a Teddy Roosevelt Progressive

Before delving into her politics, I recommend an article Tulsi wrote back in October 2017 entitled "My Spiritual Journey." I think it says a lot about her and her upbringing. She is definitely a committed member of the Hawaiian ohana.

In my few short years there, I was most impressed by this spirit. I saw it in my neighbors in Mililani Town, my friends and counterparts in Company C, 1/299 Infantry (HI ARNG) on Maui and in the pig hunters/pakalolo growers of the Koolau Mountains. I think the DC swamp can use a little more aloha spirit. Shaka, brah!

TTG

Posted at 12:46 AM in Politics , TTG | Permalink | 31 Comments

[Jan 13, 2019] Republican politicians may invoke the rhetoric of free markets to justify cutting taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor, or removing environmental regulations that hurt polluters' profits, but they don't really care about free markets per se. After all, the party had little problem lining up behind Trump's embrace of tariffs

Notable quotes:
"... If anything, Trump and the GOP have finally shown common decent folk what the democratic experiment in America has become: a system that looks alot like feudal systems of the past. Including walls! ..."
"... There is no such thing as a free market. Let me repeat it again for effect: there is NO such thing as a free market. Whether one calls it libertarianism or neoliberalism, the idea is pretty much the same: if we just unleash the power of human greed, the market will equal everything out, and we'll all be freer because of it. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Our government gives huge incentives to large corporations with the idea that wealth will trickle down into middle class jobs and prosperity. But guess what? Those corporations keep most of the incentives and profits for themselves and their shareholders. The comparatively minuscule recent tax cuts for the middle class pale in comparison to the huge corporate cuts that added $2 trillion to our national deficit. The only thing stopping corporate excess and monopolies is government. Many libertarians cry "starve the beast." Well, they shouldn't complain if they get food poisoning because their food wasn't properly inspected by a government they loath. And neither should President Trump complain, if, like most Americans, his next Big Mac doesn't agree with him. ..."
"... Anarchy is oligarchy. The rule of law -- law crafted by dedicated public servants, who are elected by sober and informed citizens -- is the closest we can come to freedom. ..."
"... The libertarian philosophy is this: while you're young and healthy and productive, you can help make money for your boss. However, once you are old and no longer capable of making a contribution to someone else, it is your obligation to simply die. ..."
"... Privatizing Social Security so that investment firms can get a piece of the action, privatizing Medicare so that insurance companies can get a piece of the action, and privatizing the military, so that private paramilitary companies can get more than their fair share of the action. It's theft in plain sight. We can't believe it, because it's so obvious. ..."
"... Paraphrasing Marie Antoinette "Let them eat contaminated cake" ..."
"... Funny how libertarians never argue for privatizing the military, or law enforcement. ..."
"... I cannot enumerate the number of rich Republicans who tried to get the government to support their elderly while the children of those elderly got the money. I could tell you stories, including one about a certain Republican Governor of Pennsylvania who tried to put his adult, but mentally handicapped child on Medicaid. ..."
"... Cutting tax rates on the wealthy are stealing from the rest of us. We make contributions every hour of every day which are hoovered up by the wealthy and the powerful. Meanwhile we cannot afford the cost of living, which has skyrocketed vs wages and benefits. The cost of an apartment is exorbitant. The cost of health care is exorbitant. Meanwhile the commons suffer. Infrastructure suffers. Sidewalks are a menace. There is lead in the water. Rich people who do not pay their fair share of taxes are stealing from the people in so many ways it's impossible to count them. But count them in years lost, in lives cut short, in lives blighted. ..."
"... Republicans aren't against government, it has grown more under every Republican president including Reagan himself. They simply have their preferences as to who benefits from it. ..."
"... As the saying goes, you never miss your water until your well runs dry. ..."
Jan 13, 2019 | www.nytimes.com

That said, the truth is that libertarian ideology isn't a real force within the G.O.P.; it's more of a cover story for the party's actual agenda.

In the case of the party establishment, that agenda is about redistributing income up the scale, and in particular helping important donor interests. Republican politicians may invoke the rhetoric of free markets to justify cutting taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor, or removing environmental regulations that hurt polluters' profits, but they don't really care about free markets per se. After all, the party had little problem lining up behind Trump's embrace of tariffs.

Meanwhile, the philosophy of the party's base is, in essence, big government for me but not for thee. Stick it to the bums on welfare, but don't touch those farm subsidies. Tellingly, the centerpiece of the long G.O.P. jihad against Obamacare was the false claim that it would hurt Medicare.

And as it happens, many of the spending cuts being forced by the shutdown fall heavily and obviously on base voters. Small business owners are much more conservative than the nation as a whole, but they really miss those government loans. Rural voters went Republican during a Democratic midterm blowout, but they want those checks. McConnell may have trash-talked food stamps in the past, but a sudden cutoff would have a catastrophic effect on the most Republican parts of his home state.


C Wolfe Bloomington IN Jan. 10

I had an idiot,er, libertarian friend once who actually believed the market would take care of food safety, because people wouldn't buy food from a source if that source was known to have sold tainted food. "What about the people who die in the meantime?" I asked. "Well, it's up to people to decide what to eat. The government shouldn't tell people what to eat." "But how are you supposed to know? How much tainted food has to be sold and eaten before people even know to avoid it? People get sick or die.

What about people's lives?" "Argh, 'people's lives.'" (Eye roll.) "Liberals are always talking about 'people's lives.'" I swear this is an actual conversation that I repeated so many times I have it memorized.

AndyE Berkley MI Jan. 10

Ironically, the likelihood of chronic dependency on federal dollars is directly proportional to the redness of the state.

DB NC Jan. 11 Times Pick

One of the big obstacles I've observed is that conservatives, in general, have to experience negative consequences directly to understand the link between cause and effect. Liberals, in general, are better at imagining negative consequences and taking preventive action before they directly experience it. It has to do with empathy and solidarity, I think. Liberals see someone suffering, and they think, "We should find out what caused that and fix it so it doesn't happen to the rest of us." Conservatives see someone suffering, and they think, "That guy must be a terrible person. He totally deserves what happened to him. It can never happen to me because I'm a good guy." It is only when the negative thing does directly happen to the conservative that he may reconsider. That's when it is important to find a scapegoat- illegal immigrants, minorities, Jews- to blame in order to obscure the causal link.

Socrates Downtown Verona. NJ Jan. 10

Libertarianism attracts the finest stunted teenaged and hypocritical minds that are either disconnected from reality or that suffer from cognitive dissonance that allows hypocrisy and selfishness to flourish like mutant bacteria. Taxes and good government are the price of any decent civilization...and both of these concepts are completely demonized by Republicans even though Republicans are some of the greatest welfare queens in the nation. Productive, modern, blue Democratic state federal tax dollars have long subsidized rural, religious Republican states that hate the federal government....they curse they horse that feeds them and then they curse even more when the federal teat is turned off. America's 0.1% Robber Barons and crony vulture capitalists curse 'high tax rates' that aren't particularly high compared to the rest of the world while using America's infrastructure, legal system, government-funded research and technology, and corrupted electoral system to make parasitic profits that dwarf those of foreign corporations who pay their fair share of taxes to countries with increasingly better infrastructure and educational systems. The libertarian theology followed to fruition is Somalia-like; an unregulated anarchy of human misery. Decent human beings understand that healthy taxes produce healthy civilization. Today's version of libertarian Republicanism is a demented form of arrested emotional development that's been destroying the USA since 1980. Nice GOPeople.

Larry St. Paul, MN Jan. 11 Times Pick

Those who believe, like Ronald Reagan, that government is the problem, are about to discover that the absence of government is an even worse problem.

Wilbray Thiffault Ottawa. Canada Jan. 10

Senator Mitch McConnel said that the food stamp program is "making it excessively easy to be non productive." Well, Mitch McConnel is not on the food stamp program and he manages to be one of the most "non productive" senator in the history of the US Senate. Congratulation Senator!

Eric Bremen Jan. 11 Times Pick

Almost unfailingly, the stoutest Republican supporters seem to be the biggest beneficiaries of government: the military, farmers, pensioners or small business owners. Growing up in a military family, I remember subsidized gas, medical treatment for free and school trips paid by the DoD. Yet anytime there was a Democratic president, it sounded like there would be a coup when our military parents met at picnicks and had a few beers. If anything, Trump and the GOP have finally shown common decent folk what the democratic experiment in America has become: a system that looks alot like feudal systems of the past. Including walls!

jrinsc South Carolina Jan. 11 Times Pick

There is no such thing as a free market. Let me repeat it again for effect: there is NO such thing as a free market. Whether one calls it libertarianism or neoliberalism, the idea is pretty much the same: if we just unleash the power of human greed, the market will equal everything out, and we'll all be freer because of it. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Our government gives huge incentives to large corporations with the idea that wealth will trickle down into middle class jobs and prosperity. But guess what? Those corporations keep most of the incentives and profits for themselves and their shareholders. The comparatively minuscule recent tax cuts for the middle class pale in comparison to the huge corporate cuts that added $2 trillion to our national deficit. The only thing stopping corporate excess and monopolies is government. Many libertarians cry "starve the beast." Well, they shouldn't complain if they get food poisoning because their food wasn't properly inspected by a government they loath. And neither should President Trump complain, if, like most Americans, his next Big Mac doesn't agree with him.

TM Muskegon, MI Jan. 10

For those who despise government regulations, I offer 3 observations: 1. I lived near Muskegon, MI, prior to the EPA, when 3 foundries were constantly belching smoke and foundry dust into the air. Breathing the air was equivalent to smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day.

2. I lived in Cairo, Egypt for 3 years. I purchased 4 pairs of prescription eyeglasses before finally giving up. None of them were right - and no regulations meant that I had no recourse.

3. I lived in Accra, Ghana for 3 years. No construction codes meant that the brand new luxury apartment building I moved into suffered numerous problems with plumbing, resulting in mold, flooded floors and sudden loss of water pressure.

In Cairo and in Accra, there was no social safety net. Beggars were a constant. Often they would be horribly disfigured and with no family what were they to do? I am happily retired now, back in Western Michigan, thoroughly enjoying the clean air, safe food, and clean parks. Obama said it best - it's not the size of government, it's the effectiveness of it. And if it's not working, that's on us - we're the ones who put those people in office. 2020 can't arrive soon enough.

Lex DC Jan. 10

The Trump voter in my family was a libertarian before switching to the Party of Trump and still believes that government is an interference. One conversation we had was about electricians needing to be licensed. He said electricians did not need to be licensed because if their work led to customers being injured or killed due to a fire, that information would circulate and those electricians would be forced out of the market. I asked him if he cared about the people injured or killed, he shrugged his shoulders and said that's just the way things are. I then asked him what if he was one the customers injured or killed. He looked rather shocked at that question and immediately dropped the subject. That is all that I ever needed to know about libertarianism.

Michael W. Espy Flint, MI Jan. 11 Times Pick

I like to pay taxes, I get civilization in return.

Pat Somewhere Jan. 10

"Libertarianism" according to the GOP means that YOU need the discipline of the "free market," but I deserve all the protections and support of the nanny state (financed with your tax dollars, thank you very much.)

Goodglud Flagstaff, AZ Jan. 10

As George Lakoff reminded us, what the anti-government folks call "regulations" are, for the most part, "protections." We shouldn't let the Kochs, Trumps, McConnells, and Ryans frame the discussion. "The term "regulation" is framed from the viewpoint of corporations and other businesses. From their viewpoint, "regulations" are limitations on their freedom to do whatever they want no matter who it harms. But from the public's viewpoint, a regulation is a protection against harm done by unscrupulous corporations seeking to maximize profit at the cost of harm to the public." https://georgelakoff.com/2017/01/28/the-publics-viewpoint-regulations-are-protections

Michael McLemore Athens, Georgia Jan. 11 Times Pick

At some point the American people need to realize that conservative/libertarian pundits are just on-air hucksters selling a product. Instead of selling Vegematics, Ginsu knives or non-stick cookware, they are peddling right-wing bile for a profit. And the profits derived from their corporate advertisers are huge. Forget truth or journalism, Rush Linbaugh openly proclaims himself to be an "entertainer" and not a "journalist" (mainly to make it more difficult to sue him for falsehood). Ann Coulter similarly declares herself a "polemicist". Forget for a moment the subversive influence of Russian money and hacking on American politics. Our own homegrown corporate advertisers are eagerly subverting America by underwriting glib purveyors of corrosive right-wing propaganda, who will slyly proclaim the gospel of unbridled greed and not of social responsibility. Of course drug companies don't want the FDA. Why would they want oversight to keep the public safe, when safety costs them money? Why would banks want regulation to safeguard the financial system and consumers, when regulation interferes with short-term profits? The Koch brothers don't want pesky interference from the EPA in regulating their mega-refinery in Minnesota. Their family homes are in Aspen, Palm Beach and Manhattan, so why should it concern them if effluent rolls through St. Louis, Memphis, and New Orleans? Don't dare call this something so plain as "greed". Wrap it in a bow and call it "libertarianism".

FunkyIrishman member of the resistance Jan. 11 Times Pick

Republican mantra (even Libertarian) is to be left alone, so long as THEIR way of life is left alone, and they are subsidized by you for living that way. That may mean a MASSIVE military to be a deterrent, or to go invade some other country to keep the oil flowing. That may mean subsidizing all sorts of industries, businesses and the like, because they cannot compete at all on a truly free open market. That might mean support for all sorts of social programs, health programs, education programs and the like as well, because bootstraps only take you so far. I would use the word hypocrisy, but that would entail that many know what they speak of when describing what Libertarian, or Socialist. or another ''ist'' form of government actually means. We are all in this together or we are not. There is no in between, but many would have you believe it is possible. It is not.

earlyman Portland Jan. 10

@Bill Once you our you loved one eats salmonella contaminated lettuce and nearly dies, good luck going after, or even finding, the agra-business across the country who caused it.

Linda Sausalito, CA Jan. 10

European food is heavily regulated, uh, by governments. Much tastier and doesn't contain known carcinogens. Watching the train wreck of the United States.

Will Schmidt perlboy on a ranch 6 miles from Ola, AR Jan. 10

@C Wolfe This rings so true for me too. I majored in economics at UICC in the early seventies. My favorite prof was a PhD candidate at U of Chicago, and one of his advisors was Milton Friedman. Being at UICC, I did not study under the great man, but I did under one of his acolytes, who was close to tenure (ABD, if I remember correctly), and I thought, a very intelligent one. One of his two areas of doctoral specialty (you had to have two; his other was labor) was macro, and I took him for among other things, money & banking. In fact, I took M&B twice, because the first time (I got an A) was from a Keynesian, and I wanted to get it from a Quantity Theory guy; another A.) Because my prof was a diciple of M.F., I got to attend several special lectures at UC, and partake of the kool-aid. Well, I heard directly from the horse's mouth how consumers would boycotte inferior suppliers and only the best would survive. The free market would favor the best and punish the worst. Of course, this required perfect information. Unfortunately, no good case was made how a perfect information economy could be achieved nor how consumers could afford to acquire perfect information. The price of discovering bad suppliers of tainted food would surely include the deaths of some number of consumers before that information became generally available. We debated perfect markets and perfect information but never did get a convincing case for abandoning government inspection of food products.

Michael Kelly Bellevue, Nebraska Jan. 10

The famous Republican philosopher Grover Norquist once said that he's want to have government so small that one could drown it in the bathtub. Right now, nearly one million government workers are facing the prospect of drowning in debt. Trump suggests that they could make do like he always used to, namely declare bankruptcy or go to daddy for a loan. All this while court jester Pence 'handles' the negotiations. His idea is to make more requests while staying firm on a wall.

LT Chicago Jan. 10

Perhaps the GOP base will finally learn just how dependent they really are on the government they profess to hate. Trump loving farmers and small town business owners are in for a particularly nasty surprise. It's not just farm subsidies. As described by Michael Lewis in "The Fifth Risk": "As the U.S.D.A.'s loans were usually made through local banks, the people on the receiving end of them were often unaware of where the money was coming from. There were many stories very like the one Tom Vilsack told, about a loan they had made, in Minnesota, to a government-shade-throwing, Fox News-watching, small-town businessman. The bank held a ceremony and the guy wound up being interviewed by the local paper. "He's telling the reporter how proud he is to have done it on his own," said Vilsack. "The U.S.D.A. person goes to introduce herself, and he says, 'So who are you?' She says, 'I'm the U.S.D.A. person.' He asks, 'What are you doing here?' She says, 'Well, sir, we supplied the money you are announcing.' He was white as a sheet." There are rural counties in this country that are only viable with government money. Trump counties. It's going to be an expensive and painful education. Trump University lives.

Norm Weaver Buffalo NY Jan. 10

If ever there was a group that lives in a fantasy world, it's the libertarians. In another article in another newspaper that dealt with "intrusive" government, I submitted a comment saying that I wouldn't be surprised if Libertarians would be opposed to STOP signs and traffic lights because these would constitute an unnecessary infringement on their freedom. Wouldn't you know that a person of that persuasion actually replied to my comment and confirmed my suspicion. Working in an IT position for three decades I dealt with this type daily. Many were 30-something white males, often both cognitively and physically well above average, who had learned to program computers. They were blessed with being raised in two-parent families. I acknowledge the hard work they did to learn to wrestle with computers, but they lacked the perspective to realize that they had not hit a home run but rather had been born on second or third base due to the intellectual and physical gifts they possess that many others don't.They could not understand why others in society could not emulate their success. In one conversation about affirmative action, one such person asked "Why do we need that anymore? There are laws against discrimination.". Many of this type get bit in the behind when some government regulation is repealed then it turns out that THEY are the ones adversely affected by the repeal. But don't waste your breath trying to pierce the fantasy balloon. They hold tight to those fantasies.

George Chicago Jan. 10

I'm waiting for Grover Norquist and the other small government proponents to relocate to Somalia, home of no real government. Why it's not thriving without the yoke of onerous regulations is surprising.

Red Sox, '04, '07, '13, '18, Boston Jan. 10

"...making it excessively easy to be non-productive." -- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The irony is too rich here. While he and his president and the "non-productive" Republican Senators draw a paycheck for soaking up the public dime, kids will go hungry; start-up hopefuls will lose loans; farmers will feel the bite; food will become contaminated and people will fill hospital ER's and strain their health insurance. For openers. The Right is getting its own back on FDR's New Deal. All because "government is the problem." Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Dominic Holland San Diego Jan. 10

A relatively minor point: "Maybe you believe that private companies could take over the F.D.A.'s role in keeping food safe, but such companies don't exist now and can't be conjured up in a matter of weeks." Such inspection companies could only exist if they were funded by the food companies they were inspecting. Competition among inspection companies would then obviously lead to grade inflation: hire some other company that is more likely to give you a passing grade, who in turn will be happy to lower standards to attract more customers. This is not an avenue for effective replacement of the FDA. Libertarianism is for chumps and fanatics, no one else.

Paul K Michigan USA Jan. 11 Times Pick

We lived in a small West African nation for 25 years. There were no collectable taxes because the tax collectors kept what they could extort from poor people, no safety nets such as social security or medicaid/medicare, no fire fighters, no functional road departments, no regulation of pharmaceuticals, an unprepared and unarmed military, no paid federal, regional of local police forces, no judges who were not bought by the highest bidder, no standards for the public hospitals, no communication systems, no running water in major cities, no electric power that functioned more than 4-6 hours a day, and not a single government official who was not on the take.

What we did have were cholera epidemics that killed 5000 people, annual measle epidemics that killed children under 5 years old , villages burned to the ground by wildfire, a school system which did not pay its teachers and finally a 12 year civil war which killed over 200,000 people and a [post war ebola epidemic which killed 12,000 more.

The proper use of taxes was not even a dream. Now in the USA, the "leadership" under its current president and his sycophants are playing personal and infantile grade school games with your and my tax dollars and the congress is helping them do it. Amazing! I feel like I am back home in my 3rd world village .

Tom B New York Jan. 11 Times Pick

Anarchy is oligarchy. The rule of law -- law crafted by dedicated public servants, who are elected by sober and informed citizens -- is the closest we can come to freedom. Governance that provides basic order and rules and a safety net for when people fail (either from behavior that is unwise or from ill fortune) is part of the rule of law. There are also necessary things that the government can provide (without a profit motive) better than either charity of for profit organizations. Roads and basic science are good examples. Other things are best left alone by government -- things like sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll. These should be principles that we all can live by, but it seems like the so-called conservatives believe quite the opposite. They believe in unregulated guns, flows of money to unregulated trusts, defunded public goods, and violent repression of sex, drugs, and free expression.

Kinsale Charlottesville, VA Jan. 10

@earlyman correct. The first thing those large corporations responsible will do is use their lobbying power to legislate liability caps on what they have to pay in settlement costs. That's the way the real world works. We're not living in some libertarian utopia.

James Wallis Martin Christchurch, New Zealand Jan. 10

Problems with the food industry in the US isn't just a new issue since the Trump administration, it has been an issue for decades. The problems of Big Ag and Food Manufacturers lobbying has been so bad, that whenever I see doctors in Germany and New Zealand, the first question they ask is have I been and eaten food in the US in the last six months, when they are trying to ascertain health issues". When the medical community around the world asks about US food intake, you know corporate libertarianism has run afoul and at the cost of the health of America. The fact that foods that can't be sold in Europe for health reasons are dumped in the US just highlights how it is no longer the United States of America, but rather the Corporate States of America. When will the people demand for Separation of Corporation and State?

John Moran Tennessee Jan. 11

I had serious Libertarian leanings up until a few years ago when my family and I moved to Bangalore, India to work for three years. It was an eye opening experience to see what actually happens when you don't have a strong central government regulating things like the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the food you eat.

Bangalore was once known as the Garden City and is considered the Silicon Valley of India, but corporate greed, unchecked expansion, and government corruption, along with no meaningful environmental laws that are actually enforced, has turned it into a nightmare-- or maybe into what Libertarianism looks like in the real world, outside of Ayn Rand novels.

The river beside our street was so polluted it had layers of chemical foam that would reach ten feet in height and blow across the road, stopping traffic.

The nearby lake would literally catch on fire, burning for days. Open sewers ran into nearby water sources. Forget tap water, it would make Flint, Michigan's water crisis seem desirable by comparison. Food safety? Roll the dice and take your chances.

Within a year any trace of Libertarian beliefs were wiped clean from my mind and I longed for strong government regulations to protect me and my family. This U.S. shutdown isn't even a minor taste of what it truly means to live without powerful and enforceable government regulations and protections.

Pete Victoria, BC Jan. 10

@Bill it is important to keep in mind that contaminated food can kill you before you even have a chance to pursue remedies. The critical elements for us now leaving much longer than our ancestors involve personal and public hygiene (e.g. safe food, sewer systems), medicine and healthy environments (e.g. pollution controls). I recommend watching the Trashopolis series, its quite informative.

Thomas Zaslavsky Binghamton, N.Y. Jan. 10

@C Wolfe Decades ago I had a very similar conversation with a doctrinaire libertarian, though it was about a less essential question. I also repeated it many times. The incredulity factor is large. I mean, I couldn't believe the degree to which rationality disappeared.

Karen Garcia New York Jan. 10

On the bright side, a federal judge just ruled Iowa's so-called Ag-Gag law to be unconstitutional, making it easier to expose the filthy and inhumane conditions on factory farms. So agribusiness will be smacked with the double whammy of losing their corporate welfare checks and bribery payments, and having their own cruelty exposed at the same time.

It's obvious that Trump's tantrum of a shutdown is the latest episode of disaster capitalism, or what Naomi Klein has dubbed the Shock Doctrine. Create a crisis, like neglecting New Orleans levees, or most recently, the criminally negligent homicides of Hurricane Maria victims in Puerto Rico, and you allow the vulture capitalists to swoop in and cash in. The entire school system of N.O. is now privatized, and libertarian billionaires are buying up huge chunks of Puerto Rico at bargain basement prices to create palaces. With walls, of course. The trash and overflowing toilets at our national parks are just the ticket for corporations to take them over and charge exorbitant admissions... before selling out to ranchers and drillers to further speed up the Anthropocene. The other semi-bright upshot of this disaster capitalism is that rich conservatives will get just as sick from eating tainted food as the poor. Trump probably figures he is immune, because he likes the polluting cow flesh he consumes to be well-done to burnt. But without getting paid, how long will the White House chefs continue to serve him? : -)

Chris Hunter WA State Jan. 10

Exactly so. It has been my experience that my libertarian friends are only able to be libertarian because they have been protected all their lives (at great expense, they would argue) by the very government they deride.

hen3ry Westchester, NY Jan. 10

What's fascinating about all of this is how the Gutless Obnoxious Popinjays refuse to take any responsibility at all for the problems. It's always the Democrats fault. I'm surprised that none of them have pointed a finger at Obama. After all, he didn't try to build a wall so it must be his fault that Trump is demanding money for a beautiful wall that will protect all Americans from the outside world. It's fascinating to realize that McConnell, Pence, Trump, and the rest of the obnoxious crowd are getting paid by the government they want to drown. They are contributing to the very cycles of misfortune that they blame people for. Are they going to write letters for every federal employee who loses a home, falls farther behind on loan payments than they should, who can't afford to pay for medical care or the premium? No. The GOP has no plans to share the misery it's causing. Trump doesn't understand or care. This is what happens when a complete incompetent is elected to run a country: chaos, uncertainty, and worse. The party that abhorred communism and the Russians now has a president who may be owned by the Russians. Even if he's not, the entire debacle that is Trump's presidency must warming the hearts of Putin and his "friends" each day it continues. As Obama said, elections have consequences. This is one of them. I don't know about the GOP and the libertarians but I prefer to eat, drink, and breathe safely. It's why I like a functioning government.

Mark McHenry Jan. 10

The libertarian philosophy is this: while you're young and healthy and productive, you can help make money for your boss. However, once you are old and no longer capable of making a contribution to someone else, it is your obligation to simply die.

If you look at all the proposals of the Republicans, this seems to be the guiding force. Privatizing Social Security so that investment firms can get a piece of the action, privatizing Medicare so that insurance companies can get a piece of the action, and privatizing the military, so that private paramilitary companies can get more than their fair share of the action. It's theft in plain sight. We can't believe it, because it's so obvious.

Lake trash Lake ozarks Jan. 10

It's the chaos this president keeps thrusting on all of us. We can't keep up day to day of his lack of self control, his lack of understanding how government works, the principles of the constitution, the rule of law that has sustained us through the years. He seems to believe that he has the support to destroy everything that keeps us safe. The foundation that made this a great country is at risk. I'm old now and can not believe what I see every day from this American President.

Cowsrule SF CA Jan. 11

@Zhou "I'll sue the company producing it". How will you do that in the absence of any governmental mechanism to enforce compliance with a law suit? And how will you prove contamination in the absence of any recognized standard to show it is present?

Aram Hollman Arlington, MA Jan. 10

@Bill So, you prefer the pound of cure known as a lawsuit to a regulatory ounce of prevention. Personally, I'd prefer to avoid both the discomfort of food poisoning and the expense of a lawsuit. Besides, do you really think you'd win? None of the many people poisoned by contaminated vegetables at Taco Bell stores a few years ago had any chance of even bringing a lawsuit, much less winning one and gettting compensation. It took regulatory agencies, public health departments, and the national Center for Disease Control simply to track down the offending vegetables and force Taco Belll to clean up its act. As for your checks and balances, most of the checks go from lobbyists to congressmen, and that throws any balances way out of whack. Your annual deficit figure of $1 trillion is out of date. The latest Trump tax cuts raised it to $1.5 trillion. So, start worrying real fast. But, I'd start worrying more not merely about the deficit, but about how money is being spent. You seem to worry more about the comparative peanuts spent on the FDA (which, by the way, also regulates drugs and medical devices) or the USDA (which also helps regulate food safety). than on the far larger amounts spent on the military (e.g. latest technology F-35 jets that can't fly in the rain), US taxpayer funding of arms sales to foreign countries that neither share our values nor help keep us safe (e.g. Saudi Arabia).

Otis-T Los Osos, CA Jan. 10

I work with alot of big Ag companies -- they're constantly raging about government regs and the red tape, etc, etc., but they have HUGE lobby and political power. On an average year, they get an amazing amount of subsidies coming in all kinds of forms, from direct compensation packages to float an industry a la corn, or from electric rates that are lower for them at the expense of the other rate classes. And when any hint of hardship comes, nevermind true hardship, they're front and center for the hand-outs. And they get plenty. All this before we even address immigrant labor! Ha! Libertarian Ag would look WAY different out in the fields. And one thing that would surely be needed: Cheap immigrant (sometimes illigal) labor. You get what you vote for.

JaneF Denver Jan. 10

@michjas Except the Republicans could reopen the government if they chose to. They could pass the same bill they passed in December, and then override the President's veto. Their conspiracy is that they won't do that.

John Quixote NY Jan. 10

So the party of fiscal responsibility which is already running up the deficit insists on building a wall over 2000 miles of border, seizing private property along the way . When we stopped teaching Geography and Citizenship and dismissed literature as irrelevant to getting a good job, we created an electorate that could be gulled by such propaganda and conned into thinking that fear is our avatar: fear of otherness, fear of government, fear of taxes, fear of liberals, fear of fear itself.

Cathy NJ Jan. 10

@Aoy when food is contaminated, the FDA is able to locate "ground zero" with utmost efficiency--Food Science 101. Without the FDA--which was established under T. Roosevelt's administration--there is no coordination between the food chain and the population. You can wash your lettuce to your heart's content, but if it was grown in contaminated soil, the cells within are contaminated. So, yes, the FDA is extremely necessary.

Jake Reeves Atlanta Jan. 10

"Government," declared Ronald Reagan in his first Inaugural Address, "is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." Yup, Republicans say government is the problem and then they get in power and prove it. The Party of Problem Government.

keith San Miguel de Allende Jan. 11 Times Pick

Anyone who thinks enforced food safety is unnecessary should go to India and eat in a restaurant anywhere but a first-tier hotel for foreigners. Your odds of getting sick are very high. Ditto in Alexandria, Egypt, and other places I've experienced where profit is important and product is, well, less so. Remedies? Seriously? How will you prove anything? Especially when all the restaurants have the same cavalier attitude toward washing food and hands. You ate the salad? More fool you.

Castor Troy D.C. Jan. 10

I wish that shutdowns were actually that-- shut things down. That means no air traffic controllers, no TSA, no border agents. Wonder how quickly the politicians would solve their differences if they couldn't rely on slave labor from unpaid federal employees forced to work?

alank Wescosville, PA Jan. 11 Times Pick

Paraphrasing Marie Antoinette "Let them eat contaminated cake"

Ecce Homo Jackson Heights Jan. 10

Funny how libertarians never argue for privatizing the military, or law enforcement. When they think it's really important, even libertarians come running back to government. The facts are that markets are only free if they are transparent, and in all of history nobody has come up with a better way than government regulation to make markets transparent. We tried unregulated markets in food production, and it was a disaster - which is why we have federal regulation of food production today. We tried unregulated labor markets and it was also a disaster - which is why we have child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and the full range of other labor regulations we have today. politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com

Ben Chicago Jan. 10

People forget that government workers are themselves participants in the economy. They buy cars and houses. They go to the grocery and the hardware store. When they don't get paid, the businesses they patronize -- private businesses -- also go without. Yesterday, I had lunch at a famous old restaurant right near the federal plaza in Chicago's Loop. One of the workers there told me that because of the shutdown the place's business had fallen way off. (And that's with the federal courthouse still open. Just wait until the courts shut, too.) It's a closed system, folks.

Cal Prof Berkeley, USA Jan. 10

Spot on. Naïveté about libertarianism runs deep. It was brought home to me when I worked with programmers in Silicon Valley in the 1980s. A fair number espoused libertarian ideas. Yet they had all had their computer science degrees paid for by the Defense Department, many at state universities. I was not too sophisticated myself but even I could see the disconnect between the ideas they were pushing and the real world implications.

Tom B New York Jan. 10

Have you ever actually tried a personal injury case? For a food borne illness? I ask those questions rhetorically because I can tell from your comment that you haven't. As a lawyer, who doesn't often get involved in personal injury cases, I can tell you that people often think they aren't hurting anyone by cutting corners, and are only restrained from doing things like serving contaminated food or doing illegal gas line plumbing by the threat of fines if caught cutting those corners. It's not the lawsuit that makes them take care.

Rich Davidson Lake Forest, IL Jan. 10

The gilded age of the 1890's seem like a wonderful time for libertarians. The productivity of the nation was high and gaining. But, it came with dirty air and water, bad food and medicine, quackery and robber barons. It was followed by the Roaring 20's where stocks grew without limits and borrowed money paid for it. That did not end well, either. Finally, in FDR's first 100 days, government stepped in and wrote the rules that made life good for most of us. The GOP does not know history and forgot what happened when there was a libertarian society. They are getting an education, finally.

Linda Oklahoma Jan. 10

One of the things that might end is the Indian Health Services. The government made contracts with tribes that in exchange for their land, the federal government would provide education and healthcare. It's not a welfare program. It is payment for millions of acres of land. If Indian Health Services ends, that's the same as reneging on a contract. Trump may see tribes going to court to get what was promised to them in exchange for land and lifestyle. If the shutdown continues, lots of people may be taking Trump to court.

Yuri Asian Bay Area Jan. 10

Do you believe in magic? Religious extremists do. So do Libertarians. And so do Republicans though what they believe is a variant of magic that might be called delusion or magic mixed with whisky and soda, which we call cynicism. What they all have in common is a collective inability to see the forest from the trees: central to their emptiness is the absence of humanity and all the messy ambiguity that entails, instead substituting a bogus certainty that's nothing more than a palliative for existential panic at the absence of self identity grounded in community. Bertrand Russell called it cosmic anxiety. It drives the compulsion for religion, ideology, in fact all systems of coping that avoid the crushing weight of freedom that comes without compass or owner's manual. Whether the god of the invisible hand that directs the market, or the god of clubs with exclusive membership and status, or the god of ancient fables told and retold for a millennium of successive generations, all are rationales for the irrational aversion of responsibility to do the work necessary to make freedom meaningful without making it meaningless for others. The two bargain bins in the basement of modern life are religion and ideology. Libertarianism can be found on the clearance rack for one size fits all.

OUTsider deep south Jan. 10

Paul, you included this quote from Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader... When talking about Food Stamps he has denounced the program for "making it excessively easy to be nonproductive." He has no business being so judgmental. Being productive implies a positive result for society. When it comes to being productive, his entire career is in question.

Elizabeth Moore Pennsylvania Jan. 11

@ebmem You don't know anything. For one thing, you are DEAD WRONG. Medicare DOES NOT PAY FOR NURSING HOME CARE AT ALL! MEDICAID DOES, but only for the poor. It is WEALTHY REPUBLICANS who "Medicaid Plan" their assets so the government will cover their living expenses so they can preserve wealth for their heirs. How do I know this to be the truth? I spend 23 years as a government regulator for Medicaid (Medical Assistance) in the state of Pennsylvania.

I cannot enumerate the number of rich Republicans who tried to get the government to support their elderly while the children of those elderly got the money. I could tell you stories, including one about a certain Republican Governor of Pennsylvania who tried to put his adult, but mentally handicapped child on Medicaid.

Sherry Washington Jan. 10

It is remarkable how farmers, who are particularly reliant on federal government programs to buy seed, equipment, get loans, get crop subsidies, and market their food, still support Trump, even though these programs are shut down and he's started a trade war. One farmer in today's issue supports Trump, saying "we need some border security", even though it means he might lose his farm. What kind of politics is this where people support a President who intentionally ruins their prospects and their way of life? It reminds me how dictators keep power through propaganda, rewriting history and painting its leadership as heroic. Fox News is like North Korean TV rewiring Republican brains to believe that Republicans, no matter how bone-headed, are always good, and Democrats are always bad, so much so they are willing to lose the farm, like North Koreans are willing to starve.

Will Hogan USA Jan. 11

@Mark Nuckols all the government programs that help business mean that the wealthy owe some money back. when 5000 workers of a large corporation all drive the company trucks on free public roads built with tax dollars, when those roads need repair, it sure should be taxes on the company that helps pay, along with the gas tax we all pay. Your mistake is in thinking that the income of the company owner was earned by him and him alone, but in reality, the taxpayers helped him plenty every step of the way. You just did not see it all.

ridgeguy No. CA Jan. 10

The article focuses on food inspections, but what about drug inspections? Is the FDA inspecting pharma manufacturing houses? Are they inspecting precursor chemicals commonly imported from, say, China? Libertarians (along with the rest of us) may be in for much more consequential disappointments than bad lettuce.

Chris DC Jan. 10

Well, at this point it certainly comes as no surprise that the narrowly tailored ideological conceit republicans like to think of as - laughably - 'Libertarianism' was little more than an economic grubsteak to the plutocratic interests. Indeed, it makes my head spin to think how quickly the so-called libertarians of the republican party would support rollbacks on women's reproductive liberties, not to mention the liberties of minorities and the LGBTQ community, not to mention how they would import the Christian Right's version of theology into the public domain. (Ah yes, get government off our backs, but shove God into every home.) The issue that looms broadly over all this, however, is the republican's intent to liquidate this nation's status as technologically advanced, industrialized liberal democracy. Apparently the maintenance/perpetuation of modernity is not compatible with right wing notions of 'liberty,' let alone libertarianism.

Areader Huntsville Jan. 10

The first libertarian I knew was a slum landlord who did not want the Government regulations concerning maintenance of apartments and the like. This seems like a common trait among the political group as I think libertarians are more interested in profit.

Peter CT Jan. 10

No one complains more loudly and more often about attempts to curtail his first amendment rights "guaranteed by the constitution," than my libertarian friend, who refuses to pay taxes, then expects the government he won't support to protect his freedoms. If you really miss those debate club arguments from jr. high school, go try to talk sense to some libertarians. For the rest of us, plain old Republicans are a perfectly adequate source of flawed reasoning.

Sophia chicago Jan. 11

@Mark Nuckols Wrong! Cutting tax rates on the wealthy are stealing from the rest of us. We make contributions every hour of every day which are hoovered up by the wealthy and the powerful. Meanwhile we cannot afford the cost of living, which has skyrocketed vs wages and benefits. The cost of an apartment is exorbitant. The cost of health care is exorbitant. Meanwhile the commons suffer. Infrastructure suffers. Sidewalks are a menace. There is lead in the water. Rich people who do not pay their fair share of taxes are stealing from the people in so many ways it's impossible to count them. But count them in years lost, in lives cut short, in lives blighted.

sapere aude Maryland Jan. 10

Republicans aren't against government, it has grown more under every Republican president including Reagan himself. They simply have their preferences as to who benefits from it.

Helena Princeton New Jersey Jan. 10

I'm surprised that the air traffic controllers haven't all called in sick. They have the collective power to bring air travel to a standstill. I've long felt that a general nationwide strike would finally get the attention of our corporate overlords. After all, all they care about is money--just like Trump and the GOP.

YoursTruly Pakistan Jan. 11 Times Pick

When two elephants fight, its the grass that gets uprooted. In this show of arrogance and egos its the lives of many ordinary Americans that is adversely affected. I only wish that this crisis comes to an end soon to the relief of many.

dpaqcluck Cerritos, CA Jan. 10

@jrinsc, exactly right with an academic exception. Adam Smith and his ideas of free market competition assumed that there would be large number of companies competing with each other with their sole means of competition being consumer satisfaction, price and employee efficiency. Anyone who couldn't compete went out of business, hence "free market". The government's only role is to enforce anti-trust laws to keep businesses small and competitive, and assure that the competitive triangle of business, labor, and consumer are kept in balance. Fundamentally big business is bad, always! What real "free markets" DO NOT include is the idea that a small number of huge companies pay the government to create a competition free environment. The term "free market" has been stolen to mean that companies can do anything they want to succeed, including creating laws with profitable loopholes, laws to inhibit labor participation in the competition, and laws that inhibit consumers from using fraud laws to suppress shoddy products. In reality there is no "free market", as @jrinsc said, except to mean that big companies are free to do whatever they want to be profitable.

PB USA Jan. 10

My first lecture in economics dealt with free. The professor, then the Chief Economist at the Cleveland Fed, made the point that nothing was free: no free lunch; no free air; no free love. The point that he made was that somebody always pays. For everything; maybe not you, not now; but somebody does. So every time that I hear this Republican rant about free markets, I begin to laugh.

White Buffalo SE PA Jan. 11

@dpaqcluck Adam Smith believed corporate entities needed to be regulated. something always left out.

J. Benedict Bridgeport, Ct Jan. 10

I am wondering if Mitch McConnell and his close Republican allies have been living off food stamps because it seems to me they all have been incredibly unproductive for years which he sights as a consequence of anyone using food stamps.

John California California Jan. 11

@Joel Sanders This is completely specious reasoning. There are any number of non-state food groups that compete to set, e.g., organic, standards for food... for their participants. And they can restrict anyone from using their seal of approval without meeting their requirements. What they can't do, and the State can, is to require tainted products to be removed from distribution. Having the power of the State depends on law that transcends private agreement. And in the case of food, drugs, highways, airlines, and a number of other avenues of social life, that strikes me as a valuable thing. Why is this SO difficult for you, Mr. Sanders?

James Lee Arlington, Texas Jan. 11

I once heard a conservative economist give a speech in which he denounced the FDA for its suppression of competition in the pharmaceutical industry. I asked him what would protect the consumer if the market replaced the Feds as regulator of new drugs. He responded that, if my wife died from the effects of a toxic drug, I could always sue the firm that produced it. I found this notion deeply comforting. I might lose my wife, but the drug company would have to compensate me with a pile of dollars, assuming I could prove its negligence. For this libertarian, a life and money weighed equally in the scales of justice.

Aubrey Alabama Jan. 10

The people who support libertarianism are like those who support biblical literalism (fundamentalism). The libertarians want to get rid of some laws and regulations but not all of them. Just the ones they don't like. Usually these are laws which make corporations and businesses sell clean and safe food, treat employees fairly, pay taxes, etc. The libertarians don't want to get rid of laws which help business, corporations, and the well-to-do. They want to be sure that Boeing, Lockheed, and others get cushy defense contracts, the petroleum companies get subsidies, Big Pharma gets to charge a lot for drugs, etc. It is just a new name for the same old playbook -- make things tough on the weak and poor -- those with dark skins, immigrants, etc. All the while being solicitous for the well-off and powerful. Religious literalist do the same -- pick out the Bible verses which support the desired message. Ignore those which don't. So many things don't change. We get give them a new name.

Stan Sutton Westchester County, NY Jan. 10

Actually, Krugman didn't confuse Libertarians and Republicans. He said that Republicans used Libertarian rhetoric but weren't true Libertarians, and he didn't accuse Libertarians of favoring Republican policies across the board.

RLiss Fleming Island, Florida Jan. 11

@Bill: See Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 11/9, which covers the Flint water crisis in depth. These people didn't even know they were drinking contaminated water until a health worker broke ranks and made it public. THEN nothing was done.....(Oh, the state provided bottled water for a while, to drink).... The children of Flint were suffering IRREVERSIBLE brain damage due to lead in the water.....would suing 20 years later fix that? AND why did this happen at all? The Republican governor of the state wanted to help his buddies make a lot of money....

DB NC Jan. 10

@Goodglud Excellent link! We need to call it what it is. No more reduce "regulations" which people hear as reducing red tape. Make them advocate to "reduce protections."

Red Sox, '04, '07, '13, '18, Boston Jan. 10

@AndyE, Berkley, MI: Nice turn on Jennings' corollary to Murphy's Law (the chances of the toast falling buttered side down on the carpet is directly proportional to the cost of the carpet).

Buck Santa Fe, NM Jan. 10

@Mamawalrus72 We are living Government by the Kochs now. We have been living Government by corporations for some time.

NM NY Jan. 10

Money talks louder than reason. So long as moneyed libertarians like the Koch Brothers buy political influence, they will purchase an agenda to benefit themselves at our expense.

Chris Toronto Jan. 10

"In the case of the party establishment, that agenda is about redistributing income up the scale, and in particular helping important donor interests. Republican politicians may invoke the rhetoric of free markets to justify cutting taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor, or removing environmental regulations that hurt polluters' profits, but they don't really care about free markets per se." Head of nail, meet hammer. The US used to be the world's beacon of democratic values. No longer. The political system has been severely corrupted by PACs, Super PACs, self-funding billionaire politicians, skewed campaign funding rules, cynical electoral manipulation, self-interest and a lack of statesmanship amongst the political classes. You'd think a credible third political party would be able to drive a bus straight through the middle of this division. Two choices, left or right, just can't be enough to sustain a democracy.

Richard NM Jan. 10

@Will Schmidt perlboy "We debated perfect markets ..." Like in engineering somebody would design a car without engine because there is no friction and you just have to give it a push to get around. I am so happy I am an engineer, forces me into reality.

Audrey Germany Jan. 11

"Knowing that the food you're eating is now more likely than before to be contaminated, does that potential contamination smell to you like freedom?" Exactly. One of the most thing I appreciated of being in the EU is a strong consumer protection and safety regulations. But I guess, it's to "socialist" for some. Let's wait and see how the UK consumers will enjoy post-Brexit "freedom".

Mike Albany, New York Jan. 10

In answer to to Bill from Michigan, the problem with food and water contamination is that it may take years to find out that the food or water is actually contaminated, and then additional time for the public to be informed. After all this time passes, the damage is already done and lives are irreversibly damaged. As an example, the FDA has very strict limits on the amount of mycotoxin and bacterial contamination in our food supply. While E. coli contamination may be detected due to severe acute health effects, the carcinogenic effects of mycotoxin contamination may not be detected in years. The Flint Michigan lead contamination occurred in 2014 and wasn't declared an emergency until two years later, when public health officials alerted the public in 2016. Although this was largely a local issue, the H.R. 4470, the Safe Drinking Water Act Improved Compliance Awareness Act, mandates that consumers be informed. So, personally I'd rather have the Federal Government be on the side of the public and not rely on greedy lawyers.

JRM Melbourne Jan. 11

@ebmem Republicans get in office and go to work to prove that Government doesn't work and is the problem. Government works fine as long as Republicans are not in charge. The sabotage any effort to resolve or solve a problem. They complain about the debt and deficit until they are in office and then they blow the budget to smithereens with invented reasons for war so they can enrich themselves. They are the problem, not Government.

SandraH. California Jan. 11

@Bill, good luck with that. If you survive long enough to sue--and if you can prove the source of your cancer or other illness--you'll find that personal injury lawsuits get you nowhere. The big boys always win. Your best remedy is prevention. Don't let yourself or your loved ones ingest or breathe toxins. Don't let toxins into your groundwater or soil. How do you do that without government regulation?

ben220 brooklyn Jan. 10

Today, medical expenses are stratospheric. Meanwhile, the conservative movement strangles the welfare state so that nearly everyone in the middle class (regardless of political affiliation) who wants to live on more than $900 a month must go through legalized fiscal contortions to be able to pay for adequate care.

Robert David South Watertown NY Jan. 11

@TM Exactly the correct response to libertarians. They like to talk about what "would" happen, as though lack of government were a theoretical that can be calculated. There are plenty of real world examples of what "would" happen. There are historical examples too, but they "would" be different, of course.

Socrates Downtown Verona. NJ Jan. 10

@Aubrey Excellent analogy, although we can also use a good old-fashioned term to describe these 'libertarians', 'conservatives' and religious types -- -- hypocrites ..... of the highest despicable order.

Buttons Cornell Toronto, Canada Jan. 11

What courts? Courts are set up, run by and paid for by government. No government means no court system. You, the little, dying from tainted food, up against a huge agricultural corporation with deep pockets. Libertarianism is a bully system. Those with the money win and the rest die. That's it.

george Iowa Jan. 11

@jrinsc How quickly we forget, of course sometimes it isn`t that we forget but rather our memory is clouded by the smoke from the fires set by vulture capitalism. Upton Sinclair The Jungle should be required reading for all congress critters and all incoming Presidents. The Jungle is a mirror to where todays American Nobility, the 21st century Robber Barons, would like to take us. A disposable population for profit.

HN Philadelphia, PA Jan. 10

Where you see Libertarians, I see people who are so self-unaware and entitled that they believe the only apt government subsidies are the ones that benefit them. Remember the ACA debate line - "keep government out of my medicare?" Most people have no idea of what the government does! What about the staunch GOP voters who nonetheless complain when the government doesn't provide immediate aid to them after a disaster, but hesitate when the aid is going to others? And do they comprehend that all disasters - even those claimed to be "natural" - are actually man made? And do those that value privacy and their right to do what they want - do they really think that corporations and businesses will keep their products fair and safe? No, because corporations and businesses take the short view, while fairness and safety - both of which contribute to the health of the nation and its people - take the long view. Libertarians and their ilk are self-entitled peoples who only think about the immediate impact on themselves and their wallets. They change their tunes quickly when government is needed to help their bottom line.

Independent the South Jan. 11

@Bill The idea is not to sue after you get sick but to prevent you from getting sick. And if you want to reduce deficits, vote for Democrats.

Son Of Liberty nyc Jan. 10

What people with GOP/libertarian leanings should realize is that government regulations were ONLY put into place in response to the horrifying abuses of laissez faire capitalism.

Elizabeth Moore Pennsylvania Jan. 11

@Bill You keep right on believing. THE FACTS ARE that people who would sell you contaminated food have ways of covering up all the evidence. Besides, they could always hide behind the fact that the USDA and FDA inspectors weren't working and "they didn't know" because of that. You would lose any lawsuit because the inspectors didn't reveal any problems and the business owner "did not know to the best of his/her knowledge." EVERYTHING would be blamed on the shutdown, and you would LOSE>

Nova yos Galan California Jan. 10

@Goodglud Yes, regulations are limitations on their freedom to pollute.

Mark Rubin Tucson, AZ Jan. 10

Boy howdy, but it's easy to spout the libertarian line when the FDA, FTC, SEC, EPA, etc. do what they do, day in and day out. Government succeeds quietly! Many post smack about what seem like excesses, while they enjoy safe food and drugs, modest limits on fraudsters, clean air and water, etc.: Now, maybe, we'll see what happens when those who mouth off get the freedom they have demanded for decades. With a months' long shutdown lives will be lost, but those who disparage the regulatory state might get their come-uppance. The coming months, if they involve a partial shutdown, will highlight the value government offers. Opportunities like this one don't appear often. This writer, for one, hopes it represents a crisis which won't be wasted.

gbb Boston, MA Jan. 10

Government in this country seems to me to be run pretty well. I wish that more businesses were run as well as the US Postal Service.

JS Boston Ma Jan. 11

@C Wolfe I made friends with Libertarian from Texas in college my freshman year. He got me to read Ayn Rand's Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. My first take was that Ayn Rand was a pretty weak writer and clearly had serious empathy issues to the point of being a bit creepy. My friend insisted that everyone should be self reliant and was responsible for their own destiny until the day he flunked out because his academically weak high school left him unprepared to survive in our highly selective college. I really felt sorry for him but he was so far behind I could not help him. I have no idea where he ended up.

Lawyermama Buffalo Jan. 10

As the saying goes, you never miss your water until your well runs dry. A very big part of me says this is the only way red states will learn how to stop biting the hand that feeds them: they've been blindly following a party that made no secret that it wished to "starve the beast". This is what it looks like. This new perspective has delighted me even as I worry for my friends, family and colleagues who are feeling the effects. I hope our nation survives this president and learns from the mistakes.

Jim Brokaw California Jan. 10

The problem I have with libertarian utopias is that 'the market' isn't going to work to address all conflicts. So you need to hire enforcement, since government isn't doing it... or are we keeping the courts? And if the courts rule for you, and the other party just refuses to pay, now you have to go get your payment. Good luck with that. It all seems likely to devolve into a 'might makes right' series of standoffs, until people band together into unified groups to collectively agree to a set of rules, and work together with those rules. Sounds a lot like government. Or you can just hire some soldiers and go take what you want. Dare the other guys to take it back. Sounds a lot like anarchy. Libertarians always seems to me like trying to cherry-pick what they like about government, what benefits them, and then dump the rest, the stuff that costs them but they can't see the benefit for. Maybe they'll understand better if they get some contaminated lettuce next time they go grocery shopping...

Pat Stonington, CT Jan. 11

@Bill Who exactly administers said courts that you would turn to for justice? Oh that's right, the government. I hope the irony is not lost on you. Libertarians seem to forgot that no man is an island to himself.

Steve Nirvana Jan. 10

The people I have met who (loudly) espouse libertarian ideas tend to be of three types - all of whom benefit from this philosophy at the expense of others: 1) wealthy heirs like tRump who don't want to pay their taxes since it reduces their ability to live large AND pass on a dynasty to their heirs. 2) those with the luck to obtain the particular skills and education that provide a secure job with high remuneration. (Yes, it is usually a lot of luck) 3) good looking women who are confident that they can latch on to one of those described in 1) or in a pinch, 2) 2) will complain bitterly when the job market shifts - as it did for many in computer science after the glory years of the 80s. 3) will complain if their lawyer doesn't get them a big enough divorce settlement and their looks will no longer give them a second chance. A good economic system works equally for all people, not just those benefiting as members of the lucky gene club.

Spiro Jetti Jan. 11

@Socrates Amen. Something also came to mind in reading your comment: Productive modern blue states subsidize receiving red states, who then, thanks to their outsize representation via the electoral college, bludgeon the blue states with red policies like deregulation and taking of health care etc. Like I am paying someone to punch me. "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

SunnyG Kentucky Jan. 10

We don't see the few inspectors who quietly keep our food safe, the EPA folks testing our air and rivers. The impact will be felt much later, and with no one to do the forensics, the story won't be told until well after the shutdown ends. I'm wondering how long the shutdown will last when visible folks start to go on strike. Will the federal employees who will perform the promised IRS, Food Stamp and farm distributions go to work, or ally themselves with their less visible brethren? With transportation, chaos will be most evident. After no paycheck on Friday, what if TSA doesn't shows or they picket Atlanta, OHare, JFK, SFO, IAD and DFW? Ditto for their compatriots in the Control Towers. Chaos. Who benefits? Perhaps we'll learn from Michael Cohen.

Rick Cedar Hill, TX Jan. 10

We as a nation are in this condition because the American character is one of greed, selfishness, one who does not think for himself/herself, and one that is controlled through fear. Maybe once our empire crumbles it will be divided into smaller countries that are easier to manage like the western European countries. I will move to one of the new countries that support a balanced budget, hates the concept of Citizens United and K Street lobbyists, wants to educate their masses, and provides healthcare for everyone rich and not so rich. An ignorant populous is easier to control and manhandle. The US is a good example.

Rima Regas Southern California Jan. 10

@hen3ry "It's fascinating to realize that McConnell, Pence, Trump, and the rest of the obnoxious crowd are getting paid by the government they want to drown." When you go the rest of the way you finally get a true sense of how perverted these people are.

javierg Miami, Florida Jan. 10

Thank you Dr. Krugman for a great perspective. It reminds me of the saying "be careful of what you wish for" ... for it may actually come true. Save for the sacrifice of many good Americans who depend on jobs and government benefits and the public in general, this may be the medicine those Republicans need to cure themselves of their hands off philosophy.

Ron Silverlake WA Jan. 11

@Bill I don't believe for a nano-second you would be willing to expose your family to contaminated or adulterated food on the chance you might be able sue someone after the fact. It could take you years and many thousands of dollars to get justice that way. There is a good reason we have agencies like the FDA. Many years before you were born, we in fact had the very situation you say you would be fine with. It was buyer beware for all foodstuffs. You could not trust food producers to put on the label what was actually in the can or bottle. Meat packers were packing and sending out absolute filth. If you want a hint of what it would be like here without these protective agencies, do a little research on food safety in China. It will make you sick when you see what the Chinese are exposed to.

Jody Quincy, IL Jan. 10

@C Wolfe Libertarian or not, in this country money is always more valued than human life. Again, it took Western Europe more than 2,000 years to become somewhat civilized and it will take this continent at least that long.

Thomas Zaslavsky Binghamton, N.Y. Jan. 10

@Eleanor How will you get around this? Reagan said, 'The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."'

Anne CA Jan. 10

Does the shutdown mean that government will stop collecting tax money while services are suspended? Does it work both ways?

Teresa MN Jan. 11

@ebmem I am an employee of Medicaid who sees countless fellow workers toil long after quitting time to cover the most people, with the least potential harm or burden to them, to get the best services and quality of life possible, AND doing all that earning maybe half the compensation of a comparable private sector position. It saddens me that even the program ensuring our loved ones - or ourselves! - have care at the end of life is not safe from this kind of bitter, distorted partisan anger.

James K. Lowden Camden, Maine Jan. 11

@Bill Two words for you: Blue Milk. Look it up. Food contamination is an old story, as old as tort law. The FDA was created because tort law was unequal to the task. If you think the modern day is different, how is that romaine lettuce lawsuit going for you? As far as I know, no one knows where the contamination came from, much less who to sue. The romaine situation illustrates another flaw in your libertarian fantasy. The individual harm is collectively huge but individually small. Any action -- preventive or retributive -- requires collective action. Which, actually, is what democracy is, and why democracy created the FDA.

Joe Glendale, Arizona Jan. 11

@Linda You said it, Linda. I just returned from Europe. And I could not believe again how much tastier the meat and produce was - not only in restaurants but in humble meals in the country. Commercial food produced in the United States is terrible, tasteless, and full of pernicious additives. Ma and Pa Kettle have become inured to it, and don't know any better.

Blue Moon Old Pueblo Jan. 11

@Wilbray Thiffault "Well, Mitch McConnell is not on the food stamp program, and he manages to be one of the most 'non productive' senators in the history of the US Senate." Correction: Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans are indeed on the food stamp program, the best one ever, and the government shutdown is not preventing them all from being paid. They will never give it up willingly.

Sunny NYC Jan. 10

Prof. Krugman says, "Meanwhile, the philosophy of the party's base is, in essence, big government for me but not for thee." I totally agree. It is indeed Trump and the Republican party who is disrupting the free market. The free market can be sustained only when it is run by smart and fair-minded people including top-notched economists and politicians. Otherwise, the socialism-monster would threaten and collapse the free market anytime. What I mean by 'the socialism-monster' is not the economies of Northern European countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, etc. Some Americans call their economies 'socialism', but that's very wrong; their economies are indeed one of the most advanced capitalistic systems. How can't they be? Capitalism in a sense started from there, i.e., the business markets of the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, etc. Only when capitalism is truly advanced can well-rounded safety nets exist. In any case, genuinely socialist countries such as North-Korea and China do not protect human rights and thus prohibit freedom. The real problem with Trump and his allies is that they offer the strongest momentum for socialism by killing the chance for developing truly healthy free market. Trump, with Putin, is turning the whole world back into the days of nationalism, ideologism, and colonialism. They all champion big , huge, monstrous government. If there is any American crisis, it is not border security but gun violence. But Trump underwrites the NRA.

[Jan 03, 2019] The Great Myth Of The Anti-War Left Exposed

If [neoliberal] left is understood as Clinton DemoRats, then it's just a second war party. Just look at Hillary. Such an anti-war hero.
Notable quotes:
"... For decades, a common myth pervading the American political arena has been that the left is anti-war. ..."
"... But they are as much opposed to war as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) – at least he is honest about his appetite for blood and desire for perpetual regime change, no matter who occupies the Oval Office. So, from where did this mendacity come? ..."
"... In 2008, the United States was entrenched in an election battle and two major wars – Afghanistan and Iraq. The Democrats portrayed themselves as the anti-war party, promising to correct the foreign disasters of the incumbent administration. Since then, it's as if former President George W. Bush never departed. The Democrats have championed military interventions, twiddled their thumbs under President Barack Obama, and nominated a hawk to lead the party in 2016. ..."
"... Today, the [neoliberla] left has united with the neoconservatives in opposition to President Donald Trump's decision to bring 2,000 troops home from Syria and potential plans to withdraw from Afghanistan. Because they loathe Trump so much and don't want him to be portrayed as a more peaceful president than his predecessor, leftists demand that U.S. forces permanently stay in the region, facing death or serious injury. ..."
"... Attempting to locate a handful of consistent anti-war Democrats is like trying to spot Vice President Mike Pence with a woman other than his wife at a restaurant: It's never going to happen. ..."
"... For the last century, virtually every war, invasion, and occupation have been given the stamp of approval by Democrats. President Woodrow Wilson dragged the U.S. into one of those wars-to-end-all- wars fiascos. President Harry Truman sent thousands of young men to their deaths in Korea, setting the stage for perpetual global interventionism. President Lyndon Baines Johnson escalated American involvement in Vietnam. The Democratic leadership approved of the Iraq War, and Obama destabilized an entire region, killed American citizens, and intensified the drone bombing campaign. ..."
"... Outside of Capitol Hill, the predominantly left-leaning mainstream media have never seen a war it didn't like. In the last two years alone, the vacuous TV commentators have employed the same two strategies: Demand action against Russia (eh, Paul Begala ?) and oppose President Trump for using diplomacy and other tactics to institute peace ..."
Jan 03, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Otto von Bismarck once said, "People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election." For decades, a common myth pervading the American political arena has been that the left is anti-war.

But they are as much opposed to war as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) – at least he is honest about his appetite for blood and desire for perpetual regime change, no matter who occupies the Oval Office. So, from where did this mendacity come?

In 2008, the United States was entrenched in an election battle and two major wars – Afghanistan and Iraq. The Democrats portrayed themselves as the anti-war party, promising to correct the foreign disasters of the incumbent administration. Since then, it's as if former President George W. Bush never departed. The Democrats have championed military interventions, twiddled their thumbs under President Barack Obama, and nominated a hawk to lead the party in 2016.

Progressives, the same ones who, under Republican administrations, routinely held massive anti-war rallies on days that ended in "y," have been eerily silent for the last ten years.

Today, the [neoliberla] left has united with the neoconservatives in opposition to President Donald Trump's decision to bring 2,000 troops home from Syria and potential plans to withdraw from Afghanistan. Because they loathe Trump so much and don't want him to be portrayed as a more peaceful president than his predecessor, leftists demand that U.S. forces permanently stay in the region, facing death or serious injury.

Is this a case of Freaky Friday politics, or has the left always been pro-war?

Anti-War Democrats, Please Stand Up

Attempting to locate a handful of consistent anti-war Democrats is like trying to spot Vice President Mike Pence with a woman other than his wife at a restaurant: It's never going to happen.

Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the man who switches from Independent to Democrat when it suits the occasion, has come out of the closet on occasion as a hawk. In addition to supporting the so-called Little War in Kosovo in the 1990s, Sanders revealed to ABC News in September 2015 that the U.S. could use its military forces when not attacked and apply sanctions on adversaries.

For the last century, virtually every war, invasion, and occupation have been given the stamp of approval by Democrats. President Woodrow Wilson dragged the U.S. into one of those wars-to-end-all- wars fiascos. President Harry Truman sent thousands of young men to their deaths in Korea, setting the stage for perpetual global interventionism. President Lyndon Baines Johnson escalated American involvement in Vietnam. The Democratic leadership approved of the Iraq War, and Obama destabilized an entire region, killed American citizens, and intensified the drone bombing campaign.

Outside of Capitol Hill, the predominantly left-leaning mainstream media have never seen a war it didn't like. In the last two years alone, the vacuous TV commentators have employed the same two strategies: Demand action against Russia (eh, Paul Begala ?) and oppose President Trump for using diplomacy and other tactics to institute peace.

So, how exactly is the left anti-war?

The Born-Again Right

When it comes to foreign policy, there are now three wings of the GOP: hawks, doves, and those who realize the doctrine of the last 20 years has failed.

One of the biggest surprises since Trump's election is that the right has become increasingly more cautious about seeking dragons to slay and erecting Old Glory on every plot of land in the world. House Republicans have slashed foreign aid in the billions, Senate Republicans have voted to end America's role in Yemen's humanitarian crisis, and prominent figures in the White House have asked one simple question: Why should the United States be the policeman of the world?

Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to the president, recently dismantled the hawkish Counterfeit News Network when he told Wolf Blitzer:

"What I'm talking about, Wolf, is the big picture of a country that through several administrations had an absolutely catastrophic foreign policy that cost trillions and trillions of dollars and thousands and thousands of lives and made the Middle East more unstable and more dangerous. And let's talk about Syria. Let's talk about the fact -- ISIS is the enemy of Russia. ISIS is the enemy of Assad. ISIS is the enemy of Turkey. Are we supposed to stay in Syria generation after generation, spilling American blood to fight the enemies of all those countries?"

Had Obama uttered these fiery remarks in '08, they would have been the headline for many outlets that covered the interview. Instead, The Washington Post reported, " Wolf Blitzer tells Stephen Miller to 'calm down' during heated interview ." The Huffington Post ran with this headline: " CNN's Wolf Blitzer Tells Stephen Miller to 'Calm Down.' "

Comments that should draw praise from the left have been met with mockery and scorn.

US Foreign Policy

H.L. Mencken was right when he said that "every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." There is no other area in government that should instill more shame in the population than foreign policy.

The political theater of sending young men and women overseas to fight in wars is a tragicomedy: a comedy for those who don't have to wield a weapon and a tragedy for those who do. It is easy and comfortable for politicians and pundits, a paltry few of whom have ever done any of the fighting, to shout platitudes as if they were reincarnated John Waynes.

It's clear that politicians of all stripes have blood on their hands. The only difference is that some policymakers showcase this human flesh with pride, while others pretend to be benevolent. Trump's foreign policy has not been perfect, but it has been far superior to what has transpired over the years. To rebuke the president's withdrawal of soldiers in an NPC-like manner makes you complicit to atrocity.

[Dec 30, 2018] Summer- Rerun- Journey into a Libertarian Future- Part I The Vision

You can find original interview at using the lisnk above, or if it disappeared, in Humor section of this site
Notable quotes:
"... I will say that, just as Marxism provides an essential way of examining capitalism, libertarianism provides a filter for examining and criticizing stateist impulses. But a society organized around libertarian principles, just silly. ..."
"... The one thing libertarians want desperately to ignore is that imposing their vision of an utopian society is that while no one is "coerced" and will have equal rights, the inequalities that exist today will be cemented into society. ..."
"... Thus Spake Zarathustra, ..."
Dec 30, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

The interview was skilled for obvious reasons ;-)


Synoia , December 27, 2018 at 3:47 pm

What puzzles me about the Libertarian Dream is their ability to ignore the Dark Ages in Western Europe.

It fulfills all their requirements, and by what accounts survive, was remarkably unsuccessful. Life was poor, nasty, brutish and short.

I've has the discussion of rule of law with libertarians, and it went like this:

Lb: We could have a farming society without rule of law.
Me: How are disputes resolved?
Lb: We all get together and resolve the dispute.
Me: How is the dispute resolution enforced?
Lb: Everybody agrees to the resolution.
Me: What happens if some do not agree? What happens if someone cheats?
Lb: ..
Me: We've used this mechanism before, Hatfields vs McCoy' in the US, and Campbells Vs McDonalds in Scotland.
Lb: ..

Those who don't know their History, are condemned to repeat it.

Winston Churchill in his "History of the English Speaking Peoples" refers to the desire of the People in England to have "The King's Peace," otherwise known as "The Rule of Law" with all it's apparatus, Police, Courts, etc.

The Libertarians appear to want "Rule by the Rich and Powerful" and do not understand that that includes few, if any, of the current libertarians, except perhaps for the Koch Brothers.

Sleeping Dog , December 30, 2018 at 9:05 am

In the 90's when encountering a want-to-be business tycoon spouting Libertarian nonsense, I would encourage them to seek their fortune in Somalia, where no government existed.

I will say that, just as Marxism provides an essential way of examining capitalism, libertarianism provides a filter for examining and criticizing stateist impulses. But a society organized around libertarian principles, just silly.

Synoia , December 27, 2018 at 3:55 pm

Tom DiLorenzo pointed out on the Lew Rockwell website that the crisis was actually the result of the government forcing banks to make risky loans to low-income borrowers.

Oh the poor banks, forced to loan money for houses aka: The Brer Rabbit Loan Origination philosophy.

"Forced "the banks were not. They juiced the bankruptcy laws, and bundle up the loans and sold then to a willing set of buyers, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, "Government Corporations", who were re-nationalized when they fell into trouble.

The Bank's happily took the loan origination fees, and survived when they were then "forced" to accept Government bail outs.

Why some senior bank executives even took a cut in Bonuses – the misery of it all! /s

rob , December 27, 2018 at 7:47 pm

That was the first thing that leaped out at me too. Are you kidding? the banks were "forced" by the government where to start with that one? The only thing that fits was said here not to long ago. " arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. They just knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and strut around like they won anyway."

RP , December 27, 2018 at 4:24 pm

The one thing libertarians want desperately to ignore is that imposing their vision of an utopian society is that while no one is "coerced" and will have equal rights, the inequalities that exist today will be cemented into society. Until someone can explain to me what my recourse is when my right to breathe clean air and drink clean water or to speak my mind freely is destroyed by a polluter or someone who doesn't like what I have to say, I will view libertarianism as the worst of all possible worlds.

Amfortas the hippie , December 28, 2018 at 6:54 am

when i was still on faceborg, years ago, I would often be confronted by wandering libertarians.
one way to send them into conniptions was to say, "fine. let's run your experiment of lawlessness and "freedom" but first, in order to adhere to good experimental methodology, shouldn't we first redistribute the wealth?"
a race hardly proves anything if it's between a fighter jet and a rickshaw.
the resulting frothing fits were entertaining. They believe that they are paragons of logical thinking as opposed to us silly lefties.
and , like the neoreactionaries that threaten to take their place in corporate philosophy, they seem to believe that they will naturally be the Lords of the Manor.
Libertarians hate to hear about Rawls' Veil of Ignorance.

JimK , December 27, 2018 at 4:58 pm

Cain's libertarian views have the depth and breadth of a bunch of mutually contradictory bumper stickers. The views lack a grasp of system interactions and impacts, and display a narrow rigid simplicity that neglects scads of important social, economic and environmental factors. The views are so inept it makes me wonder, was this interview satire?

Yves Smith , December 27, 2018 at 5:54 pm

The interview is based on the works of Hans-Hermann Hoppe; the parts in red either links or when they have numbers, direct quotes with page references.

Anarcissie , December 28, 2018 at 10:27 am

In my experience (from Usenet days, mostly) libertarians vary quite a bit in their views. Mr. Hoppe's seem to be of the anarcho-capitalist flavor, similar to David Friedman's, but many libertarians would disagree with them and some would say they are crazy. Libertarianism seems to be a tendency, an attitude, a sensibility, rather than an explicit set of principles cast in the form of propositions and rules. It is more aesthetic than logical, in spite of the way they regard themselves; see Thus Spake Zarathustra, on 'the coldest of all cold monsters' for a taste.

In regard to libertarianism on the ground: as with other marginal ideologies, there have been some experiments; for example, there was a project of getting libertarians to move to some county in New Hampshire where their numbers would enable them to have some influence on the social order and its government. None that I know about have been very successful.

Lambert Strether , December 28, 2018 at 12:55 am

> The views are so inept it makes me wonder, was this interview satire?

The interview is satire, but as you can imagine, libertarianism is extremely hard to satirize; the author faced technical challenges in making the self-ownage even more obvious than it already is.

Karen , December 27, 2018 at 6:03 pm

Is this a joke?

Lambert Strether , December 28, 2018 at 12:57 am

More perhaps a caper, frolic, or prank -- of which are extended in time with no single punchline (except for the running gag of "in a rights-respecting manner"). It's satirical.

rob , December 27, 2018 at 6:49 pm

I have to admit that nowadays when someone says they are a libertarian, my 1st assumption is that they are an idiot, who doesn't realize they are just a tool for the republican/neoliberal overlords/industrialists who just want to go back to pre-regulatory and pre-taxation years as were 120 years ago.Back when snake oil salesmen were free to peddle their wares, any how they saw fit.
Thirty years ago, being a libertarian at least had some logic behind it. they were anti- drug war and anti- police state and things that actually make sense. They realized there had to be SOME laws, and Some civic responsibility.
anyone who has crazy ideas like this today are actual and factual "conspiracy theorists". Talk about crazy. There isn't any substance here to refute . this is all total BS.
Again, we find the "information age" taken up by peoples opinions of "fact" that are pure propaganda.

Telee , December 27, 2018 at 8:00 pm

I've had close contact with libertarians. One is a medical doctor. A primary goal is to eliminate democracy entirely. The people would have no input in determining the conditions under which they live. A market unpreturbed by taxes and regulations would yield the most optimum rusults which benefit the society. People who are lazy and who lack ambition, which is proven by their low economic status, would be isolated and cast aside into favelas because they are undeserving of anything better. The greatest threat is not global warming, or the threat of nuclear war but tyranny. He and his son are armed and expect to be able to defeat the government when the time comes. Based on a discussion where I used the term social justice, the good doctored recoiled and said social justice is communism. He was also against helping ( I suppose via the givernment) victims of natural catastrophies such as floods, hurricanes, fires, earth quakes etc. When asked what kind of society would result from these beliefs, they don't have a clue except to say that when one persues a just and moral cause the outcome is of no consequence. When asked about global warming they emphasized their right to have all the plastic straws they want. A tyrannical government imposing rules is the greatest threat.

All very logical. Yes? Another doctor, my primary care physician welcomes global warming because he thinks we can deal with it very easily and feels that it is most fortunate that we don't have global cooling.

Another retired doctor I talk to expressed the view that all Muslim mosques in the US should be blown up and all Muslims should leave the country or be killed.

And these are the intelligent people!

Lambert Strether , December 28, 2018 at 1:00 am

Do you remember their specialties? (I assume these are specialists.)

Telee , December 28, 2018 at 9:50 am

All doctors to which I referred are primary care physicians.

rob , December 27, 2018 at 8:07 pm

hell no!
But they have a different "schtik" .. like cinton/obama doing the same thing but they use different words . appealing to different people.
for clarity, i suppose I should have used some better punctuation.
"republican/neoliberal" meaning "the deregulation crowd"
""overlords/industrialist" meaning the powers that be who make money in manufacturing and other related industries who have liabilities in relation to their waste/pollution disposal, working conditions,safety standards/practices/costs,etc . who are the funders of this type of propaganda.
I have no illusions that the deregulation gang didn't gain ascension to our gov't as of late; with carter, and has been in EVERY administration since.

eg , December 27, 2018 at 10:38 pm

The absence of a thriving libertarian polity across all human history and geography implies a fundamental incompatibility with human nature.

My guess is that any human group which tries it is simply destroyed and/or absorbed by neighbouring human groups which employ more effective arrangements (whatever defects those particular arrangements may have).

Libertarians aren't much for empiricism, I suppose .

Ape , December 28, 2018 at 4:02 am

Most of the last 10k years are feudal and libertarianism is just feudalism. Even the Roman states were mostly run on a private law basis – aka libertarianism. Mass slavery, citizenship limited to an elite who personally acted as enforcers, courts and legislators.

Libertarianism is the perennial philosophy, horribly compatible with human nature.

eg , December 28, 2018 at 7:06 pm

Perhaps I am guilty of confusing libertarian with anarchist.

Ape , December 29, 2018 at 6:53 am

Anarchism is quite distinct. It worked for about a million years. It's just not compatible with scalable technologies/economies.

kees_popinga , December 28, 2018 at 8:36 am

It's interesting that this post is generating separate comment threads 7 years apart. I started reading the 2011 comments thinking they were current and was immediately struck by the thoroughness and passion of the debate, occurring around the time of the Obamacare rollout and closer to the 2008 crash. Possibly more people had a stake in libertarianism back then and found this interview threatening? In any event, one thing common to both threads is the tendency not to recognize the interview as satire. Compliments to Mr. Dittmer for his enduring dry wit (even though the internet makes irony hard to recognize).

redleg , December 28, 2018 at 5:58 pm

The security GLOs would encounter Gresham's Dynamic, eventually collecting the premiums and never following up on claims.

d , December 29, 2018 at 5:36 pm

so what happens when the GLOs from different customers are pulled into a battle between them? and how does this work when some one who hired them to protect them dies from a business ?

[Dec 23, 2018] I suggest Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard for SECDEF

Dec 23, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

" ... born April 12, 1981) is an American politician of the Democratic Party serving as the U.S. Representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district since 2013. She was also a Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee until February 28, 2016, when she resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. Elected in 2012, she is the first Samoan American member and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress .

Gabbard served in a field medical unit of the Hawaii Army National Guard in a combat zone in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and was later deployed to Kuwait. She previously served in the Hawaii House of Representatives from 2002 to 2004. When she was elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives at age 21, Gabbard was the youngest woman to be elected to a U.S. state legislature." wiki

------------

Major Gabbard, ARNG served in Iraq, is a woman, a Democrat, a person of color, a non-interventionist, a Hindu and a Pacific Islander of Samoan descent. What could be better?

If that thought fails I suggest Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee as back-ups. pl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

Posted at 10:14 AM in government , Politics | Permalink

Reblog (0)


English Outsider , a day ago

I have followed Tulsi Gabbard off and on since 2016. Some blogs attack her mercilessly but she has a consistent approach, is admirably composed when under attack, and is one of the most courageous American politicians I've seen. That she is still there is achievement enough, though it would be good to see the sort of politics in the West in which such people could be in office.
JJackson , a day ago
While I would be delighted to see Gabbard as SecDef is there any chance she would get Senate Confirmed? From what I have heard from her she seems to have a realistic understanding of the World which would seem to bar her from the job.
Pat Lang Mod -> JJackson , a day ago
Defeatist!
Patrick Armstrong , a day ago
Sounds good to me. Then she can become the first female POTUS (assuming actual scientific genders are still allowed) after Trump's 2nd term. (El Trumpissimo should have offered her the VP job, IMO.) (Meanwhile, we in Canada will be all agog about Trudeau III. Unless Comrade Lang establishes residence and votes the entire Trudeau spawn out forever.) Ah well, we can dream.
Eugene Owens , 2 days ago
She has my endorsement. Selecting Gabbard would explode some heads in Washington on both sides. Although I think she would make a better replacement for National Security Adviser. Send the Mustache of Idiocy back to the AEI.
The Porkchop Express , a day ago
Brilliant ! Borg hates her, though. And not just because of her foreign policy views. She resigned as vice chair (if I recall correctly) of the DNC, particularly after being christened as the next Obama-like Dem pol, because she felt the DNC was being completely unfair to Bernie Sanders and I think it was well before anything came out in the news about what was happening. I'd love to see it but she angers the political class almost as much as Trump. Fingers crossed, though !
Fred -> The Porkchop Express , 11 hours ago
She was smart is leaving. The DNC seems to be in some recurring trouble with multiple state parties and Obama's OFA.
https://www.huffingtonpost....
The Porkchop Express -> Fred , 10 hours ago
Fred

One hundred percent. In particular, the absolute balls it took to do that knowing the flaming wreckage that would be thrown her way. Says a lot about her character--ideology aside.

The Dems have not had the reckoning like the Rs did in 2016, but it's coming. To say nothing of the full airing of grievances between the Obama and Clinton camps. I read there is going to be something like 19 Dem debates, some in 2019 and some in 2020. I'm willing to wager it'll be far more nasty than the clown show the Rep. nomination was in 2016.

Eric Newhill , a day ago
Gabbard would be an excellent choice, but she'd never do it. Can't be a Democrat and be that closely associated with the Orange Devil! Trump should pardon Flynn and then appoint him as Sec Def. Really demonstrate his independence from the swamp. That move just might cause enough heart attacks and strokes that the swamp would be drained in 48 hours.
TTG , a day ago
Gabbard is well suited to support the implementation of a non-interventionist policy. I think she would do well as SecDef, but would she take it? Trump's best course of action now is to conduct a quiet search and get a firm commitment before announcing any possible candidates. Otherwise we'll see a repeat of the search for a new Chief of Staff.
Guess who? -> TTG , a day ago
Reason-able indeed. Gagged to watch Michael R. Gordon last night on PBS news hour plant uber-neocon Sen. Cotton as the likely choice. (without mentioning that Cotton has been even more hawkish on Syria than Mattis...) Rand Paul is an interesting backup suggestion, esp. as I was puzzled he caved and went along with Pompeo for SoS. In any case, what an overdue change of course that any of the above suggestions would signal.
Britam -> TTG , a day ago
Sir;
It would depend on what Gabbard sees as her ultimate goal. Being Secretary of Defense, under any President, would be a real career boost. Dealing with Trump would also toughen her up for waht I see as her eventual Armageddon level conflict with the Democratic National Committee if she aspires to higher office. There is also the chance that the Republican Party might try to 'poach' her from the Democrat Party. Even if Trump serves two full terms as President, she will still be young enough and tough enough to run for the top spot, from either party.
Barbara Ann -> Britam , 5 hours ago
Her ultimate goal will be release from Saṃsāra. In the meantime a career boost will doubtless be attractive, but only if accompanied by good Karma. Vice-chair of the DNC met the first criterion, but it appears she resigned when it failed to meet the latter. People who value their Karma are rare in life and all the more so in politics. She is an exotic flower to be sure.
EEngineer , 2 days ago
I've been watching her for years.She's been a vocal critic of the imperial project and the occupation of Syria from the beginning. I expect we'll see her make a run for the brass ring in 2024. Thumbs up.
Artemesia -> EEngineer , a day ago
Watched Kiersten Nielsen take a beating from retrograde congressmen yesterday on immigration, border protection, etx.; she never lost her composure -- well, maybe one tiny retort.

If Gabbard has half the presence of Nielsen, the American people -- and women -- can feel proud of their leaders. Again.

exSpec4Chuck , a day ago
I believe she'd be a good SecDef, but I fear that her taking that position in the Trump administration would derail the potential she has for making a huge positive impact on the US political system. I would much rather see her announce early her candidacy for president in 2020 on the Democratic ticket. Hopefully Bernie Sanders will recognize that his age will be a serious impediment and will repay her support in 20016 by passing his torch (and mailing list) on to her for 2020. The Democratic Party needs an enema in the worst way and no one is in a better position to administer it than Gabbard.
Patrick Armstrong -> exSpec4Chuck , a day ago
Too soon. She'll lose to Trump. Next time. And the Dims have to have the craziness burnt out of them by another loss.
Lauren Johnson -> Patrick Armstrong , a day ago
Seems to me they are getting paid to lose -- like the losers in pro-wrestling.
FarNorthSolitude -> exSpec4Chuck , 11 hours ago
I agree that taking the position would probably ruin her chances going forward by association with Trump but I also believe the Presidential run is too soon. If Sanders health remains strong I think a Sanders/Gabbard ticket would win and set up a Gabbard run in 2024. I know of diehard Trump fans that would vote Sanders. Many working class are waking up to the raw deals they are getting.
Chris Chuba , 2 days ago
Excellent choice for that or any position in the Trump Administration but ... 1. not a doormat, 2. not a neocon, lunatic.

Trump will eventually surround himself with Wormtongue types (from Lord of the Rings). Neocons like Bolton who know that they will not always get their way but want to be in the Throne room to poison his mind with flattery and have a chance to get the glorious war they crave so much. He will likely appoint someone like Tom Cotton or Gen. Jack Keane. That is not what I want but that is what I expect.

MP98 , a day ago
AND she's a FOX !!
A Tette , a day ago
hear! hear!
georgeg , a day ago
Would she be able to stand up to the neocon claptrap?.....
Lauren Johnson , 2 days ago
Would she be able to genuinely lead or be treated like a foreign body and walled off?
Fredko , 2 days ago
Agree. She's almost the lone voice against ME policy especially re Syria. Gets no pub. The Borgists would stomp all over her. Think DT ever heard of her?
RaisingMac -> Fredko , 17 hours ago
Trump interviewed her once already back in 2016: https://www.washingtontimes...
Lauren Johnson -> Fredko , a day ago
He interviewed her during his transition period.
Richard Barber , a day ago
And Rep. Gabbard, being stupid, would take the job if offered. That's really the only reason I can think of that she would.

[Dec 22, 2018] How the Gulf War Gave Us the Antiwar Right The American Conservative

Dec 22, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

about:blank

The recent veneration of George H.W. Bush has been wonderfully uplifting, especially as it recalled his cautious use of persuasion and honest argument.

Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's former speechwriter, beautifully described Bush's funeral in the Wall Street Journal as reminding us of our dignity and "re-summoning our mystique." The event, Noonan said, harkened back to when America was respected and admired, generous and "expected to do good." President Bush, she noted, had presided over the collapse of the Soviet Union diplomatically and without humiliating Russia's leaders or its people. He also declined to occupy a Muslim country after defeating Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Bush was indeed a very decent man. In fact, he was a great statesman, as TAC 's editor Jim Antle has noted on these pages.

Yet almost none of the news reported on what was the darkest chapter of his legacy: the First Gulf War. I was a co-founder at the time of a small and vastly outgunned opposition group of conservatives and (mainly) libertarians, the Committee to Avert a Mid-East Holocaust . Today, with at least a million Arabs, Afghans, and Americans dead from the unending chaos the United States unleashed in the Muslim world, the name seems very appropriate.

Our group included truly great conservatives: Henry Regnery, almost the only publisher of conservative books, who helped keep liberty alive during the dark days of the 1940s and '50s, along with the always brave Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran. Regnery and Buchanan were the main contributors to our group. But we were a virtual who's who of the incipient libertarian movement: Ron Paul, the once and future Texas congressman who would eventually gain a wider following as a presidential candidate; Lew Rockwell, his former congressional staffer; the economist Murray Rothbard; Bill Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute; Sheldon Richman, longtime editor at FEE ; Justin Raimondo, who would go on to be a co-founder at Antiwar.com ; and Burt Blumert, who helped fund much of Rothbard and Raimondo's work.

Our chair and guide was Phil Nicolaides , former deputy director at Voice of America during the Reagan era. The executive committee included myself, Richman, Sobran, and chess champion Phil Collier. Fran Griffin, a strong Catholic and founding member of Young Americans for Freedom, did tremendous work for almost no pay handling our mail-outs and administration with her company Griffin Communications.

In those days, communication consisted of direct mail, while most of the media just accepted pro-war government handouts. If only we'd the internet! We did get some news coverage but of course we were no match for Kuwaiti money and evangelical supporters of Israel. Still, the Senate vote in favor of the war was only 52-47, despite the overwhelming propaganda in favor of it as described below.

The war led to a major break between libertarians and conservatives , especially as the giant Heritage Foundation became a champion of war from that moment on. Even today, Heritage has backed continued U.S. support for the Saudi bombing of Yemen.

Much about the Gulf War and especially its lies and subsequent brutality were not reported. Bush himself may not have known all that took place in the military campaign. After all, Dick Cheney, whom we know now to be a liar, was his secretary of defense. But the deeds need to be remembered and indeed researched.

Not Taking Out Saddam Was George H.W. Bush's Finest Hour The Year the Iraq War Truly Ended

Particularly odious was the calculated destruction of Iraq's sanitation, irrigation, and electrical grid, with the intent of causing mass civilian disease and starvation, as specified in a Defense Intelligence Agency report. It would have been interesting to find out who ordered this policy. Reconstruction supplies were then blockaded over the following nine years, including during the Clinton presidency. The consequent half million deaths of children were deemed acceptable by Clinton's former secretary of state Madeleine Albright in this famous 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl. Osama bin Laden later listed civilian suffering in Iraq as one of the three reasons for his subsequent terrorist attack on America.

Public support for the war was in part ginned up by the infamous "incubator babies" lie and claims that aerial photographs showed 200,000 Iraqi soldiers waiting along the border to invade Saudi Arabia. Indeed, the reason given to Americans for sending troops was to protect the Saudis.

The Christian Science Monitor and LA Times reported later how it was untrue and that such photographs never existed. Photos of the border showed no troops congregated there. The Defense Department claimed the photos were secret and never released them even after the war.

Such misinformation is critical if you're trying to get America into a war. Remember the British propaganda that got us into the First World War? A repeated story was that German soldiers were eating Belgian babies. In the second Iraq war, it was lies that Saddam had aided bin Laden and was developing nuclear "weapons of mass destruction."

Kuwait's ruling family spent billions of dollars and paid for top public relations in Washington. I remember particularly the yearly CPAC meeting when the Kuwaitis paid for a dozen tables to be filled with students to cheer for war. Saddam was sending cash bequests to the families of Palestinian terrorists whom Israel had killed, so pro-Israel forces in Washington also supported the war, though they were less important to the lobbying effort than Kuwait.

Nevertheless, the United States initially hesitated to go to war. There was the meeting of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, with Saddam Hussein during which she told him that inter-Arab quarrels were not the concern of the United States government . A top State Department official told Congress the same thing. The ambassador strangely disappeared from the news after the war started.

Then there was President Bush's rather casual attitude about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Only after he met with British Prime Minister Thatcher and faced the vast pro-war publicity campaign did he change his mind. Thatcher was very alarmed because Kuwait's vast deposits in British banks were important for their solvency. She feared Iraq might continue threatening other Gulf states and their bank deposits. She insisted and begged America to save Kuwait. Bush than organized a United Nations Security Council vote to condemn Iraq and a coalition that included many Arab nations. He did it with full international legality (unlike his son's subsequent war) and above all he got our allies to pay for the war. There was massive support in America for the operation.

Bush's national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, later opposed the younger Bush's attack on and subsequent occupation of Iraq in 2003. He understood well the limits of power and the importance of having allies -- something the next President Bush cared little about.

Jon Basil Utley is publisher of .

about:blank


David Nash December 20, 2018 at 10:29 pm

Actually, George H. W. Bush only looks good next to the Current Occupant (of the Oval Office).

I, too, can remember his Presidency, and even his candidacy, when he authorized the use of those Willie Horton ads. (Which contributed both to the rise of the alt-right and the BLM movements.)

I recall his first candidacy,k when he was opposed to "voodoo economics" before he was all for it.

One need not lay out any secret cabal when he was in office as indicative of his character. It was on full display long before. And it had nothing to do with a "kinder, gentler America", only with the pursuit of power at any cost to integrity or honor.

EliteCommInc. , says: December 21, 2018 at 3:43 am
Look there are valid reasons to challenger the first gulf war. It was strictly a debate between Iraq and Kuwait. Historical issues and the matter of supplemental dollars for what Iraq believed was a defense against the Iranian revolution.

But unlike the last invasion the First Gulf effort was largely supported even by Gulf States. Stop dreaming up libertarian fantasies about Sen rand Paul. Libertarian anti-war effort. As for PM thatcher's fears – the Iraqi invasion did not budge the price of oil. This was a dispute between two neighbors and nothing more.

But it was the international effort that made the case. And it was not just Israel. It was limited to one goal,pushing Iraqi troops back into Iraq proper.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
The valid critiques on Pres. Bush, Sr. are those in the above comments about economics and "Willie Horton."

The case against iraq in the second effort was very clear.

Iraq had invaded no one

Had nothing to do with 9/11

No evidence the wmd in any viable state

No evidence that the weapons inspectors were not accomplishing their mission.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -

I didn't hear a peep from the likes of your clique about challenging the war in Afghanistan. That was an effort that would have demonstrated some serious unnecessary anti-war thinking. Some intellectual work in examining the issues and the consequence. The internet was alive and well during the Afghanistan advance --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- –

There is a difference between being anti-war and being opposed to unnecessary military efforts. Libertarians trying to hide in the minutia of being anti-war as they savage their fellow citizens with their immigration no borders nonsense, selling marijuana -- a tax boon no where in sight in Colorado, Ca., or anywhere else, now want to unleash their carelessness on heroin, cocaine, and hashish.

Tony , says: December 21, 2018 at 6:37 am
This article is superb as it gives the reader a good insight into the lies that promoted that war as well as its horrific consequences.

"The Defense Department claimed the photos were secret and never released them even after the war."

"If Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn." as Lawrence Korb said at the time.

That is probably because they did not exist.

The burying alive of Iraq conscripts was also a matter of deep concern.

Ed , says: December 21, 2018 at 10:31 am
Bush talked about Dukakis's prison furloughs, and his campaign did produce and ad about them, but the famous Willie Horton ad was produced by an independent PAC. It was done on Bush's behalf, and Lee Atwater was all in favor of making Horton an issue, but so far as is known, Bush didn't authorize or approve the well-known ad himself.

_________

I wonder if it would have been possible for antiwar conservatives (and conservatives critical of trade and immigration policy) to mainstream their concerns. As it was, many tended to become trapped in paleocon land, arguing forever that they were further to the right than the others, and embracing some embarrassing ideas and historical icons.

You may recall John O'Sullivan's law – any organization that isn't explicitly expressly right-wing will become left-wing over time. But the corollary seems to be that critical or unorthodox movements on the right tend to get boxed into being "more conservative than thou" and losing access to the centrist mainstream.

Whatever the current orthodoxy is appropriates the conservative label, and dissenters either move to left or the far right.

Conservatives and liberals both have a great diversity of opinion, but it seems like politics today are so polarized and binary that it's impossible for those of divergent opinions to be on the same side or at more or less the same place on the political spectrum.

One side is always going to be accused of being sell-outs to the enemy or of being on the lunatic fringe.

Ryan W , says: December 21, 2018 at 12:10 pm
I'm inclined to make a distinction between the "jus ad bellum" and the "jus in bello" aspects of the Gulf War. I think I can say that I lean heavily anti-war in general, but I do think the Gulf War was justified. Even if it's true that America and others wouldn't have intervened in a case where the countries involved were small and unimportant, I don't think the answer would be to also refuse to intervene in the case at hand. There's a great value in upholding the principle that countries can't forcibly annex land from each other. Also, it's hard to believe that Saddam Hussein would have settled down and minded his own business. It's more likely that the lack of pushback from his Kuwait invasion would have encouraged further adventurism.

None of that is to defend the way the war was actually conducted. It's just to suggest that the preferable alternative would have been to wage the war more ethically rather than not to wage it at all.

Jim Bovard , says: December 21, 2018 at 5:11 pm
Excellent piece! Thanks for all you have done for peace for decades, Jon!
dbrize , says: December 21, 2018 at 6:24 pm
ElitCommInc appears to have a requisite necessity to interject "Sen rand Paul" into articles that don't even mention him. C'est la vie.

As regards Afghanistan, I confess to having not a clue what is meant by " some serious unnecessary anti-war thinking" but as I remember those days, while there was general support for getting Bin Laden there were voices in the libertarian/paleoconservative movement that argued for a special forces operation, a quit hit and not a full out occupation force.

Marijuana legalization has nothing to do with the article though I suppose those awful libertarians also "savage" their fellow citizens with the sale of adult beverages as well. C'est la vie.

Connecticut Farmer , says: December 21, 2018 at 6:56 pm
I reluctantly got on board with the first Gulf War and about all that can be said that's positive is that Bush Sr. at least endorsed a limited objective i.e. get Iraq out of Kuwait. Not so that brain-dead son of his who was taking his orders from his VP.

[Dec 22, 2018] The Great War Christmas Truce 'They Were Positively Human' The American Conservative

Dec 22, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

about:blank

The Great War Christmas Truce: 'They Were Positively Human' For a brief moment in 1914, the guns went silent and the men risked court martial to play soccer, smoke and sing---with the other side. By Hunter DeRensis December 21, 2018

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=347697165243043&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2Fj-GHT1gpo6-.js%3Fversion%3D43%23cb%3Df29b30aafa7579%26domain%3Dwww.theamericanconservative.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%252Ff2220b4b3c27038%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=lucida%20grande&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fthe-great-war-christmas-truce-they-were-positively-human%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=true&show_faces=false&width=125

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.d30011b0f5ce05b98f24b01d3331b3c1.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fthe-great-war-christmas-truce-they-were-positively-human%2F&related=amconmag&size=m&text=The%20Great%20War%20Christmas%20Truce%3A%20%E2%80%98They%20Were%20Positively%20Human%E2%80%99%20%7C%20The%20American%20Conservative&time=1545534223100&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fthe-great-war-christmas-truce-they-were-positively-human%2F&via=amconmag

https://apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Fthe-great-war-christmas-truce-they-were-positively-human%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.6MbTDK3mIS4.O%2Fam%3DQQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAGLTcCNhXj9LAc953Cp50L-6qothbnFeVQ%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1545534222792&_gfid=I0_1545534222792&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&pfname=&rpctoken=90666306

Wikimedia Commons/public domain A 19th-century peace activist once asked, "Is it possible that any Christian, of whatever sect, who believes the New Testament to be anything better than a fable, can doubt for a moment that the time will come when all the kingdoms of the earth shall be at peace?"

Jesus Christ, as both a religious and historical figure, has been chronicled as the "Prince of Peace." He was the man (or son of God) who instructed his followers to turn the other cheek. This philosophy of love, forgiveness, and the rejection of violence is difficult to mesh with a modern age that has fought two world wars. Reaching even farther back, it's hard to reconcile Christ's message with the violence inflicted by Christians against both non-Christians and other members of the faith.

But one moment, found in the bloody, secularized 20th century, stands out: the Christmas Truce of 1914.

World War I had begun in August, engulfing most of Europe. On the western front, a German invasion of France by way of Belgium had stalled just 50 miles outside of Paris. Fighting quickly devolved into trench warfare, with German and British-French lines divided by a no-man's land of barbed wire, shell holes, and death. Soldiers lived and died in trenches of mud and dirt, infested with fleas and other vermin and often flooded with water that was knee deep. Winter added frost and bitter cold. The war that people on both sides said would be done by Christmas showed no sign of ending. By December, after barely five months of combat, casualties on all sides numbered over two million.

Yet that Christmas Eve, an unexpected sound could be heard above the din of gunfire: soldiers on the German side singing Stille Nacht , the original German-language Silent Night . Small fir trees, makeshift replacements for the grand Christmas trees back home, had been placed. The constant fighting might have had the effect of increasing religious reflection. During the opening months of the war in 1914, churches in Germany were fuller than they had ever been, even in working-class areas infamous for secular and anti-clerical politics.

After much hesitation, soldiers on the British side began to poke their heads out of the trenches. The Germans did not fire. The Brits responded by applauding and singing their own English version of the carol. The two sides then met together in no man's land. Frederick James Davies, a private in the 2nd Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers, described his experiences in a letter home to his mother: "They [the Germans] were only fifty yards away from us in the trenches. They came out and we went to meet them. We shook hands with them . They also gave us cigars but they didn't have much food. I think they are hard up for it. They were fed up with the war." They exchanged "cigs, jam and corn beef" and Davies added that he had "a good chat with the Germans on Xmas day."

Writer Henry Williamson, then a private in the London Rifle Brigade, wrote cheerfully home to his mother that he was smoking German tobacco he had exchanged with a live soldier. He recounted, "Yesterday the British & Germans met & shook hands in the Ground between the trenches, & exchanged souvenirs, & shook hands." He describes his military counterparts: "Many are gentle looking men in goatee beards & spectacles, and some are very big and arrogant looking." In other words, they looked positively human. Williamson even showed empathy for their similar motivations: "The Germans put 'For Fatherland & Freedom' on the cross. They obviously think their cause is a just one."

In his own account, Captain A.D. Chater of the 2nd Battalion Gordon Highlanders wrote : "This extraordinary truce has been quite impromptu. There was no previous arrangement and of course it had been decided that there was not to be any cessation of hostilities."

God, Marriage, and Gratitude in 'A Christmas Carol' The Dark Side of War Propaganda

This outbreak of peace was entirely spontaneous, started by privates on the front lines as their officers threatened them with court-martial. Soldiers laughed, talked, sang, exchanged gifts, and helped to bury their dead. A few games of soccer were even played.

They had been killing each other for months, indoctrinated for most of their lives to view the "other" as evil, inhuman. But here they were, ordinary men who missed their homes and families, who had only the vaguest idea of why they were there, why they were dying and killing. Karl Muhlegg of the 17th Bavarian Regiment wrote home, "Never was I as keenly aware of the insanity of war."

The truce continued until the end of Christmas. In some spots it continued for days. But slowly men returned to their sides and fighting resumed. Europe would not see another Christmas in peacetime until 1918, after 10,000,000 men had been killed. When the war ended, the French military academy Saint-Cyr listed all its graduates who had fallen. For one year, it contains just one brief but chilling entry: "The Class of 1914." In comparison, only 81 British soldiers died on Christmas Day 1914 in all of Europe.

What is striking is the difference between the propaganda put forward by the governments on the home front and the spontaneous actions that Christmas. Besides Pope Benedict XV, who urged a temporary ceasefire so war cannons would not be booming across Europe on the night the angels were meant to announce Christ's birth, what the soldiers did was opposed by governments on both sides.

There's a case to be made that the truce had nothing to do with Christianity. Periodic and unplanned truces occur in war regularly. Fighting ceases while the two sides take time to bury their dead. And trade and fraternization do occur. One might ask, does the common soldier need a higher reason to stop killing or be killed? But this rejoinder is far too simplistic. It's estimated that roughly 100,000 soldiers participated in the Christmas Truce of 1914 to some degree. This is far too large a number to be written off as a casual occurrence. This event was unplanned, uncoordinated, and not sanctioned by the officer core. Yet it happened. And it just happened to take place on the most celebrated day in the Christian calendar, the observance of the birth of Christ, the "Prince of Peace." If both sides were not united under Christendom, joined together in mutual belief, it is a definite that the truce would not have occurred.

In November 1914, three months into the war, Pope Benedict XV grieved, "Who would imagine, as we see them thus filled with hatred of one another, that they are all of one common stock, all of the same nature, all members of the same human society? Who would recognize brothers, whose Father is in Heaven?" Perhaps on Christmas, with morals engraved on their innermost hearts, the soldiers realized the truth of this statement.

As an event in the history of war, the Christmas Truce of 1914 is barely a footnote; it had no major effects on the fighting or outcome of World War I. But in the history of peace, the truce is a powerful story. This moment, this flash of love, bookended on both sides by destruction and hate, was a triumph of humanity. It's the closest thing we'll see to a miracle in this fallen world.

Frederick Niven, a minor Scottish poet, ended his poem "A Carol from Flanders" with a sentiment that should be prayed for year-round:

O ye who read this truthful rime

From Flanders, kneel and say:

God Speed the time when every day

Shall be as Christmas Day

Hunter DeRensis is a regular contributor to . Follow him on Twitter @HunterDeRensis .

about:blank


Connecticut Farmer December 21, 2018 at 9:02 am

"Leaders" don't care about the ordinary soldier–and it doesn't matter which countries are fighting. "God Save The King (or Queen)" "Deutschland Ueber Alles" "Allons enfant de la Patrie" "Make The World Safe For Democracy". Blah, blah, blah.

Damn all "leaders"!!!!!!!!

Anon1970 , says: December 21, 2018 at 9:18 am
The story of the 1914 Christmas Truce was made into a movie "Joyeux Noel" in 2005.
General Manager , says: December 21, 2018 at 11:04 am
Could you imagine the singing of "Happy Holidays" igniting such an overwhelming burst of love? Do the owners of our mainstream media outlets pay announcers a bonus for everytime they squeeze "holiday" into their scripts? I am not taking a holiday and I find it offensive to discount the happiest day of my religious belief system discounted such. BTW – The officers had to force the troops back into the killing fields at gunpoint. Had the Christmas Peace of 1914 held – just imagine? The secularization of Christmas is not a joining phenomenon it is a divisive act. Those who launched this war on Christmas have had great victories here. It is being stalled overseas in both supposedly Christian and non-Christian countries. If we get into a really nasty war – just see how quickly these warmongers will give us back Christam (temporarily).
mike , says: December 21, 2018 at 12:54 pm
"War made the State and the State makes War."
These poor men had barely more influence on policy than livestock do in managing a cattle ranch.
It's ridiculous to say Christians fought Christians etc.
These wars were made by States which had amassed the power – through ideology and technology – to control multitudes of helpless, defenceless people.
History can be summed up as: Man v State; Law v Power; Civilisation v Barbarism.
In the twentieth century, we saw the triumph of State Power over Law, Civilisation and Humanity.
(The State surpassed disease as mankind's greatest affliction.)
kingdomofgodflag.info , says: December 21, 2018 at 4:08 pm
Thank you for this thoughtful challenge to Christian militarism.
Arrigu , says: December 21, 2018 at 7:28 pm
The German invasion didn't stall by itself before Paris. The French fought like lions at the First battle of the Marne (the British troops' contribution was numerically quite reduced at that time) and prevailed over the Germans. Sadly with not enough of a decision on the war that then went on Why is it always so difficult for American magazines (and newspapers) to mention the French ? It always gives the silent impression French were hapless bystanders to a war on their own soil.
Rick Steven D. , says: December 22, 2018 at 7:36 am
Beautiful, Hunter, thanks.

I didn't know about Joyeux Noel, but the Christmas Truce is (briefly) depicted in the great 1969 WWI film Oh! What a Lovely War:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/fHObCL2luMw?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

[Dec 17, 2018] Visualizing The West's Domination Of The Global Arms Market

Dec 17, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Overall, arms sales increased in 2017, with total global sales nearing 400 billion dollars, marking a 2.5 percent increase from last year and the third year of continued growth for the industry.

But, as Statista's Sarah Feldman points out, U.S. arms companies still produce the most weapons worldwide.

You will find more infographics at Statista

About 57 percent of weapons produced last year came from the United States , according to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute SIPRI .

Russia comes in second, with year-over-year growth in arms production. In 2017, Russia provided the world with 10 percent of arms sales, closely followed by The UK.

Only major arms companies were included in this study. China was excluded due to insufficient data.


Beans , 43 minutes ago link

Problem with this is that the buyers of all that American weaponry are definitely not got any 'bang for the proverbial buck' (pun intended). Horrendously overpriced weaponry which in most instances render less value and effectiveness than similarly available Russian analogues.

Justin Case , 17 minutes ago link

They know, the arms are inferior garbage, it's just like mafioso protection money or better known as extortion. The charge a fortune for substandard weapons and MIC folks keep the change. Same as murican tax payers. If there were no boogie men created then what would be the justification for all the spending on military hardware?

There is no return on investment here. It's money laundering.

Atlana99 , 1 hour ago link

Why spend your money to help the poor people in your own country when you can use that money to build weapons to kill poor people in other countries?

https://cointrader21.wordpress.com/2018/12/03/americas-ongoing-holocaust-of-the-poor/

khnum , 4 hours ago link

Purchasers Saudi Arabia 110 billion with 240 billion more to come,Israel 38 billion=35 percent

CosineCosineCosine , 4 hours ago link

Letter of intent only. They have literally purchased none of those orders, despite repeated US harassment for the 15 Billion for the THAADS to get the ball rolling. All bluster and boasting and smoke and mirrors.

My suspicion is that SA under MBS is considering switching sides slowly and will purchase Russian and Chinese instead. If the US had foreknowledge of this, hence the switch in tone re butchering journalists and Yemenis ... hence why MBS isn't Time Magazine poster boy at the moment.

khnum , 4 hours ago link

Your correct I went back and checked it was order book not delivery,MBS situation is very interesting with the recent high five with Putin there was some backstory that it was celebration of a certain US admirals demise that was causing them problems whether true or not I dont know but it would not surprise me if S400's end up in Saudi Arabia

Ace006 , 5 hours ago link

Remember that old stuff about Krupp being the "Merchant of Death"? Aren't we, like, edging into that territory? Is this what the Founders and Ratifiers had in mind? Could this enormous arms trade and our military expenditures and adventures be a clue that we're on the wrong track?

Front Store

US vs Russian arms sales since 1950:

http://thesoundingline.com/map-of-the-day-visualizing-us-and-russian-arms-sales-since-1950/

[Nov 30, 2018] Petras Where Have The Anti-War Anti-Bank Masses Gone by James Petras

Notable quotes:
"... With the advent of Obama, many peace leaders and followers joined the Obama political machine .Those who were not co-opted were quickly disillusioned on all counts. Obama continued the ongoing wars and added new ones -- Libya, Honduras, Syria. The US occupation in Iraq led to new extremist militia armies which preceded to defeat US trained vassal armies up to the gates of Baghdad. In short time Obama launched a flotilla of warships and warplanes to the South China Sea and dispatched added troops to Afghanistan. ..."
"... The anti-war movement which started in opposition to the Iraq war was marginalized by the two dominant parties. The result was the multiplication of new wars. By the second year of Obama's presidency the US was engaged in seven wars. ..."
"... The international conditions are ripening. Washington has alienated countries around the world ;it is challenged by allies and faces formidable rivals. The domestic economy is polarized and the elites are divided. ..."
Nov 30, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by James Petras via The Unz Review, US Mass Mobilizations: Wars and Financial Plunder Introduction

Over the past three decades, the US government has engaged in over a dozen wars, none of which have evoked popular celebrations either before, during or after. Nor did the government succeed in securing popular support in its efforts to confront the economic crises of 2008 – 2009.

This paper will begin by discussing the major wars of our time, namely the two US invasions of Iraq . We will proceed to analyze the nature of the popular response and the political consequences.

In the second section we will discuss the economic crises of 2008 -2009, the government bailout and popular response. We will conclude by focusing on the potential powerful changes inherent in mass popular movements.

The Iraq War and the US Public

In the run-up to the two US wars against Iraq, (1990 – 01 and 2003 – 2011) there was no mass war fever, nor did the public celebrate the outcome. On the contrary both wars were preceded by massive protests in the US and among EU allies. The first Iraqi invasion was opposed by the vast-majority of the US public despite a major mass media and regime propaganda campaign backed by President George H. W. Bush. Subsequently, President Clinton launched a bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 with virtually no public support or approval.

March 20, 2003, President George W. Bush launched the second major war against Iraq despite massive protests in all major US cities. The war was officially concluded by President Obama in December 2011. President Obama's declaration of a successful conclusion failed to elicit popular agreement.

Several questions arise:

Why mass opposition at the start of the Iraq wars and why did they fail to continue?

Why did the public refuse to celebrate President Obama's ending of the war in 2011?

Why did mass protests of the Iraq wars fail to produce durable political vehicles to secure the peace?

The Anti-Iraq War Syndrome

The massive popular movements which actively opposed the Iraq wars had their roots in several historical sources. The success of the movements that ended the Viet Nam war, the ideas that mass activity could resist and win was solidly embedded in large segments of the progressive public. Moreover, they strongly held the idea that the mass media and Congress could not be trusted; this reinforced the idea that mass direct action was essential to reverse Presidential and Pentagon war policies.

The second factor encouraging US mass protest was the fact that the US was internationally isolated. Presidents George H. W. and George W. Bush wars faced hostile regime and mass opposition in Europe, the Middle East and in the UN General Assembly. US activists felt that they were part of a global movement which could succeed.

Thirdly the advent of Democratic President Clinton did not reverse the mass anti-war movements.The terror bombing of Iraq in December 1998 was destructive and Clinton's war against Serbia kept the movements alive and active To the extent that Clinton avoided large scale long-term wars, he avoided provoking mass movements from re-emerging during the latter part of the 1990's.

The last big wave of mass anti-war protest occurred from 2003 to 2008. Mass anti-war protest to war exploded soon after the World Trade Center bombings of 9/11. White House exploited the events to proclaim a global 'war on terror', yet the mass popular movements interpreted the same events as a call to oppose new wars in the Middle East.

Anti-war leaders drew activists of the entire decade, envisioning a 'build-up' which could prevent the Bush regime from launching a series of wars without end. Moreover, the vast-majority of the public was not convinced by officials' claims that Iraq, weakened and encircled, was stocking 'weapons of mass destruction' to attack the US.

Large scale popular protests challenged the mass media, the so called respectable press and ignored the Israeli lobby and other Pentagon warlords demanding an invasion of Iraq. The vast-majority of American, did not believe they were threatened by Saddam Hussain they felt a greater threat from the White House's resort to severe repressive legislation like the Patriot Act. Washington's rapid military defeat of Iraqi forces and its occupation of the Iraqi state led to a decline in the size and scope of the anti-war movement but not to its potential mass base.

Two events led to the demise of the anti-war movements. The anti-war leaders turned from independent direct action to electoral politics and secondly, they embraced and channeled their followers to support Democratic presidential candidate Obama. In large part the movement leaders and activists believed that direct action had failed to prevent or end the previous two Iraq wars. Secondly, Obama made a direct demagogic appeal to the peace movement – he promised to end wars and pursue social justice at home.

With the advent of Obama, many peace leaders and followers joined the Obama political machine .Those who were not co-opted were quickly disillusioned on all counts. Obama continued the ongoing wars and added new ones -- Libya, Honduras, Syria. The US occupation in Iraq led to new extremist militia armies which preceded to defeat US trained vassal armies up to the gates of Baghdad. In short time Obama launched a flotilla of warships and warplanes to the South China Sea and dispatched added troops to Afghanistan.

The mass popular movements of the previous two decades were totally disillusioned, betrayed and disoriented. While most opposed Obama's 'new' and 'old wars' they struggled to find new outlets for their anti-war beliefs. Lacking alternative anti-war movements, they were vulnerable to the war propaganda of the media and the new demagogue of the right. Donald Trump attracted many who opposed the war monger Hilary Clinton.

The Bank Bailout: Mass Protest Denied

In 2008, at the end of his presidency, President George W. Bush signed off on a massive federal bailout of the biggest Wall Street banks who faced bankruptcy from their wild speculative profiteering.

In 2009 President Obama endorsed the bailout and urged rapid Congressional approval. Congress complied to a $700-billion- dollar handout ,which according to Forbes (July 14, 2015) rose to $7.77 trillion. Overnight hundreds of thousands of American demanded Congress rescind the vote. Under immense popular protest, Congress capitulated. However President Obama and the Democratic Party leadership insisted: the bill was slightly modified and approved. The 'popular will' was denied. The protests were neutralized and dissipated. The bailout of the banks proceeded, while several million households watched while their homes were foreclosed ,despite some local protests. Among the anti-bank movement, radical proposals flourished, ranging from calls to nationalize them, to demands to let the big banks go bankrupt and provide federal financing for co-operatives and community banks.

Clearly the vast-majority of the American people were aware and acted to resist corporate-collusion to plunder taxpayers.

Conclusion: What is to be Done?

Mass popular mobilizations are a reality in the United States. The problem is that they have not been sustained and the reasons are clear : they lacked political organization which would go beyond protests and reject lesser evil policies.

The anti-war movement which started in opposition to the Iraq war was marginalized by the two dominant parties. The result was the multiplication of new wars. By the second year of Obama's presidency the US was engaged in seven wars.

By the second year of Trump's Presidency the US was threatening nuclear wars against Russia, Iran and other 'enemies' of the empire. While public opinion was decidedly opposed, the 'opinion' barely rippled in the mid-term elections.

Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the Democratic Party . Before the movements can turn direct action into effective political and economic transformations, they need to build struggles at every level from the local to the national.

The international conditions are ripening. Washington has alienated countries around the world ;it is challenged by allies and faces formidable rivals. The domestic economy is polarized and the elites are divided.

Mobilizations, as in France today, are self-organized through the internet; the mass media are discredited. The time of liberal and rightwing demagogues is passing; the bombast of Trump arouses the same disgust as ended the Obama regime.

Optimal conditions for a new comprehensive movement that goes beyond piecemeal reforms is on the agenda. The question is whether it is now or in future years or decades?


steve golf , 1 minute ago link

Mass protest, which must ignore the mass media, depends on organizers. No organizers--no protest. Since organizers are mostly working for somebodies agenda, those agendas apparently don't want mass protest against war. They only want to push multi-genderism and minority resistance, these days.

gunzeon , 4 hours ago link

Gone to graveyards, every one

( chapeau teethv )

JohnG , 4 hours ago link

" Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the Democratic Party . Before the movements can turn direct action into effective political and economic transformations, they need to build struggles at every level from the local to the national. "

.gov gives not one damn what the people think and they willl do what pleases their masters. We are allowed to "vote" once in a while to maintain the illusion that they care.

They don't.

roddy6667 , 5 hours ago link

Very few Americans are anti-war. They are just fine with endless war and the killing of millions of people with brown skin for any reason the government gives. Even the so-called anti-war protesters of the Sixties are now pro war. Back then there was a draft, and they were at risk of dying in the war. Turns they were only against themselves dying, not somebody else's child. The volunteer army is staffed by the unfortunates of American society who have very few options except the military. Uneducated rural whites and inner city black youths are today's military. Poor white trash and ghetto blacks. Who cares if they die? That's the attitude of the Sixties anti-war crowd. Hypocrites.

A universal draft, male and female, would stop all the wars in a day.

TeethVillage88s , 4 hours ago link

"Where have all the Anti-Bank and Anti-War pee-pel gone... Gone to graveyards everyone

Where have all the citizens and grass roots activists gone... debt serfdom, and Wall Street everyone

Long time Pass--sing...

Where have all the Whistleblowers and real reporters gone... gone on black lists everyone

Long time a-go"

NoMoreWars , 4 hours ago link

True, I also believe many Americans turn their heads toward these endless/unneeded wars because the "enemies" mortar fire is not landing in our own backyard.

BuyDash , 5 hours ago link

Sorry, but you can't deflect this. 70% of white people were for the Iraq war in 2003, and 90% of white males were. O nly 19% of blacks according to one poll were for it.

Article:

People Who Opposed The Iraq War From The Beginning Are The Best Americans

I guess that makes aboriginal, native Amer'ican negros the best Amer'icans then?

pachanguero , 4 hours ago link

Yea, same Poll said hitlery was a shoe in for head **** in charge....I'm calling ********.

TeethVillage88s , 4 hours ago link

But White people know if they pray, buy groceries, buy clothes for kids, keep their appearance up... then losing jobs & middle class is only an obstacle if you don't work harder... Fascism is about responsibility, looking and acting like the winner class. White people will enlist in military, police, fire department... will work harder... will work 2-4 jobs... will blame themselves for everything.

Papa Gino's closes dozens of its sites November 05, 2018

No warning or reason given for closures,Customers, employees and communities are outraged after Papa Gino's Pizza abruptly closed dozens of locations across New England overnight.

Fantasy Free Economics , 5 hours ago link

Now that congress serves only as a mechanism for creating and maintaining skimming operations and rigging all markets, it is imperative that citizens get no information. Since organized crime also owns the major media outlets, that is an easy task. With no information in the mainstream there is no anti war and no anti bank.

http://quillian.net/blog/fusion-of-government-crime-and-religion/

RubblesVodka , 5 hours ago link

Gone, like the people who wanted a real 9/11 investigation. Yahoos out there still think that if it was an inside job someone would have spoke out by now . Lol

rtb61 , 4 hours ago link

They are all their, they are just silenced in corporate main stream media whilst corporate main stream media absolutely 'SCREAMS' about identity politics, not an accident. Identity politics is the deep state and shadow government plan to silence the masses about fiscal and foreign policy.

For example, even though I am centre left, I was there in the beginning of the alt right, it was not white supremacy for the first few weeks it was Libertarian vs corporate Republican, then the deep state and shadow government stepped in and using corporate main stream media, re-branded alt-right as white supremacy, is was really fast.

Most people don't even know alt-right started out as very much Libertarian taking on the corporate state and that is what triggered that attack and a stream of fake right wingers (deep state agents) screaming they were the alt-right together with corporate main stream media, to ensure Libertarian where silenced.

Look at it now, how much do you here from Libertarians, practically nothing, every time they try, they are targeted as alt-right which they were as in the alternate to corporate Republicans much the same as the Corporate Democrats. From my perspective the real left and the Libertarians had much more in common, than the corporate Republicans and the corporate Democrats (both attacking the libertarians and the greens to silence them).

They are all there fighting, just totally silenced in corporate main stream media, you have to go to https://www.rt.com/ to find them.

ImGumbydmmt , 3 hours ago link

accurate

Kan , 6 hours ago link

Bankers control the CFR, the CFR controls the media and most gov positions and most of the deepstate 3 letter agencies.. Everything said is tracked by the NSA and everywhere you go is tracked by your phone and cars. Ever wonder how they take over a grass root movement so fast? Think about it.

ignorethisuser , 5 hours ago link
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

NickelthroweR , 6 hours ago link

The United States is now too big for popular protest. How can I, living in California, have common cause with someone living in New York? We live on opposite sides of this continent and have wildly different climates. Our heavy hitters are in Technology while New York has Banking and Wall St.

Our elected officials are unable to get crap done in the same manner we're unable to get a good protest underway. We can withdraw somewhat or go off grid where possible but that's about it.

uhland62 , 6 hours ago link

We had to concede that the evil forces are stronger than us.

If Vietnam and Iraq did not teach people a lesson to topple the weapons and war manufacturers, nothing will. Do your mother a favour - don't enlist.

BuyDash , 5 hours ago link

American negros didn't need to learn that lesson :


African American lack of support for the Iraq war:
According to several polls taken right before the war, only a minority of African-Americans supported the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. Most notably, a poll by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies had found that only 19 percent of African-Americans supported it.

That is a striking statistic, especially considering that more than 70 percent of white Americans were in favor of the military invasion, according to some polls.

Also note that 90% of white males were for that illegal war of aggression.

Goldennutz , 6 hours ago link

No draft has a lot to do with no anti-war protests. Let some other saps go die for the Banksters thinking they are "serving" their country.

If the draft ever came back for men AND women there would be riots in the streets.

zinjanthropus , 5 hours ago link

Exactly, no conscription=no problem.

Escrava Isaura , 6 hours ago link

Where Have The Anti-War & Anti-Bank Masses Gone?

War (force) and banking (financials schemes) are the essence of the US economy.

It has always been this way. US middleclass, corporations, and the wealth created are linked to those.

2banana , 6 hours ago link

It's because environmentalist, feminist, OWS, union, LBGT, etc. are progressive/liberals first and always.

They will abandon their principles at the first chance to gain and hold power. Period.

Bill Cinton is a serial rapist yet is loved by the left.

Immigration and illegals destroy the American environment yet are loved by the left.

Muslims hate gays and women and are loved by the left.

Immigration and illegals destroy jobs. Union jobs. And are loved by the left.

Banks and wall street and bailed out for their frauds and corruption and the left loves everything obama did.

Obama droned striked anything that moved and invaded/destroyed countries by fiat and is an idol to the anti war left.

Etc.

james diamond squid , 5 hours ago link

the left is so obsessed with getting trump, they can do nothing else. they are so ******* stoopid, that they wont even try to develop someone to beat trump. they put 100% of their energy in hating trump. they are blinded by hatred.

Haboob , 6 hours ago link

People care by proxy only which is the problem. I CAN CARE RIGHT NOW but nothing happens!

Theres only one way to show the government you realllly care.

ThePhantom , 6 hours ago link

the end is nigh and there's nothing to be done about it.... 10 years and thats it.... beyond that and event horizon... black hole... no one knows. ai terminator coming soon... thats all i can see.

Haboob , 6 hours ago link

Killer robots?

China AI opens a portal to hell?

CERN opens the portal to hell/next dimension?

WW3?

Asteroid?

Nuclear extinction?

Yellowstone eruption?

Doom! Doom!

Grandad Grumps , 6 hours ago link

I believe they are living in Obama's shorts.

Haboob , 6 hours ago link

Lemme guess people are too sedated to care anymore.

ThePhantom , 6 hours ago link

everybody wants a bail out.... wtshtf

TuPhat , 6 hours ago link

Most thinking people are not wanting to be part of a movement that will be co-opted for someone else's political gain. I would rather prepare myself and family for the inevitable collapse of the economy and perhaps more that awaits us. That's enough to keep me busy. I can't change the whole world but I can prepare to help my family friends and neighbors.

ThePhantom , 6 hours ago link

jesus christ , the terminator is coming....

Karmageddon , 6 hours ago link

In answer to the the question posed by the headerof this article, they have either been exiled from 'respectable' media or are stuck yelling "Trump! Trump! Trump! Russia! Russia! Russia" like a poorly programmed NPC caught in an infinite loop.

The hidden hand behind the puppet show has done a hell of a job massaging the masses, and turning their minds into mush.

steverino999 , 6 hours ago link

I didn't even read this article, but one thing I do know - DEMS IMPEACH GUMP 2019!

Davidduke2000 , 6 hours ago link

would you jump off a bridge if they do not ?????????????????

Goldennutz , 6 hours ago link

Hopefully he will and with any luck land on the Hildebeast or Obummer as they pass by.

LetThemEatRand , 6 hours ago link

"Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the Democratic Party ."

Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

DownWithYogaPants , 6 hours ago link

Democrats are only anti bank as long as they don't get their cut. Buy them off with at relatively low bucks and they are all in for the banks.

Albertarocks , 6 hours ago link

Exactly! If there are any anti-war people out there they sure as hell are not with the Democratic Party. Those leftist lunatics are the most destructive political group on this planet. Their thinking is 'divide & conquer', incite racial tensions, spew hatred, promoting that killing babies before they are born, or even on the day they are born is awesome. One has to wonder if people that evil even have souls.

As for anti-bankers... is this author off his rocker? He's not fooling anyone by trying to present the theory that if there are any consciencous objectors out there they would be supporters of the Democratic party. That thought is outright laughable. Even worse, to try to create this new narrative by writing this type of article is absolutely despicable. Fortunately, not the least bit convincing. People know better.

Oldguy05 , 6 hours ago link

WUT? I'm still anti-BANK!!!!!

Oldguy05 , 6 hours ago link

End The ******* Fed!...and BIS and IMF!...and NATO and The UN!..and the WTO WHO and everything else with capitalized initials!

DownWithYogaPants , 6 hours ago link

Yah the Bleepish cabal has us under their Marxist ruling model. It's dismal.

BuyDash , 5 hours ago link

If you're not using cryptos, you're just neutral-bank .

NoDebt , 6 hours ago link

" Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the Democratic Party "

OK, so..... it's the Democrat Party, not the Democratic Party. Not like anyone gives a **** what words mean any more, but.... whatever. Use the right ******* words or..... ******* don't. Not like any of this **** matters any more at this level.

And not all of us are ******* Democrats. Neither party is really anti-war or anti-bank now, so the red/blue thing has little relevance to those subjects. We all argue about much more important issues now like transgender bathrooms and whether Kanye West is a racist for supporting Trump or not.

fauxhammer , 6 hours ago link

Well that was a stupid article.

Bricker , 6 hours ago link

politics has become a black hole collapsing on itself...

LetThemEatRand , 6 hours ago link

Politics has become a black hole collapsing on us. Black hole don't give a ****. Look at that black hole. It just ate a star and became bigger. It don't care.

DownWithYogaPants , 6 hours ago link

Sorry but I do not see Trump as "threatening nuclear war".

Surely some of the Deep Staters did. But it's hard to see Trump as in control. His presidency has been great for exposing how things really work. That's worth a lot. If only the idiots would pay attention. But they won't. They're too busy placing great importance on the trifling and little or none on the critically important.

Excuse me I have to run now and get the latest iPhone.

[Nov 23, 2018] Anti Tulsi Gabbards lies are being aggressively promoted by neocons in both parties

Notable quotes:
"... She has been the most active anti war member of congress. She even visited Syria and talked with Assad. She has been tutored by Kucinich, and Kucinich's adviser on foreign affairs has been William R Polk. ..."
"... It's clear that we'll never be free of Dembot relapsing. That's how terminal addicts are. At any given time the great majority of the fake "radicals" who go around claiming to despise the Democrat Party are really just secretly yearning for the next fraudulent "progressive" Democrat hero to come along and sweep them off their feet and back into the Dembot fold. ..."
"... Kucinich, Obama, Warren, Hillary sheepdog extraordinaire Sanders, "AOC" (who just got done telling the Dembot version of climate activists, "Let's get behind Pelosi!"), Gabbard, many more whose names I've forgotten. ..."
"... Any actual sentient political person knows that the historical record of the Democrats is one long unbroken scam, that the "celebrity progressive hero" meme is invariably a fraud, and that this will never change for as long as the Democrat Party and its partisans exist. ..."
"... I used to trust and be gung-ho on Tulsi because of her association with Kucinich, but she lost my respect entirely after she started rubbing shoulders with this Zionist slime: ..."
"... In my view, when we group Gabbard in with corrupt politicians, we do the greatest disservice to our own understanding of how corruption works. We also give in and surrender to evil, sooner than we should. So we should beware of this kind of thinking, both from an honorable place of not maligning a person who may not yet have earned it, and also from a strategic view of not giving into defeatism. ..."
"... An overarching cynicism will only weary us, and the struggle is still alive. Cynicism is the cousin of defeatism and premature surrender. It's a position encouraged by the enemy, because it appears strong while it is actually weak. It's one of the tools that tame - the greatest of course being the one that divides us against each other, while the enemy rules. ..."
Nov 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

JCS , Nov 22, 2018 7:39:50 PM | link

After Tulsi Gabbards tweet yesterday there has been a ton of old anti-Tulsi propaganda that was originally created to discredit her support of Bernie being promoted all over the place.

Those lies are being aggressively promoted by neocons in both parties and helped along by supposed progressives and patriots who either ignorantly or maliciously spread the same lies and sophistry.

Can you help fight against that? Here is what she is up against, these two articles detail all the lies (compared to the facts) that the neocons and the dumb progressives who don't bother to check facts are spreading around  --  it would be great if you can help get the word out about this organized slander campaign due to fear of Tulsi gaining higher office and ending wars:

mauisurfer , Nov 22, 2018 11:03:20 PM | link

Debsi

You don't know anything about Tulsi Gabbard. She has been the most active anti war member of congress. She even visited Syria and talked with Assad. She has been tutored by Kucinich, and Kucinich's adviser on foreign affairs has been William R Polk. I suggest you do some homework, read some selections on Polk's home page, also review Kucinich's long term positions on war and peace.

Russ , Nov 23, 2018 3:04:41 AM | link
Re Gabbard

It's clear that we'll never be free of Dembot relapsing. That's how terminal addicts are. At any given time the great majority of the fake "radicals" who go around claiming to despise the Democrat Party are really just secretly yearning for the next fraudulent "progressive" Democrat hero to come along and sweep them off their feet and back into the Dembot fold.

Kucinich, Obama, Warren, Hillary sheepdog extraordinaire Sanders, "AOC" (who just got done telling the Dembot version of climate activists, "Let's get behind Pelosi!"), Gabbard, many more whose names I've forgotten.

I've never understood the unbreakable infatuation with the Democrats, other than the clear fact that support for them isn't political at all, but a type of celebrity fandom.

Any actual sentient political person knows that the historical record of the Democrats is one long unbroken scam, that the "celebrity progressive hero" meme is invariably a fraud, and that this will never change for as long as the Democrat Party and its partisans exist.

Of course we already see Dembots everywhere crowing that the House majority is going to do "real things", and without missing a beat their showcase promise is: "We're going to make Trump release his tax forms!" I.e. the exact kind of worthless theater which does nothing to help anyone real, the exact kind of misdirection scam in which the Democrats specialize.

The same goes for worthless tweets. BTW did Gabbard also give tweets condemning the Zionist state? I'm betting no. Just like "AOC" backpedalled as fast as she could from her pro-Palestinian comments. She even told an interviewer "I really don't know what I'm talking about there." (Not an exact quote, but the gist.)

Circe , Nov 23, 2018 9:51:57 AM | link
@58

There is no peace with Israel! The fallacy of that statement on Israel dismantles your argument. Just state that there is self-interest or self-preservation involved if Putin sells out Iran to that stinking shithole Zionist entity. Iran fought side by side with Russia and is an invited presence in Syria and a counter-weight to Zionist U.S. presence in Syria and surrounding Zionist U.S. bases.

With all the Zionist Russian oligarchs breathing down Putin's neck in Russia, and the demented Zionist state having a large percentage of Russian immigrants, Putin kowtows to Zionism like everyone else. Yes, Putin is using Syria to get leverage over the U.S./Nato axis, but Israel is tied to his self-preservation, so he'll drop Iran in a minute for that reason, but don't say it's for the sake of peace when Israel has its sights on Iran as the next target of the Empire. It's totally disingenuous to use peace and Israel in the same sentence.

Next, @57 regarding the Gabbard tussle debs and others are having here: it's all moot since she offended compassionate Democrat sensibilities by meeting with Assad. Don't mention her name on Democratic sites; they can't stand her and you'll be excoriated for bringing her up. So she'll never be the nominee anyway. Now, I don't think either that it's necessary to even bring up the indigenous in Hawaii considering what was also done to native Americans on the mainland.

There's something else that disqualifies her. I used to trust and be gung-ho on Tulsi because of her association with Kucinich, but she lost my respect entirely after she started rubbing shoulders with this Zionist slime:

Gabbard's Zionist Friends

I couldn't be bothered getting the picture on it's own so don't blame me for the comments that surround it. Regardless, I no longer trust Gabbard because of her toxic Zionist associates.

donkeytale , Nov 23, 2018 10:00:04 AM | link
Sadly (or laughably, if you are in a jolly mood), Russ and Debisdead, and their handful of likeminded others who daily gather about the ultraleft internet world (such as it is) will never change their tune in the face of all evidence pointing to their invective (they term this "critical education") adding up to nothing except furtherance of rightwing oppression currently sweeping the world.

They offer nothing to motivate people other than the rejection of mainstream political movements of the center-left which are already organised, in reactionary political parties to be sure, into the tens of millions in the US.

Large numbers will be required if Russ, debs and their relatively few peers ever in fact wake up from their blogging stupors (extremely doubtful, imho, based on evidence of the prior 10-15 years) and become a vanguard of the movement to topple and replace the liberal democratic system with a fair system for all the people.

Lenin already nailed Russ, debs (and their few peers) to the wall way back in 1920:

Is parliamentarianism "politically obsolete"? That is quite a different matter. If that were true, the position of the "Lefts" would be a strong one. But it has to be proved by a most searching analysis, and the "Lefts" do not even know how to approach the matter.
Grieved , Nov 23, 2018 10:25:55 AM | link
Regarding Tulsi Gabbard.

In the last open thread I advanced the notion that humans are much more changeable than we tend to assume, or that our institutions plan on. I could back this claim with substantial collateral but I'll skip that here.

In my view, when we group Gabbard in with corrupt politicians, we do the greatest disservice to our own understanding of how corruption works. We also give in and surrender to evil, sooner than we should. So we should beware of this kind of thinking, both from an honorable place of not maligning a person who may not yet have earned it, and also from a strategic view of not giving into defeatism.

What really matters about the Gabbard situation is the history of other people and institutions that once were on our side and stood as our heroes, and who now seem compromised, corrupted, silenced or destroyed. There are powerful forces at play that can turn the good to the bad. These are the forces that we should be intent on identifying, in my opinion.

An overarching cynicism will only weary us, and the struggle is still alive. Cynicism is the cousin of defeatism and premature surrender. It's a position encouraged by the enemy, because it appears strong while it is actually weak. It's one of the tools that tame - the greatest of course being the one that divides us against each other, while the enemy rules.

What will be useful to watch with Gabbard will be what forces come to work on her, and how long she can remain true to her indigenous spiritual strength, if indeed she has not already caved in (I haven't studied the situation).

Sooner or later someone or some ones must appear who can remain true to the welfare of the people, and survive all the forces that work to subvert that. Our sitting around hoping for real change, however, is not going to get it done. Nor is falsely identifying as true those who are already corrupted, or conversely, labeling as lost those who might still have some truth in them. Understanding in precise detail and calling out and shedding light on these forces of subversion, might just help, however.

Russ , Nov 23, 2018 10:31:18 AM | link
Grieved 71,

Fact is, if we took your comment and replaced "Gabbard" with "Obama", we could pretty much transpose it verbatim to 2008-09 and it would fit right in with what the Obamabots were saying.

I agree, cynicism is pernicious, and I can't imagine anything more cynical than continued special pleading on behalf of the Democrats, after all they've proven throughout their perfidious history.

Grieved , Nov 23, 2018 10:40:11 AM | link
@72 Russ

Maybe. But I think for Obama this would fall under "falsely identifying as true someone who was already corrupted". What I get from people who have studied Gabbard is that she hasn't yet fallen, and - conceivably - may not fall.

Circe , Nov 23, 2018 11:09:16 AM | link
If Tulsi Gabbard weren't corrupted, she would stay away from the Adelsons no matter what cause they're peddling that she might share. The Adelsons are kryptonite for trust! She should know that! She should know better! Find some other financier for your cause, lady!

Now, to russ's point. Yes, it's good to get people to focus on another option besides the Dems (hopefully you don't mean the Republicans who are part of the same duopoly syndicate). However, the problem is that in a non-democracy with two Zionist-owned parties monopolizing the mass demographic, just how do you intend that third option to win?

[Nov 21, 2018] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to Trump: "Being Saudi Arabia's B*tch Is Not 'America First.'

Here Tulsi was probably wrong... While despicable this incident can't and should not change polices toward Saudi Arabia. In this sense Trump s right.
Nov 21, 2018 | www.thedailybeast.com

Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard took to Twitter on Wednesday to excoriate Donald Trump for his decision to apparently pardon Saudi Arabia for the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, labeling the president the "bitch" of the authoritarian kingdom. "Hey @realDonaldTrump," Gabbard tweeted , "being Saudi Arabia's bitch is not "America First."

Gabbard's tweet comes just a day after Trump released a statement -- with "America First!" right at the top -- that heavily implied that he will not pursue any further action against top Saudi officials, who are widely believed to be responsible for the writer's murder, and cast doubt on the finding of the CIA, his own intelligence service.

Gabbard previously came under fire for her own forays into Middle Eastern affairs, including her secret 2016 trip to meet with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria at the height of its civil war and her suggestion that Assad, a brutal dictator who has overseen the deaths of more than 500,000 people in his country, should not be removed from office.

[Nov 20, 2018] A Finance Magnates analysis reports that one of the swindles alone has brought in over a billion dollars and employs 5,000 people. And a new scam, described below, may help what is predicted to be "the next major driver of the Israeli economy."

Nov 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

ChuckOrloski , says: November 17, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT

Very important, with "Eyes Wide Open," Alison Weir, below!

https://israelpalestinenews.org/is-israel-turning-a-blind-eye-as-israeli-scammers-swindle-victims-in-france-us-elsewhere/

renfro , says: November 17, 2018 at 5:53 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski Not surprising to anyone who understands that stealing ,especially from 'others' is a first choice career of Jews/Israelis.
I have always suspected that the 9 billion of stolen Iraq funds were stolen by the Jews who were embedded in the US occupation administration and sent to Israel. Israel was so broke in 2001 they asked the Us for economic aid then suddenly in 2004 by some miracle they were rolling in surplus money again.

Investigations reveal a pattern of Israeli officials stone-walling efforts to stop the perpetrators of massive financial swindles in various countries, from Europe to the US to the Philippines While some Israeli reporters work to expose the scams, a new one is already underway

By Alison Weir

[MORE]
French and Israeli media report that a group largely made up of Israelis scammed 3,000 French citizens out of approximately $20 million. Most of the stolen money is in Israel, but Israeli authorities are reportedly failing to cooperate with France in prosecuting the scammers and retrieving the money.
This is the latest of numerous examples of Israeli officials stone-walling international efforts against the perpetrators of massive financial swindles around the world, according to Israeli investigative journalists and others. These scams have brought estimated billions into the Israeli economy, propping up a regime widely condemned for human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing against indigenous Palestinians. Together, the stories paint a picture of a government that seems to be turning a blind eye to -- and even protecting -- scammers.

A Finance Magnates analysis reports that one of the swindles alone has brought in over a billion dollars and employs 5,000 people. And a new scam, described below, may help what is predicted to be "the next major driver of the Israeli economy."

A former IRS expert on international crime notes that "fraudulent industries are often major economic drivers, and that can translate into political clout."
Some Israeli journalists have been working to expose the situation in Israeli newspapers, publishing exposés like "As Israel turns blind eye to vast binary options fraud, French investigators step in" and "Are French Jewish criminals using Israel as a get-out-of-jail card?" (Short answer: yes.)

Victimizing French business owners & churches

The victims of the recent scam against French citizens included churches and the owners of small businesses -- delicatessens, car repair shops, hair salons, plumbers, etc. Some lost their life savings and describe being threatened and intimidated by the scammers.

[Nov 15, 2018] Armistice Day -- Crooked Timber

Notable quotes:
"... Life is too short for me to deal with any more trolls. Gareth, you're permanently banned from commenting on my posts ..."
Nov 15, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

Armistice Day

by John Quiggin on November 11, 2018 It's 100 years since the Armistice that brought an end to fighting on the Western Front of the Great War. Ten million soldiers or more were dead, and even more gravely wounded, along with millions of civilians. Most of the empires that had begun the war were destroyed, and even the victors had suffered crippling losses. Far from being a "war to end war", the Great War was the starting point for many more, as well as bloody and destructive revolutions. These wars continue even today, in the Middle East, carved up in secret treaties between the victors.

For much of the century since then, it seemed that we had learned at least something from this tragedy, and the disasters that followed it. Commemoration of the war focused on the loss and sacrifice of those who served, and were accompanied by a desire that the peace they sought might finally be achieved.

But now that everyone who served in that war has passed away, along with most of those who remember its consequences, the tone has shifted to one of glorification and jingoism.

In part, this reflects the fact that, for rich countries, war no longer has any real impact on most people. As in the 19th century, we have small professional armies fighting in faraway countries and suffering relatively few casualties. Tens of thousands of people may die in these conflicts, but the victims of war impinge on our consciousness only when they seek shelter as refugees, to be turned away or locked up.

In the past, I've concluded message like this with the tag "Lest we Forget". Sadly, it seems as if everything important has already been forgotten.


novakant 11.11.18 at 11:11 am (no link)

There's an interesting review in this week's TLS (paywall) by Richard J. Evans of

Jörn Leonhard: Pandora's Box – A History of the First World War

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/private/review-pandoras-box-jorn-leonhard/

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674545113

novakant 11.11.18 at 11:12 am ( 2 )
NB: apparently the translation sucks
JohnT 11.11.18 at 12:38 pm ( 3 )
I think it varies per place, even within countries. In my English village this morning, about a quarter of the population gathered in front of the war memorial, closing the only road. They stood there, quietly. A couple of older people spent twenty minutes reading out the names of all the poor souls who had left the village for war and never returned. Then there was two minutes silence, the vicar called for personal peace for all those affected by war, and then demanded that all those who could work for peace do so. A grim soberness marked the whole thing
I had nearly not gone, expecting it to be too jingoistic, but it was nothing of the sort. I am sure across the many communities remembering the Armistice across the world, many will be doing the same.
Donald Coffin 11.11.18 at 2:33 pm ( 4 )
My way of responding to the day:

This is my way of responding to Armistice Day.
Bob Dylan, Masters of War"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCnYmrADSns
"You that fasten all the trigger
For the others to fire
And you sit back and watch
While the death toll gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud"

Phil Ochs, "I Declare the War Is Over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOs9xYUjY4I
"One-legged veterans will greet the dawn
And they're whistling marches as they mow the lawn
And the gargoyles only sit and grieve
The gypsy fortune teller told me that we'd been deceived
You only are what you believe"

Big Ed McCurdy, "Last Night I Had the Strangest Dream"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5hxqNdqKo
"Last night I had the strangest dream
I ever dreamed before
I dreamed the world had all agreed
To put an end to war"

Reason 11.11.18 at 3:21 pm ( 5 )
Just a personal question on jq. I left Australia 30 years ago. I can remember no jingoism on armistice Day. On Australia Day and Anzac Day perhaps, but never on remembrance Day. Had that really changed?
steven t johnson 11.11.18 at 3:40 pm ( 6 )
Regarding Leonhard, it is always a cause for concern when a reviewer calls a historian "judicious."

The most important thing to remember about the Great War is that it wasn't caused by malign ideologies, or nefarious leveling schemes, or crazed utopian economic cranks. It was simply an inevitable breakdown of the normal operation of the capitalist world system. Remember that when the ever growing infestation of libertarians, respected by their peers, trot out their mythology.

WLGR 11.11.18 at 4:09 pm ( 7 )
Speaking of "lest we forget," how many people and how many commemorations have managed to forget that the armistice came about as a direct consequence of the socialist uprising in Germany, sparked in large part by a mass mutiny among German sailors in Kiel? Two days before the formal armistice declaration, workers led by the left wing of the SPD stormed the Reichstag, an ad hoc governing coalition led by the right wing of the SPD negotiated the abdication of the Kaiser, and both the left and right wings of the SPD simultaneously issued separate proclamations of a socialist German republic (by which they meant two very different things, of course, a divergence that was notoriously written out over the following few years in the blood of revolutionaries like Rosa Luxemburg).

In short, you can toss Armistice Day into the category as things like weekend, the 8 hour work day, the 40 hour work week, social safety nets, and so on: if you celebrate it, don't forget to thank revolutionary socialism for making it possible.

eg 11.11.18 at 4:40 pm ( 8 )
I'm with John on this one. I'll wear the poppy in recognition of the sacrifice, but will avoid the local cenotaph ceremony. I find the current temper of Remembrance Day services distasteful and the "our freedoms" trope abhorrent.
Gareth Wilson 11.11.18 at 6:45 pm ( 9 )
Life is too short for me to deal with any more trolls. Gareth, you're permanently banned from commenting on my posts
John Quiggin 11.11.18 at 7:32 pm ( 10 )
Reason @5 It's mostly Anzac Day, but the 100th anniversary has made Remembrance Day a bigger deal than usual. And we just had a breathless announcement that "veterans" (I still haven't got used to this Americanism) would be given boarding priority on Virgin airlines.

To be fair, our PM, who is generally hopeless on this and other issues, gave quite a good speech on the day, which ran under the headline "War is always a failure of our humanity"

michael blechman 11.11.18 at 8:29 pm ( 11 )
the loss of life and the lasting injuries that follow the fighting remain to show the futility of allowing war to arise as an answer to our conflicting ideas. humanity has failed as the dominant species. the fault lies in the hopes of too many to emulate the past society of material greed as a goal. reaching our limits of destroying the clean air and poisoning the seas with chemical and plastic waste as though the planet could absorb an endless spew will cause humanity's end. honoring the dead is the least we may do to salute those that went before us.
stephen 11.11.18 at 8:38 pm ( 12 )
steven t johnson@6: WWI was "simply an inevitable breakdown of the normal operation of the capitalist world system".

Remind me how many other "inevitable breakdowns of the normal operation" happened before, or after 1914.

Remind me how far the authorities in Serbia, Russia (or indeed Austria-Hungary or Germany) believed themselves to be operating in the interests of, or governed by, the capitalist world system.

Come to that, for the next catastrophe in 1939, do the same for the authorities in Russia, Poland and Germany.

And explain why there have been no such inevitable breakdowns since.

Best of luck, comrade.

steven t johnson 11.11.18 at 9:55 pm ( 13 )
John Quiggin@10 "To be fair, our PM, who is generally hopeless on this and other issues, gave quite a good speech on the day, which ran under the headline 'War is always a failure of our humanity'" It seems to me to be quite unfair to blame WWI on us and our depraved human nature. As Norman Angell notoriously demonstrated "us" do not get any benefit from war. Cui bono? Nationalists want to go back to a world where sovereign nations struggle for their place in the sun. Some, like Trump and Putin, want to go it alone. Others like the lords of the EU want a consortium. What all share is a system of capitalist competition which will, like all complex, crisis-ridden systems, eventually break down. Whining about human nature seems to me detestable.
steven t johnson 11.11.18 at 11:40 pm ( 14 )
stephen@12 agrees with majority here, and elsewhere, of course. Nonetheless the confidence the Spanish-American war, the Boer war, the Russian-Turkish war, the Sino-Japanese war, the Russian-Japanese war and either of the Balkan wars would of course not, ever, possibly, have spread like the third Balkan war, er, WWI would be touching were it not so disingenuous. Even if one insists only conflicts between the great powers, the possibility that the Crimean war, the war with Magenta and Solferino, the Schleswig-Holstein war, the Franco-Prussian war (proper,) could not possibly have spread out of control is equally disingenous. Remember 54-40 or fight, the Aroostook war? The monotonously repetitive crises like Fashoda and the first and second Moroccan crises and the brouhaha over the annexation of Bosnia clearly shows crisis is normal operation. stephen's insistence this is all irrelevant is convenience, not argument.

As to the absurd notion that a capitalist world system, in which states are the protectors of the property of the nation's ruling class, somehow means the chieftains are pursuing the general interests of world capitalism is delirious twaddle. It is the reformist who pretends globalism means trade and peace.

I am well aware that everyone agrees with stephen on this point, but it is still wrong.

Karl Kolchak 11.12.18 at 12:01 am ( 15 )
Tens of thousands of people may die in these conflicts

Try 2 million in Korea.
One million in Vietnam.
500,000 in Iraq.
And who knows how many in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Serbia, Somalia and all our various proxy wars in Yemen, Latin America and Africa plus all of the civilians massacred by our client-state dictators in Chile, Nicaragua, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Congo, Egypt, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Guatemala and others I'm likely forgetting.

America is the biggest purveyor of death, destruction and human misery on the globe, but it sounds like we've "forgotten" that as well.

Birdie 11.12.18 at 12:35 am ( 16 )
Plenty of horrible things have happened in various American and other war zones since the Western Front. Plenty of busted-up vets in every city. The problem can't be that we forgot .
Birdie 11.12.18 at 12:44 am ( 17 )
@steven t johnson

but isn't the capitalist system an emergent effect based on properties of human nature: individualism, acquisitiveness, aggression. Surely a change of human nature would lead to a change of economics at least; hopefully in a progressive direction but not necessarily so.

Raven Onthill 11.12.18 at 3:11 am ( 18 )
Wasn't World War I the result of Germany pursuing conquest ?

A while back, a native American on Twitter commented that her people had already experienced an apocalypse. This led to the following reflection on my part:

The history of modern Western Europe can be viewed as a series of apocalypses. War after war after war, only at peace after nearly destroying itself. And that is the history of the modern world.

ironoutofcavalry 11.12.18 at 3:20 am ( 19 )
@7

>In short, you can toss Armistice Day into the category as things like weekend, the 8 hour work day, the 40 hour work week, social safety nets, and so on: if you celebrate it, don't forget to thank revolutionary socialism for making it possible.

Do and the 100 million people revolutionary socialists would murder in the 80 or so years following armistice day, what do they owe the revolutionary socialists?

@13

>What all share is a system of capitalist competition which will, like all complex, crisis-ridden systems, eventually break down. Whining about human nature seems to me detestable.

Ah yes, we all remember how non-violent those non-capitalist systems were, with the gulags and mass killing and terror famines.

Royton De'Ath 11.12.18 at 7:59 am ( 20 )
In an Old Holborn 'baccy tin somewhere in the house is my grandad's WW1 medal. He served in the London Labour Battalions. Gassed.

He worked twice between his return and his too early death. Both jobs being very temporary. His family lived in poverty in the East End; the "Panel" was used at times: charity from the worthies. My dad was crippled with diseases of poverty. He was a communist (until the 50s).
He signed up with his mates in '39. His best mate Jimmy Biscoe killed in a bomber operation in the early 40s.

I got my dad's medals this year, twenty years after his death. He only told me a bit of his experiences when he was dying. He loved my mum, music and kindness.

My dear, gruff dad-in-law lost his left leg at Monte Cassino. Every few years he'd get a new "fitting", which was a great strain for him. He loved his family, his garden, rowing; we talked a little about his experiences one quiet afternoon at the RSA. He too died too early.

My Mum's favourite brother was a boy sailor. He went through the River Plate among other actions. He spent time in psychiatric hospital after the war for his 'war trauma'. He too died early.

The padre at my daughter's funeral had been a padre at Arnhem. A quiet, deeply compassionate man who took his own life some three years later.

My best friend at school, dead in his twenties, doing his "duty".

Not a hero among them: ordinary, flawed, loved and loving human beings.
And the people left behind ? Lives filled with quiet, unresolved sadness and loss; getting by with grit and quiet courage.

I used to go to Dawn Service. Then it got to be political Theatre. I get f .g angry with all the brouhaha, preening and cavorting. None of this helps or helped any of those people mentioned above.

Half a billion for the AWM? And cutting the funding of food banks? Moral bloody Bankruptcy writ large.

reason 11.12.18 at 2:04 pm ( 21 )
@19, @7, @13

You know I could possibly be sympathetic with all of you if it wasn't the case that utopian ideology didn't have more victims than all the nationalisms put together. A plague on all your houses.

steven t johnson 11.12.18 at 2:32 pm ( 22 )
Birdie@17 is telling us human nature generated capitalism a hundred thousand years ago? Or is telling us that human nature is only free in a capitalist system? I think neither.

Raven Onthill@18 seems to think it is incumbent on the lesser peoples to surrender without a fight, and accept the status quo as God-given. That Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empires could be liquidated peacefully, like a common bankruptcy. That is not how it works in a capitalist system of sovereign states defending the property of their respective ruling classes, against other states. The rise of Germany and the US against the relative decline of the British empire meant the balance of forces must change. The new balance could only be found by war.

The relative decline of the US means the current balance of forces must change. That's why the US government has explicitly declared Russia and China to be revisionist powers. The US state will no more go quietly than the British empire, which would not reach a peaceful accommodation with Germany then any more than it can reach a real accommodation with "Europe" today.

ironoutofcavalry@19 spells out the shared premises of liberal democrats and fascists, the determination that famines and wars under capitalism are acts of God, while everything that happens under socialism is always deliberate. Even if you somehow pretend the depopulation of the Americas and the mass deaths of the Middle Passage somehow had nothing to do with capitalism, there were plenty of holocausts in later days. See Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts. (Davis contention that famines relatively soon after the revolution are the same as the great Bengal famine or the Irish famine is social-democratic piety, the sort of thing that gives it a bad name.) Idiot theorists of "totalitarianism" are invited to comment upon the Triple War in South America.

WLGR 11.12.18 at 3:18 pm ( 23 )
ironoutofcavalry, the Black Book of Communism is a contemptible far-right propaganda rag whose death tally was denounced by several of its own co-authors due to the main author's obsession with reaching the nice round 100 million mark by any means necessary, with "victims of communism" including such figures as hypothetical deaths due to lack of population growth during famine periods, Soviet civilian deaths resulting from the economic dislocations of the Nazi invasion, and even Nazi soldiers killed on the battlefields of the Eastern Front. By standards much more rigorous and defensible than those used in the Black Book of Communism, the basic functioning of global capitalist material inequality kills tens of millions of people per decade -- which is before you even begin trying to tally the casualties of capitalist conflicts like the two world wars, let alone any of the other massively destructive imperial interventions around the world before and since, which people like stephen seem to have trained themselves not to regard as catastrophic in the same way as WWI/WWII as long as the victims are mostly poor brown people in the Third World. Hell, even at this very moment the US is providing direct political and military support for a campaign of intentional starvation by its Saudi proxy state against millions of people in northern Yemen, a "terror famine" at least as deliberate and premeditated as anything Stalin or Mao ever dreamed of.

If you must insist on spreading uninformed reactionary bromides, at least take it to a less serious discussion space where it belongs, and regardless, don't forget to thank a socialist if you enjoy not being sent to die in a muddy trench.

WLGR 11.12.18 at 3:49 pm ( 24 )
Stephen, here's a reasonable summary of how the dynamics of capitalist economic development led inexorably to WWI and WWII, and are leading to a future global conflict that may be much less distant than we'd like to imagine. Now before you click the link, note the following passage quoted in the linked article, by a political commentator writing in 1887 about the prospect of:

a world war, moreover of an extent the violence hitherto unimagined. Eight to ten million soldiers will be at each other's throats and in the process they will strip Europe barer than a swarm of locusts. The depredations of the Thirty Years' War compressed into three to four years and extended over the entire continent; famine, disease, the universal lapse into barbarism, both of the armies and the people, in the wake of acute misery irretrievable dislocation of our artificial system of' trade, industry and credit, ending in universal bankruptcy collapse of the old states and their conventional political wisdom to the point where crowns will roll into the gutters by the dozen, and no one will be around to pick them up; the absolute impossibility of foreseeing how it will all end and who will emerge as victor from the battle. That is the prospect for the moment when the development of mutual one-upmanship in armaments reaches us, climax and finally brings forth its inevitable fruits. This is the pass, my worthy princes and statesmen, to which you in your wisdom have brought our ancient Europe.

Now based on what you can guess of my political orientation strictly from what I've posted here, try to guess which 19th century European political figure might have written that passage. No, your first guess is wrong, he died in 1883, but close, now guess again. Yes, your second guess is correct .

Mark Brady 11.12.18 at 5:09 pm ( 25 )
Douglas Newton: The Darkest Days: The Truth Behind Britain's Rush to War, 1914 (Verso Books, 2014).

https://www.versobooks.com/books/1835-the-darkest-days

AcademicLurker 11.12.18 at 6:20 pm ( 26 )
I've seen "X is bad" statements receive the "Oh yeah? Well Stalin was worse !" non sequitur in response for many values of X. But this thread is the first time I've seen it happen for X = WWI.
Stephen 11.12.18 at 7:25 pm ( 27 )
Too many points to comment on individually, but:

WLGR@7: if you think that revolutionary socialism made possible "weekend, the 8 hour work day, the 40 hour work week, social safety nets" how do you explain that all these things happened in states that did not have to endure the catastrophic misfortunes of revolutionary socialism?

steven t johnson@14
This is the first time that I have ever been told that everyone [on CT? in the wider universe?] agrees with me, but if that is so I do not see it as a reason for supposing I am wrong. Rational arguments dissenting from my opinions are of course always welcome.

stj's argument that, because conflicts pre-1914 did not result in world wars, therefore WWI was inevitable, has only to be made explicit to collapse.

I am particularly interested by stj's argument that the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78, between two absolutist non-capitalist monarchies, was in some way the result of international capitalism. If he will reconsider that opinion, he might like to recalibrate his denunciation of other wars as capitalist. I would recommend the works of an intelligent Marxist, Perry Anderson, who explains why pre-Revolutionary Russia and Wilhelmine Germany had many capitalists, they were not actually capitalist states.

As for his denunciation of capitalism in which "states are the protectors of the property of the nation's ruling class": there is of course some truth there, but in which system is that not true? In capitalism, unlike some other systems – revolutionary socialism, to start with – whose property has been protected?

Birdie@17: "isn't the capitalist system an emergent effect based on properties of human nature: individualism, acquisitiveness, aggression?" Human nature indeed; try explaining to Ashurbanipal of Assyria, Alexander, Genghiz Khan why these properties did not apply to their very n0n-capitalist selves.

engels 11.12.18 at 11:25 pm ( 28 )
Well said.
WLGR 11.13.18 at 1:28 am ( 29 )
Stephen, are you under the impression that western Europe and the US never had a revolutionary socialist tradition? If so, I don't really know what to tell you other than to read even the most passing history of Western mass politics and labor struggles, the upshot of which is that yes of course it was Western ruling classes' fear of working-class revolutionary agitation that led to the implementation of every single one of those things, up to and including the German ruling class in early November 1918 deciding to hand over power to the moderate reformist wing of the SPD, whose first major policy decision as soon as they'd settled into their desks was to pursue an armistice with the Entente. I can understand maybe a few token Birchers or Randroids poking their heads out here and there, but has the anti-intellectual right-wing fever swamp of our current era really risen high enough that such mild observations are somehow surprising or controversial even in a forum like this one?
eg 11.13.18 at 3:14 am ( 30 )
@20

'I used to go to Dawn Service. Then it got to be political Theatre. I get f .g angry with all the brouhaha, preening and cavorting. None of this helps or helped any of those people mentioned above."

My feelings precisely.

bad Jim 11.13.18 at 9:01 am ( 31 )
After Trump's election, I chose to abstain for a while from the drenching but never quenching fire hose of information of the web, and for a while worked through the stacks of books I had long left unread.

One I avoided for quite a while, not remembering its provenance was "Human Smoke", by Nicholson Baker. It could not have been a gift; no one in the family still living is familiar with this author.

It's an assemblage of quotes from various authors from the beginning of the twentieth century up until the operation of the crematoria which furnishes the title, and its general tendency is pacifism, disarmament, the efforts made both before and after the Great War to prevent such catastrophes, and the inhumanity of the conduct of the war. From the outset, the policy of our side was to starve the other into submission through naval blockades, and to a considerable extent it was successful.

In the second round, our side was the first to start bombing civilians, and we got better at it the longer the war went on, though it's far from clear that this was a useful strategy.

Baker's book is not, could hardly be, a convincing argument for pacifism, given the drumbeat of fascist pronouncements, threats, denunciations, bragging and swaggering. The first world war was so pointless that it's hard to understand how it happened, why it couldn't have been avoided, why it couldn't have been stopped sooner. The second was different.

MFB 11.13.18 at 10:19 am ( 32 )
It is worth remembering that the First World War was called, by those who opposed it after the fact, the "War to End War". An organisation was set up to ensure that there would be no more wars, and an international agreement renouncing war was signed.

The organisation was being set up while the war was actually going on, if you count the Western blockade and invasion of Russia, and the Greek invasion of Turkey, as part of the war.

Nevertheless, within less than twenty years you had the Italian invasion of Ethiopia (arguably an after-effect of Italy's failure to get what it wanted out of the First World War) and soon after that, the Japanese invasion of southern China (inarguably, ditto).

It is possible for people to argue that since there has not been a similar war since 1945, "humanity" has "learned its lesson". In reality, however, the reason why there has been no similar war has been that the principal protagonists have nuclear weapons and no means of defense against them. If anybody comes up with a genuinely reliable defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, I'd give the world less than ten more years of peace.

Incidentally, I'd give the world less than ten more years of peace at the moment, but that's because of the preponderance of doltish psychopaths in governments. It's interesting, however, that a doltish psychopath like Macron is nevertheless capable of realising that France is vulnerable to the intermediate-range nuclear missiles which the U.S. is currently unleashing on the world, and therefore is trying to, er, have a conference about banning the use of naughty weapons and about promoting world peace.

Like 1919, ennit?

steven t johnson 11.13.18 at 3:10 pm ( 33 )
Stephen has won the gallery with the claim that repeated crises failing to result in systemic failure of the world diplomatic system (that is, causing world war,) on a an easily predictable schedule shows obviously it is entirely possible for us to go back to a world of sovereign nations like before the US hegemony and have endless crises with nary a collapse. It's like the capitalist economy that way. "We" are now so wise that we can avoid the follies of our predecessors, who are obviously stupid, which is proven by their being dead, dead, dead.

I am sure Stephen has also won hearts and minds with the claim Russian conquests
against Turkey meant the extension of the Russian empire rather than the creation of the states of Montenegro, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria. But perhaps people think those new countries came complete with serfdom; extensive church lands and widespread monasticism; aristocratic estates and caste privileges; relative absence of cities, etc. That is, the new states were non-capitalist because absolutist monarchy isn't capitalist.

(I'm not familiar with Perry Anderson because leftist and foreign means it will not be easily available in the US outside elite libraries. But if Perry Anderson thinks absolutism and mercantilism were not part of the transition to capitalism, I believe he is gravely mistaken. Defining "capitalism" as the most refined bourgeois democracy in the imperial metropole is popular, because it is so usefully apologetic, yet it is still nonsense.)

Mark Brady@25 cites an interesting book on WWI. This https://www.amazon.com/Great-Class-War-1914-1918-ebook/dp/B06Y19K257/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542121517&sr=1-2&keywords=the+great+class+war is also of interest, especially as it is not scholastically "judicious," so often a synonym for safe. I think the Amazon blurb grossly exaggerates Pauwels' argument with regards to workers.

Last and least, reason@21 utters the preposterous claim "utopian ideologies" have killed more people than anything else. (The comment seems to include ironoutof cavalry, but I'm sure ironoutofcavalry, like Stephen and reason, are resolutely complacent about social evils, because, anti-utopian.) Personally I think business as usual, not utopian ideology, had everything to do with the great Bengal famine circa 1770 (not the WWII one.) Etc. etc. etc. in a litany that would sicken the soul, were it not fortified by the conviction it is utopian ideology that is the spirit of evil.

nastywoman 11.13.18 at 6:38 pm ( 34 )
"Sadly, it seems as if everything important has already been forgotten".

But Von Clownstick just remembered it was "them Germans" – and sadly not one comment here was about Macron reminding US that "everything important" is how to deal with "Nationalism"?

nastywoman 11.13.18 at 9:54 pm ( 35 )
– and about:
"But now that everyone who served in that war has passed away, along with most of those who remember its consequences, the tone has shifted to one of glorification and jingoism".

Didn't the French and the Germans mention that it is now 70 years that these "Archenemies" at peace? – and I think to this "Armistice Day" the first time even the Germans were invited? – but how true there was a "shifted tone" by the German Baron Von Clownstick –
(who somehow still pretends he is "American"?)

Peter T 11.14.18 at 1:14 am ( 36 )
re @25

Britain tried to negotiate an end to the naval arms race with Germany at least twice before 1914. Germany was not interested. After 1905 Russia was also keen to avoid conflict. The proponents of this policy lost credibility due to German sabre-rattling and insouciant reversals by Vienna.

nastywoman 11.14.18 at 3:41 am ( 37 )
– and for everybody who might have missed it – let me explain what was going on at this "Armistice Day".

Baron von Clownstick was very, VERY unhappy -(not only because he was afraid to ruin his hair) BUT also – BE-cause as he always says "we built the best Arms" – "the most beautiful weaponry" – and when he always told them Germans and them French and all these other Nato members to pay more for Nato he was hoping for more Sales of US Arms BUT then this Macron dude -(and now also Merkel) suddenly were talking about "Europeans protecting themselves" -(and NOT buying more US weapons) and that made Von Clownstick very, VERY sad – as his funny tweets about the US not wanting to protect Europe anymore – if Europe wasn't "pony up" came to let's call it – to "fruition" – or a classical "protect me from what I want" – and THAT's what happened on this –
"Armistice Day" –
(besides the danger for Von Clownsticks hair)

Fake Dave 11.14.18 at 6:06 am ( 38 )
Just wading in a bit to say that "Revolutionary Socialism" is one of those labels that obfuscates more than it reveals. Lenin, Debs, and Luxembourg were all contemporaries who believed in Socialism and revolution, but they didn't all believe in the same "Revolutionary Socialism." Just look at the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks for proof that even seemingly small distinctions in what it means to be "revolutionary" have huge implications.

People seem to have settled on using "Revolutionary" as a code word to mean "violent, dangerous, and radical," or "serious, committed, and effective," depending on their politics, while "Democratic" is treated as being the opposite (for good or ill), but it's a false dichotomy. Pacifists can be radical, democrats can be thuggish, and democracy can be revolutionary or counterrevolutionary, and "effectiveness" is subjective. Given that even with conventional definitions, it's not always easy to see which of the two camps a particular Socialist falls under (and many of them changed factions), it's probably best to clarify what type of revolution you're talking about up front.

MFB 11.14.18 at 7:10 am ( 39 )
er, Peter T, Britain wanted to end the naval arms race with Germany because it was ahead and in complete control of European seas. It was Britain which had introduced the Dreadnought battleship and the battlecruiser. It's rather like the American calls to restrict the number of nuclear weapons and discourage countries which don't have them from acquiring them.

I won't say that German sabre-rattling wasn't a factor in promoting European crisis. However, it's hard not to see the Russian military buildup in Europe between 1905 and 1914 as anything other than preparation for war (however inept it turned out to be in practice), and of course the Russians were heavily involved (diplomatically) in the Balkan wars. It certainly wasn't the Austrians who orchestrated the murder of their heir to the throne, and if Britain were to grow grumpy at Syria murdering Prince Charles I would hardly call that "insouciant".

Dipper 11.14.18 at 9:05 am ( 40 )
Wars are a strategy for male reproduction. Invade. Kill the competing men. Impregnate the women. Enslave and trade women as reproductive property. Repeat. It's what men have done for centuries.

Eg. Iceland . ""This supports the model, put forward by some historians, that the majority of females in the Icelandic founding population had Gaelic ancestry, whereas the majority of males had Scandinavian ancestry,"

Peter T 11.14.18 at 12:04 pm ( 41 )
MFB

Britain had roughly 70% of the world's merchant fleet, a world-wide empire tied together by maritime communications and was critically dependent on sea-borne trade. This was not new – it had been the situation since 1815. Germany set out to build a fleet specifically designed to challenge Britain's control of its home waters (heavy on battleships, short range). Britain responded by building the dreadnoughts, then by coming to an arrangement with France so as to free up forces from the Med, all the while seeking a naval truce. One can argue that Germany had every right to seek to diminish British naval dominance, but it was surely both a foolish and an aggressive policy, given that it posed a threat no British government could not respond to (the invasion of Belgium and German plans to annex the Belgian coast were similar, in that they would place the High Seas Fleet across Britain's major trade artery. In 1914 London was the greatest port in the world).

The Viennese insouciance I had in mind was in regard to the Bosnian annexation in 1909. The details are in Dominic Lieven's Towards the Flame, but it was a typical bit of Austro-Hungarian over-clever dickishness. It added a layer of distrust that was not helpful in 1914.

What worried Germany the most was Russian railway-building, which threatened to make their military planning more difficult. They saw 1914 as a narrow and shrinking window (much as many of the same people saw war in 1939 as a last military opportunity). Indeed, they had mooted war against Russia in 1906 and again in 1909.

It's overlooked that Europe had an established mechanism for resolving diplomatic crises – either an international congress or a meeting of the affected powers (as at Vienna 1813, Berlin 1878, London 1912..). The Powers had imposed settlements in the Balkans on several previous occasions, and could have done so this time. Britain and France proposed a congress; Berlin refused.

While they all look similar to us, Germany really was much more militarist and much more inclined to seek salvation from their dilemmas in war than the other powers. While all the elites were in a febrile state, Germany's were in something close to a collective nervous breakdown, isolated, truculent and fearful.

MisterMr 11.14.18 at 12:08 pm ( 42 )
@stephen 12

I am a big fan of Hobson's book "Imperialism, a study", written in 1902, that I believe explain tendencies, that evidently were present in 1902 and before, that later exploded and caused WW1 and WW2.

The book is free online:
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/127/0052_Bk.pdf
(courtesy of The online library of liberty ©Liberty Fund, no less).

The general theory of the book is that capitalist countries face underconsumption problems at home, due to the exceedigly low wage share (Hobson though is not a marxist so he doesn't believes that this is the normal situation in capitalism).
This underconsumption forces capitalist countries to expand in the colonies, and ultimately also to create an military/financial/industrial complex that becomes the valve through which excess savings (due to underconsumption due to excessively low wages) can be reinvested.

I'll leave out a discussion if Hobson's economic theories make sense (I think they do) or wether they are the same of marxist theories (I think they are the same expressed from another point of view and with a more moderate approach), but I want to point out the chapter about "the scientific defence of imperialism" (pp.162 onwards in the link), because it clearly speaks of the "scientific racism" theories that are nowadays associated with fascism and nazism.

Here a cite from p.163:

Admitting that the efficiency of a nation or a race requires a suspension of intestine warfare, at any rate l' =trance, the crude struggle on the larger plane must, they urge, be maintained. It serves, indeed, two related purposes. A constant struggle with other races or nations is demanded for the maintenance and progress of a race or nation ; abate the necessity of the struggle and the vigour of the race flags and perishes. Thus it is to the real interest of a vigorous race to be " kept up to a high pitch of external efficiency by contest, chiefly by way of war with inferior races, and with equal races by the struggle for trade routes and for the sources of raw material and of food supply." " This," adds Professor Karl Pearson," is the natural history view of mankind, and I do not think you can in its main features subvert it." Others, taking the wider cosmic standpoint, insist that the progress of humanity itself requires the main-tenance of a selective and destructive struggle between races which embody different power and capacities, different types of civilisation.

From this I think it's obvious how Italian fascism and German nazism were mostly an extremisation of theories that were already present before WW1 (and Japanese militarism and probably many other militarism that we prefer to forget today).
In fact Mussolini justified the entry of Italy into WW2 with the idea of a natural struggle between nations/races/cultures.

Now the main question is: was Hobson correct to say that these theories were just covers for economic interests, that in turn were caused by underconsumption?
Or to say the same thing from a more marxist standpoint, is it true that WW1 was caused by various capitalist countries were forced by the capitalist need for continuous growth/expansion to continually expand their colonial empires, and in the end they had to clash one with the other?

I think it is true.
This doesn't mean that all war in history were caused by capitalism, before capitalism ever existed. Hower this gives an answer to some of your questions, and specifically:

1) Why didn't the normal conditions of capitalist production give rise to a world war before?
Because various capitalist powers hadn't already conquered most of the world, so they didn't have to go directly at each other's throat before WW1.

2) Why didn't the normal conditions of capitalist production give rise to a world war after WW2?
Because
(2.a) after WW2 the capitalist system in developed countries had a much higer wage share due to government intervention and anyway excess savings were repurposed through Keynesian policies and inflation, thus much less underconsuption,
and
(2.b) because after WW2 for some decades there was only one main capitalist pole, that was the USA, that was the main proponent of this kind of keynesian policies, either because it was wiser, or because of the menace of socialism, or for whatever the reason.

Stephen 11.14.18 at 2:15 pm ( 43 )
WLGR@29: You ask whether I am "under the impression that western Europe and the US never had a revolutionary socialist tradition?" Well, definitely not, and I cannot see that I have written anything that could lead you to form an honest opinion that I am, or even might be. Nor can I see any basis for your belief that, disagreeing with you, I must be wholly ignorant of Western mass politics. I would advise you to have less faith in your own powers of telepathy.

To refresh your memory: I wrote that various good thing happened in states that did not have to endure the catastrophic misfortunes of revolutionary socialism. And I cannot see how you can dispute either that states which were historically ruled by revolutionary socialists suffered catastrophes; or that many European and other states, though never ruled by revolutionary socialists and so avoiding their catastrophes, acquired these good things. Pre-emptive disclaimer: I am not of course claiming that all catastrophes have been due to revolutionary socialism.

stj@33: with regard to Russo/Turkish history, I think you are rather confused. You seem to think I claimed that "Russian conquests against Turkey meant the extension of the Russian empire rather than the creation of the states of Montenegro, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria." I didn't: I merely pointed out that the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-8 was not in any intelligible sense a conflict between two capitalist states. But if you want to widen the discussion to cover Russian conquests against Turkey, I must point out that (1) several such conquests did in fact involve extension of the Russian empire: take a quick look at the history of Ukraine and Crimea (2) the creation of Montenegro was a result of Austrian and Venetian victories, not Russian (3) Russia never conquered any part of Serbia from the Turks, though Russian support for autonomously rebellious Serbs was significant (4) a complicating factor in the formation of Romania was the Russian invasion of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, followed by an attempt to incorporate them into the Russian empire: many Romanians preferred Ottoman rule (5) Bulgaria, you're right for once, that was a direct and uncomplicated result of Russian conquest followed by creation of a new state. Which I never said it wasn't.

I really do think it would be a good idea for you to read Perry Anderson's thoughtful and erudite works before dismissing them; they may be more accessible than you think. I don't know if your socialist principles would allow you to use the capitalist outfit Amazon yourself, but if so Anderson's Lineages of the Absolutist state is available at $29.95 plus postage. I would also recommend on a rather different topic Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism, same price: second-hand copies of either are a little cheaper.

Enjoy the new perspectives.

EWI 11.14.18 at 2:50 pm ( 44 )
Raven @ 18

Wasn't World War I the result of Germany pursuing conquest?

World War 1 was equally the result of Britain 'pursuing conquest', i.e. its decades-long ambition to expand its empire into the Near and Far Easts. Josh Marshall is, I'm afraid, an unreconstructed Anglophile who also believes silly claims that the British went back to 'peace' (whatever that may be for a militarised empire) after WWI.

MFB @ 39

Correct. From contemporary accounts, we know that those members of the public who were paying attention at the time could see the various empires building up to war for years beforehand.

LFC 11.14.18 at 3:18 pm ( 45 )
Marxist explanations work better for some events than for others; I don't think they work particularly well for WW 1, though they aren't completely irrelevant.

I don't keep up with the historiography (e.g., the probably endless debate btw the Fischer school and its critics/opponents), but one can distinguish btw contingent and deeper causes. The latter were both 'ideational' (e.g., hypernationalism; views of war in general; 'cult of the offensive'; influence of Social Darwinist and racialist perspectives on intl relations; relative weakness of the peace mvts and their msg; dominant styles of diplomacy; etc.) and 'material' (e.g., problems faced by the multinational empires, esp. Austria-Hungary; rigidity of mobilization plans; economic and political pressures on ruling elites; etc.), though the distinction between ideational and material is somewhat artificial.

I'm not sure which among all the historical works is most worth reading (J.C.G. Rohl was mentioned by someone in a past thread on this topic, and there were a lot of books published around 2014 on the centenary of the war's start); but istm James Joll's work, among others, has held up pretty well. Political scientists/ IR people have also continued to publish on this. (The last journal article I'm aware of is Keir Lieber's in Intl Security several yrs ago [and the replies], though I'm sure there have been others since. And even though it's old, S. Van Evera's piece from the '80s, "Why Cooperation Failed in 1914," is still worth reading, for the copious footnotes to the then-extant historical work in English (and English translation), among other things.)

Layman 11.14.18 at 5:42 pm ( 46 )
MFB: "It was Britain which had introduced the Dreadnought battleship and the battlecruiser."

Hmm, wasn't the Dreadnought class a direct response to the Tirpitz Memorandum (1896) and the subsequent German Navy Bill of 1898, the purpose of which was to build a battleship fleet with which to confront the Royal Navy?

engels 11.14.18 at 10:11 pm ( 47 )
Revolutionary Socialism" is one of those labels that obfuscates more than it reveals

I think it's worthwhile to have a term for wanting to overthrow the system rather than reform it (I don't think 'revolution' has to mean 'violent').

John Quiggin 11.15.18 at 3:01 am ( 48 )
As regards the historical arguments about war guilt, there was a strong pro-war faction in nearly every European country, and even in Australia (on this last point, and the links to the British pro-war faction, see Douglas Newton's Hell Bent ). The pro-war faction prevailed nearly everywhere. Arguing about which pro-war faction was most responsible for bringing about the war they all wanted seems pointless to me.

Moreover, once the war started, no-one wanted in power anywhere to bring it to an end on any terms other than victory, annexations and reparations.

John Quiggin 11.15.18 at 3:05 am ( 49 )
Looking specifically at the British government, since it seems to have the most defenders, they first refused an offer of alliance from Turkey and then (when Turkey entered on the German side instead) made a secret deal with France to carve up the Ottoman empire. As mentioned in the OP, we are still dealing with the consequences today. That's not to excuse the pro-war factions that dominated the governments of Germany, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Italy etc.

[Nov 06, 2018] Democrats Want To Take On The War In Afghanistan If They Win The House by Akbar Shahid Ahmed

Nov 06, 2018 | www.huffingtonpost.com

A long fight by lawmakers like Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) is set to go mainstream, and an antiwar push on Yemen soon after the midterms could show how.

WASHINGTON ― As Democrats plan for a potential future in which they have control of the U.S. House, lawmakers, candidates and outside groups close to the party are quietly preparing a new push against the overlooked war in Afghanistan. The last time the party controlled the lower chamber of Congress, the U.S. had close to 50,000 troops in Afghanistan. Today that number is 15,000 -- but it's been eight years, and there's still no clarity about when the longest war in American history will actually come to an end. President Donald Trump 's stated policy is that the U.S. presence has no time limit. So Democrats are considering long-discussed proposals to torpedo the war's entire legal justification -- the sweeping post-9/11 congressional authorization that has been used to support U.S. military action well beyond Afghan borders -- and tie funding for the campaign to clearly outlined strategic goals and troop reductions. There's also talk of using new oversight powers to hold top officials, military commanders, defense contractors and foreign partners accountable for accusations of human rights violations, corruption and political posturing at the cost of human lives. And while party leaders are loath to commit to a particular course, they feel certain this is an issue their colleagues and their political base see as a priority. A dramatic but now largely forgotten vote in June 2017 underscored why this is a natural fight for Democrats. House Appropriations Committee lawmakers from both parties voted for the first time for a measure long pushed by war critic Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) that would repeal the authorization. GOP leadership quashed the effort, but it clearly signaled that, after years of worrying about being seen as too dovish, Democrats have reached a moment when even the other party and its voters can seriously consider serious antiwar action. "We've come a long way from just one vote in opposition [when the authorization came up in 2001] to a widespread recognition among members of Congress that this was an overly-broad authorization that set the stage for perpetual war," Lee wrote in an email to HuffPost. She sees Democratic unity on the issue today: "There's a lot of common ground across the caucus around holding this debate and vote."

[Nov 05, 2018] A superb new book on the duty of resistance

Notable quotes:
"... A Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil ..."
"... The Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil ..."
Nov 05, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

by Chris Bertram on October 31, 2018 Candice Delmas, A Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Political obligation has always been a somewhat unsatisfactory topic in political philosophy, as has, relatedly, civil disobedience. The "standard view" of civil disobedience, to be found in Rawls, presupposes that we live in a nearly just society in which some serious violations of the basic liberties yet occur and conceives of civil disobedience as a deliberate act of public lawbreaking, nonviolent in character, which aims to communicate a sense of grave wrong to our fellow citizens. To demonstrate their fidelity to law, civil disobedients are willing to accept the consequences of their actions and to take their punishment. When Rawls first wrote about civil disobedience, in 1964, parts of the US were openly and flagrantly engaged in the violent subordination of their black population, so it was quite a stretch for him to think of that society as "nearly just". But perhaps its injustice impinged less obviously on a white professor at an elite university in Massachusetts than it did on poor blacks in the deep South.

The problems with the standard account hardly stop there. Civil disobedience thus conceived is awfully narrow. In truth, the range of actions which amount to resistance to the state and to unjust societies is extremely broad, running from ordinary political opposition, through civil disobedience to disobedience that is rather uncivil, through sabotage, hacktivism, leaking, whistle-blowing, carrying out Samaritan assistance in defiance of laws that prohibit it, striking, occupation, violent resistance, violent revolution, and, ultimately, terrorism. For the non-ideal world in which we actually live and where we are nowhere close to a "nearly just" society, we need a better theory, one which tells us whether Black Lives Matter activists are justified or whether antifa can punch Richard Spencer. Moreover, we need a theory that tells us not only what we may do but also what we are obliged to do: when is standing by in the face of injustice simply not morally permissible.

Step forward Candice Delmas with her superb and challenging book The Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil (Oxford University Press). Delmas points out the manifold shortcomings of the standard account and how it is often derived from taking the particular tactics of the civil rights movement and turning pragmatic choices into moral principles. Lots of acts of resistance against unjust societies, in order to be effective, far from being communicative, need to be covert. Non-violence may be an effective strategy, but sometimes those resisting state injustice have a right to defend themselves. [click to continue ]


Hidari 10.31.18 at 3:41 pm (no link)

Strangely enough, the link I was looking at immediately before I clicked on the OP, was this:

https://www.thecanary.co/opinion/2018/10/30/our-time-is-up-weve-got-nothing-left-but-rebellion/

It would be interesting to see a philosopher's view on whether or not civil disobedience was necessary, and to what extent, to prevent actions that will lead to the end of our species.

Ebenezer Scrooge 10.31.18 at 4:52 pm (no link)
Two points:
As far as the Nazi-punching goes, it is important to remember that we hung Julius Streicher for nothing but speech acts.
I have no idea who Candice Delmas is, but "Delmas" is a French name. The French have a very different attitude toward civil disobedience than we do.
Moz of Yarramulla 10.31.18 at 11:23 pm (no link)

civil disobedience as a deliberate act of public lawbreaking, nonviolent in character, which aims to communicate a sense of grave wrong to our fellow citizens.

I think that's a pretty narrow view of civil disobedience even if you just count the actions of the protesters. Often NVDA is aimed at or merely accepts that a violent response is inevitable. The resistance at Parihaka, for example, was in no doubt that the response would be military and probably lethal. And Animal Liberation are often classified as terrorists by the US and UK governments while murderers against abortion are not.

Which is to say that the definition of "nonviolent" is itself an area of conflict, with some taking the Buddhist extremist position that any harm or even inconvenience to any living thing makes an action violent, and others saying that anything short of genocide can be nonviolent (and then there are the "intention is all" clowns). Likewise terrorism, most obviously of late the Afghani mujahideen when they transitioned from being revolutionaries to terrorists when the invader changed.

In Australia we have the actual government taking the view that any action taken by a worker or protester that inconveniences a company is a criminal act and the criminal must both compensate the company (including consequential damages) as well as facing jail time. tasmania and NSW and of course the anti-union laws . The penalties suggest they're considered crimes of violence, as does the rhetoric.

Moz of Yarramulla 11.01.18 at 12:13 am (no link)
Jeff@11

one should never legitimize any means toward social change that you would not object to seeing used by your mortal enemies.

Are you using an unusual definition of "mortal enemy" here? Viz, other than "enemy that wants to kill you"? Even US law has theoretical prohibitions on expressing that intention.

It's especially odd since we're right now in the middle of a great deal of bad-faith use of protest techniques by mortal enemies. "free speech" used to protect Nazi rallies, "academic freedom" to defend anti-science activists, "non-violent protest" used to describe violent attacks, "freedom of religion" used to excuse terrorism, the list goes on.

In Australia we have a 'proud boys' leader coming to Australia who has somehow managed to pass the character test imposed by our government. He's the leader of a gang that requires an arrest for violence as a condition of membership and regularly says his goal is to incite others to commit murder. It seems odd that our immigration minister has found those things to be not disqualifying while deporting someone for merely associating with a vaguely similar gang , but we live in weird times.

J-D 11.01.18 at 12:50 am ( 18 )
Ebenezer Scrooge

As far as the Nazi-punching goes, it is important to remember that we hung Julius Streicher for nothing but speech acts.

I do remember that*, but it's not clear to me why you think it's important to remember it in this context. If somebody who had fatally punched a Nazi speaker were prosecuted for murder, I doubt that 'he was a Nazi speaker' would be accepted as a defence on the basis of the Streicher precedent.

*Strictly speaking, I don't remember it as something that 'we' did: I wasn't born at the time, and it's not clear to me who you mean by 'we'. (Streicher himself probably would have said that it was the Jews, or possibly the Jews and the Bolsheviks, who were hanging him, but I don't suppose that would be your view.) However, I'm aware of the events you're referring to, which is the real point.

engels 11.01.18 at 12:51 am ( 19 )
Rawls presupposes that we live in a nearly just society in which some serious violations of the basic liberties yet occur For the non-ideal world in which we actually live and where we are nowhere close to a "nearly just" society, we need a better theory
Brandon Watson 11.01.18 at 12:02 pm (no link)
People need to stop spreading this misinterpretation about Rawls on civil disobedience, which I've seen several places in the past few years. Rawls focuses on the case of a nearly just society not because he thinks it's the only case in which you can engage in civil disobedience but because he thinks it's the only case in which there are difficulties with justifying it. He states this very clearly in A Theory of Justice : in cases where the society is not nearly just, there are no difficulties in justifying civil disobedience or even sometimes armed resistance. His natural duty account is not put forward as a general theory of civil disobedience but to argue that civil disobedience can admit of justification even in the case in which it is hardest to justify.

I'm not a fan of Rawls myself, but I don't know how he could possibly have been more clear on this, since he makes all these points explicitly.

LFC 11.02.18 at 12:45 am (no link)
J-D @18

The Nuremberg tribunal was set up and staffed by the U.S., Britain, USSR, and France; so whether Ebenezer's "we" was intended to refer to the four countries collectively or just to the U.S., it's clear who hanged Streicher et al., and the tone of your comment on this point is rather odd.

anon 11.02.18 at 4:23 pm (no link)
Resisting by protesting is OK.

However, here in the USA, actual legislation creating laws is done by our elected representatives.

So if you're an Amaerican and really want Social Change and aren't just posturing or 'virtue signaling' make sure you vote in the upcoming election.

I'm afraid too many will think that their individual vote won't 'matter' or the polls show it isn't needed or some other excuse to justify not voting. Please do not be that person.

Don Berinati 11.02.18 at 5:06 pm (no link)
Recently re-reading '1968' by Kurlansky and he repeatedly made this point about protests – that to be effective they had to get on television (major networks, not like our youtube, I think, so it would be seen by the masses in order to sway them) and to do that the acts had to be outlandish because they were competing for network time. This increasingly led to violent acts, which almost always worked in getting on the news, but flew in the face of King's and others peaceful methods.
So, maybe punching out a Nazi is the way to change people's minds or at least get them to think about stuff.

[Oct 27, 2018] Jeff Deist, president of the Mises Institute: in a libertarian society, there is no commons or public space. There are property lines, not borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real property, there are owners, guests, licensees, business invitees and trespassers not legal and illegal immigrants

Notable quotes:
"... This is what has been missing for over 40 years in the US, government's role in the economy. When any politician brings up the fact that it's time we used fiscal policy as it was designed, neoliberals have a socialism meltdown. Both parties have been taken over by the Kochtopus, The libertarian fascist ideology that hides behind the term "neoliberalism". The ultimate goal of this zombie ideology that was thoroughly discredited in 2008 but continues to roam the earth is to replace nations with privately owned cities. ..."
"... This is the struggle -- the struggle to maintain public space on a planet that was never meant to be owned in the first place. ..."
Oct 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [224] Disclaimer , says: October 27, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMT

"Government exists to spend. The purpose of government is to serve the general welfare of the citizens, not just the military-industrial complex and the financial class. Didn't we have a stimulus, oh, eight years ago? It was tiny and has not been entirely spent. As Yellen implied, we need more spending of the non-military kind (what Barney Frank memorably called "weaponized Keynesianism" doesn't stimulate)."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/leesheppard/2016/04/02/we-need-fiscal-policy/?fbclid=IwAR02l1AlZGMpapbTOdURjgRknx6Kai-24Z6fXBCXyBolgdgodvjSmYmXAdw#1c4e7dea8b40

This is what has been missing for over 40 years in the US, government's role in the economy. When any politician brings up the fact that it's time we used fiscal policy as it was designed, neoliberals have a socialism meltdown. Both parties have been taken over by the Kochtopus, The libertarian fascist ideology that hides behind the term "neoliberalism". The ultimate goal of this zombie ideology that was thoroughly discredited in 2008 but continues to roam the earth is to replace nations with privately owned cities. This experiment was going on in Honduras, following the 2009 coup, until it was finally ended by a SC ruling that it was unconstitutional.

"In a libertarian society, there is no commons or public space. There are property lines, not borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real property, there are owners, guests, licensees, business invitees and trespassers -- not legal and illegal immigrants." ~ Jeff Deist, president of the Mises Institute

This is the struggle -- the struggle to maintain public space on a planet that was never meant to be owned in the first place.

[Oct 19, 2018] Women's March On The Pentagon Puts The 'Pro' Back In 'Protest' PopularResistance.Org by Cindy Sheehan

Jun 03, 2018 | popularresistance.org
| Resist! Women's March On The Pentagon Puts The 'Pro' Back In 'Protest' 2018-06-03 2018-06-03 https://popularresistance-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2017/12/popres-shorter.png PopularResistance.Org https://popularresistance-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/06/womens-march-on-the-pentagon-graphic.jpg 200px 200px

After eight years of the Obama regime expanding the Bush regime's wars from around two to around seven (with very little opposition from the so-called antiwar movement ), the Women 's March on the Pentagon is rebuilding a movement from practically scratch.

We are struggling to not get trapped in the antiwar old ways which never have been truly successful. If the anti-Vietnam war movement, its tactics, and energy were so awesome, then why is the US currently mired so deeply in at least seven wars for Empire with 1000 bases in over 130 countries around the world and continued support for the apartheid, colonial, illegal state of Israel?

We are planning to march on the Pentagon. The Pentagon is not a typical target because many activists are afraid of offending the military despite recognizing that the US military is the largest terrorist organization in the world. We are also having a rally on the 21st of October and are committed to "Occupying" the Pentagon until Veteran's Day, November 11th.

We are also reimagining new ways to state what the Women 's March on the Pentagon is doing.

Yes, we are against the US Empire's perpetual and devastating wars but being "anti" war was never enough. Being "pro" peace is also deficient because peace is just not an absence of war -- it is also the presence of social justice and social safety nets.

WMOP is putting the PRO back in PROtest but before we are PRO-peace, we feel we need to be each of the following. The list that follows is not exhaustive, but it is a good start.

PRO-woman: Every single woman on this planet, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, economic status or national origin, is entitled to the same quality of life as wealthy, white women in the USA -- including being free from military occupation (and all the horrors that brings, including rape and the murder of children) and other oppression.

PRO-equality: Every human is entitled to every good thing, including the right to PRO-test wrong things.

PRO-planet: The Pentagon's War Machine is responsible for a hugely disproportionate amount of pollution, waste, environmental degradation and use of fossil fuels. The Pentagon seriously needs to be reduced to a size where it can be drowned in a bucket before we can save human life from extinction on our only planet, our Mother Earth.

PRO-education: Education is a human right and the trillions of dollars spent on active wars and empire maintenance robs our communities and schools from money needed to give our children a high-quality and free education from Pre to University. In all levels, our children should feel safe to attend school without the horrors of mass-shootings and police state oppression.

PRO-gun control: As long as guns, ammunition, bombs and other weapons of murder are taken from the Pentagon and police forces first. Our mothers and grandmothers in occupied lands, inner cities, and other economically disadvantaged areas should not have to worry themselves sick when their young ones leave the home that they will be executed by a killer cop or drone-bombed by the USA. Our sisters in other countries should not have to bury their children, or flee their homes in fear for their lives, because of the US Empire.

PRO-health care: Women bear the burden of ill children and are likely the ones to miss work when a child is ill. Health care must be free and high-quality, but it must also serve families and communities with healthy food, water, air and opportunities for care for ill children (or elderly relatives) when the woman needs or wants to go to work. Health care must be comprehensive and include dental, mental, chiropractic and any other holistic treatment/prevention that is needed/wanted. Prescriptions must be free and no woman/family should have to choose between life-saving medication and/or food.

PRO-labor at a living wage and PRO-basic guaranteed income

PRO-housing/food: In a nation as wealthy as the US, not one person should exist without shelter or healthy and abundant food. Housing and food are human rights, not privileges. Most homeless people work hard, but cannot afford a place to live. 19% of the United States of American children (14 million) go to bed hungry every night in the land of plenty and plenty of waste. These statistics are shameful and abominable but can be changed after the commodification and privatization of everything for profit over people ends.

PRO-redistribution of resources: Ending the Pentagon, the billions of dollars of waste and more than a trillion dollar budget would go a long way to address the horrendous human rights' abuses and fundamental economic crises 2/3 of the people in the US face.

Once there is justice, environmental sustainability, economic equality and celebration of diversity, combined with the end of the US Military Empire, THEN, and only then, will we live in relative peace in our communities and families.

If one woman is living under military occupation, colonial rule, or otherwise oppressed, none of us are free!

Join the Women 's March on the Pentagon!

[Sep 20, 2018] What do you say about libertarians?

A lot of people see society in organic terms, and think the maintenance of the whole over-rides the welfare of any particular bit – even if that particular bit happens to be themselves (Trump recently hit this theme when he tweeted that "patriotic" Americans were prepared to sacrifice for the greater good in the trade war).
Heirarchy is probably unavoidable, not for reasons of individual difference but because one-to-many organisation is the only form that scales readily. We can all have an equal voice on a jury, but not when building a henge or a operating a car-factory.
Notable quotes:
"... A lot of non-conservatives have a very difficult time grappling with the notion that a commitment to inequality, that a belief in the inherent superiority of some people over others, that one group has the the right to rule and dominate others, is a moral belief. ..."
"... Since, according to this argument, you are amongst other things, your social class, I cannot judge your moral actions unless I understand your social circumstances. But morality is a form of judgement, or to put it another way a ranking. Morality is means nothing unless I can say: 'you are more moral then him, she is more moral than you' and so on. (Nietzsche: 'Man is Man the esteemer' i.e. someone who ranks his or her fellow human beings: human beings cannot be morally equal or the phrase has no meaning). ..."
"... Therefore, unless people have a role in life (i.e. butcher, baker, candlestick maker) then morality collapses (this is the weak point in the argument and if you wanted to tear the whole edifice down you would start here). ..."
"... And of course this social order must be hierarchical, or else anyone can be anything one wants to be, and in that case, who will sweep the streets? ' ..."
"... In other words Conservatives believe that without hierarchy, without ranking and without a stratified (and therefore meaningful) social order, morality actually disintegrates. You simply cannot have a morality without these things: everything retreats into the realm of the subjective. Conservatives don't believe that things like the Khmer Rouge's Killing Fields, the Great Terror, the Cultural Revolution are bad things that happened to happen: they believe that they are the necessary and inevitable end result of atheistical, relativistic, egalitarian politics. ..."
"... To the Right, the Left has no morality, as they understand the term, and cannot in fact do so. Leftist morality is a contradiction in terms, in this worldview. ..."
Sep 20, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

Hidari 09.18.18 at 8:50 am ( 105 )

I think this is an incredibly important point here:

'One last point: A lot of non-conservatives have a very difficult time grappling with the notion that a commitment to inequality, that a belief in the inherent superiority of some people over others, that one group has the the right to rule and dominate others, is a moral belief. For many people, particularly on the left, that idea is not so much immoral as it is beyond the pale of morality itself. So that's where the charge that I'm being dismissive or reductive comes from, I'm convinced. Because I say the animating idea of the right is not freedom or virtue or limited government but instead power and privilege, people, and again I see this mostly from liberals and the left, think I'm making some sort of claim about conservatism as a criminal, amoral enterprise, devoid of principle altogether, whereas I firmly believe I'm trying to do the exact opposite: to focus on where exactly the moral divide between right and left lies.'

Both the Right and the Left, think that they are moral. And yet they disagree about moral issues. How can this be?

The solution to this problem is to see that when Rightists and Leftists use the word 'moral' they are using the word in two different (and non compatible) senses. I won't dwell on what the Left mean by morality: I'm sure most of you will be familiar with, s